Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User: BQZip01

Hi all. It has come to my attention that BQZip01 (talk · contribs) and Hammersoft (talk · contribs) have been in a dispute over the copyright statuses of files File:West Virginia Flying WV logo.svg and File:WestVirginiaMountaineers.png. As some of you might be aware, this dispute has been going on for some time now; it has resulted in several WP:ANI threads and nearly a year's worth of slow motion edit warring at File:West Virginia Flying WV logo.svg and File:WestVirginiaMountaineers.png. As an uninvolved user, this dispute came to my attention with the posting of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive588#Edit trying to force an image as free of copyright/submitting editor trying to force personal preferences as if they are policy on the Administrator's noticeboard. I looked into it and had to agree with Hammersoft that the files were non-free content. Noting that the on going discussions regarding this topic were producing nothing but more tension and hot air, I marked the most recent relevant ANI discussion and discussion at File talk:West Virginia Flying WV logo.svg as closed. However, this did not settle well with BQZip01 (talk · contribs). He has repeatedly asked to create a WP:RFC to discuss further should he wish to but he has completley ignored those requests. To date, he has been repeatedly reopening the archived discussions [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] to make accusatory statements, distuptive comments, personal attacks, and troll, only to be reverted by other uninvolved users. Since those tactics have been unsuccessful, he has resorted to accusing User:Hammersoft and users who have reverted his reopening of discussions as sockpuppeteers (see [7], [8], [9]). Once again, he was not successful. BQZip01 is now trolling on my talk page here, here, and here, as well as removing/refactoring other users' posts. This disruptive behavior needs to stop. We're here to build an encyclopedia and not drama monger. BQZip01 needs to be reminded that he is not above Wikipedia's policies and free to harass users he disagrees with. I am requesting that another uninvolved sysop review the situation and block/warn BQZip01 as necessary. Thanks for reading. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As a partial aside, should other images that BQZip01 has fought to claim that they are PD-text (several other University sports teams symbols, not limited to those that were added to the userbox templates, all of which are here) be investigated? I know that I had reservations with File:Miami Hurricanes logo.svg being determined as "PD-text", but I only decided to step back because of the way BQZip01 and his supporters handled the matter.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "I only decided to step back because of the way BQZip01 and his supporters handled the matter."

If by that you mean that it was handled in a rational manner with lots of evidence, thank you. If you mean it to demean my contributions and that of others, don't be vague and accuse me of something when, in fact, I did nothing wrong (WP:PROVEIT). — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Your threshhold for originality is much lower than everyone else's. You and your supporters simply said "That is just a U, and because it is just a U it cannot be copyrighted", when the University of Miami "U" symbol can certainly not be emulated in any typeface I am aware of.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll be happy to discuss that issue with you below. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. I have a valid concern and, instead of discussing it, an admin just trusts a new IP ("strangely" well-versed in WP policy, edit summaries, etc) over a user with thousands of edits and assumes I'm to blame for "drama" and accuses me of being a troll without discussing any merits of the issue. The admin then decides my questions aren't worthy of any discussion and deletes them! When I ask about this, he ignores me.

I have a valid, rational point. I provide LOTS of proof that my point is valid. His response is "no" with no explanation and makes reversions. Then he makes these baseless/skewed accusations here twisting normal conversation and requests for clarification into villainy.

I have made no personal attacks of any kind. Accusing me of something while providing no evidence is a bit hostile and misleading.

I have not accused Hammersoft of being a sockpuppeteer.

If you can look at these contributions and not see the sockpuppetry: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15], and not see the similarity between it and User:Grandma Dottie/User:TomPhan, you are being completely unreasonable.

I've never called someone's points "tension and hot air". I've contributed LOTS to this encyclopedia and I find his dismissal of my contributions as being worthless completely baseless!!! It is also quite hostile; not the behavior I'd expect from an admin

Fastily has decided that all of Hammersoft's assettions are 100% true and not worthy of actually checking. For the record HS stated this issue with the WV image was ongoing for a year. This is false: It has been ongoing for three months.

I indeed have been asked "to create an WP:RFC to discuss further" but I have not ignored it. I have stated that the image talk page should be used first as dictated by WP:TALK. If no one is willing to discuss it on the image page or their talk pages, why would I expect them to discuss it in an RfC. I have also asked Hammersoft to start RfCs, but he has also chosen not to do so. This is misleading and demonizing appropriate behavior.

At least three other users agree with me regarding this image, so my point is, at least, not unreasonable and has support. Asking for clarification from and admin and getting a request for a block is completely inappropriate! — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

He is making a new section as asked on the talk page, so I am not sure why his comment is being removed and the archive template is being added back. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The archived template should remain however. It'd be much appreciated if you could restore that. Thanks! -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Why does Fastily just get to decide when discussion is over (we talked about the issue for all of 2 days)? Where is the policy that guides this? — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Dunno, but I added that new section you wrote, so the discussion can continue. Also, Ryulong, come speak to me on IRC about the U of Miami logo. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I find it to be a little disingenuous to discuss things off-wiki. However, as long as it isn't hidden and I can get a copy of the discussion, it's still within the realm of "acceptable" to me. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Everything you are going to hash out below with him is the same I will hash out with him. Also, I will explain my actions on why I am even doing the logos in SVG. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'd like to clarify a couple of things. One, BQZip01 claims that I have falsely asserted that the issue with the WV image was ongoing for a year, instead claiming it's been going on for three months. In actuality, BQZip01 changed the tagging of the now deleted File:WestVirginiaMountaineers.png on 20 January 2009, nearly a year ago. Also, he claims that he asked me to start an RfC. I'm open to being corrected, but I do not recall BQZip01 asking me to start an RfC. Regardless, the ball is in BQZip01's court to start an RfC to change the reigning consensus that File:West Virginia Flying WV logo.svg is non-free, not in my court to re-assert it as non-free. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If the A&E logo and the Atari logo are PD-text logos then I don't see how the West Virginia Mountaineers is not a PD-text logo. Powergate92Talk 23:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Miami logo

They are not my standards but that of US law:

"Typeface" is a term defined by the House Report of the 1976 revision of the Copyright Act as follows:

"...a set of letters, numbers, or other symbolic characters, whose forms are related by repeating design elements consistently applied in a notational system and are intended to be embodied in articles, whose intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text or other cognizable combinations of characters."

It should be noted that "articles" in this case means "any medium in which it is used".

Eltra Corp. v. Ringer sets forth:

"Under Regulation 202.10(c) it is patent that typeface is an industrial design in which the design cannot exist independently and separately as a work of art. Because of this, typeface has never been considered entitled to copyright under the provisions of §5(g)."

The United States Copyright Office' sets forth:

"...mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring" ... [are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection]"

I concur that, if the artistic element can be separated from the utilitarian, it is copyrightable, however, I do not see how this is the case here. What part of this logo can be separated? What is artistic that is not utilitarian. I certainly agree that there is stylistic design involved, but US courts have ruled that that style alone in a typeface isn't eligible for copyright. Excerpts from [16] (mentioned yesterday in the WP:ANI thread):

The rejection of functional or utilitarian articles from protection as “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works” is found in 17 U.S.C. § 101 (2006). That section states: “...the design of a useful article...shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.

A letter, no matter how elegantly designed, standing alone, is simply a building block for larger units, words, that convey information. In the same way, when we give copyright protection to the design of buildings, we do not protect individual bricks because they are fungible.

Although a typeface may be a work of applied art, copyright protection would only extend to artistic aspects of its form, not its utilitarian attributes. If the artistic attributes are de minimis or not severable from the functional aspects, they will not be copyrightable

if the shape of a utilitarian article incorporates features, such as artistic sculpture, carving, or pictorial representation, which can be identified separately and are capable of existing independently as a work of art, such features will be eligible for registration.

etc. (these are not isolated quotes)

This "U" image is in distinct contrast with the Washington State University logo or this ASCII art in which letters are used as a medium to form other art.

Under these definitions, the "U" is a "U" and cannot be separated from its "intrinsic utilitarian function" of being a "U". Accordingly, it isn't eligible for copyright. Given that Wikipedia chooses not to distinguish between images ineligible for copyright and trademarked images ineligible for copyright, there isn't a different template available and this is the most accurate as it does mention the Wikipedia trademark disclaimer which covers the use of this logo. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There is more than a "U" in question for this image. It consists of two non-standard geometric shapes of two different colors surrounded by a white border that encompasses the "U" shape. The form this takes is not a U in any type face and can certainly not be emulated by any one. The intensive visual identity campaign and guidelines the University has produced (found here) shows that thought and some sort of legal control has gone into effect over this symbol. Just because it is used as the letter U does not mean that some sort of creative thought went into the design of the U symbol, as much as it was into the "WV" for West Virginia. It is not merely a typeface, and it is most certainly unique enough to be more than merely a variation on the English/Latin letter U.

In short, your interpretation of the copyright law is flawed in this instance and the University of Miami's athletic logo, which they never refer to as a "U" in the manual I linked above but as "The University of Miami logo ("U")", is not a mere typeface and cannot be a public domain text logo.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

...by which they do refer to it as a "U". They certainly don't refer to it as two weird shapes that just happen to form a "U". No one is saying that creativity wasn't involved in the logo's creation, but, as mentioned above, that creativity is inextricably linked to the utility of the letter. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It's "utility" is as a logo representing the school, which the school owns "all rights, title, and interest in and to...which includes trademarks, service marks, trade names, designs, logos, seals, and symbols." Just because it is made to resemble the letter U does not automatically remove any possible copyright the school may have on the imagery.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Not once is copyright protection mentioned. Additionally, it doesn't just "resemble" the letter "U", it IS the letter U and is used as such in marketing campaigns:

For my involvement with the U of Miami image, I just changed the colors to what that manual Ryulong points out has. Honestly, while I tend to believe that some element of work has gone into these symbols, a lot of times I went to the Commons and deleted stuff only to have it return again because someone on the Commons called it simple enough. Same with the WVU logo; I took the SVG file from official college documents. I carried over the rationales for fair use to the new image, because I sometimes think a lot of the GIF files for these logos are utter crap. I took the colors from official documents and put it on here. It was BQZ that placed the image into the public domain because of the whole typeface issue. I know there is a lot of colleges that put a lot of work in their images, and these documents say so. I remember looking at the documents today for the University of Alabama (a logo BQZ believes is PD) and the university claims copyright on everything they touch. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the claim of copyright? I'd like to see it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Check your inbox. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Kind of surprised at the language. I'd also be interested in the "redacted" comment unless that is part of the IRC thing. — BQZip01 — ^talk 09:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

While the University of Miami does have a trademarked logo (registration number 1922571), that colored "U" isn't it. The trademarked logo is a completely different design, with the words "University of" above "Miami" in larger letters, with a big black bar below. The University's seal is also trademarked. But the big "U" isn't registered. Probably because it's not unique enough as a standalone graphic. Not that this matters for Wikipedia. It's permissible to use a trademarked logo to refer to the organization or brand using said logo, but not for other purposes, and WP:LOGO reflects this. So what's the problem? --John Nagle (talk) 07:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Us having the logo is not the issue; the logo being either PD or Fair use is the main issue. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Zscout, but I also note that Nagle never once used the word "copyrighted". — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The main reason why too is that after 1978, copyright is automatic and does not have to be asserted as much than in the past. The University, among others, assumes that everyone knows it is copyrighted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

...but that assumes it is eligible for copyright protection in the first place. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I still have the documents User BillTunnel (or Tunell, not sure about his last name) sent about copyright laws and simple designs. I will need to look at it again and see what logos are talked about and figure something out. It is almost 4 am, I need to say おやすみなさい。 User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• This dispute has been going on for a long time and shows no sign of rising above the level of pantomime (oh yes it is / oh no it isn't). One thing that BQZip01 should know is that in matters of copyright it is up to the person claiming public domain to prove it. And yes, logo styles based on letters absolutely can be copyright, the law prevents you from asserting copyright over your company name written in a given typeface but there is more than juta typeface involved in most of these cases, as I believe you've been told before. The threshold of originality is pretty low for copyright and I would be very surprised if File:Miami Hurricanes logo.svg did not qualify as it incorporates elements over and above a simple typeface (two separate colours, the split in the loop of the U). The two halves of the U do not qualify as "simple geometric shapes". So unless you have an independent source that the image is in the public domain you'll need to write a fair use rationale, which will be trivially easy. Guy (Help!) 16:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

  Guy, the "split" is merely the point at which the white begins and the green/orange end and such coloring is explicitly mentioned as something that does NOT make something eligible for copyright protection:

  "...mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring" ... [are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection]"

  — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• So you say. The onus is on you to provide independent evidence beyond the International Journal of Because I Said So that this does contain sufficient novelty to be copyright. The law says you can't copyright simple use of a typeface, but this is not simple use of a typeface. So, where is your independent evidence? It's not as if this is the first time this has been discussed so surely you ave some by now? Guy (Help!) 10:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with BQZip01, it's just a green, orange, and white "U" therefore it can not be copyrighted. Powergate92Talk 20:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'd just like to add here that BQZip01 has repeatedly refuted the concept that images not provably free must be regarded as non-free. Guy, I agree with your assertion that we must be able to provide independent evidence of the copyright status of an image. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Something that should be addressed

While looking over this discussion, I clicked on the WVU logo and seen this was linked to this page. That page is ripe with trademarked (as the page rightly says) images the user has uploaded. I did this one and got in big trouble. I have nom'd the page for deletion here. I think User:BQZip01 should be admonished for putting trademarked images on a userpage like that. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

images the user has uploaded. Not quite true; a lot of the images being displayed on that page are not from him, but me taking logos from official college documents. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

And some are hosted on the Commons, like the Texas Tech logo. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, userspace is not where you "display" images. You want to show off what you have uploaded, or a list of images, show them in the [[:Image:NAMEHERE.jpg]] format. Using fair-use and trademarked images on a userpage is not necessary and against the rules. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

And which "rule" might that be? I'm not aware of one. — BQZip01 — ^talk 09:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not appreciating your tone right now, so you can lose it. Right now we are trying to figure out which rule that is, as no one seems to be able to find it (oddly). - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The only rule we have on images is explained at NFCC 9, where copyrighted images are limited to the article space. There is nothing about trademarked images in there; it also said that images must be inlined if they are not free. So, the main solution is to use extra colons and inline all of the images. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Zscout370, I knew someone would finally find the rule I was looking for. If BQZip01 will inline his images, I will gladly withdraw my MfD on the page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#9 applies to non-free/copyrighted images, not these. I am sorry you don't like it, but I see no valid reason to remove them. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Again with the attitude. What do you think a trademark is, it is a copyright. All images we use have a copyright on them. Just because they are on Wikipedia doesn't null and void that copyright. The copyright is owned by the respective university or college. You have a "show off" page of what you and whoever else have uploaded. The excuse that you use them for "ease of use" is bull. Inline, or I will do it for you. See, we both can use attitude. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

A trademark is not a copyright, it's similar but it's not the same. Powergate92Talk 23:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ditto to what powergate said. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The image is still not free.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Not the issue of this subthread, Ryulong. I think you've made your opinion on the other image abundantly clear. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It's still a very important fact. Even if these images cannot be copyrighted, they are still trademarked and essentially non-free.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but that is a different assertion than what you have made in the past. The problem is that trademarks do not ever expire as long as they are maintained. Like patents, they enter the public domain as soon as they are created/registered, but there are still restrictions on their use. I can look up any patent, but I cannot produce any patented device, process, chemical, etc in any way that impinges on their ability to make a profit on it. This is analogous to the use of a trademark and appropriate use is best spelled out in WP:Disclaimers#Trademarks.

I really appreciate the fact you've made the all-important distinction and we should have a policy on such images to reduce the number of problems associated with such images, but simply applying WP:NFCC to them fails to recognize the distinction between copyright and trademark protections. Would you be willing to work on a policy with me to 1) distinguish what is copyrightable and what is not and 2) how to use such images? — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's what Wikimedia Commons says about trademark images "Trademark laws control the commercial use of logos, terms, and names related to products and services. Commons hosts many images of trademarks, and as long as they do not violate any copyright (eg because they are too simple to acquire copyright protection, or are old enough that copyright protection has expired), they are OK here. That applies even though certain commercial use of this material may be trademark infringement." Powergate92Talk 17:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Nebraska ET and NBC

Is anybody aware of Nebraska_Educational_Telecommunications#Television? Woogee (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I am now, but that has nothing to do with the images in question. That case was a logo used by one entity who did not own the rights claiming it was theirs in the first place. Whether the image was copyrighted and/or trademarked is irrelevant as that kind of use is prohibited under both copyright and trademark law. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

NBC claimed to own the logo which they did not own. Woogee (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes they did, though I'm sure the outcome of the agreement was that neither side acknowledged anything. There is no parallel that really seems to apply here, though, or am I missing something? — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Article mess space: user bio, COI, possible sock puppet

The Stephen J. Press article is the kind of badly written schlock that needs serious editing. However, editing this article is difficult because of the tag-teaming by a so-called buddy of the subject and the subject himself who both want to own the article.

When I looked at the user page of the primary contributor, User:Platinumphotographer I saw it was created by User:Drsjpdc, the subject of the Stephen J. Press article. Drsjpdc added information that platinum, too, just like the doctor, loves coffee, uses Mozilla firefox and a google searches.[17]

• The doctor's contributions.[18]
• Platinum's.[19]
• Platinum's user page.[20]

They also edited another article one after the other.[21]

IMO, it matters when users use sock accounts to avoid scrutiny for COI and when they use it them to bully other editors into not editing articles.

So, BLP, COI, Sock-puppetry, where to start? The article is a BLP problem because it is badly written and looks like the insulting fluff piece it is and editing it will be hard with the "team" interfering. It's a COI problem because the subject is interfering with other editors either directly, if it's sock puppetry, or indirectly by bullying other editors. The sock-puppetry is a problem if it's being used to conceal the COI.

Would it be possible for someone, admin or editor, to look into this and see what is going on? I would like to write some insect articles for featured pictures without good places to sit, instead of seeing sock puppets everywhere any more.

--IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone should file an SPI investigation on the two accounts since someone editing an article about themself with sockpuppets is an obvious COI. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

They were blocked, all is well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is a good block. I can't tell from the C/U if it was based on behaviour or on an actual IP check. I disagree with the closing admin that the behaviour was obvious. I also have yet to see any diffs presented of actual sock-puppetry behaviour, owning, bullying, or COI. The BLP allegation is completely false - the article is not a "fluff piece" and it has been recently been overhauled by editors with no COI - however, more eyes of course are welcome at the article. The editor who posted this ANI thread has responded to my edits with uncivil responses and allegations of meatpuppetry, which is not a good way to resolve the issues. DigitalC (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of the edits by other users have been reverted. The article, for example, lists an incomprehensible alphabet soup of supposed degrees. An editor suggested only his primary degree should be listed. This was reverted with a comment by one of the meat/socks that other articles had this alphabet soup. The other chiropractor articles with this alphabet soup are written by this same meat/sock army. The article looks like what it is: a fluff biography of no substance orchestrated by its subject. No one is going to come to that article and see an unbiased encyclopedic article, they're going to see self-published article with cutesy links like the uploaded pictures of the doctor's degrees from his office walls. I think that COI should read: we, at wikipedia, have a duty to save you from yourself: you can't write your autobiography here because it will look like you did; and don't send an army of friends either, because that will also look exactly like that.

Anyway, at some point someone will tell the emperor he has no clothes. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

He should have read this essay before writing the autobiography:

• Wikipedia:An article about yourself is nothing to be proud of

Brangifer (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see this article given a bit of time. At present, it seems to me to lack sufficient independent, reliable sources to pass the bar set at WP:BIO, but perhaps such sources exist and simply haven't been found and added yet. The article should probably be revisited in a week or two, at which point one would have to consider whether it meets WP:BIO and whether it should go to WP:AfD. MastCell ^Talk 00:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Na'vi language‎

I withdrew my nomination for the article but I am afraid more !votes may come (two have). Could somebody please close it as speedy keep? Thanks. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 05:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Done: [22] — æk^Talk 05:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There is another delete (Edison), so it's not technically a speedy keep, but I don't see any point in reopening it. Flatscan (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

On WP:SK: No one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and the nominator fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging—or withdraws the nomination. So, being the only delete !vote is not a necessary requisite. I think it does fall under speedy keep. I still think the article should be deleted, but consensus beats personal opinion/several policies/royal straight flush. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 07:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That's obviously not the case when a clear delete consensus has developed and then the nominator withdraws. In this case though, with only the one other delete vote, closing the discussion seems fine.--Atlan (talk) 08:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

RUL3R, that is an incorrect reading of that criterion, as the or groups "fails" and "withdraws" and the and applies last. The nominator has no more pull than any other delete supporter. WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 48#Withdrawal of AFD was the most recent discussion, but there have been a few other mentions in passing. Aside from italicizing the and, I'm not sure how to make the sentence read any more clearly; suggestions welcome. Flatscan (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

In any case, perhaps not speedy, but surely WP:SNOW applied anyway. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 10:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I assure you, that article will be deleted. Not now, as the AfD shows. But it will be eventually. Prodego ^talk 07:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I find that unlikely. Consensus was not reached here, and by the time it is nominated again, if it is, there may be more than 1 film where this is used (probably a graphic novel, or a sequel.) I am sure James Cameron did not spent 12 years of his life doing something that will stop at a movie. Undoubtedly, more Avatar media is coming, and any argument for deletion of this article would be effectively eliminated. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 10:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Repeated accusations of personal attack over a period of nine months by User:Binarygal

On Talk:Information Technology Infrastructure Library starting in April 2009 (see Removed external links), Binarygal (talk · contribs) (at times using an anonymous IP, see WQA) has made repeated accusations of being bullied and the victim of personal attacks as well as making vague accusations against other editors being involved in a conspiracy. The recommended WQA process has been followed twice with no resulting change in behaviour or acceptance that this behaviour is a problem. Repeated passive-aggressive style claims of being a victim of personal attack can be considered a personal attack against those accused and in this case is disrupting the normal consensus process. Binarygal has become a WP:SPA, only editing this talk page since the beginning of 2009. In the most recent RfC discussion, Binarygal has made references to my previous account name which was changed for professional privacy reasons and prior issues with Binarygal making assumptions and statements about the professional associations of other editors that may be considered infringements of the guidance of WP:OUTING (see example diff). If she/he wished to substantiate these claims of attack, Binarygal has been advised many times of the dispute resolution processes available by several editors over this period on the talk page itself as well as during the associated WQA discussions.

As advised in the last WQA (see WQA), rather than raising this issue for a third time on that forum, I am raising this notice for assistance with these repeated accusations against me of bullying, conspiracy and harassment which are disrupting potential consensus on this talk page and I believe constitute a personal attack due to being repeated consistently over such an extended period.—Ash (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I am a simple topic editor. That is all. I know little about Wikipedia procedures, but I do know about the topic I edit and related issues.

Some months ago, prior to the date mentioned above, it became evident that there was a concerted attempt to misrepresent the reality of the topic in question, ITIL. It became clear that there was an issue regarding the Open ITIL movement, and a fairly clear attempt to marginalize it in terms of documenting its very existence.

I correctly resisted this in the article, but the reaction by the editor above in particular was almost unbelievable from my perspective. He launched what I can only describe as a campaign of attrition against all references to the open movement, and simultaneously against myself.

This continued beyond a point which anyone could consider reasonable, nor should have to tolerate. Votes on links came and went, but were repeated if they went the 'wrong' way. The determination to remove all such links is self evident to anyone who reads the history.

That is what I invite everyone to do. Please, please read the full history, because I am sick of this. He has used his knowledge of the Wikipedia procedures as one of a number of sticks with which to bully me, including outright abuse.

You will see that I have consistently requested a full investigation by Wikipedia. This has never been forthcoming.

On the specifics above: no, I have never 'outed' anyone. Please read the history. No, I am not a conspiracy nutcase as he tries to imply. Please read the history.

Yes, I stopped editing other articles when this campaign and the associated abuse began. He destroyed my enthusiasm and I lost my faith in Wikipedia. Please read the history.

It is all there to be seen. My colleagues are appalled, and I have often felt sick having read his diatribes, innuendos and false accusation. This HAS to be stopped.

Even here he is using his knowledge of Wikipedia procedures as a pseudo-bullying technique. I have no idea how this page differs from the others he has placed his abuse and false allegations on, but it is yet another attack upon myself.

Nothing is going to stop him: he will continue to seek to remove the last of the Open ITIL links come what may. The countless hours and thousands of words he has invested in his pursuit of a single link tells a tale of its own. This is not normal, and I feel very uncomfortable: yet all I have done is try to defend the integrity of an article!

Please could someone finally investigate? Read all the history, and then try to tell me that this is acceptable, that his behavior is ok, and that the assault on the link(s) is that of someone merely trying to improve the quality of the article. Please also look at those other places he made his false allegations against me.

Please, this time, research this edit campaign and what has been happening with respect to the abuse of myself. Please check everything. All I ever wanted to do was use my knowledge to improve articles, yet this has become impossible to do.

BinaryGal (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked this over, first, I don't see any outing happening. Please supply diffs showing outing, Ash, your's don't show outing. This looks like a content dispute over a set of links, and yes, there's incivility from both sides. I don't actually think we need admin involvment. Looks like a content dispute, looks like you may need a mediation or something a bit more.

_{Naluboutes,Nalubotes}^{Aeria Gloris,Aeria Gloris} 14:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As explained above, I raised this notice for repeated accusations of bullying rather than being outed (the form of outing is a subtle one of claims of professional affiliations for with the guidance would be tricky to interpret, for example in this diff where there is an assumption of my professional affiliation). As described in WP:HA#NOT, unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly. As Binarygal has constantly resorted to accusations over such an extended period rather than engaging in creating a consensus, it seems reasonable that this guidance applies.—Ash (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There are no unfounded accusations, just as there is no 'outing', except in his mind. I couldn't be less interested in an argument. Please someone, do read the whole history and research this carefully. The determined edit campaign, and abusive treatment of me for resisting it and protecting the article's value, is self evident if you see the whole picture and understand the place of the open movement in the ITIL landscape. You should see why I feel like I am the subject of bullying. All I want is to be left in peace. BinaryGal BinaryGal (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Full disclosure: I have been involved in some of the discussions regarding a couple of external links and whether they are appropriate - simply expressing my opinion taking on board the guidance at WP:EL. I disagree with User:KoshVorlon about this being just a content dispute - it has got well beyond that. User:Binarygal has repeatedly made accusations against User:Ash for which she has presented no evidence, at the same time claiming to be the victim of bullying, abuse, etc.. Anyone else who expresses an opinion that she doesn't like receives similar accusations, and the suggestion that they are not acting in good faith. Binarygal has repeatedly been advised to make her complaint at the appropriate venue rather than just repeating her demands that a 'senior editor'/'Wikipedia police officer' investigate on the article's talk page, but has failed to do so. It should be noted that while Binarygal claims to be 'a simple topic editor' who knows 'about the topic I edit', a look through the last two years of edits to the article itself shows no contributions from Binarygal other than reverting the removal of external links. Editors cannot be permitted to continue to make these accusations without presenting any evidence to back them up. The nasty dispute on the article's talk page may well be detracting from efforts to improve the article. I would suggest that (a) an uninvolved admin looks at the existing RFC on the talk page and closes it with a recommendation that whatever the outcome, it is respected by all editors for the next 6 months - the issue is whether an external link is included - it's a trivial matter, and it certainly doesn't justify the unpleasantness that has gone on, and (b) one or both editors be asked/forced to step away from the article, its talk page, and each other completely for the next 6 months or more - neither editor has made significant content contributions to the article in the last year, and there are other editors around who will revert vandalism, etc. Both editors may see this as harsh, but they would both be able to use their time more productively, and it would benefit the project as a whole. I would suggest that 'do nothing' would be the worst outcome of this discussion.--Michig (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who does what I am asking will see exactly where Michig fits into this equation. Whilst those two, who know more about the mechanics of Wikipedia procedures than I do can round upon me, all I can do is ask for people here to investigate the truth. Please read the whole history. Please focus on what has actually happened.

You will very quickly see what is wrong: you will see that the edit is not a simple article quality edit, but part of a bigger drive to remove references to all of the ITIL Open movement. ITIL is very political, with large vested and commercial interests attempting to marginalize 'open'. I am sure senior Wikipedia people will be well aware of this sort of aspect.

Removing all the links to open movement websites only makes sense in this context. That is what has happened, until now, when the article is left with just a single open link. That link has been attacked multiple times by the same people. There is no consensus at all to remove it, despite the efforts of Ash, supported by Michig.

That is the context, that is the background, and that is the truth.

Michig refers to the link issue as trivial. If it is, why has there been such a sustained, determined, long term and pretty brutal drive to remove it? Why would someone expend countless hours and words over months/years to drop a link which so clearly is of more value than most of the others on there, and without repeating the talk page, offers very useful content to article readers? The answer is because I am telling the truth.

Please read through the whole history spanning back years. I am not a nutcase with a conspiracy theory - this is how the market is and it explains what has happened here throughout.

As for the personal attacks, again, read the history. You will see that by defending this article I have been subjected to repeated bullying. Yes, bullying to a degree that colleagues have urged me to do something to stop it.

That isn't an extreme allegation. I have been very restrained and careful, and not accused either of the above with affiliations to anything, nor of anything else other than attempting to remove all the open links.

Is that wrong, when it is the truth? I don't think so. Please, please read for yourself.

Yet what I get back in return for doing this has been awful. The mechanics of Wikipedia have been repeatedly misused against me, I have been abused and I have been falsely accused... again and again and again.

Yes, I have been asking for an investigation for many months, on every page this has been discussed. I readily admit that I just edit and know less about the procedures here than they do, which is why maybe I have asked in the wrong places, but I would hope that somewhere someone might care enough about that article and the foul behaviour going on, step in and do the necessary research.

Maybe now someone will do it. I hope so. BinaryGal (talk) 09:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In would be very grateful if some could actually investigate this fully. It would then be abundantly clear that the major problem here is Binarygal. Look at the article's edit history. Several editors have removed the external links in compliance with WP:EL, only for Binarygal to repeatedly revert - this is why "there been such a sustained, determined, long term and pretty brutal drive", but on her part to prevent their removal, by claiming that the link in question is so important and constantly playing the victim, making accusations of a conspiracy against 'the open community' (I thought we at WP were part of the open community), and accusing others of bullying. Comments such as "Anyone who does what I am asking will see exactly where Michig fits into this equation" are typical of the innuendo and assumption of bad faith on her part. Go ahead, investigate away. If any of BG's claims are found to have substance, take action aginst the offenders. If BG is found to be at fault, please ensure that it stops. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 12:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again. The "innuendo and bad faith" is clearly in the head of Michig, as my words were harmless. Why twist my words like that? In fact why come back with such comments at all when all I am asking for is a full and thorough investigation? Why try to discredit me like that?

And yes, the irony of Wikipedia procedures being used to marginalize the open movement on this topic isn't lost upon me.

Please do look at those edits, and who made them. Please do look at ALL the edit history and talk page history. Also please consider the politics of the topic in question, and definitely the abuse I have had to suffer for defending the integrity of the article. This really has to stop now BinaryGal (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Some activity at ITER

Resolved

 – Apparently resolved. tedder (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Over the course of nearly two months, one IP address - that being 62.68.174.243 - has been repeatedly making the exact same edit to the article on the reactor, posting something about a "Molten Salt Reactor" that the IP apparently believes outperformed ITER's current goals back in the 1960s. The exact text inserted (obviously pasted, as it never changes) is as follows, entirely unmodified from the original in meaning, wording, or formatting:

Molten_salt_reactor had the very same goals, achieved between 1964-1969 in the Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment (see page for details and references, not to be repeated here) with U-233 (bred from Thorium). Actually a bit more were achieved than ITER's targets:: Molten_salt_reactor was shown to be operable even as small as 7 MW-thermal (significantly smaller than 500 MW-thermal ). Unfortunately - partly because MSR was confidential military technology back than - energy researchers today know almost nothing about Oak_Ridge_National_Laboratory's working safe/clean/cheap energy solution.

Numerous proverbial "alarm bells" should go off at this text:

• One of the most suspicious aspects is the location of emphasis. Take note of which phrases are bolded, clearly intending to emphasize the apparent inferiority of ITER.
• The complete lack of citations. With no citations, there is no reason to believe the information here is anything but some attempt at defamation.
• The apparently hasty Wikiformatting and grammar; The underscores in the Wikilinks and the somewhat truncated and disjointed phrasing gives the impression of a copy-and-paste from either a blog or a similar site.
• One more additonal suspicious element is the placement of this text in the article. It is not placed in an appropriate location, but rather in a prominent location under a completely irrelevant heading.

This exact same text has been inserted nine times as of this posting, each time being reverted, often - but problematically far from always - fairly soon. The user has been warned many, many times, and even blocked for this at least once, but with no effect. Even after being blocked, the user vandalized ITER's article again, so many times as to again be reported to WP:AIV. Unfortunately, due to the fact the vandalism was not immediately caught - many hours passed - it was deemed "not recent" and no action was taken. I do not wish to get into that issue of judgment here, but rather to try to put an end to this vandalism to the article in question.

Unfortunately, there are some barriers to standard procedure:

• As the edits are not always timely caught, reverted, and, if need be, reported, WP:AIV will likely be ineffectual, frequently deeming the edits "not recent".
• Since the vandalism is always from the same address, and, judging by the fact it (and the reaction to its removal) is always the same, the same person, Article SemiProtection is not a valid choice, failing the "many vandals" criterion.
• As the content that appears defamatory is not directed at a person, but rather leveled at the ITER facility, WP:BLP is inapplicable.
• The IP apparently made uncontroversial edits to other articles, making blocking potentially problematic. (However, the IP appears to belong to an organization, so perhaps the constructive edits are being made by other members, with only one "bad apple" vandalizing Wikipedia.)

However, it is obvious that something must be done, as the edits could be damaging to the reactor, appear politically, commercially, or otherwise "factionally" motivated, and are sometimes lasting, leaving the page defaced for hours at a time.

The most convenient solution would be to somehow lock the IP out of editing ITER while allowing editing of all other articles, but I do not believe this to be possible. What can be done about this issue, and how can I help put an end to the vandalism on ITER?

-RadicalOne---Contact Me 19:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As Christopher Thomas outlined at talk:ITER, the edits are good-faith, but POVish, misplaced, and uncited. The IP is shared; it has edited 2 articles over last month, edits to non-ITER article seem Ok. I suggest a temporal block for disruptive editing if the edits on ITER resume. I am watching the page and would be ready to block. Materialscientist (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Per my comments in your talk page thread, reversion and appropriately-timed WP:AIV posts seem to work adequately. I posted to AIV after they'd made a string of ITER edits, and they were promptly blocked. From where I'm sitting, the system seems to be working as-intended. What action are you proposing that administrators take, specifically? --Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am merely worried that the edits will, as they have at times in the past, remain in place for an extended period of time, if only because noone is checking their watchlist frequently enough. This is detrimental to Wikipedia as a "reliable" source of information - a major concern, I believe - and possibly to the subject of the article itself, if potential funding providers get the idea of Wikisearching the reactor then seeing the waste of time and money the IP's edits make it appear to be. I do not know what action to take, which is why I asked for help and advice here. -RadicalOne---Contact Me 02:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The IP named in this report has only been active since December 8. Other IPs have edited previously from the 62.68.* range who could be the same person. The history shows IPs making edits since September that could be of the same general type. Since it's a long running problem, I would be willing to semiprotect the article for three months if no-one objects. EdJohnston (talk) 04:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I vote you do that, though I suspect we will have to wait for other admins to approve. Thank you for the help. -RadicalOne---Contact Me 05:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Those edits target specific topic and are easy to trace. Thus propose this: wait for next edit, if it comes from this IP, block and re-block him for disruption, if and when the IP number changes, then semiprotect the article. Such highly technical topics don't attract random vandals, but are often improved by anons (though I don't see much in the recent history of this article). Materialscientist (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I can only find three IPs in total that have inserted this material into ITER (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

• 62.68.174.243 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (the presently-active IP)
• 62.68.185.137 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (used only once)
• 83.216.46.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (October 2009, mostly interested in pushing references to a "Sodium Sulfur fuel cell")

A rangeblock would only have caught one additional edit, so I doubt one would be useful. From the looks of things, they tend to edit from a single IP and just switched service providers at the end of October. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I thought 62.68.185.137 changed to 62.68.174.243 by the ISP (or the user edited from a nearby PC), but it is a shared IP; thus I would not rangeblock, but block an individual IP, and if the IP starts changing too often then semi-protect the article. This is just one possible solution, I must note. Materialscientist (talk) 06:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Update: It looks like they're all owned by the same ISP (even the 83.x block), so I'm now guessing the DHCP lease expires on a monthly basis. We'll find out if they start editing from a new IP in January :). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Adam Smith University Copyright violations

Resolved

 – Page protected, suggestions given. tedder (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone keeps trying to whitewash the Adam Smith University article by removing information that is critical of the institution and then copying large amounts of text from the Adam Smith University website. I think that consideration should be given to either blocking the IP address or perhaps semi-protecting the article might be a better alternative. Thank you for your consideration, TallMagic (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the edit history of the article, it may be better to request page protection, if not report the IP editor to WP:AIV. However, the overall tone of the article does seems to be quite negative and does not comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Perhaps a copyedit to remove or replace POV terms, such as "controversial" in the lead, can improve the overall tone. —Farix (t | c) 21:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. No problem with cleaning up the article for neutrality as suggested above, but the edit history also indicates that there has been problematic behavior from multiple IPs. It is at once both possible to clean up this article, and to not blank it or remove good references or to replace existing text with text copied from other sources. --Jayron32 21:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite honestly, if the only things we can reasonably say about a school are "it's tiny" and "it's not accredited", the proper approach is to say nothing at all. We aren't a resource for "exposing" such schools, we're a neutral encyclopedia with inclusion guidelines. A previous, similar dispute about a different school went all the way to Arbcom, but it's probably simpler to go to AfD instead. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Question: concern vs obsession

Resolved

 – The doctor is not IN. tedder (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

What should I do if I think an editor has gone over the brink between concern and obsession? I mean in the psychological sense. Rfc? Debresser (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy, and we are not therapists. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously. But when they become problematic editors, like on talk pages, noticeboards, etc.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs) 00:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Then we act according to, and only to, the policies being violated. WP:TEND is a start - WP:DISRUPT if it gets to warnings of potential sanctions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I realize it's an essay, but often in such cases WP:CIR applies as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I figured that. ("we act according to, and only to, the policies being violated"). Thank you. Debresser (talk) 07:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident proposed editing restrictions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

A formal proposal is now under consideration at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Climate change discretionary sanctions proposal. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

---

The Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident article is rather high visibility - some of you might better know it as the "Climategate scandal". However, the article has been plagued by edit warring recently, and has been fully protected multiple times. I would like to try to get past these issues and allow improvement of the article, and to do so, I'd suggest establishing a 1RR restriction on the article. Hopefully this will force the issues over which the edit warring has occurred to be discussed on the talk page, while allowing constructive improvement to the article to continue unhindered. If this works out, perhaps these sorts of restrictions could be applied, similar to Arbcom editing restrictions, by uninvolved administrators in the area of Global warming related topics. Possibly the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change article mentioned in the section above could also benefit by this system. Thoughts? Prodego ^talk 23:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I agree. Sadly you've rather blotted your copybook there - see the report below - so I don't think you are the one to enforce them William M. Connolley (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What are you referring to? I don't think that adding a tag in any way disqualifies Prodego from anything, and I'd endorse his being part of the enforcement team should this be adopted. He's about as far from a POV pusher as they come and has no dog in this fight. ++Lar: t/c 00:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Something similar to the editing restrictions on editors connected to the Irish troubles might help, 1RR a day per editor. With editors falling foul of the conditions moving to one revert a week. Off2riorob (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea and would suggest extending it to other articles as well. Off2riorob suggests a good initial escalation path. ++Lar: t/c 23:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• There is now a proposal for ArbCom to look into the many problems surrounding climate change related articles of late, hopefully they will act and stem the seemingly unending tide of ANI threads related to these matters. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Climate Change Beeblebrox (talk) 05:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• If I could make a suggestion Prodego, 1RR tends to be very controversial and you'll find in disputes this heated participants will spend inordinate amounts of time arguing over what a revert is and whether this rule was violated. I think you're on the right track though. The idea of a few uninvolved admins basically assigning themselves to a topic area (but limiting themselves strictly to warning, blocking or otherwise restricting), coupled with a mediator or two to help keep the talk page discussion moving forward has worked in similar circumstances. Once you can manage to herd cats through the first few editprotected requests, it may even be safe to unprotect the article and see if the normal editorial process will work again. Shell ^babelfish 11:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Something to bear in mind that a large part of the reason why the topic is so heated is that the issue is being inflamed by off-wiki factors; particularly in recent weeks, we've had an endless stream of SPAs, socks, ranting IPs and new editors being directed here by bloggers and the right-wing media complaining about Wikipedia's coverage of climate change (see e.g. [23] and [24]. This has resulted in a deluge of aggressive and abusive editing to "fix" Wikipedia's supposed "liberal bias". This is not simply a case of a dispute between regulars getting out of hand; Wikipedia has become part of a much larger war of words that's being fought all over the web. You only have to look at the comments section of any newspaper article covering climate change to see what I mean. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose 1RR. Mechnical application of any rule creates a high risk of gaming. Jehochman ^Brrr 12:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Related to Coren and Jehochman above, I certainly have no problem with a more free "disruptive edit warring will lead to bans" approach, but I was uncertain there would be support for something like that. Perhaps we could have discussion about exactly what would be best. Prodego ^talk 17:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Uh, guys, maybe you missed my post above, this is before ArbCom now, so holding a parallel discussion here is probably not the most productive use of your time. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason it would be any less productive than at any other time. The sooner the situation gets cleaned up, the better, and this is a much faster (and better, since it is consensus based) way than arbcom. Plus I wouldn't be surprised if the case were declined. Prodego ^talk 21:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree. If the community wishes to put something in place, it can. The arbcom case may take some time to get accepted, if it does at all, and there may or may not be interim remedies applied. ++Lar: t/c 23:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's worth noting what Vassyana has said in rejecting the current request for arbitration: "However, I do not see that this is beyond the capability of the community to resolve. On the contrary, I see several indications that the problems that arise can be resolved by the community. Despite the flurry of disputes, new accounts, accusations, and so on cropping up lately, community processes and individual administrators seem to be handling the matter in an appropriate fashion. Arbitration is not necessary and is likely to serve as a massive dramafest." I take that as an invitation to the community to solve the problem itself. Didn't we have a situation like this with the Barack Obama articles? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like there has been a more formal proposal written out just now by Ryan Postlethwaite. I suggest we move discussion there. Prodego ^talk 01:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

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

CSI vios

Resolved

 – Issue is being taken care of at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 December 30. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems that the CSI articles were filled with copyvios Example. I don't have time to fix them all, check all the user's contribs. Thanks, 174.102.83.126 (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've placed {{copyvio}} on that article.--Rockfang (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

All of the related articles edited by the editor that I suspect are copyright violations have been tagged.--Rockfang (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It ain't just those articles. I've checked some additional ones and found other plot recaps that have been lifted from the same location - Forbidden Fruit (CSI: NY) and The Triangle (CSI: NY) among others. Tabercil (talk) 04:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

2 problems with user

Resolved

 – WP:BEANS and WP:AGF. tedder (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Armorbearer777 is getting in a little close to me due to my participation in an AfD, now has started placing fake "you're blocked" templates and asking for face to face confrontations on my talk page because I removed some references to advertisements in another article. It's a single purpose account to republish the Full Armor of God Broadcast article for the 2nd time, and I'm just participating with many others in the AfD of that article. See my talk page, I have left things there. This is uncomfortably close. Mjpresson (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The user has now restored this edit, which is improper as I have warned, but I won't do a 3RR. Please be aware the problem exists and I can't correct it now. Mjpresson (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Since User:Armorbearer777 had not been notified of this discussion, I placed a notice on his talk page here. — SpikeToronto 06:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for conacting me, a courtecy that Mjpresson has not done. This issue is very simply a case of sour grapes. Mjpresson has been trying to escalate this matter on the deletion disscussion for The Full Armor of God Broadcast, my user page and now on XXX Church. He has repeatedly failed to give me "good faith", which has been noted on the disscussion by other users. He has been cautioned several times to CHILL, by me and others. He won't. All these matters have been settled. He or she is obviously not letting it go and retalliating in every way possible. I have dropped it and have moved on. may I suggest that Mjpresson does too? TY for your time. Armorbearer777 (talk) 07:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have made NEWBIE "Good Faith" errors, but am working with some more experiences wikipedians to learn the ropes better. I am aware of the rules in this matter and rest assured, this matter is resolved as far as I am concerend. i would ask that Mjpresson please not pursue further escalation and let it rest. Armorbearer777 (talk) 08:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Levineps and categorisation

• Note: the summary below does not represent the consensus of the discussion, which was significantly more precise than what is set out here. See discussion at User talk:Coffee#Levineps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I made it slightly more precise, however it does not need to be as superfluous as you want. There have been many bans made by the community before, we know how to handle someone when they break a ban. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 18:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved

 – Levineps (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from creating new categories, and re-categorizing either existing categories or articles. Levineps is required to not mark his edits as minor, as he has used this flag disruptively. He is also required to use manually written edit summaries for all of his edits, outside of the talk space. He is not allowed to remove warnings or notices from his talk page, or anywhere else they are posted. A 1RR per day restriction is also imposed, due to his disruptive reverting. If he fails to comply with these requirements, he will be blocked indefinitely and his edits can be reverted without question. Levineps is reminded that he free to propose any category changes on any talk page for others to implement. He is also reminded that he can appeal this sanction only via a formal community proposal, or by emailing ArbCom. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 18:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[1]

---

User:Levineps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been doing a lot of category-related edits: recategorising articles, creating new categories, reparenting categories. His/her work-rate is prodigious, and the edit-summary usage is near-zero, apart from automatic summaries.

In the last week, dozens of categories created by Levineps have been nominated for deletion by a series of editors, all of whom have asked Levineps to desist from category-relate editing and discuss his/her approach, as have other editors. None of these requests has had any effect at all: most have been ignored, some have received flippant short replies, and in one instance which I saw Levineps has agreed to try to learn how to be a better editor, but it has had no effect.

Small changes to the category system can can have major disruptive effects to a wide range of articles, so the impact of his editing is much greater than if it was solely being applied to articles.

I had planned to open an RFC/U, but the damage is continuing at such a rapid rate that I started to simply rollback Levineps edits to categories ... to which he is responding by undoing my reverts.

I don't have time now to haul out all the diffs (I'll post a few after this, and then more after I have had some sleep), but the relevant discussions are all at the bottom of Levineps talk page. Is there any way that this highly disruptive editing can be stopped without waiting for the outcome of an RFC/U process?

Thanks, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the latest list of edits by her as you can see all reverts without any explanations. In addition, she has admitted to purposely reverting articles for the sake of reverting them--Levineps (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

1. 06:34, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American paleontologists ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by Autoreplay)
2. 06:34, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American pathologists ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by DSisyphBot)
3. 06:34, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American philologists ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by Mu)
4. 06:33, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American philosophers ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by Maksim-bot)
5. 06:33, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American photographers ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by ArthurBot)
6. 06:33, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American politicians ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by Missionary)
7. 06:33, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American political pundits ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by Cgingold)
8. 06:33, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American police officers ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by Reinhardheydt)
9. 06:33, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American pioneers ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by Icairns)
10. 06:32, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American printmakers ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by Zorrobot)
11. 06:32, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American planters ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by Wassermann)
12. 06:32, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American printers ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by Caerwine)
13. 06:32, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American prison officials ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by Necrothesp)
14. 06:32, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:United States propagandists ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by Hugo999)
15. 06:31, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American psychologists ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by ArthurBot)
16. 06:31, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American art historians ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by ArthurBot)
17. 06:29, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:BrownHairedGirl ‎ (→stop reverting my edits: see your own talk page)
18. 06:27, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Levineps ‎ (→Please stop, NOW: too late for agument)
19. 06:25, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American meteorologists ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by TXiKiBoT)
20. 06:25, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American bishops ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by 85.227.157.208)
21. 06:24, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American clergy ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by דוד55)
22. 06:24, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American gardeners ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by 172.132.68.15)
23. 06:24, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American genealogists ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by Jannoue)
24. 06:24, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American geographers ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by Annika64)
25. 06:24, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American historians ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by TXiKiBoT)
26. 06:23, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American judges ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by BrownHairedGirl)
27. 06:22, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Levineps ‎ (→Please stop, NOW: OK, time for a block)
28. 06:16, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American revolutionaries ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by VolkovBot)
29. 06:16, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American campaign managers ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by Postdlf)
30. 06:16, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American cartoonists ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by Emperor)
31. 06:15, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American judges ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by Okki)

As is quite clear from Levineps' talk page, he's quite plainly lying about BrownHairedGirl's stated and obvious motive for reverting his edits. I can't interpret this as anything but trolling at this point. He needs to be blocked to stop the damaging edits he keeps piling up (all without edit summaries, all marked as minor), and so he's forced to take a breathe and digest the ever-growing crowd of editors he's angered and repeatedly ignored. postdlf (talk) 06:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As I write this, he's also edit-warring with me and BHG to try and remove the complaints she posted to his talk page, and the notice of this ANI. postdlf (talk) 07:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Levinep is now removing from his talk page the warning messages relating to this thread. See history. Whilst editors have a right to reomve warnings from heir talk pages, doing so in the midst of ANI discussion undermines the ability of other admins to review the situation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain your own vandalism above?--Levineps (talk) 07:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain your own vandalism above?--Levineps (talk) 07:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You did not even do other editors the courtesy of explaining your edits with an edit summary, declined all requests for restraint, and now you accuse other editors for "vandalism" for reverting edits such as these:

• [25] remove Category:American judges from Category:American people by occupation, leaving it in Category:American jurists. Read jurist; not all judges are jurists. I reverted[26]
• removed ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:American geographers from ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:American people by occupation and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:American scientists, leaving it in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:American social scientists. Read geography: it is a discipline which encompasses earth sciences too, and is not simply a subset of social science.

Both these points were explained to Levinsep on his talk page. His response was simply to say "You really need to grow up and stop acting juvenile".

I do not intend to sit here for the rest of the night posting detailed explanations of the rest of my reverts when Levinsep ignores all requests for restraint or attempts to discuss the problems. Faced with his rapid-fire recategorisation of categories, I used rollback to revert any of category his edits which appeared problematic, to try to limit the damage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

After repeated edit warring, I finally protected his talk page for an hour to make sure everything remains public and intact until this is reviewed. postdlf (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Levineps there is no good reason to continue working on something if people are shouting at you about it. Please cease catagory related work immediately and talk through the issues with the other side. If you do not, I will block you. This is not endorsement of any side of the dispute but this is clearly disruptive and there is no hurry. Plus your changes have more chance of sticking if you talk them through and show other editors what you are doing and why. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I by no means am perfect, but I do not think it's right my edits are "reverted" just because I did them. Even if you disagree, I believe you should list the rationle for reverting it. Both Postdlf and BrownHairedGirl have done me wrong with the whole "two wrongs don't make a right" principle. Also, last time I checked Chris Brown is black but that edit I did was reverted. I will admit I am not as careful as I should be sometimes and I am still learning.--Levineps (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Frankly I couldn't careless who is guilty here. I just see editors trying to engage with you and yiou not responding and making changes that could be disruptive across a range of articles. What I suggest is that you take a deep breath, clear your head and forget who is to blame and then start a discussion about the changes you are making and why so that you can reach a compromise on what you are doing. Otherwise your changes will not stick anyway and your efforts will be wasted. Thank you Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. OK, this has gone well far enough in my opinion. I have been trying to work with Levineps for over two months now. From the start, his edits in category space were problematic, but I figured things would improve with a little time and discussion. At first, he completely ignored my pleas to slow down and discuss things. Eventually, we got his attention, but whenever concerns are expressed it's difficult to get more out of him than some sentiment like, "I guess we just disagree". Anyway, things have not improved; in fact, things have gotten progressively worse, with more and more editors complaining about his category edits both on his talk page, on my talk page, and to me via email. The complaints are consistently for the same thing: Levineps is creating categories that are too narrow, that create trivial intersections, that re-create previously deleted material, and that his attempts to subcategorize articles results in miscategorizations and loss of category information. Let me give you some statistics to help give an idea of the extent of the problem:
  • Since mid-October 2009, over 500 categories created by Levineps have been deleted. That's like an average of 6 or 7 per day. That's horrendous, and is like nothing I've ever seen before coming from one editor.
  • Currently, there are ongoing CFD discussions for at least 57 individual categories that were created by Levineps, most which are up for deletion. Seriously. — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Community Ban 1

• Proposal: I've been wondering for a long time what to do about this. I've tried my best to engage the user, to help him, to encourage discussion, and to give it time to work itself out. But I don't lightly say that it's time to do something about this problem. I endorse a community-imposed ban on category edits being placed on Levineps. — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • • Last comment before I go to bed.
      Levineps has done dozens of category edits without any edit summaries, making it very slow for other editors to review them, despite being recently asked to use edit summaries. Having failed to provide any rationale for his rapid changes, he is now objecting to the fact that other editors have reverted these unexplained changes at the something approaching the same speed as which he made them, and without the explanations which he himself failed to provide. This feels like trolling. Every edit I checked was problematic, and when faced with edits at the rate of several per minute, the only way to restore the damage is to use rollback. Here's another example: Levineps removed Category:American gardeners from Category:American people by occupation, leaving it only under Category:American farmers. However, most gardeners are not farmers.
      This is the sort of thing that has been going on for weeks: rapid-fire editing, leaving others to do huge amounts of tidyup ... and even when, after repeated requests to stop and discuss, Levineps continues to recategorise, all he can do is to complain about the manner in which he was restrained. It is all horribly time-wasting.
      BTW, in response Good Ol’factory, I have seen another editor who was as prolific a creator of flawed categories:Pastorwayne (talk · contribs), long-since indef-blocked after dozens of CFD debates removing hundreds of his bizarre categories. I endorse the suggestion of a community ban on category-related edits by Levineps, because all attempts at dialogue have failed.
      Good night! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Based on the evidence presented above, I would support a ban on category-related edits. Levineps would lose nothing by slowing down, but since he refuses to do this, a restriction would be a good idea. Offliner (talk) 08:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am open to compromise--Levineps (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you were given plenty of chances to compromise, and refused. You appear to be changing solely after a category topic ban. Either you did not take previous discussions seriously, or felt you were beyond being touched. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Support community ban. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Support community ban. This needs to stop. Dougweller (talk) 09:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Support community ban—the statistics presented above by GoodOlfactory demonstrate a major problem. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 09:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Support community ban – rapid non-consensus editing in category space messes up the category trees and creation of needless or ill-named categories clogs up cfd. Occuli (talk) 12:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Support community ban - Due to the scale and rapidity of the unconstructive edits. At least until an agreement can be reached with Levineps. But a ban until then, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 14:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Support ban as long as its not forever.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 14:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Support ban, unless/until user agrees to take on a mentor and engage in more productive editing. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC).

Support ban, as long as it's not forever. Leaving a message on Levineps's page, as he's still doing cat edits. tedder (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Support ban, I've had quite a few interactions with Levineps - mostly in sports related categories where I'm left cleaning up the mess after the whirlwind of edits blows through. Often I've found the new categories are only partiall filled (related articles left in the old cateogory, etc.) Not too mention the creation of numerous unneeded categories - a good portion of the categories within Category:College men's basketball head coaches by team in the United States aren't needed as they only contain a page or two. Is Category:Rice Owls men's basketball head coaches (one article) really needed when Category:Rice Owls men's basketball coaches only contains five articles? The distinction could be made between coach and head coach, but I'd argue that most of the articles are about head coaches (notability) and the constant overcategorization makes it more difficult for users to find pertinent information. Geologik (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If im banned from category creating,editing,modifying,editing, how can I populate these categories. The coaches categories im extremely proud of and one of my better ones.--Levineps (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The idea is precisely that you cannot populate them. You have exhausted the community's patience with you, so the idea at this stage is that if any such categories should be kept and populated, this will be done by other editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I like how you think you have some kind of moral high ground here when your actions are very repugnant.--Levineps (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No. The point is that BHG has an excellent understanding of the hierarchy of categories which it strongly appears you do not. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Support ban, which should extend to the creation of new categories as well as the recategorization of either existing categories or articles. Levineps should consider himself free to propose such changes on any talk page, however, for others to implement. This ban should be indefinite rather than for any set time, to be rescinded only at such time that there is a community determination that he can be trusted in this area to edit and interact with the community constructively. postdlf (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Support ban - with the additional conditions stated by postdlf above. Although many of Levineps edits have been constructive, Levineps has a multi-year history of unconstructive edits and ignores consensus. The creation and application of inappropriate categories is particularly egregious. Levineps continues to inappropriately mark his/her edits as minor and often does not enter edit summaries despite repeated guidance. So overall Levineps is decreasing the value and credibility of Wikipedia. Levineps has already been blocked a number of times, and editors have been patient with him/her to no avail. Regretfully I have little hope that Levineps will change his/her ways based on this history; originally I was going to suggest ban forever, but postfdl's suggestion to ban indefinitely until Levineps has proven to be trusted (if ever) is a fair one. --hulmem (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Support ban - also with the additional conditions stated by postdlf. My issues with Levineps stemmed not from creation of categories, but instead because he removed articles on my watchlist from categories in which they truly belonged, and added them to categories to which they did not belong. Despite contacting him twice (User talk:Levineps#Removal of Category from Lehigh University and User talk:Levineps#Removal of Categories (Again)), he acknowledged the disagreement but continued to make similar changes (like he seems to have done with other editors). This concerned me especially because he seems to have been making a large number of unilateral changes to categories and article categorization, despite numerous editors expressing their concern. I feel bad endorsing such a drastic measure as Levineps seems to be well-intentioned, but based on his disregard for the various concerns expressed by editors, I don't believe that there are any other options. --Aka042 (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Support ban from any and all category related edits. Levineps says he is open to compromise, but with over 500 deleted categories to his name, his trolling at CFD, and removing notices from his talk page, I find assuming good faith impossible. I support banning him from the category system, broadly defined, as Levineps' last and final chance to become a productive part of this community, and advise him to use it wisely. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Support. Levineps has clearly exhausted the community's patience with his rather egotistical and narcissistic behavior (as shown by his latest responses to kittybrewster and BHG). There can be no compromise considering he has had a lot of chances to fix his ways and being warned many times. I won't be surprised if there are Levineps-made cats in some articles I contributed in. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I also endorse the proposal for a community ban on category-related edits. Sarah 03:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Additional proposals

1. Levineps should be prohibited from marking any edit as minor. This has been clearly misused by him for edits that he already knows are controversial from the numerous talk page complaints from numerous contributors. As many editors have excluded minor edits from their watchlists, this makes it harder for others to monitor his changes.
2. Levineps should be required to use edit summaries for all non-talk page posts.
3. Levineps should be prohibited from removing any complaints or notices regarding his edits from his own user talk page, except with the express permission of the talk page poster. Such removals would only serve to hide the extent of community disapproval and problems. postdlf (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

   Support proposals. I have one more though..

4. All existing categories that were created by Levineps are to be deleted unless there is WP:CONCENSUS to keep them. (Its kinda obvious but I just wanted to put that in the fine print)--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 17:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think thats a bit extreme your proposal, but if you have that much time on your hands, go right ahead.--Levineps (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I support the general thrust of this, but would ask that such categories not be simply deleted on sight: some of them may be worth keeping, so they should be subject to nomination at WP:CFD/S, to provide a lightweight mechanism for allowing other editors to review any such proposals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support all three proposals by Postdlf. Those conditions are essential to allow other editors to monitor his compliance with the terms of this ban. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Further proposal:

• Levineps should be subject to a WP:1RR rule. That will avoid any repetition of the situation earlier today where his rapid-fire edits were rollbacked by admins, and he promptly reverted the reverts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• • They were reverted earlier because vandalism was just flat out wrong--Levineps (talk) 02:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm shaking my head here. Levineps—BHG and postdlf were not engaging in vandalism. "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism:" Wikipedia:Vandalism. Do you really believe they were doing what they did in bad faith? If so, things are even worse off than I thought. That's one reason no one here has ever called you a vandal. We vehemently disagree with your edits, but we know they are not "vandalism", because you are making them with the belief that they are helpful. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support all additional proposals above, unless a total community ban makes them superfluous. --hulmem (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support all additional proposals by postdlf above if total ban is not imposed. (Deleting all his categories on sight might be extreme, but obviously there should be some flexibility in speedily getting rid of some of the more egregious ones.) The categories plus these issues mentioned by postdlf are the biggest problem areas. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support all.. Nem con. Go for it. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

• Any edits by Levineps in violation of these restrictions may be deleted/reverted on sight and without prior discussion. This includes any creation of new categories, any recategorization of articles or categories, any non-talk page edits lacking adequate edit summaries, any edits marked as minor edits, and any unapproved removal of complaints or notices from his own talk page. Any of these violations will also be immediate grounds for him to be blocked from editing, initially for 24 hours, and thereafter for increasing durations of time if violations continue after the blocks expire. Do we have consensus for this, or any objections/further comments? postdlf (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • (I think these remedies obviate the need for BHG's proposed 1RR rule). postdlf (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If "community ban 1" is implemented (there hasn't been any objection), this isn't really necessary- violating the ban already means edits should be reverted and blocking will ensue. tedder (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No harm in spelling things out. Are we in agreement then on the scope of the ban, re: what edits he is not permitted to make? postdlf (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree that there is no harm in spelling things out. This proposal does remove the need for a WP:1RR restriction wrt his category edits, but it does no harm to spell it out ... and applying the 1RR rule to all his other edits will also prevent a repetition of the edit-warring in any other area. It will encourage him to use the WP:BRD cycle , and one of the underlying problems here has been his failure to see any need for the D part of that: when other editors have tried to raise concerns with him, his response has repeatedly been to either ignore them or make flippant responses which do nothing to help resolve the disagreement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I would have proposed putting Levineps under something like a 1RR with no more than three reversions per day total. Definitely agree with forcing him to refrain from the minor edit button. What about an explicit requirement that every non-talk page edit be accompanied with a non-automated edit summary? Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• I think it would be helpful to Levineps and the community if all agreed proposals were to be spelled out in a collapsible box on his user or talk page together with reference to this discussion and any agreements or undertakings on his part and any agreed time limitation or conditions. Maybe uninvolved Rockpocket could do it in order to avoid suspicions of this being a personal battle against Levineps. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Once the community has reached a consensus, I'm happy to summarize the terms agreed, ensure Levineps understands them and work out a way they can be referenced easily. Rockpocket 21:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• I think consensus is pretty clear- I was going to do it, but I'm happy for you to do it. Thanks. tedder (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support total community ban. Remedies only work if an editor is acting in good-faith and comments like this and this are far from good faith. We need to make it clear that this ends NOW. Otherwise, we'll be back here within a few days with a full block anyways. Does anyone care about the massive incivility? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The discussion above reveals some reservations about a total ban at this stage, and but overwhelming support for a limited ban as discussed; so it seems to me that the limited ban could be implemented more quickly. I share your concerns about the incivility and lack of good faith ... but if you are right about this being a doomed exercise, then a complete ban can be rapidly implemented if needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The limited community ban should be implemented ASAP at a minimum; but I would have no problem with a total community ban as it seems pretty unlikely Levineps will change his/her ways based on the long history of unconstructive edits and lack of responses (or unconstructive responses). Levineps has already been given much guidance and many chances for redemption but continues to fail. --hulmem (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I think also that by not having an expiration date for the category edit ban and the other editing restrictions described above, any further disruption can be addressed quickly for the foreseeable future, and it puts the burden on Levineps (who so far has rarely bothered to respond to others with a complete sentence) to establish why he can be trusted before the restrictions would be removed. If he repeatedly violates those restrictions so as to merit repeated, ever-lengthening blocks, and/or if he causes disruption in new contexts not covered by those restrictions, we can re-evaluate a permanent block. postdlf (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree. A permanent block would not be appropriate at this stage. Let's go with the ban on categories and the other restrictions, and see how things go from there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support all.. Nem con. Go for it. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions about Levineps

Levineps now appears to be setting out to either disrupt CFD, or to WP:HOUND me (see [27], [28], [29]). I don't know which it is, but is this appropriate conduct for an editor facing a possible community ban? And would anything in the proposed remedies restrain him from this? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done I encouraged him to settle down a bit. tedder (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It is inappropriate from anyone. I think he should have been blocked by another admin and warned that the length of block would increase if he continues. Kittybrewster ☎ 00:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It's inappropriate. I thought about blocking him, but decided giving a warning was sufficient. Please hope for the best, Levineps could be a productive editor. tedder (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Does his reply to the warning really indicate someone trying to understand the problems with his conduct? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. Take the graceful position, ignore it, drop the stick and try to understand Levineps's position: the level of scrutiny and blame being thrown around wouldn't be fun. Okay? tedder (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm on my way to bed, but someone please check Levineps' contributions. He has continued to make edits to categories on articles,[30] notwithstanding his awareness of this AN/I and its conclusion that he should be absolutely banned from working on categories. He is also marking nearly all of his edits as minor, and he is not using edit summaries. The additional terms agreed to above need to be finalized and presented to him on his talk page so this can stop right now. postdlf (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

A to Z

Resolved

 – Thanks, Bilby and Snigbrook. tedder (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sirs, I believe that PAGE "A-Z" ought to be with "EDIT". I'm wonder about psn ER - ERASM, ERASMUS - paradox, where is ERASMUS ROTERODAMUS? vipanch2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Василий Панченко (talk • contribs) 09:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've got no idea what you're talking about. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 09:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to puzzle this out myself. The last name he mentions is referring to the full name of Desiderius Erasmus, but I've no idea why he is referring to it. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the user is referring to the A-Z Index, in which Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus isn't mentioned under ER. Anyway, I figured that Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus was right to, so I mentioned it on the editor's talk. Hopefully that's the desired page. - Bilby (talk) 09:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This user appears to be Russian... By "Sirs, I believe that PAGE "A-Z" ought to be with "EDIT"." he is most likely referring to the A-Z Index is not editable(protected). Blodance (talk) 09:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've created a redirect, so it now appears in the index (under "Er"). snigbrook (talk) 13:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Abdurrahman Wahid has died - page being vandalised...

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

---

Resolved

 – Full-protected, then semi-protected. Feel free to take this to WP:RFPP in the future. tedder (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Former Indonesian President Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur) has just died in the last few hours. There is some vandalism on the page. Could admins please do what they do when there's a recent death. Sorry if this is not the correct place. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Page fully protected for 3 days, but suggest that semi-protection may be substituted if the talkpage discussion only finds that ip's/new accounts are responsible for recent inappropriate editing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. Yeah - the vandalism was only one or two IP's. The logged-in users (myself and another) were good faith edits. My suggestions is that based on the contribs so far semi is fine. --Merbabu (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I would also suggest semi, given that it has only been IP users. An the death section hasn't been referenced! Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 13:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a reference in the first sentence - as I replied to your comment on talk page. --Merbabu (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Full protection is inappropriate when it is IP users. It does seem a tad silly to not allow established editors to add information to the article. Can someone please semi-protect instead. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 13:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

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

String of nonsense articles based around Nkon

I am concerned there is an effort to invent a people and language to spoof wikipedia.

Check Special:Contributions/Capetien and Special:Contributions/De_bourbon-valois, fr:Spécial:Contributions/De_bourbon-valois, fr:Spécial:Contributions/Capetien, de:Spezial:Beiträge/Capetien, de:Spezial:Beiträge/Salomis. Wizzy…☎ 13:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems like nonsense on a stick. It could either be sent to AfD or, and this may be easier, redirected to an article on the Bankon language when we have one. Anyone who's in the habit of writing language stubs could probably knock one together fairly quickly. [We do have one.] Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No we don't. This is just more junk spewed by the users above. Wizzy…☎ 16:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless they're adding their junk to Ethnologue and to Google books, that isn't nonsense. "Bo or Bankon (Sir HH Johnston's No. 212, Abo) ] is a Bantu language ..." und so weiter. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Bankon language was originally junk, but I started a complete rewrite of it as a stub on 29 Dec., based on the Ethnologue data. Its creator-editor appears keen to whittle it back to its former state, claiming Afro-Asiatic etc. with dubious sources. There was also a long quasi-article about this editor's theories on Talk:Bankon language, similarly unsourced, along with a complaint of "censorship", all of which I've now subordinated to a section below a WikiProject template. I'll try to keep an eye on this. MuffledThud (talk) 08:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Also please note that there was a similar discussion up until 9 Dec. at fr:Discussion:Nkon, where fr:Nkon (by editors above) is declared a hoax. Not sure if I want to start taking this battle onto French Wikipedia though, as I'm a bit busy. MuffledThud (talk) 08:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Supreme Deliciousness ban violation

user blocked. Future posts on this subject should probably go to WP:AE Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: I removed the "resolved" thingy since the issue is not resolved yet. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The recent Arbcom decision banned User:Supreme Deliciousness from making any edits about a person with respect to the ethnicity or nationality -- in particular at Asmahan. Supreme Deliciousness has now violated the ban twice.

1. SD asked the lead Arb for clarification about limits of their ban.
2. Wizardman explained that SD should avoid any possible borderline violations -- even ones like this
3. Regardless, SD made that edit again and other bordeline edits, which started a small edit war.
4. Requested for my input by SD, I reminded both editors that they were involved in the Arbcom decision and told SD to stop editing Asmahan while on probation.
5. SD asked another editor to make edits to Asmahan for them -- essentially recruiting a meatpuppet to evade their ban -- a direct violation
6. The list of specific edits SD wants concern the "Egyptian vs Syrian" ethinicity of Asmahan -- in direct violation of the ban.

At this point, I would block Supreme Deliciousness myself, but I do not want any questions of possible involvement to cloud the issue. Although the Arbcom case does not state that I was involved, I was the only administrator who presented evidence. I am requesting an univolved administrator to review. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked him for twelve hours. The violations are minor, but they are violations of his sanctions nonetheless. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC).

I would note that I have noted the age of the diffs above - nonetheless I view SD's actions since the imposition of the sanctions as trying to obey the letter of the ruling but not it's spirit. It is my hope that this will help convince SD that he's better off erring on the side of caution when dealing with these articles in the future. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC).

I agree. For SD's and other editors' sake, it is best to nip this off now with a brief block rather than let it escalate into a larger brouhaha and greater editor sanctions down the road. Thanks for your review. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You banned me on misinformation

I have not violated anything or crossed any borders. I have followed the rules. The points Cactus has given at this ANI are wrong, in nr 2, "even ones like this" was the changing of her childhood, which I interpenetrated could be a violation against my topic bann since I am not allowed to change the ethnicity of a person [31] thats why I asked about it to the admin, In the nr 3 Cactus has falsely said that I made the edit, I did not! That was a different sentence that had nothing to do with the one I asked about, Asmahans childhood (ethnicity or nationality), I did not ad anything about her ethnicity or nationality. I did not remove or ad anything connected to her childhood (ethnicity or nationality). The grammar was wrong and I corrected it, "rather than Jabal" is like saying "rather than mountain" its either "the Jabal" or the name "Jabal al-Druze" And that was a senetnce that had nothing to do with my sanctions or the one I asked about.

Nothing of what Cactus linked to in the "borderline edits" violated any of my restriction or topic ban, and I challenge you are anyone to prove that I have.

Nr 4. Cactus is not authorized to tell me to stop editing on any article, I have not been topic banned from the article, if I was topic banned I would stop editing it. Cactus is misusing his admin powers.

Nr 5, is not true, I did not ask anyone to do any edit for me. I asked another editor to take a look at certain things that I would present at the talkpage and then that editor could make up his own mind about what he wanted to do [32] which is not "recruiting a meatpuppet to evade their ban -- a direct violation" he is not my meatpuppet and I have not told him to make any edits for me.

Nr 6, "in direct violation of the ban".. no it was not, my bann can be read here "prohibited from making changes to any article about a person with respect to the ethnicity or nationality of that person for one year."... Which I have not done.

Cactus added his posts at the ANi instead of the Enforecemnt page which did not give me enough time to respond. What has happened to me right here with this ban is total injustice.

Lankiveil you even banned me linking to this in my block log, a remedy that didnt even pass.

Lankiveil you have banned me without looking into the subject, you have believed Cactuses misinformation and therefore I am now requesting that the block added here will be taken back.

If you will not take it back I am requesting that you show me the dif I have made that is in violation against my topic bann or restriction. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

IPs of master sockpuppeteer vandalizing the latest AN/I archive

Resolved

 – IP blocked, please take this to WP:SPI so other users can be found, if they choose. tedder (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

76.208.181.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the self-admitted IP for a user who has been popping up under many names and was repeatedly indeffed: User:Alex contributing, User:Alexander 007, User:Alexandru, User:Winona Gone Shopping, and most recently User:Alex '05 (God only knows how many others). This person's latest avatar, Alex '05, was indeffed no sooner than yesterday, on various grounds, and is now repeatedly vandalizing the archived version of that case to erase some stuff he disagrees with in other people's comments and manipulate the data on show for future reference, turning the entire discussion into mush in the process. If you look into this archived version, you'll notice that the IP was his and doing his work (at the moment, 100% of its contributions yesterday and today relate to either participating in that discussion as Alex or erasing and modifying bits from that discussion, reason for which it was blocked). Using another IP, this person was able to sneak in another edit to vandalize the entire section, removing stuff he disagrees with/disapproves of/whatever and actually making the entire section unreadable. This is the version that was archived, the same one the original IP keeps reverting to over and over, at the risk of making the entire case unretrievable. Am I the only one noticing this? I ask admins to intervene and either protect the archive or block the IP again. Dahn (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

And one other thing: Alex '05's talk page includes vicious and disgusting remarks made about me and a few other users who seem to be the objects of Alex's obsession. Similar remarks of his were already stricken from the record at AN/I, and his other talk pages, where he also discussed me, himself and third parties at length, have all been made into redlinks. Is it possible that the same be applied to this latest product? Any user here deserves better than to have to read about himself being a "cocksucker", "retard" and "piece of shit" whose life is "devastated", all of this because a user who admits to having behavioral problems seeks an unorthodox form of "alleviation" (look it up, it's all verbatim on that talk page!). Dahn (talk) 14:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've no opinion on the archive (no time to look into it right now, unfortunately), but I've deleted that user talk page as being full on unpleasant personal attacks, and not really conducive to building an encyclopaedia. Most of it was just a Myspacey chat anyway. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC).

Creative Commons issue

Resolved

 – There is no need to keep going on about this. Out of all of the images mentioned below, only one was originally uploaded without a watermark, therefore we do have to comply with the CC license and keep those images deleted. If we wanted to be dicks about it we could restore the one image, but that only continues to make this issue worse. The best way to go about this is to simply keep the images deleted and shut up. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 14:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

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

I uploaded two versions of images to Creative Commons, each with a different version of an digital signature. I was told that images should not have a digital signature, despite policy not stating this and Jimmy Wales saying he had no strong opinion on the matter. Anyways, with all the arguing, I began marking the first set for deletion. SchuminWeb deleted them, but later restored them because I did not correctly tag and follow deletion procedures that required a waiting period. I explained that I pulled the Creative Commons and did not need a waiting period to decide if I want to keep or delete the images. At first he said that all the images should be deleted, then later came back with the argument that I no longer owned the copyright but that Creative Commons did.

As for that matter, Creative Commons is a licensing agreement, which I entered into voluntarily and can exit so. I can not revoke the licensing retroactively, which was not what I was attempting. SchuminWeb seemingly is confusing Creative Commons for Public Domain. He went against my wishes and edited the photos and then uploaded them, then marked them as copyright holder and gave permission to license the images. I marked them as a copyright violation because I have no such permission for him to do so. I was blocked by SchuminWeb, and the images were again restored. SchuminWeb has taken it upon himself to argue legal concepts for Wikipedia, and to refuse me my rights as owner, going so far as to prevent me from partaking in the conversation.

I am merely looking to delete my images from Wikipedia now. I do not plan to continue editing or contributing, so I am not here for any retribution or sanctions against SchuminWeb. I merely want my images deleted and remain deleted so that I can be done with the whole mess and nt worry about people uploading and licensing my work against my wishes again. I do not know what to do without SchuminWeb blocking me again, as marking the images only gets me blocked. I am hoping I can achieve some assistance here. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 17:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see, the images seem to be in the public domain, which means that (I think) you can't delete them from here or the Commons. If I'm wrong, please correct me. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 17:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Erm if you have uploaded images at Commons you should raise this there and not here. Try http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 17:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the user is referring to Wikipedia Commons, but to the license Creative Commons. I am no expert in this field, however I assume that the user is referring to the images currently at XfD here: [33]. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Xanderliptak, if I understood correctly, you uploaded some images to Wikipedia/Wikimedia under a Creative Commons license. You no longer wish to have those images hosted on Wikipedia. Is that correct?— Preceding unsigned comment added by NuclearWarfare (talk • contribs)

Yes. I was using them because I had them available and no Public Domain images existed, but wanted the digital signature on them because of how other sites and such copy images to ensure attribution. So, since it was an issue I wanted them deleted. Instead, an administrator told me that Wikipedia owned the images and I am no longer in copyright of the images and can not delete them. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 18:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, I might make a fool of myself here, but I am going to be bold and attempt to unravel the situation. From what I can see from talk pages and the XfDs, the filing user uploaded these images under the creative commons license, requesting attribution via watermarks. These watermarks were then removed and the file was reuploaded by another user, using the creative commons license. This would violate the license agreement, thus meaning the agreement would instantly be terminated under article 7 of the Creative Commons legal code. Alternately, as suggested at the XfD, the copyright claims may be been bogus, however this would mean the files would not have been allowed to be uploaded anyway due to copyright... Thus in summary, the images need to be deleted as either they violated copyright from the start, or they do now due to the attribution agreement being broken. I apologise if everything I just said is incorrect, but I tried my best to understand the legal code, and the confusing situation from the block log, talk pages, and XfD. Feel free to strike my comment if its a total misunderstanding... Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Reinstating this comment I removed, per request by Xeno. As I said, hope it helps, but remember I am a novice in the area and didn't see the scenario first hand. Being bold can be difficult sometimes, especially after reading lots of legal text! --Taelus (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Further to the above if the user could identify the images he wants deleted (and they're not being used), I'm sure we could delete them per G7 in a fairly low-volume kind-of-way... –xeno^talk 18:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The images can be G7'd. However, that is a courtesy that we offer and not a right. Any administrator may decline to delete a page or an image per that rationale if they feel it would not be beneficial to the encyclopedia. NW (Talk) 18:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This is true - but I was suggesting a non-dickish way to resolve this thread. –xeno^talk 18:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is Creative Commons, not Wikimedia Commons. The administrator is arguing ownership on behalf of Wikipedia, which seems ill-advised for an admin to actually do. It is devolving into quite a mess, and the administrator will not back down off his claim that Wikipedia is now in complete ownership. I can not attempt to flag them for deletion, because when last I did, the administrator had me blocked as being disruptive. It is devolving into quite a mess, between copyright, Creative Commons, digital signatures, watermarks, ownership and so forth, and would be easily resolved on all parts if the images were simply deleted and someone created Public Domain images to replace them.

I was asking Jimmy Wales about it, it is currently on his talk page, and he said, "Also, Creative Commons does not own your copyright. Depending on the exact circumstances, the community is willing to delete images and other content if someone decides they don't want it in Wikipedia anymore. In many cases, of course, this is impossible. But it happens fairly regularly. I'm sure someone other than me can help you find policy pages about that sort of thing." So I just need help acutally deleting them, or the proper procedure in doing so.

These are the images that are orphaned but are being relicensed by the admin:

• File:Coat of arms Fr Guy Selvester-Alexander Liptak .png
• File:Coat of arms Greenall-Alexander Liptak .JPG
• File:Coat of arms Kennedy of Massachusetts-Alexander Liptak .JPG
• File:Coat of arms Roosevelt of New York-Alexander Liptak .JPG
• File:Coat of arms Lord Lyon King of Arms-Alexander Liptak .JPG

These are the other versions that are marked for deletion already:

• File:Heraldic achievement of the Office of the Lord Lyon King of Arms by Alexander Liptak.png
• File:Heraldic achievement of Theodore Roosevelt by Alexander Liptak.png
• File:Heraldic achievement of John F. Kennedy by Alexander Liptak.png
• File:Heraldic achievement of Gilbert Edward Greenall, Esq. by Alexander Liptak.png
• File:Heraldic achievement of Father Guy Selvester by Alexander Liptak.png

[tk] XANDERLIPTAK 18:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(x ec) Taelus after your explanation of my misunderstanding above, I digged through the licence terms and came to the same conclusion as you. I wrote something down and then saw that you had beaten me in posting it, so let me only say that I agree that the images should be deleted anyway. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 18:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way I have informed User:SchuminWeb about this. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 18:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Xeno saw your a little bit hidden notice too late. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 18:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. –xeno^talk 18:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• I would tend to agree with the assessment of Taleus above. The user provided these images under a cc-by-sa 3.0 license requiring attribution by watermark. Since our image use policy does not permit watermarks, and the user is requesting deletion as opposed to permitting removal of the watermarks, the correct thing to do would be to terminate the contract by deleting the images. I will do so shortly unless a suitable counter-argument is presented. –xeno^talk 18:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The images are orphaned but for user talk pages and my user page, so there is no need to fear disruption to any article. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 18:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought I saw one being used on an article or two. –xeno^talk 18:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I went through and mde sure the files were orphaned. I will eventually create a Public Domain image to replace them as time permits. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 19:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleted and tagging resolved. Thank you for contributions. –xeno^talk 19:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Than you for your assistance. One more thing, if you could help. I had been uploading to the English Wikipedia, and have learned that WikiMedia Commons is completely separate. Is there a tutorial somewhere that explains how to perhaps link the user names I have on both and discusses transferring or re-uploding files to the WikiMedia Commons? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 19:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You can see m:Help:Unified login on how to unify your accounts. As for moving cc licensed images to the Wikimedia Commons, see {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} and Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons. –xeno^talk 19:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Take a second look at this

This isn't "resolved", you've only seen what XANDERLIPTAK wants you to see. XANDERLIPTAK is gaming the system, and has just pulled another fast one on several admins. You've got to look at the upload history of these deleted images. He originally uploaded the following images without watermarks, under a CC license—a license which cannot be revoked [34]. He originally insisted that his full name appear in within captions in the articles, but he was shown that was against policy he started adding watermarks to the images contrary to WP:WATERMARK. Look at the upload history of them—they get bigger and bigger and start overlapping the images making them unsuitable. Next he uploaded degraded quality duplicates of these, with the massive watermark. He then put up the originals for deletion so they would erase the evidence showing there were originally versions without the watermarks. See how this is unfolding? The way he put them up for deletion was also telling. Within the same edits as adding the speedy tag he removed their licenses. He fiddled with the date variable in {{di-no license|date=}} so they'd be deleted immediately instead the customary 7 days time. He then orphaned them himself. This stuff was covered on User_talk:SchuminWeb#Deleted_images, so User:SchuminWeb's view should also be taken into account. Above all, look at the edit histories and upload histories of these images.

• File:Coat of arms Lord Lyon King of Arms-Alexander Liptak .JPG
• File:Bewicks of Newcastle upon Tyne coat of arms.png
• File:Coat of arms Fr Guy Selvester-Alexander Liptak .png
• File:Coat of arms Greenall-Alexander Liptak .JPG
• File:Coat of arms Kennedy of Massachusetts-Alexander Liptak .JPG
• File:Coat of arms Roosevelt of New York-Alexander Liptak .JPG

He also upped a number of other smaller images, and during this fiasco he has degraded their quality numerous times. He then upped duplicates of these and placed the originals up for deletion. The same trick he pulled before. The problem here isn't the watermarks, but that the original uploads were better in quality. It is hard to give examples because I don't have admin rights, and so can't find examples to show you. Compare File:O'Kennedy of Ormonde coat of arms.png which was just put up for deletion for the poorer quality File:Coat of arms of the O'Kennedys of Ormonde by Alexander Liptak.png.

The whole mess is a case of spiteful editing. He covered up the fact the originals didn't have the watermarks. These originals are the best forms of the images and should be saved from deletion. He's tried various tricks to get them deleted. The upload history tells all. --Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

An update concerning the Kennedy images I mentioned. Just moments ago, at 22:49, 30 December 2009, he reverted the version of File:O'Kennedy of Ormonde coat of arms.png from the fuzzier one. An attempt to save face?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

A few points:

1. You are right that a Creative Commons license is irrevocable.
2. The uploader has the (legal) right under CC licensing to specify (with some limits) what kind of attribution is needed for the work to be used. If such demand is against wikipedia policy, we can delete the image from wikipedia, but we cannot use it without complying with the demand. Thus, if XanderLiptak, "originally insisted that his full name appear in within captions in the articles", we have no choice but to delete the images as having licensing terms incompatible with wikipedia policies. Striking this, since its perhaps a matter of interpretation, and IANAL. Abecedare (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
3. While we have no legal obligation to delete an image released under a free license, we usually extend copyright holders the courtesy to request deletion under WP:G7, and delete the images whenever we can reasonable do so (a case where such a request would be unreasonable to comply with, would be if other editors had subsequently improved the image).

Given the latter two points (especially #3), I don't see any problem with the images being deleted. Abecedare (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The 'insistence' bit refereed to his comments on a talkpage: i had brought up the fact he'd gone an added his name to dozens of articles. No where in the image summaries did he specify being attributed by watermark or captions. I understand point three, it's a good point; but G7 requires it to requested in good faith. That doesn't seem to be the case. When he requested the deletion of the files which showed the un-watermarked versions, he had replaced them with duplicateds. He wanted the originals deleted because they show they were originally un-watermarked. That is key. They originals were put up for deletion and replaced with others. Now both are deleted.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Brianann MacAmhlaidh, I told you that I tried to take some of the pixilation off by softening the Public Domain images, it was your opinion that you did not like this result. I reverted the ones I made for you so that they were not softened. Since you do not like the softened version on the O'Kennedy image either, I went ahead and reverted that for you as well. You could have done it, too, there is a little revert button at the bottom of the image page. I made a newer version of the O'Kennedy arms that I thought was a better, that is why the older is up for deletion.

If you had administrator powers you would have seen that the Creative Commons images originally had credits in the images, which were changed to a digital signature. You would also have noticed that the images are exactly the same, just uncropped in the earlier version, so I am not sure how they are getting bigger or smaller or overlapping or whatever you are trying to say about the quality of them. Cropping them, yes, it makes the images smaller, but it does not change the quality, it only rids the image of dead space.

To "game the system" or "pull a fast one" wouldn't I need an ulterior motive? You and several other editors do not like my name on the images, you say that now even. So that I finally take them down and delete them, you have issue that they are gone now? Yeah, I took down the license and put them up for deletion in one step, I am capable of dual thought. See, it went something like this, “I do not like dealing with the arguing, I will stop sharing the images and put them up for deletion and end this.” That does not seem that difficult a concept to me. You sound as if you fear some conspiracy. They are my images, I am tired of this kind of nonsensical argument, so I want them gone. Now you are arguing about the Public Domain images? Why? There is no restriction on them, no watermark, no signature. If you do not like them, make your own. This is frustrating to deal with, you asking for favours, then complaining about the favours you receive. I do not know what you want. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 23:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ulterior motive: to removed all traces of the un-watermarked images. That paved way for you uploading replacements which didn't show the un-watermarked previous versions. Those replacements were deleted because the originals were by then saved by SchuminWeb who reverted them back to pre-watermark form. As of now both versions are dead and gone. I think the original un-watermarked ones should be brought back because they were quite good.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, as I have only one photo of each of my paintings, there are no differences between the first or second uploads. Also, the first versions had my name scrolled across the bottom on typeface. That is why an argument over the images began. You think that people argued over the images because my name wasn't on them? If no one was arguing about anything, it never would have come to all this. Clearly there had to be some issue with the uploads if there were arguments about them. After the attempt to usurp my copyrights, you really couldn't expect me to reload them. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I honestly couldn't care less if these images are here or not but I object to the way that Xander has handled this in such a manipulative way, from manipulating the dates to bypass the requisite wait time to deliberately orphaning the images himself. I'm not going to restore the images myself, as I said, I don't care if they're here or not, but this whole thing seems really dodgy. Sarah 01:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I could not find the immediate deletion templates so, yes, I altered another template I did come across to have the same effect. So, if I have this right, the issue is that I had the images deleted quickly with the wrong template, but what I should have done was delete it faster with the appropriate one? It is not the deletion, but the template itself that is the issue? I must say, though, being new to Wikipedia, these templates are not the easiest of things to search and find; it seems more a bureaucratic issue of paperwork than a logical one.

Well, since the images were in the articles at my own bequest, as editors did not like them with the signature, I merely withdrew my insistence and removed them as the other editors wished. If everyone is against them, and then I stop arguing for them, how is me removing them dodgy? How much more than 100% agreement to remove the images does one need? I was able to argue against several editors to a draw, so once I withdrew my insistence, there was no one else arguing for the images to stay. I do not see why so many people think there is some nefarious act to this. I uploaded images pro bono, for free, with nothing that I receive in any way in return; I have been editing and completely overhauling articles with the support of other editors; I have been providing Public Domain images; the one thing that I wanted was to delete the Creative Common images and cease the back and forth bickering. Why must people find evil in that? Are people that unfamiliar with civility that they find a ceasefire harmful? I have spent much too much time arguing for this and that, instead of fixing the articles I began editing or making images for articles. If I had the images deleted from the start, with no arguments, I would have had time to make public domain versions to replace the Creative Commons images. Instead, I have to waste my time defending myself from attacks like "I don't know what he is doing, but he has to be doing something." [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 02:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue is you should have been open and honest about what had happened and what you wanted to achieve. Instead you've behaved in a way that is very manipulative. I can certainly appreciate being inexperienced and unfamiliar with the appropriate templates, rules etc and some templates are even difficult to figure out after being here for years, but you've been here since September, have over 1,000 edits, have managed to find this page, editors and administrators talk pages, XfD pages, wikiproject pages and non-free content pages and I find it incredibly hard to believe that you likewise couldn't have found the help desk, the village pump, any experienced editor or administrator's talk page etc where you could have asked for help and information on how to resolve your issues. Instead, you've been misleading, even dishonest, and manipulated people working in good faith. As I said above, I don't care at all if the images are here or not; this isn't about the images but your behaviour. In future, please make sure you actually want to donate images before you upload them because in most cases we don't allow take-backs. Sarah 03:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that he cares less about having abused a couple of internal processes. He's been blocked and unblock declined by the two people who, rightly or wrongly, he thinks have stolen his copyright by willfully ignoring his undoubted original intentions based on a not unreasonable reading of the CC liicense, and the lack of any real clarification at WP:WATERMARK. Whatever happens, I am sure he has had his fill of this place, that is unless this comment finished him off. MickMacNee (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I was honest, I explained how there was arguments and how I tried to delete the images and I didn't use the right template. That is all in the very first paragraph. I named and linked to the administrator’s page in question, where you could see the argument. That administrator said that the result came out well enough even, so this idea of impropriety her isn't even carried by the administrator that I was in dispute with.

Everything thing that I have found has been linked by someone for me to follow. Yes, I have over a thousand edits, to a relatively few pages, to a small niche of articles. I discuss fixing and merging pages and then I go about doing that, which takes an incredible amount of time and edits. I furthermore rewrite the article, which takes even more edits, so that it really becomes encyclopedic. Check out Coat of arms of Montreal as I have it now and before I began editing it, or Coat of arms of Victoria, British Columbia or O'Neill dynasty. A lot of these edits came because I completely overhauled the pages, not because I became immersed in Wikipedian practices. If all I did was make porridge a thousand times, you can not expect me to know then how to cook a crowned rack of lamb. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• All of the files you linked above except for File:Bewicks of Newcastle upon Tyne coat of arms.png had a signature/watermark on the first version uploaded. And sure, we could do the dickish thing, dig in our heels, and claim the license is irrevocable, but what would that really be a net benefit? I'd suggest letting this issue drop as the user intimated above that he would revisit this and create public domain images for the ones that have been deleted. Continually pestering them and crying foul surely isn't going to speed up that process. –xeno^talk 13:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Merge of page history from Chidren's Christmas Parade merge to Children's Christmas Parade

Resolved

 – Glad I'm not the only admin scared of histmerge. tedder (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi folks, I really do not know everything. How do we merge a page history from the old, incorrect article, to the new one? If anyone can do this and show me how to do it, I would be most thankful. Happy new year. Bearian (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to say this makes me feel better about my complete ignorance of this process. There seems to be a guide at WP:HISTMERGE. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you need the former to be moved into the latter? If so, I can do that. –MuZemike 20:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please do so. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done Article moved and the 2 deleted edits restored. –MuZemike 23:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sock at Barack Obama

Resolved

 – Quack, quack, quack. Blocked. tedder (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Bamao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), seems to be Multiplyperfect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Per WP:QUACK. Proposing trivial negative material, calling everyone "Obama fans". Could we please have a quick look and keep procedure to a minimum? Thx, - Wikidemon (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Good memory. I do see distinct similarities (in any case, Bamao (talk · contribs) is almost certainly not a new user). My inclination is to block here based on WP:DUCK, but I'll wait for second opinions. MastCell ^Talk 20:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd almost pulled the trigger at WP:SPI, but was (a) waiting for a little more evidence, and (b) unable to fathom how to reopen old cases - there does not seem to be a clear procedure to follow. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not worth the time or effort to go through SPI. The sock's already making a mess on the Obama talk page and stirring up trouble on an already messy thread by an upset good faith contributor who is blowing off steam by accusing others of things. If we wait a day or even an hour to deal with obvious new sockpuppets we waste a lot of people's time, and things could degenerate into a free-for-all. In these cases I've found that an AN/I report is a good direct way to go about it, or else track down the administrator(s) who blocked the previous incarnation of the sock and ask them directly. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This topic is interesting: "more evidence" Yes I wait for them too. "is almost certainly not a new user", where is your evidence? Sorry but I see only words from you, nothing more. Bamao (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I attempted to clarify the instructions at SPI[35], but for future reference, just use these buttons. NW (Talk) 21:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Per an analysis of the user's contributions and WP:DUCK, I have blocked them as a sockpuppet. NW (Talk) 21:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

  Seems for the best. You know I'm such an idiot that I hadn't even realized that the username is an anagram of "Obama", which would of rung a much bigger set of alarm bells. Duh. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

  Must be that dexlysia kicking in. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Mensa Member and Mensa Life Member images

Fair disclosure: I am a novice editor and I'm not aware of all the ins and outs of the legalities of Wikipedia, so my edits sometimes take a few tries and a little time to accomplish properly. With that in mind, I had some spare time at work and was able to upload the images that Mensa allows members to use (Image:MensaLifeMemberLogo.gif & Image:MensaMemberLogo.gif). I got these images from the approved membership section of the Mensa website, along with the rules for displaying it. Mensa clearly states that this is a trademarked (not copyrighted) image and that members are allowed to use it provided they include the word "member" to distinguish it from the Mensa International logo. I'll admit that I did not completely referance and tag my usage of the images, but rather than tag for deleteion I would appreciate assistence in properly tagging it. This is a fair use of a trademarked image by one who has the right to use it. My membership id# is 110211654, and the rules clearly state that this particular image is usable by members. The deleter seems to be of the opinion that the image doesn't NEED to be here. I submit that this is not his call to make. There is no ownership of articles in Wikipedia, and just because an editor feels something doesn't HAVE to be there, does not mean it CAN NOT be there. Again, I understand that I need to properly document the usage of this image according to Wiki rules, and I'd appreciate any hellp with that, but I completely disagree with the deletion of the image itself. Please discuss. Rapier1 (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. It doesn't say what article you want to use them for. Which article are you thinking of? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking through the the usage histories of the named images shows that the desired usage is not in an article but instead in WP:USERBOXes. The problem with this is not with the limitations placed upon the image by American Mensa, Ltd. (the legal entity that owns the trademarked images) but the restrictions placed upon this site by the Wikimedia Foundation (the organization that operates the Wikipedia servers). Due to Wikipedia's mission to create and distribute free content there are limits to the type and quantity of non-free images that can be placed upon the servers. Information on these restrictions is available at wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy and Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. As userboxes do not directly help in creation of a free encyclopedia (the reason Wikipedia exists) there are no exceptions for inclusion of non-free content within them and thus this is the reason for the deletion tags. --Allen3 ^talk 23:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a very good point. Keeping in mind that userboxes were not intended to be the only inclusion - I had attached the member article to the List of Mensans for example, and was going to put in other suitable places. Also, as a trademarked item I believe this would fall under WP:Disclaimers#Trademarks as opposed to WP:Copyright. Again, at work my time to edit is limited and this was intended as the beginning of a weekend project. Would you feel thaat the same problem applies? Rapier1 (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

These logos seem to me to be too complex to fall into the {{PD-textlogo}} class examples here where trademark rather than copyright applies. It might not really matter though. Wikipedia:Logos says that "the standard for fair use remains the same as for other logos, not taking such care is more likely to introduce trademark issues". Presumably that's wikilegalspeak for "bad things may happen to us if you plaster a trademarked logo all over the place so please don't". Adding them to a userbox is almost certainly the wrong thing to do. Adding these to any article but Mensa is probably inappropriate. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sean, if you want to use it in an article, possibly the tag you're looking for is {{Non-free logo}}, but as explained already you can't use them in userboxes or on your userpage. Also, the whole "usable by members" bit is irrelevant from our perspective because we cannot control downstream use and (hypothetically, if Mensa relicensed so it could be used on userpages) we're not going to vet people to ensure that they're members of Mensa and enforce Mensa's "only usable by members" terms. Sarah 00:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't imagine any situation in which these would be usable on Wikipedia, even setting aside whether there are legal issues involved. We wouldn't put a Mensa logo on BLP articles, even if the subject were a member, just like we wouldn't put the BBB or Visa/Mastercard logos on companies' articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur, Andrew, it should definitely not be used on bios. The only article I can imagine the logo being possibly appropriate for would be the Mensa article but even there it would be hard to justify using the members logo rather than the organisation's logo. To be clear, I was just answering Sean's opening question regarding the appropriate tag for logos and not endorsing the image's use in anyway. Sarah 01:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I just want to say that I greatly appreciate the discussion here. Policy has been clearly explained and sourced, and the reasoning has been logical and sound, with no scoffing or personal comments. All too often I have found this not to be the case, and in fact it is the primary reason I brought the issue here. I will simply allow the images to be deleted, as that appears to follow Wikipedia policy. Thank you all. Have a happy 2010 Rapier1 (talk) 07:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, and I'm honestly not trying to make further issue here, I'm actually looking for the real answer. What is the difference between the images I posted and something like File:Lions clubs international logo.jpg or File:Square compasses.svg? Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanNovack (talk • contribs) 07:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The Masonic one is licensed as GFDL and CC-SA so that one's different, but the Lions Club is the same type of thing and you'll see that it is licensed under with the same non-free logo tag I gave you above. The issue is that the logos are non free content which we can only keep if we're actively using them and we can only use them in very limited ways. They can really only be used in articles in the mainspace in and then not in a decorative manner. If you look at the lions club file, you'll see that one is only used in the Lions Clubs International article and it is their logo, not merely a logo for members to use. This is why we were discussing above which articles it could justifiably be used on, because if there's not a reasonable case for using it in a way that "involving identification and critical commentary" then we can't keep it. The other thing is, if we're going to use a logo on the Mensa page, why would we use the members logo and not the organisation's logo? Where do you perceive us using this logo? That's the first and most important issue you need to address - where is this logo going to be used and how will it be used in a way that is not merely decorative and involves identification and critical commentary? Sarah 08:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of Redirected/Moved Page

Resolved

 – The talk page is the appropriate forum for this

Please Undo Redirect and Move of People skills to People skill. This article refers to the plural term that is much more frequently used in comparison to the singular in literature searches. PSY7 (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI is not the place for this discussion, I'm afraid. I'd highly recommend discussing the matter on the talk page or the talk page of the editor who moved it (who, presumably, would disagree with an arbitrary revert) and then posting back here or at WP:AN or WP:RM when consensus has been obtained. HJMitchell You rang? 02:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In future for clear cut cases, you can just use {{db-move}} on the redirect that's holding up the page move. I've gone ahead and reverted this bold move. 15:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandal needs block but not the usual vandal so discussion here

Resolved

 – No administrative action required

User:ChrisO needs immediately 31 hour block. He removed a comment on AN here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&action=historysubmit&diff=335024611&oldid=335024229 If he thought the edit was too strong, he should have asked me and I would consider editing it. I have toned it down. But removing the comments is just like censorship and hurts discussion. For vandalism, this user should be blocked for 31 hours. It doesn't matter that he has been around for a few years...in fact, his experience means he has no excuse for removing comments. Show that there isn't a cabal by blocking him. By writing this, some wiseguy admin will probably try to block me for bringing up misconduct by someone else. Head of Security for the World (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Not vandalism, and please don't rant. tedder (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO probably should not have removed the comment, but I am not sure I'd call it vandalism. Basket of Puppies 03:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

HoSftW - What exactly did you mean to do with this edit on James Elkins (art critic) ?

Your behavior today, here and on WP:AN and on that article, is disturbing and moderately disruptive. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

User: Daedalus969

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

---

Resolved

 – Warned both users to knock it off. Will block if necessary, contact me if it continues. tedder (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I'm being bombarded by this fellow on my talk page. [36]. He's made 13 comments, he is becoming increasingly belligerent. I think it would do him so good to have a break. The argument is near hysterical. I asked him to stop, I told him I'd come to this noticeboard, etc., but that seems only to have inflamed him more. Thank you.Malke2010 03:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not shopping anything, btw. I'm trying to get help. I was once blocked for far less than this. I did not instigate this, Daedalus did. There is no rhyme nor reason for this behavior. He has continued to post to my talk page offensive posts even after I told him to stop and that I would go to this board. I am not adept at reporting these things, I am not shopping anything. I am simply sick of this man's rants about me on my page and I believe that his behavior more than justifies a temporary block for him to regain his perspective. Thank you.Malke2010 04:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

And please think about this: what reasonable individual starts this in the first place? He puts something on my talk page, said I didn't even have to reply to it. It sounded nutty to me so I deleted it. I'm allowed to do that on my page. Out of nowhere he appears on my page and he's telling me I'm allowed to do many things on wikipedia,but lying is not one of them. I have no idea what he's talking about, so I leave a message on his talk page, "Dude what are you talking about?" And then the next thing I know he's unleashing a torrent. User: Coldplay Expert and I were having a discussion when Daedalus appeared. Coldplay Expert made the reply to him, and then it went on from there. I stayed out of it. Finally, I told Daedalus, I did not lie in my edit summary, I made a mistake. I told him to stay off my page or I'd come here. He is following me all over the place. I go to JpGordon's page, and there he is. I've been blocked in the past so I went to JPGordon's page because I know he lives in California and he's probably still awake. Then Jade Falcon, for reasons unbeknownst to me, archives my request. I don't know what is going on here, but this man needs to be blocked. This behavior, these posts, this entire argument is his, and it has no rationale other than apparently to create all of this distress. So please, I ask you, stop him. Thank you.Malke2010 05:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I love how you continue to mislabel the facts. I was not ranting to you, or about you, and I don't see how anything I have said was offensive, in fact, you were the one being offensive with your insults about myself, and your insults about my motivations, both of which are completely wrong. I never ranted about you, all I did was try to tell Coldplay that they were wrong in putting words in my mouth, and to read my posts.

Secondly, you did instigate my further posts on your talk page when you insulted me behind my back at CE's talk page. If you can't take the heat, don't play with fire.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Issues aside, why are you shopping this around? (example, example) tedder (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I love how you continue to misconstrue the facts. Initially I left you 3 messages. I first told you that you cannot tell another person to stay out of any discussion. You removed that with an inaccurate edit summary. I then told you that you cannot lie in edit summaries, as that is what I thought you did. You then sent me a message asking for clarification, and I replied further. That is 3 messages. All the rest were addressing and in regards to Coldplay Expert, not you, so there is no way you can say that I was harassing you. Secondly, I only continued to post to your talk page after you wrongly assumed my reasons for discussion and insulted me by labeling my arguments as without reason.

For any who do not wish to read the discussion here, I'll post a summary of what happened. As a disclaimer, it is the same summary I have posted 2 times now:

“ Alright, first, I'll start by stating things in a summary, then I'll explicitly cite and explain:

First of all, I stated that Mal is not allowed to lie in edit summaries. You then come on the page defending Mal, saying that she can remove posts and other things. I correct you, saying that she cannot do specific things, and again refer to my above statement. You fail to listen and again put words in my mouth.

Now for the explicit explanation:

I stated, to Mal, that she is not allowed to Lie in edit summaries, as she did here. You come defending her, stating that she can do whatever she wants with messages on it, citing WP:UP. I clarify to you, that she can not indeed do anything she wants with any messages. I state what she cannot do with messages. I do not state that she perpetrated any of the described acts. Further, I never stated that she was not allowed to remove messages.

You then quote policy at me again, putting words in my mouth again while calling me blind, citing WP:CIVIL(talk about double standards). I tell you to make sure you've read my entire post, because it was quite obvious you weren't reading it, otherwise the aforementioned points would be obvious to you.

You wrongly state that you have read the post, even telling me that I didn't back up my accusation(even though I quite clearly did, when I cited her lying in an edit).

I express rightful disbelief at your fallacy of having read my post, per my points above.

Therefore, I stand by my statement that you have not read my post. You are quite obviously assuming and reading into my posts, instead of reading them explicitly, as I have asked of you. So again. Read my post, please, before responding any further.

”

There, there is everything that happened. Only 3 of the initial messages(those posted before Mal insulted me on CE's talk page) were directed to Mal, the rest were directed to Coldplay and only Coldplay.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

For some reason the {{xt}} template appears to be experiencing some problems.. my summary is there, but I don't know why it isn't showing up..— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I was doing something wrong, I finally figured out what with some help, and found it was tad ugly, so I opted for cquote instead.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

tl;dr. Just stay off of her talk page and let this go. AniMate 04:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Unblock request of Daedalus969

Tedder has now blocked Daedalus969 for this edit which Tedder believes represents "continued incivility", also citing WP:NOTTHEM as a block reason (see User talk:Daedalus969#December 2009). As an unblock request reviewer, I believe this is a mistaken block. While I hold the strong view that incivility is blockable disruption, I see no incivility in the cited edit. Also, WP:NOTTHEM (which I originally wrote, by the way) is part of WP:GAB, which is intended as nonbinding guidance how to write a successful unblock request and not as general policy for conduct while not blocked. I'll grant the unblock request unless other admins disagree here.  Sandstein  07:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC) '

Please do not unblock this user. Here are the diffs of incivility: Tedder:[37] 1st. [38] 2nd. [39] 3rd. [40] 4th. [41] 5th. [42] 6th. [43] 7th. [44] 8th. [45] 9th [46] 10th [47] Thank you for your consideration of others. Malke2010 07:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

These are unhelpful diffs. Not all of them are by Daedalus969 or are even diffs. Those that are by Daedalus969 are not incivil on their face. "You are an asshole" would be incivil, but "Stop doing this and that" is not. I'm also not examining the whole history of Daedalus969, just the edit that was specifically cited by the blocking admin as the block reason.  Sandstein  07:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

in this diff he is definitely incivil. Please keep reading down on the right. [48] Thank youMalke2010 08:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(big ec here) I'd like to see some quick admin consensus before unblocking. It's harassment to carry on with this dispute across multiple arenas (~65 edits across User talk:Malke 2010, User talk:Coldplay Expert, User talk:Daedalus969, WP:ANI, User talk:Tedder). He was given many warnings to disengage and to understand it from other points of view, not to mention the warnings on his page. That's my take on the situation. I tried de-escalating both users. I cited NOTTHEM more as advice to Daedalus969. No complaints if he is unblocked, but I did want to explain things from my point of view. tedder (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

forgive me for not being an expert at making diffs. I am not a regular user of noticeboards, etc. But Tedder is correct. Daedalus969 has been crossing over pages, he's insulting, using foul language, abusive language, and being accusatory. He's accused me of lying, etc. This man has come onto my talk page and created this drama. There was no need for this. A block will help him regain perspective. Blocks are meant for that. It is not a punishment. It is meant to give the user clarity and time to reflect on his own behavior. Malke2010 07:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocks aren't supposed to give a user clarity, they are only for disruption. Blocking to "cool users down" is not the right thing to do. (note: Also removed huge paste of content from Malke 2010, please use diffs or links instead) tedder (talk) 07:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, forgive me, but that is exactly what I was told back in the summer when I was blocked. It is meant for the user to regain perspective. And something else, the jade falcon had adopted me, but apparently after an email with you Tedder he has withdrawn. So this whole thing, not of my doing has cost me a good relationship with someone who was helping me on wikipedia. Now who do I see about that?Malke2010 07:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

IMO: this should have stopped after EC made the edit that the "Added comment" edit summary was likely a mistake, if Daedalus969 would have assumed good faith, it would have stopped there instead of him continuing to press the issue that Malke was lying and going against policy, when there was no policy violation, just Deadalus969 assuming bad faith that Malke is out to get him or something. Q ^{T C} 07:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

yes, thank you. He arrived on the page already acting like something had been done to him, that he'd been disrespected in some way. The whole opening line, "You can do many things on wikipedia, but lying isn't one of them." and then the diff of the edit summary, as if something egregious had been done. I don't even know this person. I've never had any prior contact until he came to my page. Malke2010 08:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to say one other thing: I do sincerely feel bad for this man. I realized this when I started to read over his posts and realized how rambling they were and that the anger didn't make any sense in view of this perceived edit summary insult. Something is clearly upsetting him. I can see where everyone has tried to reason with him in his unblock request and I admire the patience everyone there is showing him. And I want to thank Q for understanding.Malke2010 08:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Can someone just unblock Daedalus969 or block me as well? After all I contributed to this just as much. The dispute is over so cant we all just get along?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 16:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't see how blocking you would help anything. I've more or less told Daedalus what he might do, to get a swift unblock. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright then.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 17:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

User:BKWSU's bogus immigration applications

Resolved

 – User blocked indef for a username violation

Is this soapbox an acceptable use of User space? Woogee (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have nom'd this as "patent nonsense", not acceptable. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This is most likely a sock of Lucyintheskywithdada in retaliation to the latest SPI [49] filed against him. The same user just trolled my talk page. Bksimonb (talk) 05:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly not patent nonsense. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Whether it is or is not nonsense is not the point. The point is that we should nuke it from orbit.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Horse is buried.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Delicious carbuncle's interference in this situation Seems DC is wanting to play little games now. I marked User:BKWSU's bogus immigration applications‎ with WP:CSD G1. This was at 22:34 EST. At 00:15 EST, DC removed that tag and leaves a message "rm incorrect db-nonsense tag". I revert with AGF at 00:24 EST. DC reverts again, at 00:28 EST, with the message "Reverted 1 edit by Neutralhomer; Rm db-nonsense tag (this is NOT nonsense - do not use that tag)." I message him at 00:29 and say bluntly "what's the deal?", it is deleted at 00:31. Since DC seems to not be able to talk (regardless of the no speaking rule), I mark him for vandalism at 00:35. Which is quickly deleted at 00:36, with the kind message "Seriously, kid, read the tag for fuck's sake". At 00:38, it is again reverted with the statement "What part of NOT NONSENSE isn't getting through, here?" At 00:41, he messages on the ANI post about the situation that "This is clearly not patent nonsense." It is clear that DC is playing games since these are the first edits he has made all day and none of these conversations involved him before hand. Clearly he needs an admonishment or a block. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC) I notified DC of this thread at 00:52 EST. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Neutralhomer, I have politely requested that you not post on my talk page. You have been asked by admins not to post on my talk page, the most recent time less than 24 hours ago. Yet you have just posted three messages to my talk page, one of which was a warning for vandalism which I did not commit. Please stay off my talk page. As for the rest of this, let me ask again, what part of not nonsense do you not understand? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC) By Wikipedia rules, I am obligated to tell you if I have started a thread about you on AN, ANI, or any other noticeboard. My question to you, what business is it of yours? You had no part in this conversation, this thread, but you searched it out. Why? To start ANOTHER problem between the two of us. Your first edits of the night were to a thread I was apart of and something I had done. You searched it out. What part of leave me alone don't you understand? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC) I have a great idea for the two of you: turn around, walk away and forget about this. The user has been blocked; the page deleted. As the police are wont to say, "Show's over; nothing to see here folks, move on". If the two of you want to get blocked or start some drama, I would think that there are weightier things to do it over than the deleted talk page of an indefinitely-blocked SPA user. Daniel Case (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC) I would Daniel, but DC seems to have a small issue with me and this seems like he searched this one out. I will let it go, but it is clear he is getting away with this one. Marked it as archived. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Sorry, Daniel, you're threatening to block me for what, exactly? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Seriously, leave each other alone you two. You agreed to disengage yesterday - try it. Shell babelfish 06:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked this user indefinitely following a report to UAA for a clear violation of username policy. Daniel Case (talk) 06:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

And I have deleted the user page. Let's all move on. AniMate 06:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

threats, personal attacks, etc

I warn this editor about repeatedly vandalizing Varanus salvadorii, inserting ridiculous claims, etc. I don't know if he's an unruly child, mentally handicapped, or just from New Jersey. Anyway, he's leaving threats and other slop on my talk page:[50], so I wonder what the number one mistake I made is and what he's going to do about it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

His edits don't look like vandalism to me, just unsourced. Woogee (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but he's been told repeatedly by other editors not to insert that stuff into that (and other articles). So, I guess just back to the "Stop or I'll say stop again" type warnings.

I wouldn't call that much of a threat, as he hasn't threatened to harm you at this time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

True, I think he's just a kid with a broken Playstation.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Well it is Winter break for most of us who don't work, so he probably has a crapload of time on his hands like I do. Too bad he doesn't use it constructively. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Warned user. Please report to WP:AIV if disruptive editing continues. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Eh....what'ca got against New Jersey, you tink were stupid or sommin'

Carl Brutananadilewski

Disruption, POV-pushing, tag-teaming on Iraq, Mesopotamia

I know it's Christmas and all, but the situation in Mesopotamia and Iraq is out of control. Two highly tendentious Iraqi ultranationalists, User:Izzedine and his tag-team buddy User:Mussav have taken it upon themselves to equate Mesopotamia with "ancient Iraq". They are resorting to edit-warring [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] to push their nationalist POV and admonish other users to get consensus for their edits, even though it is their POV that is against the consensus, as evidenced from the talkpage. They also are hypocritically dishing out warnings to other users in attempts to intimidate them [57] [58], while they themselves are just as guilty of edit-warring. Izzedine in particular, has a loooooong history of tendentious POV-pushing on Iraq and Mesopotamian articles and has been warned MANY times [59] [60] [61]. There is also a suspicion of tag-teaming, as Izzedine and Mussav burst out on the scene late on Christmas Day almost simultaneously [62] [63] and take turns reverting. At this point, page protection until the dispute is resolved would seem appropriate. --Athenean (talk) 00:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Athenean (talk · contribs) is calling the kettle black, as he is as much guilty of edit warring as anyone else he mentions, and he is a Greek ultranationalist who edit wars with Turks and Albanians and regularly deletes whole referenced paragraphs that he doesn't like, he's now pushing his frontier into Iraqi territory. He also threatens other editors with blocks on talk pages. Do please acquaint yourself with the talk pages and edit histories rather than taking his wild claims at face value. And a Merry Christmas! Izzedine 01:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Izzedine (talk · contribs) was making problematic edits on Europe and Talk:Europe a week or so ago. This blew over then, but there was evident POV-pushing as to the status of Georgia as a transcontinental country. The kind of inflammatory language he is using here seems to be par for the course. He also seems to be misrepresenting User:Athenean in an extreme and irrelevant way. Mathsci (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Check the talk pages, I engaged in much discussion and provided the highest quality references for my edits, and suffered terrible abuse from Satt 2 (talk · contribs) which I filed a Wikiquette report about here. This was weeks ago, and is unrelated. Mathsci (talk · contribs) disagreed with me at the time and agreed with Athenean, and he has now seen an opportunity to chime in with Athenean's mud-slinging. Izzedine 01:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Izzedine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appealed to me on my talk page to make a comment. He was POV-pushing and refusing to read previous discussions on the talk page of Europe. No "highest quality references" were produced, just a total unwillingness to understand the term "transcontinental country" and the same kind of tendentious and misrepresenting edits that we see here. Izzedine is clearly a highly a problematic editor. Mathsci (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Mathsci (talk · contribs) is being dishonest and trying to insult your intelligence.

Are these not the *highest quality* references -

• National Geographic - [64]

“ Georgia is geographically in Asia—the mountains forming its northern border serve as the Europe-Asia boundary ”

• UNdata - "Western Asia"
• CIA World Factbook - "Southwestern Asia"
• Foreign and Commonwealth Office - "South-western Asia"
• Library of Congress - "Southwestern Asia"
• Intute - "Georgia is located in Southwestern Asia"
• Open Site - "Southwestern Asia"

After reading the earlier discussions on the talk page of Europe, where Mathsci had bullied and intimidated a very articulate and constructive editor Npovshark (talk · contribs), It became clear that I was wasting my time with him. Izzedine 02:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest Izzedine be blocked if he continues writing personal attacks on me like this. It is indisputable that his wish to remove Georgia from sections in Europe is simply POV-pushing. That he tries to insult an experienced editor like me in this way shows that he has not really understood the core principles of wikipedia. If the BBC classify Georgia as a European country (like Armenia) that is an example of ambiguity. I believe National Geographic use the same classification, despite Izzedine's cherry-picked quote and the ambiguities in the definition of the borders of Europe. The historical evolution of the borders of Europe is discussed in several books, meticulously cited in the article. Is Izzedine throwing doubts on these sources now?

The edits above by Izzedine are clueless and an abuse of WP:ANI. Izzedine was told clearly that the status of transcontinental countries is ambiguous. He is simply bringing a silly content dispute, discussed multiple times on Talk:Europe, to this inappropriate noticeboard. He has not read the notes in the definition section of Europe and therefore is wasting time here, when several editors have confirmed his error. If major organisations like National Geographic, the BBC and the CIA use different classifications, there is an inherent ambiguity, and that is what is reported on wikipedia in an anodyne and neutral way. No matter how many times Izzedine stamps his foot and shouts at other users, the status of Georgia will not change. If he continues repeatedly writing in this way, it is probably appropriate that he should receive some kind of block for tendentious editing and disruptive behaviour. Besides I don't quite understand how Izzedine can make these claims after he invited me on my talk page to give an opinion after he edit warred with User:Satt 2. I did not agree with either user. NPOVshark's editing history is also exceedingly problematic. Izzedine's interpretation is completely off target like most of the rest of what he writes. He omits to mention all the other editors who disagreed with NPOVshark. I don't find that very surprising really. Izzedine is a disruptive editor: he seems to write whatever suits him, even if it is a gross misrepresentation. Mathsci (talk) 07:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I haven't edited the Europe article or talk page since early December. I left it after debate. I did not bring it to ANI you brought it here Mathsci! And what personal attacks? look at what you've said about me.. who is being more hateful? Let's just accept we had a disagreement Math. I'm sorry we've clashed, I'm no longer interested in the subject of Georgia's continental location, It doesn't matter. take it easy. Izzedine 08:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahem, this noticeboard is for discussing users' on-wiki behaviour, not content disputes. That is why your recent actions on Europe were brought up. You were disruptive there. The mere fact that you have made personal attacks on me as being "dishonest" and "trying to insult your intelligence" is extremely relevant here. Please tone down your language and refactor these comments. Mathsci (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment removed by Izzedine, reinserted for readability: "What is your aim here Math? to push for me to be blocked? I'd be willing to refactor or delete comments as a good faith gesture to make up good between us as editors, but would you be willing to do the same? it would be a skewed dialogue if not. Izzedine 15:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)" Mathsci (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop personalizing this. You have been POV-pushing on Europe and now again on Mesopotamia. Your edits have very little to do with content and are tendentious. As User:Dbachmann quite rightly said on Talk:Mesopotamia, if you continue POV-pushing in this way, the correct sanction might be a community topic ban. I have added my own views on Mesopotamia at the RfC on its talk page. I would advise you to stop POV-pushing and treating WP as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. When editors initiate naming disputes like this, it rarely has anything to do with adding content and those commenting from the sidelines are often gratuitously insulted for disagreeing with often unjustifiable POVs. In this case, as I wrote in the RfC, I think it is unjustifiable to say that "Ancient Iraq" and "Mesopotamia" are used synonymously. I have given my reasons there and will not discuss this further here. Mathsci (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Personal attacks will get you nowhere. If I were a Greek "ultranationalist", I wouldn't give two cents about Iraq. The accusations about pushing my "frontier" into Iraq are malark pey The reason I am filing this report is because I have become incensed with your tendentious ultranationalism and POV-pushing and because your actions are extremely disruptive to this encyclopedia. Multiple users have disagreed with you, and yet you keep trying to push the same POV over and over and over again. And the fact that you chose Christmas for this latest rampage speaks volumes. --Athenean (talk) 01:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks? – you called me an ultranationalist first. And as you described here - you don't give two cents about Iraq. Athenean has been 'raiding' my edits over the past week, encouraging disputes and disruptiveness. He has *never* edited Iraq articles before, he has been serial undoing many of my older contribs - deleting references as he goes, and not even bothering to use talk pages. Athenean is simply throwing mud and insulting your intelligence, and wasting all our time. I'm not an "Iraqi ultranationalist" I'm a history scholar and a member of the British Museum and British Institute for the Study of Iraq. Izzedine 01:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

What or who you are in the real world is irrelevant. It is your behavior on this site that matters, and so far it has been nothing but disruptive and tendentious. And no, I haven't been "raiding" your edits or any such nonsense. Stop playing the victim. I just casually came up on the article on Mesopotamia and was struck by how many times the word "Iraq" (in bold, no less) appeared in the lead, and posted on the talkpage [65]. I was validated by the response of User:Taivo and User:Dbachmann [66]. Izzedine's response? [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72]. Lastly, don't twist my words. What I meant by ultranationalists not giving two cents about Iraq is that ultranatonalists are usually completely uninterested in articles that have nothing to do with their country. You are completely twisting my words. This is unbelievable. --Athenean (talk) 02:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Athenean (talk · contribs) has been raiding my edits, one after the other after the other. It is duplicitous and tendentious the way he is crying wolf about it. At any rate, I don't want to argue about it, this is pointless and wasteful. I'd rather build bridges than throw mud. Christmas time should be merry, too. Izzedine 02:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

All of you, cool it. Izze, you would appear to have been jumping the gun without some talk page discussion first[73]. on you reverted things to different forms after that, citing that "discussion still underway"... in other words, using your own warring to your benefit while claiming to sound fair. Not acceptable. Systematically removing all the existing references was also completely unacceptable as there was no fair cause given to do so. Just because a link changes isn't a reason to remove a reference, even (I learned the hard way, too). Since the end result was conflicting reference information, that's what the talk page is for. Not that it probably would have helped all that much, but it's a necessary first form of dispute resolution that at least defines the issue. That said, I'm going to revert back to the version before the first unjustified source removal. Izze, your edit summary of [74] edit shows the very dubious nature of your actions, as what Athenean did in one revert is the exact same thing you did, just spread out across 20 to either confuse and/or make it look justified. Try to combined you edits at least a little, please. I don't care about which sources are whose or what content they have-- Izze, you hacked at the article for no given reason, systematically removed old and put in new references and adjusted wikilinks to a different POV. cont.

Hi there, I think you've misunderstood, the first diff is five days old, and much discussion has been going on since, at that stage I was simply restoring the deleted references. and the second diff was actually me *deleting my own* references because of the discussion that was underway - in good faith. I agree with you I am the one who provided those references! I didn't want to remove them. This edit from five days ago was undoing a mass deletion of references, nothing dubious about that. I don't know what you mean I haven't removed any references (other than restoring Taivo's version in good faith) ask - Taivo. It can be very complex to work out the true picture when faced with a long version history and several editors. But thanks for the advice. Izzedine 09:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Everyone involved is edit warring at this point, in that the only changes are to predominately restore old versions or remove the content of others. I see no 3RR violations, at least. Tavio seems quite aware of the policy and has wisely backed off for now. Take it to the talk page on the sources. Dispute there can start the normal process, and this is just pointless edit warring that will just get everyone blocked at some point more than likely. Again, I'm reverting back to places before reference removals started. It's the removals/replacements that were without any discussion. That's what they started as. That's where they need to be discussed from. Period. [75] is the version I'm reverting to, as it was the last version before the debated edits started. There you go. Since it's inevitable this will start up again, remember that you were here tonight, and consider this an unofficial final warning in that any admin is free to block for disruption here on without additional notice. You really don't want to go down this road, since I know you've seen it happen a thousand times here before and the ending it never pleasant if certain editors decide to "go rouge" or just shove their agenda forward. I'm entirely comfortable having said all of this since I don't remotely care about the content in the article, nor have I ever come across it before. Izze, you've been placing in your POV in a not-so-subtle manner ever since the old reference removals started, so I'm reverting to before that started. That's what the ANI was about originally, that's what I'm addressing now, nothing more. Future manners of tag-teaming, incivility, suspected puppet use, etc., can be taken through their normal incident boards. Content disputes need to start with discussions, first, which is what should be done now. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) This dispute on Mesopotamia has not been resolved so I have removed the unsigned "stale" tag added by User:Datheisen, which did not seem particularly helpful. It confused two separate issues involved here: a resolved issue, namely the POV-pushing/edit-warring by Izzedine/Satt 2 on the status of Georgia in Europe; a current unresolved issue, namely the dispute on Mesopotamia and Iraq. The first was brought up to add context to Izzedine's recent editing patterns. Mathsci (talk) 15:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

There is an ongoing RfC here on whether "Ancient Iraq" is synonymous with "Mesopotamia" (the content underlying this dispute). I hope that archaeology experts like Dougweller (hint, hint) will add their comments, even if it directly contradicts the 2 centimes worth that I added. Mathsci (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Izzedine's replacement of Mesopotamia with Ancient Iraq (Mesopotamia) at Babylonian mathematics[76] has been undone by five different editors since May[77][78][79][80][81]. Izzedine - and only Izzedine - has reverted all of them, seven times so far [82][83][84][85][86][87][88]. - Ankimai (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

He's at it again, in Iraq this time [89], repeating the same line over and over again [90]. It is quite clear from his history that this guy is here on a mission and will never stop. --Athenean (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

And he's edit warring over other issues as well: I count seven reverts in Muntadhar al-Zaidi from Dec 14 to Dec 24, no matter who had edited in between.[91][92][93][94][95][96][97] - Ankimai (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Off-wiki canvassing by Izzedine

While Google searching for information that might clarify a content dispute involving Izzedine, I accidentally came across a forum in which a user who identifies themselves as Izzedine on Wikipedia attempts to enlist other users to vote in his favor on talk pages and revert any change to his version of the article. Well, you can read it here but in a nutshell it seems he is trying to defend his Iraqi heritage and is POV driven. Can this be handled by ANI?--Stinging Swarm ^talk 04:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Good find. I like how Google works both ways on help. Well, where else would this go? We're allowed to "note" that that exists but can't treat as what would be anything close to a reliable source. ...It's been awhile since I read the ArbCom ruling on defining such things, but I do remember that it was "more okay" in article work. Honestly, it's not like it drastically changes the situation, but that it makes any additional good faith all that much more of a challenge. Sigh.... like 5 days ago when this disappeared as stale Izze contacted me on my talk page[98] in what was an encouraging tone... but given I was attempting to be equally encouraging in a reply[99], actually suggesting optimism if they felt they had materials to improve the article... sadly it seems that optimistic view died in less than 24 hours as that forum posting was on the 27th (talk page here the 26th). That would seem to be in contrast to my 'reminder that any admin is within his/her rights to block you without further notice' as a conclusion that the majority of civility ANIs reach. Also specifically said that ANI wasn't for content disputes which is why our replies had to be limited. Cont.

Give a final warning, imo. On anything and everything on the topic. If the wholeheartedly refuse, do say they're subject to a block for disruption until the starting of the official DR process is taken, as I also suggested originally. After trying to be ridiculously fair and neutral in my evaluation, the "optimistic" Izze within that same day was apparently of the same mindset as before? *Sighs* ... Ignoring any kind of civility suggestions and refusal to admit to anything whatsoever (even things such as "edit warring", general concept, being shoved around by everyone at the time)? No desire to listen to a third party at ANI shows a continuation of a disruptive pattern of things started at the articles. ... gives low expectations for any future compliance. This is still way better than the last time I offered significant opinion to a edit warred Middle East article, though. ...Yeah, final warning to desist on pretty much everything, and that off-wiki promotion of disruption of on-wiki matters can at least [strongly] subjectively be be read. Key point being the call to disruption here since that's what any block is meant to based upon ongoing types of. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Dbachmann has already suggested a topic ban for Izzedine's on-wiki behaviour. I think this off-wiki canvassing merits an indefinite topic ban if not an indefinite ban. He seems to be breaking all the rules of wikipedia - the canvassing on the forum reveals that he is indeed pushing a nationalist point of view. This was already evident when he started arguing that the terms Iraq (or Ancient Iraq) and Mesopotamia are synonymous on the two talk pages - something Dbachmann has described as "nonsense". Mathsci (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there some sort of admin shortage, or do they just get Christmas to New Year off?--Stinging Swarm ^talk 10:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks as if Assyrian-Babylonian/Izzedine has deleted those forum posts in the meantime, but Google cache still has them, here. - Ankimai (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

NOTE ABOUT LINK: You have to scroll up the page to Assyrian-Babylonian's previous comments to see him self-identify as Izzedine. He has removed the identifications from his second posting (where Ankimai's link goes). (Taivo (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC))

Ah yes, he must have read this page. It's now very hard to assume any kind of good faith on his part. Mathsci (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It's also hard to assume good faith when he characterizes me as a "Freemason" and Athenean as an "(anti-Iraqi) Greek" rather than just talking about "other editors". (Taivo (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC))

Seems like it wouldn't be possible to connect the editor definitively to this on line canvassing, and if it is not actually punishable then there appears little action needs to be taken. Off2riorob (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

"Salam brothers and sisters, I am trying to defend our heritage on Wikipedia and I urgently need your support ahlan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mesopotamia (I am lzzedine) Please help us ya ahlan, before they ban me, there are only two Iraqis on there, myself and Mussav, any support you can add will help, you can post there anonymously if you wish."

- I'd rather say it's impossible not to connect him. - Ankimai (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It's quite clear that Izzedine and Assyrian-Babylonian are one and the same person. How else would A-B know that I was a Freemason unless he had read my Wikipedia profile before I removed personal information a couple of months ago? It's called soliciting meat puppets and every other case I've known of has resulted in either indefinite or year-long bans. (Taivo (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC))

General responses to off-wiki canvassing can include:

• Heavy additional short-term watchlisting, either by involved editors e.g. a wikiproject or by uninvolved editors e.g. admins or a dedicated anti-vandal wikiproject.
• Temporary EditNotices, if necessary and more helpful than harmful.
• Semi-protection, if necessary.

If such off-wiki canvassing, either of this type or of the /b/-type disruption in a thread below, becomes too common it may be worthwhile asking for "transclusion" to be added to watchlists, so interested vandal fighters can "transclude" {{WP:Articles needing short-term watchlisting/List}} to their watchlists. The list would presumably be permanently-protected or in an admin-edit-only space. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

MetroStar

Resolved

 – MetroStar (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 08:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that reports of persistent vandalism are supposed to be directed to the AIV noticeboard, but an admin there directed me here.

In this case, MetroStar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been using his account for a puzzling mix of apparently constructive edits and clear vandalism. Most recently, the user went on a tear moving pages for sports teams to pages with nonsense names. His edits are often to pages that are probably infrequently visited on the English-language project, and they therefore can fly under the radar for long periods of time. And because the user typically takes breaks of several days between editing, vandalism reported to AIV is likely to be considered stale by the time it is noticed.

This user is well aware of the guidelines for working constructively on the project, having been warned about them dozens of times. Those warnings are regularly removed, though, and the user will then resume constructive editing for a period of time before moving back to vandalism. I've compiled a list of most of those warnings on the talk page, but they are likely to be blanked in short order. The diff can be found here.

Can anyone here offer any suggestions on how this problem can be more effectively addressed? Thanks. — Bdb484 (talk) 07:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This editor has had multiple level 3 warnings, and some level 4 warnings which have had no effect. Therefore I've indeffed him for disruptive editing. I suggest that any unblock be conditional on a ban from moving pages, and the ban logged at WP:RESTRICT.Mjroots (talk) 07:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That should solve it. Thanks. — Bdb484 (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Michael Hardy

Resolved

 – Drama continues at WP:WQA. Pcap ping 08:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

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

---

I stumbled upon an administrator on an editor's talk page who I look after as a friend of mine, and I'm in total shock of this admin's behavior. [100]

• "Kinetsubuffalo", your gratuitous disrespect is noted. You are a boor and a coward. Obviously I am a far more experienced Wikipedian than you, having done more than 130,000 edits, editing daily for more than seven years. I inquired about the reasons for one of your edits to an article to whose content my professional expertise is relevant. I have been consistently polite and respectful to you. You should be grateful for the opportunity to work with me.

I don't know thoroughly what happened prior to this ANI (maybe canvassing off-sitewiki[101]), but I expect admins to be more mature and less self assertive regardless of the incidents with any editor. Two attacks—unacceptable, and number of edits do not usually indicate quality of work. If he's really experienced, I expect better behavior. I request attention to this admin and hope for the better. ZooFari 07:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have complained about User:Kintetsubuffalo at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts. Michael Hardy (talk) 07:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

ZooFari, this seems like forum shopping, especially since you reverted my closure of this. I see the exact same text being discussed in this WQA thread (permalink since someone keeps editing that too). Pcap ping 07:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize the double posting at Wikiquette. You may close this. ZooFari 07:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Where are the two attacks you refer to? I can imagine someone describing as an "attack" my statement that he is a boor and a coward after he went out of his way to be a boor and a coward, but what's the other one? Is asking whether he's familiar with collegiality and collaboration an "attack"? Michael Hardy (talk) 07:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

"Boor" and "coward" are threats that I consider attacking and rude, which is unacceptable and troubling if an admin so called "experienced" mouths it out. ZooFari 07:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You've conveniently left out the fact that editor referred that way by Michael referred to Michael's edits as "putz edits", and refused to discuss his drive-by tagging, which started this incident. Everybody needs to take a step back and calm down. Now please close either this discussion or the mirror one at WP:WQA. Throwing more gas on the fire by starting two parallel discussions on the same topic isn't going to solve the matter any faster, but will surely create more dramaz. Pcap ping 08:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Strange username issue

Resolved

 – Blocked by another admin. Will encourage name change or new account creation. NJA (t/c) 09:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed (first in my watchlist) that User:Irongargoyle has been created as a new account. This was the original name of my current account (I renamed it to User:IronGargoyle several years ago for capitalization reasons). I didn't create this new (old) account, and although the account doesn't seem to have done anything harmful yet, it seems to be in violation of the username policy as an impersonation of myself (I find the possibility of a coincidental account naming highly dubious). I didn't bother to make the account a registered doppelganger account because I was under the impression that something in the Mediawiki software blocked the creation of accounts that too closely resembled existing accounts (particularly those of administrators). Anybody have a thought on what happened, and the best course of action for this weird situation? I should also note that any revisions prior to December 31 are my revisions. They had been deleted and thus were not re-assigned when my re-name originally took place and were subsequently undeleted. Thanks, IronGargoyle (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like impostor material to me. But if I were you, I'd AGF and consider leaving a message on the talk page of User:Irongargoyle, explaining how you are the previous owner and how there could be a possible identity problem. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 08:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with leaving a message on the talk page is that the "talk page" is a redirect from hundreds of my old signatures. Anyways, isn't the software supposed to prevent things like this from happening? IronGargoyle (talk) 08:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That is a serious problem. Yes, the software should automatically prevent this from happening, but it does glitch every once in awhile. IMHO, perhaps you could try waiting and watching the behavior of the old account. If it starts vandalizing/disrupting, then it's probably safe to indef. If not, then perhaps you could try emailing the newbie? -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 09:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd block the account and encourage either a name change or registration of a new account. NJA (t/c) 09:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry folks, I blocked before but then the power went out here and I had trouble getting my router to let me back on so my apologies for the delay getting back here to tell you that and save you all from looking. IronGargoyle, you're right that the software now has an anti-spoofing feature which is meant to prevent people creating accounts too similar to existing ones. Admins can bypass the anti-spoofing feature though so I checked but it doesn't seem to have been created for the person by someone else, so I don't know what happened. The same thing happened to me though when I changed from Sarah Ewart to Sarah and before I could re-register my old username, someone else had registered it. I blocked it before they used it to edit and a kindly bureaucrat later renamed the account for me so I could re-register it myself. I will leave the person a message, in case it is a coincidence and not anything malicious, but you should think about usurping the name yourself. Sarah 11:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

IronGargoyle, I broke the redirect on the talk page of that account to leave a message telling them why they've been blocked, on the off-chance it's not a troll or whatever. I also left a message pointing at your talk page for people who might be looking for you and following old signature links. I will go back and restore the redirect in a day or so. Sorry about that but I just think we need to try to communicate with them the reasons the account is blocked on the small chance it really was just a coincidence. Sarah 12:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Attack imminent

Resolved

 – Relevant /b/ thread 404'd. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 11:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have semiprotected Samurai after an informant told me that /b/ is planning on attacking the article (and indeed, they started when I protected). From what my informant told me, the thread was/is a roll thread; could I get some help monitoring the RC feed for more /b/ chicanery and prot on sight? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 11:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

By far the easiest way to see what they're going to hit next, is to watch their site. One night they were pretty determined to vandalize Wikipedia, all I did was watch the threads about Wikipedia and semi-protect the pages they wanted to vandalize. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 14:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hush! Don't give away the game. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Request interaction restriction

I would like to request that a community-imposed, non-prejudicial interaction restriction (across all Wikipedia namespaces) be enacted between me (talk · contribs) and JohnWBarber (talk · contribs) (and any other usernames operated by this editor, of which there appear to be several). JohnWBarber (particularly as Noroton) seems to relish any opportunity to attack me, and has done so frequently. A restriction that forces us to completely ignore one another, enforced by the threat of sanction, would seem to be an ideal solution. I would appreciate it if another editor could notify JohnWBarber of this thread on my behalf. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Notified. –xeno^talk 15:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that :) -- Scjessey (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this request procedurally-acceptable, by the way? I am aware that ArbCom can impose interaction restrictions, but I am not sure if it can be done here. If this is inappropriate, I would appreciate advice about what alternatives there might be. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes copyright issue

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this. Anonymous editor 91.187.103.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) just added a link with clean copyright violations to Sherlock Holmes (2009 film). A user, Amandagates (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), was recently blocked for edit warring about adding the link. Whether the editor is a sock puppet doesn't matter as it should be blocked for copyright vio. And perhaps the Sherlock article should be semiprotected to prevent such link to continue to be added. Thank you. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 15:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hrs by another admin, I would prefer not to sprotect unless this continues. There have been good faith edits by IPs recently. –xeno^talk 15:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

it may be better to request the addition of that link's site to the WP Spam project and get it added to the various blacklists that bots will then remove if it is added. I see no reason why we would ever legitimately link to that site in the future for any movie or the like. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think this should be added to the blacklist--this isn't just a spam issue, this is a copyright issue. Blueboy96 15:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec x2) Looking at Amandagates' contribs, her only other edits were to add a link from the same copyvio site to 3 Idiots. Account blocked indef, IP blocked 31 hours. May want to consider blacklisting watch-it-free dot com as well. Blueboy96 15:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all, I'll take the issue up with the Spam project. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 15:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Update: the site has been black listed. Thanks again! BOVINEBOY2008 :) 18:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Block review please

I'd like a review of my most recent block of Crotchety Old Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

The editor has been a decent vandalism fighter, but also has a long history of some pretty strong incivility. After a recent block for this gem, his block has been modified a number of times for further incivility and most recently extended to two weeks for sockpuppetry. However one of the socks he created was Jim Leavitt's Attorney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) which appears to have been created with the sole purpose of making this legal threat. I have indefinitely blocked the sockmaster for WP:NLT until the legal threat has been retracted. Note that COM is not able to edit his own talk page due to misconduct during block, but the sock is able to retract it. Toddst1 (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Correction: COM has been able to edit his own talk page. since the block was modified so both he and the sock are able to retract the threat and/or request {{unblock}}. Toddst1 (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Correction 2 :COM is now able to edit his own talk page, and this admin needs more coffee. Toddst1 (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Seems to me to be more of a case of a blocked angry editor (who said when blocked, please block me indef so I can start socking) who was more being stupid that really making a legal threat, imo that it wasn't as a legal threat very meaningful and although for the issue and the socking round it I suppport an extension to his block I feel that an indef is perhaps not the best option in this case as having him in a known account would be better than multiple socks. I have left COM a note asking him if his sock wants to withdraw the legal threat. Off2riorob (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

May be hard without talk page access, unless he uses another sock, of course! Ravensfire (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

My mistake in my post above. COM should be able to edit his own talk page since the indef block. He also has the capability of requesting {{unblock}}. Toddst1 (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• IMO, Crotchety Old Man already got consideration for being an established user with valued contributions when I extended his block to one week and removed talk page editing privileges for a vicious personal attack. I can't speak for other admins, but speaking for myself, the edit on his own talk page while he was blocked would by itself be enough for me to indef block most other users. That it was only extended to a week was a leniency that he abused. I recognized the "blocked angry editor" angle as well, but he's still responsible for his own edits. We of course walk a fine line between preventative and punitive. In this case, the right result appears to have been reached, keeping in mind that "indefinite" is not "forever". Todd could have asked someone else to review the legal threat rather than take action himself (since he'd been previously involved). However, we're still within the 1-week extension that I issued, so Todd's request for review here is perfectly appropriate. A review of that behavior by itself might well warrant it being changed to an indef regardless of any subsequent behavior.  Frank  |  talk  15:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he is a good vandalism fighter, he reverts as vandalism anything he disagrees. 201.43.205.124 (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Note – The IP is a sock of de facto banned user User:Pé de Chinelo, part of a /17 range I just blocked. –MuZemike 16:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• I am not really sure if the legal threat block was entirely appropriate; he did do it, as another editor mentioned, while he was "playing in character". However, I recognize that we have to take even that seriously. I would be fine with leaving the indef block as is, but perhaps after a week, we should reenable his talk page access so he can actually withdraw his legal threat. Note that his most recent block included: "00:55, 31 December 2009 Toddst1 (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for Crotchety Old Man (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page)". NW (Talk) 16:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Dammit - I thought I fixed that this morning. It's fixed now and he can edit his talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support indef We have 2 issues: the socking, and the use of that sock to violate WP:NLT. The socking is bad enough, the NLT is horrendous. Not only de we need the block for the NLT, but the socking as well. Support indef, with reduction to a week once legal threats retracted/recognition of the absolute stupidity of the action tales place - not concurrent. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support indef until the legal threat is withdrawn. That's standard practice. Durova³⁹⁰ 16:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support indef. No doubt COM had a history of valued contributions. No doubt also COM had a persistent history of incivility and WP:TALKO violations (see e.g. this AN/I or this thread). The user also vandalized a high-profile article only to prove a point ([102]). Adding to that the fact that the user, in defiance of the block, resorts to socks and add the legal threats, and add the fact that he seems incapable of constructive dialogue with whoever disagrees with him or warns him, I cannot see how anything less than an indef (or a very long, like months) block can be useful. --Cyclopia^talk 16:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support indef. If he wants to come back, he can withdraw the sock's legal threat, declare and cease use of any and all socks and abide by policy and norms, particularly in regard to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and WP:SOCK. If he agrees to the above, I see no reason not to unblock him, though any breach of the above should render him liable to an indef block. HJMitchell You rang? 17:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support indef - If Crotchety Old Man is willing to make a serious {{unblock}} request that acknowledges the trouble he caused, we should consider acting on it. Lately he has seemed to be off in his own world so an apology is unlikely. If he does make one, lifting the block may be considered. What he's been doing lately is unacceptable behavior for an editor, and there is no need for us to put up with more of that. EdJohnston (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• COM has replied on his talkpage to the question, does your sock want to retract the legal threat? with... "Hey guys! Todd finally got it right. My attorney withdrew his legal threat"... Which if it is a retraction is a bit of a cryptic retraction . Off2riorob (talk)
• Support indef - this kind of behaviour, renders an editor irrelevant to the project. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support indef at least until or if the guy decides to get serious about a retraction and own up to his socking. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Threats of violence by SingingZombie

User SingingZombie appears to have posted real life threats of violence or exhortation to violence in several edit descriptions in the edit history of Murder of George Tiller. Here you can see the descriptions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_George_Tiller&action=history. His statements appear to constitute a threat of lethal force against anti-abortion activists. I'm not really sure how to handle this, but perhaps authorities need to be contacted (who? where?) and a ban seems appropriate to prevent him from advocating violence any further on Wikipedia. Presumably his edit descriptions should be removed from public view but somehow preserved if needed as evidence by authorities. Also, based on his talk page it seems that there have been previous incidents in this subject area, raising even greater concern. Locke9k (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Upon review of SingingZombie's talkpage I noted they were previously advised not to make comments in regard to anti abortionist activists, following an ANI discussion. As a consequence of the comments made per Locke9k notice above I have indefinitely blocked SingingZombie. Since SingingZombie's other edits appear generally good faith, if not exactly policy compliant is all cases, I would like a review of my actions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-admin comment. Perhaps if SingingZombie agrees to the terms of a topic ban (via email) and to abide by the letter and spirit of WP:CIVIL, he could be unblocked eventually, however, comments like those in edit summaries, especially after being cautioned against them, are totally unacceptable and if ti weren't for his previous good faith contributions, I would unreservedly support (in my non-admin opinion) an indef block. HJMitchell You rang? 17:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a large difference between civility issues and the comments shown here. I don't know what other edits this user has made and frankly I do not care. There's no place for that on wikipedia and no place here for the person who writes it. Support the indef block and indef should mean forever.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There is just no way that SingingZombie's edit summaries are in anyway acceptable. And in case anyone doesn't know incivility, attacks or any other bad behaviour in edit summaries cannot be gotten rid of. We are stuck with SZ's remarks in edit summaries in one form or another (even if we delete the edits) LhvU's block is spot-on and while I understand HJMitchell's point about SZ's action elsewhere being in good faith IMHO nothing can mitigate this--Cailil ^talk 17:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough using main account to run bot tasks

Over the last 8 months, Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has made approximately 400,000 edits [103], rocketing themselves to the top of the List of Wikipedians by number of edits. The vast majority of these edits were done with AutoWikiBrowser and furthermore, many were primarily cosmetic. Irrespective of that, they are seemingly using some kind of macro or modified AWB build to automate the saving process unless we are to believe that they really are sitting in front of their PC for several-hour-long stretches hitting "save" at close to 30 edits per minute [104].

Most recently, they had been running a task that made three edits in sequence to articles in order to complete a task that could conceivably be done in a single edit. [105] Had the proper steps been taken and Bot Approvals Group was engaged, they surely would've denied a bot using such an inefficient method of editing. I note Rich has since discovered a workaround for this issue after my prodding.

My concern is that the user is blatantly flouting the WP:AWB#Rules of use and furthermore flooding recent changes with tasks that really should be run with a bot flag (if at all). Upon querying the user, their stated reason for running bot tasks from their main account was uncompelling [106] and they resumed the task from their main account.

I invite additional scrutiny and advice as to how to convince or compel this user to respect Wikipedia:Bot policy and AWB's rules of use. –xeno^talk 17:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hardly in the last 8 months. There's a serious amount of low level dirt that needs cleaning, BRFA is seriously slow, I prefer to fix a problem rather than file a request for someone else to do it. Wiki - if anyone had forgotten - means quick. Rich Farmbrough, 18:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC).

I'm not asking you to ask someone else to do it, I'm asking you to ask BAG for approval to do it from a bot account rather than your main account. The tasks you are running are not in any way mission-critical such that you can't wait a few days or a week for BAG approval. –xeno^talk 18:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You can't just ignore bot policy because WP:BRFA "is seriously slow". Singularity42 (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a lot of respect for Rich and he does a lot of excellent work, however, as an occasional recent changes patroller, I can tell you the AWB edits do flood the recent changes- he can be in the same list 4 or 5 or even more times and the standard 50 edit display only shows the last 1 or 2 minutes on a normal day (perhaps someone can give a statistic for how many edits are made a minute to the whole wiki?). I have to say, it would be preferable for these edits to be made from a separate, bot account, though they do need to be made. HJMitchell You rang? 18:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Another sock of Multiplyperfect

Resolved

 – User blocked indefinitely

Wikiidemon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is almost certainly yet another sock of Multiplyperfect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), this time impersonating User:Wikidemon. Can someone please nuke this guy's entire site from orbit per WP:DUCK? It's the only way to be sure. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)