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

Tagging for non-free logos (formerly: Betacommand appears to be at it again

Betacommand (talk · contribs) appears to be at it again; this time their target (at the rate of several edits per minute) is all images which they perceive to be logos lacking a "fair use" rationale for use in the articles about the companies that the logo represents.

Now I'm not a Wikimedia Foundation copyright lawyer, but this seems to me to be a pretty safe "fair use", and I would expect that most companies would actually LIKE the use of their logos to decorate their articles. If this is true, then someone needs to rein in Betacommand. If not, then I think we need to either:

1. have someone draft a boilerplate fair use rational that covers this exact case, or
2. tell us exactly why this doesn't fall under fair use.

Atlant 18:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If the issue is that the images do not contain the fair-use rationale, then the burden is on the uploaders to fix the situation. The images are not embedded in articles, they are resources that are linked to as needed. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Why did you bring this here first as opposed to Betacommand's talk page? --Iamunknown 18:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Because I wanted advice and guidance before taking action. Atlant 18:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Iamunknown 19:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

that is the problem Boiler plate templates are not fair use rational. if people would actualy follow policy and take the time to write a one or two sentence explaining what the image is and why we need it the problem would be solved. as it is images need valid FU rational and templates dont do that. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand is acting quite correctly in this case. We require individual rationales for all fair use images, not a boilerplate one. Its not a matter of whether the companies would like us to use their images, its a matter of Wikipedia's policy on unfree content. We only allow copyright content in a very narrow range of circumstances. In particular, images must be free not only for Wikipedia to use but also for anyone else to use for any purpose. If this is not that case, a valid individual fair use rationale must be provided. Images are unlikely to be fair use if merely being used to decorate an article. Betacommand has approval to tag all images that do not contain a fair use rationale, either by himself or using his Bot account. If they are not added before 7 days after the uploader has been notified by the Bot, they will be deleted. WJBscribe 18:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe Betacommand is doing the necessary this time. -- FayssalF 18:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur. This is needed and necessary work. -- ChrisO 18:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

(e/c) While the edit rate is a little high (4-5 edits/min) but not quite bot speeds, FU images need a fair use rationale and a source. He isn't quite saying they aren't fair use, just it isn't explained how they are fair use to fully meet Wikipedia fair use criteria. Commenting them out in the artices can help as well to encourage readers to add the info after thinking: "Where did the image go? I better do what th tag says." As opposed to just seeing a redlink for an image after a few days "Where did the image go? I better upload it again." Mr.Z-man 18:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The first step in dispute resolution is to....contact the user involved. Swatjester 18:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• One problem is that many images were uploaded at a time before it was made clear by Jimbo and/or Wikipedia policy that a justification beyond the template was needed. Rather than tagging at bot-like speeds, it would be better if someone could go through individually to check fair use images. If there is no justification but a good one could be made, then write it. If the image violates fair use policy, nominate it for deletion. Crotalus horridus 19:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  Bots are for large scale operations like this. Atlant wants someone to either draft a boilerplate (not a good idea, rationales should be written on a case by case basis) or "tell us exactly why this doesn't fall under fair use." The latter is obvious: if nobody has written a rationale for using a non-free picture, then fair use cannot be justified. We have had these images on-site for years now in such cases, and nobody has bothered to justify their use. Time to get rid of them. --Tony Sidaway 20:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Bots are impersonal and rarely even describe the problem adequately. I've had at least one bot that never really gave me specific pointers in a peer review, just a general dump list of what needed to be done period. And in that list, I actually fulfilled 75% of the list. Even if you added a human element, we'd still have problems. --293.xx.xxx.xx 20:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• I've always wondered why people, instead of tagging en-masse and causing problems, don't simply create the fair use rationale. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There is certainly something unclear here, not so much about the policy but about what people think the consensus about its interpretation is. Do we believe that the practice of routinely having a logo image on each company etc. article is justifiable? In that case, a single type of valid fair use rationale could be devised that would apply to all these images in pretty much the same way (and the demand of having it written out individually in each case would be not much more than an enforced symbolic bowing down to policy but of little practical value, and we could really just as well have that standard rationale templated.) Or do people think that logos should be used on company articles only in special cases, for instance where the design of the logo was of particular encyclopedic interest? In that case individual rationales would be crucial but, first and foremost, 98% of all existing logos would have to be deleted. This is a real question. What, in people's opinion, would be a valid fair use rationale for a company logo? I honestly don't know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Creating a fair use rationale takes time and thought, tagging random logos with a no rationale tag cuts out the latter requisite. The greater concern is to make sure that logo usage complies with Wikipedia:Logos. In my experience, simply deleting an image is unlikely to deter anyone from uploading a poorly sourced duplicate. So why not create a blanket rationale for the majority of cases? Asking individual contributors to cobble together a rationale that complies with policy as well as copyright law ignores the fact that the majority of users are not too well familiar with either. If we assume a janitorial role with image uploads, then lets address our own concerns. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Per Anetode. If WP:LOGO is appropriate then I don't understand the problem against a boilerplate FU rationale specifically for those logos (I thought there used to be a pulldown choice for uploading logos, which was implied FU, before they rearranged all that stuff). If we want to be more hardass about refusing FU images (an idea that I sympathize with) then the problem is WP:LOGO, which would need to be redone with the result of getting rid of almost all of the logos in the encyclopedia. I don't see the need for a handcrafted FU rationale message for each logo given that the actual usage is about the same in almost all cases. This particular bot operation looks ill-advised. I'd add that backlogs of stuff like this get large precisely because of the thought required to handle them correctly. Stuff that can be crunched through mindlessly usually gets taken care of quickly, either by hand or with software. So bots are usually the wrong way to deal with a backlog unless there's consensus to abandon hope of dealing with the backlog properly. 75.62.6.237 07:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

um there was no bots involved. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 07:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Then that's even worse. You could have left messages on linking articles' talk pages very easily, asking that the relevant images be tagged in accordance with the latest policy whim, and not cluttering main article namespace history. Instead, you simply commented each image out of each article, which is disruptive and at the very least vigilante justice, if not one step short of outright vandalism. VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 21:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand, that's amazing. I counted up to 7 edits a minute for hours on end. I wish I could do a neat trick like that without a bot. Nardman1 06:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not inappropriate to use something like AWB, or just old-fashioned tabbed browsing, to speed up the laborious process of mowing through fair-use images. It's a simple thing: if a page has no rationale and needs it, tag it with the appropriate tag and notify the uploader. It cannot be our job to write a rationale, which would require us to examine the image's use in every article in search of the critical commentary required by Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images. That job has to fall to the uploader. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it can be your job. It's not like only one person can come up with a fair use rationale. To not do due dilligence - check the image to see if it's appropriate, and then fill in the gaps if it is - is poor editing, and using an automated tool to go through the images - thus assuring there's no actual human review - is insulting to editors working on these articles and images. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to take the time to make sure that poorly sourced or poorly justified images can remain in Wikipedia, you can find them in the same place I do. I don't view it as my job to search for critical commentary, especially when it isn't even there over 95% of the time. (ESkog)^(Talk) 14:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I don't see the harm in asking the original uploader to finish the work they started. If we fix all of the problems, none of our other good image-uploading editors will learn the proper way to do it, and we'll have more problems to fix. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree w/ you. I am one of the worst uploaders and i never complained to Betacommand about his frequent warnings on my talk page. I've just started to know how to do it. Thanks Beta. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

VT hawkeye before calling someone a vandal why not read the Policy I was enforcing. leaving notes on talkpages doesnt get the job done. Commenting out the image and notifing the up-loader get a lot better feedback and results. as for Nardman1's issues its not a bot but a tool like AWB that I have written for FU image review. if anyone would like the code Ill give it to them as soon as I debug my most recent code change. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 13:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of the policy, thanks. I'm disagreeing with your method of enforcement. Common courtesy (not to mention common sense) appears to be rapidly disappearing from WP, and this didn't help. VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 15:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

maybe if uploaders did what they were supposed to do, per policy and copyright law this wouldnt need done. but because users are lazy/dont know policy it needs done. this is the best method of getting results. if you think just placeing a template or notice does it your sadly mistaken we have articles that havent had sources tagged since 2005. since this is a legal issue i thought a more direct action is needed. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if you actually reviewed the images and tried to fix the problem instead of tagging 7 images a minute following numerous concerns about similar edits, this wouldn't be an issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

hay jeff before making comments why not double check your facts. I dont tag 7 Images a minute, most of the edits are removing them from the mainspace and notifying the uploader. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

hay beta i did double check. If you're simply removing/tagging/notifying at a high rate without any real consideration, you're not really doing people a service. We allow fair use here, so if there's a fair use image being used that lacks a rationale, see if you can create one before tagging and removing. That's hard to do when you're making near-bot-speed edits. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I am, for someone not involved with either the image and related pages it would take 20-30 minutes to figure out where and why its needed. on the other hand someone who is familiar with the issue can do it in 2 minutes. also having only one person doing this would take years to review, on the flip side we remind users that FU images need rationale's and then they take care of that for all of the images they've uploaded. now jeff tell me what makes more sense one user checking and adding FU rationale to 360,000 images or having the community do it? Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What makes more sense? Getting a bunch of people together to actually review the images as opposed to tagging them willy-nilly, undoubtedly. We are here to improve the content, after all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have to agree with betacommand here. Simply tagging the images, and hoping that someday, it will eventually get fixed per m:Eventualism is inappropriate in this case. This is a legal issue; we need fair use justifications, not just tagging it as being copyrighted. Leaving ourselves exposed to this sort of problem can potentially have serious impact on the project. Betacommand's actions are putting teeth into it. We might not like the teeth (even I don't like seeing some fair use images removed for lacking rationale) but it does have the effect of encouraging people to do it right in the first place. --Durin 17:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• First, it's extreme copyright paranoia, not a legal issue, and has no legitimate long-term, short-term, or any term impact on the project, let's stop fooling ourselves here. Secondly, no one's saying "simply tag the images," I'm saying actually review the images and attempt to fix the problem rather than throwing our hands up and insulting editors along the way. Make an effort, y'know? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, Betacommand just ripping through pages is not much short of vandalism. It is no wonder that hard working page/subject editors are giving up posting in droves when someone is ripping through their work. If you are that concerned about fair use rationales for something which are obviously sporting logos, then why no add the rationales yourself rather than wrecking the pages. How to wreck an online community in one easy lesson. If people get genuine pleasure in their self imposed task of correcting other people's image 'errors' at a rather alarming rate(each to their own), then why not be constructive and source the rationales. I for one know my subject, but not the in depth workings of Wikipedia and am not remotely interested. Instead of wiping images, why not form, for example, a sports logo rationale those of us who write about our chosen sport. A sports logo is a sports logo. Hammer1980 17:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• If doing this work is vandalism, then I suggest you have WP:CSD#Images.2Fmedia criteria 6 removed from that page as a blatant case of vandalism. --Durin 17:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That may as well be in a foreign language to me mate. Hence the reason instead of ripping pages to shreds, how about putting in these rationales instead. A sports logo on a page is not likely to be targeted for copyright violation on Wikipedia when just being on this project increases awareness of the clubs/organizations concerned. It 'is' paranoia. Hammer1980 17:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• de-indent You consider it extreme paranoia. Myself and others do not. There are droves of lawyers whose sole purpose in professional life is to go after people who violate copyright of their clients. I'm not terribly interested in running afoul of these people. We've tried for *years* to get people to appropriately tag their images without effect. If such an effort actually yielded results, hey I'd be all for it. That's one of the joys of Wikipedia; group effort. But, the group effort has categorically failed in this instance. We're long past the time when we should sit around and wish for it to happen with our hopes dashed. This is a legal situation even if you don't want to feel it's a potentially dangerous one. The right thing to do is to make this situation go away. Since group effort isn't working, deleting is a way of fixing it that will actually work. If you are offended by this, then by all means *please* form a group of people to go after these images that are tagged and fix them. But, I'll virtually guarantee you nobody will want to do the work. That's why this tack needs to be taken. --Durin 17:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• No, it merely postpones the issue and pisses people off, not to mention actively harms the quality of the project and the product we're providing. If our paranoia is so great that we somehow think that a possible (not even probable) DMCA request is going to be leapfrogged for a lawsuit on a site that's been high-profile for over a year, I'm not sure what to say. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I know, I was being tongue in cheek. I've learned my lesson on civility from my recent failed rfa so I was just trying to use a little humor. You might want to fix your script a little, it's leaving comments in image page code indicating that you are BetacommandBot (when it lists the pages the image has been removed from). Nardman1 16:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If Jeff is so all-fired desperate to keep these images, why doesn't he round up a bunch of people to perform the review which he seems to think would be so simple and quick? Put your time and effort where your mouth is, Jeff. —Phil | Talk 17:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I do it where I see it, quite honestly, which isn't entirely often because I don't generally work with images. I also know that our extreme paranoia on copyright isn't nearly as urgent as about a hundred other things. More to the point - if there are people who actually see image patrolling as a valid use of their time, there's an effective way to do it that improves the project, and a lackadaisical approach that only stirs up more ill will for no good reason. If we can promote the former, we're better off. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I was really taken aback by the thoughtless way Betacommand stuck two boilerplate messages on my talk page yesterday, and then ignored me when I left a response on his own talk page. He should learn some manners. I also agree with Jeff that Betacommand would be better employed providing fair use rationale. RupertMillard (Talk) 18:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm still a bit puzzled with this debate, and I'll repeat my question from above which nobody has answered: What, in people's opinion, would be a valid fair use rationale for a company logo? If people think a valid rationale could be found for the great bulk of these routine logo-in-infobox usages, that's one thing; if people think it couldn't, then we shouldn't be talking about uploaders writing rationales or not, we should be talking about preventing uploaders from writing wrong rationales. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a template that just needs filling in on my talkpage for a good example of a simple FU rationale. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Pretty simple:

1. No free or public domain versionis available.
2. The image is of lower resolution than the original logo (any copies made from it will be of inferior quality).
3. The image does not limit the copyright owners' rights to distribute their product or image in any way.
4. The image has future historical significance, and is a more appropriate choice than any other image available.
5. The logo is only being used for informational purposes.

That covers 99% of any logos we have. Furthermore, most other sites on the internet aren't fair use retarded, so many popular logos could use a variation of "This image is used on various websites, so its use on Wikipedia does not make it significantly more accessible or visible than it already is." If, instead of tagging, bot users would simply replace the text with this rationale for most logos, we'd probably be in better shape, but they still need to be reviewed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff that rationale covers exactly zero percent of the images. per policy you have to state why you have to have the image on every page you want to use it on. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, okay, so add "the image, as a logo, is used as a visual representation of the organization, and therefore its inclusion in the article is an important visual representation of the organization" to the boilerplate (although obviously something better worded). Think about it, Betacommand—every single logo for an entity used on the article for that entity is used in exactly the same way. If we cannot make a boilerplate argument for the use of almost all logos, then we can't make an argument for the use of logos period. So, do you think we cannot make an argument for the use of an organization's logo, or not? It's really as simple as that. Lexicon (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary page break (FU images)

I don't even really care that Betacommand didn't/can't/won't provide the rationales on his own. My issue is with deletion from linking articles being the FIRST STEP he took. It would have been significantly more polite and courteous to leave a note on the articles' talk pages with a rationale request and, say, a 7-day warning, which would have caught the attention of watching editors just as effectively, but without disrupting the main articles for readers and casual editors. Are we trying to prove a point, or are we trying to write a usable encyclopedia? VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 16:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I aggree, I spent about 20 minutes fixing all the links to pages that his bot deleted images from in a flash, and placed rationales on the images. ≈ Maurauth ^(nemesis) 18:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, VT. Frankly, I do consider the damage Betacommand is doing to articles to be vandalism, and informed him so on his talk page. While properly tagging images is something that is important, the methods he is using to "enforce" these rules are bordering on disruption to prove a point. There certantly is a better way than to vandalize dozens, if not hundreds, of articles, but Betacommand refuses to consider them. His talk about "if only people would follow the rules" as a defense is particularaly hilarious given his own history, and that he was already slapped by an admin yesterday for deliberately tagging images with improper tags. Resolute 00:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree. Fair Use, even though it is a vital, robust part of U.S. copyright law, which governs Wikipedia, is under systematic attack on Wikipedia by anti-fair-use zealots. This is not a good development, and unfortunately, it has the result of diminishing the quality of Wikipedia in order to promote a rather radical agenda. --MCB 01:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually Im improving the quality. wikipedia is the FREE encyclopedia having images that violate copyright law hurts use a lot. if even one of these copyright holders sued the foundation, it is very likely wikipedia would shut down forever, as the Foundation probably doesn't have the financial support to fight such a legal battle and then pay the court ordered fines. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"Radical agenda"? Absolutely not. here Some Wikipedias do not allow fair use at all. Fair use is a slippery slope; after a while, the project will be completely dependent on it. When you look under the article's name, you see a little bit of text. This text reads "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". I agree with Betacommand; With fair use images, Wikipedia is not free. It may be a necessary evil that we must endure, but we need to stop sitting on the fence and decide one road or the other. Sean William 01:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again, it is not your intentions that are being questioned, it is your methods. You are unnecessaraly disrupting dozens of articles in the process of conducting your latest crusade. Resolute 02:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

disruptions are not always a bad thing. I have gotten a lot of support from numerous admins and even one ex-B'crat for that Im doing and how im doing it. if the images in question were not so screwed up I wouldnt have to do what im doing. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 02:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And you are also being questioned but several admins and numerous users (some rightly, some wrongly) for your tactics. In your arrogance, you simply refuse to listen to anyone, or consider alternatives, and that is the true problem here, imo. You are still behaving like a rogue admin. Resolute 02:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not refuse to listen, I have considered the alternatives, show me a method that has a better result ratio, I would gladly use it. as for the complaints, I have yet to see any validity to them. they are mainly either complaints against our FU policy or from people who dont understand it. how is enforcing policy rogue? if inforceing policy is rogue then 99.9% of our admins are rogue. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 02:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalizing articles is rogue. I have already seen two suggestions offered: contact relevent wikiprojects when blocks of images with missing info is found, or place notifications on the talk pages of articles that such images have been tagged for lacking the necessary info. Show me that you have tried these methods. Show me what you have tried. And stop hiding behind "I'm just enforcing policy". The fact that you need to constantly trot this line out as an attempt to sidestep your vandalism pretty much shows me that you have no legitimate defense for your actions. Policy says FU images need proper tags, thats fine. Policy says that newer images without a valid claim can be deleted in 48 hours, and older ones in seven days. Fine. Enforce this, tag the images. But your actions to disrupt articles themselves are what concerns me. Until you show me the policy that states vandalism is a valid method for enforcing policy, your defense is quite empty. Resolute 02:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) so your calling User:OrphanBot a vandal too? Because I choose to comment out images and make the fact that the image is about to be deleted clear? someone sees the image disappear they say "where did it go?" they check the history find out that it was commented out, they then can ignore it or fix the image. Yes I personally havent attempted other methods (why re-invent the wheel?), that is because I adopted orphabot's method. one that is very effective and has been in operation for a long time (1+ years). and calling me a vandal is very low brow. as for Identifying wikiprojects that is a very illogical action, I would have to check to see what projects each page every image is used in, make sure that project is still active and then find the right subpage to leave the note on. (a lot of work for very little reward). Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 02:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that Orphanbot removes images that have already been tagged as lacking source/FU claim so an admin can delete the image - i.e.: once the 2day/7day time limit has expired. It does not remove those images as part of tagging them. You have adopted OrphanBot's activities, but have changed the order to suit your power trip.

Also, I did not state check for a wikiproject for every image, but for when you identify a block of images that belong to an easily definable group. ie.: sports logos. When you come across a bunch of NHL team logos, as you did yesterday, you could very easily find the relevent project, in this case WP:HOCKEY, and mention it. I sourced about 50 NHL logos yesterday after being made aware of the issue. One message on that project's talk page could have accomplished the same function, saving yours, mine and a lot of other people's time.

However, a more reasonable alternative, IMO, is for you to post a message on the talk page of an article with an affected image rather than removing the image itself. This accomplishes the same goal: note of a problem appears in the watchlist of anyone watching the article without the vandalism of the article itself. If nobody takes care of the problem once the 2 days/7 days expire, then the image gets deleted. That is policy. Disrupting articles is not. Resolute 03:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolute, I'd like to get something straight here. Removing no-rationale fair use images from an article is not, by any definition, vandalism. You might disagree with how it's being done, and if you do, you have every right to state your opinion. But continuing to call it "vandalism" is a personal attack, and will be treated as such. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Then call it disruption. Makes no difference to me. From my point of view, removing valid images - especially those that were uploaded well before the current rules were put in place - before their 48 hour/7 day time period is up over what is often an easily fixable problem does not add to the project. The point is, Betacommander's actions are overboard and unnecessary, and he has shown a complete lack of interest in considering alternative ways to accomplish his goal. At any rate, I've said my peace. I can only hope that at some point, he will learn that policy and the community can co-exist. Resolute 03:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

While I understand that Betacommand is simply implementing policy (regardless of whether we agree with it or not), I do find the “commenting out” approach unnecessarily disruptive and inappropriate. With images being placed in an article by different editors over a long period of time and these editors working on a great many articles, all of which are being steadily changed by other editors, it is not necessarily easily and automatically noticeable that an image has been “tagged” for review prior to removal – unless an individual editor has practically memorized the article and its images and their placement. Even if this does happen to be the case (and within the brief time to act and not altogether after the fact), that editor has to act on his or her suspicions of a missing image by scanning through the history to verify that suspicion and determine what image “disappeared”, and then check to see if the uploading editor (the only one being notified) remains active (and isn’t on a wikibreak, vacation, etc.); if not, then the editor – assuming they are familiar with the whole upload and justification process (which few are) – has to try to find a certifiably free image (however one does that) to replace the it (and finding the original image was almost certainly a hard enough and time-consuming task in the first place) – or else try to determine the fair-use rationale for an image whose source and status is unknown to them – all while the timer runs ever closer to zero … and other images in the same or other of the articles they’ve worked on “disappear” into the “commented out” void.

Frankly, there really should be a better way than “commenting out”. I can think of at least two options of which either – or both – would be preferable. First, instead of just notifying the uploader, also post the notice on the article’s talk page. Second, instead of “disappearing” the image, give it a red frame or some other marking that makes it immediately apparent to all and sundry that the image is “at risk”. That would at least give the editors watching the page a head’s up and the maximum time to try to remedy the situation. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he should have used something like this: {{speedy-image-c}}.

---

This file may be deleted at any time.

What betacommand's doing so far has been very counterproductive. Many uploaders have not editted wikipedia for a while and it's unlikely that they'll get around to add the rationale. Not commenting out the image in the main article namespace, which betacommand should have done, is a lot more useful because it at least gives editors who view the page a chance to add the rationale themselves. Again nobody is arguing about the legality of his motive, but his method at approaching this. I hope betacommand changes his massive taggings and start listening to the community because what he's been doing is not helping the project at all. Blueshirts 04:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Many uploaders have not editted wikipedia for a while and it's unlikely that they'll get around to add the rationale.. I'd say what if copyright holders come here before those many uploaders to sue the foundation? Please, think about it both ways and see which thing is more important. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You're not getting it. The tag still targets the images for speedy deletion within seven days if nothing is done. What's different from betacommand's approach is that at least editors who view the page will have a chance to add the rationale, instead of having the images disappear from the article with a great number of their uploaders already missing. Blueshirts 05:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but i've got what you say as i've understood the whole mess since Atlant's started this thread. Betacommand is doing the job nicely and accurately. He notifies uploaders everytime he does so. He notified me today before i went to fix my pic at its roots before fixing what you are talking about above. It wasn't a big deal.

Think about something being straightforward: Tagging → commenting out → notifying uploader → Uploader fixes it.

Think about this now: Tagging → picture removed automatically after 7 days → no picture anymore.

The thing that doesn't make sense is if uploaders would be already missing than who would fix them? Uploaders are notified. If they are still here they have to fix it. If they are off than no one can do that job in their places because other users know nothing about the components. In brief, if the pic is tagged and the uploader is off, it will have 0 chances to survive.

Because i liked the way he does his job, i awarded him 3 barnstars at once. Yes, 3 and i believe they are deserved. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Completely incorrect assumption. If the uploader is gone, or otherwise unavailable, a notification left on the article talk page can alert others so that if they can find the original source (as I did with many NHL team logos), then an editor other than the original uploader can correct the situation. Failing that, other editors could replace the images with alternatives, without disrupting the article itself. If after 48 hours/7 days, nothing is done to correct the image, then it gets deleted. The idea behind this project is to improve this encyclopedia. The improvement part is being lost by editors who do not want to work with the community at large to resolve this issue. Damaging articles and hiding behind policy is the lazy way out. We are asking that you take a look at an alternative that gives people an opportunity to fix an issue, not repair an article. Resolute 15:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not an incorrect assumption. {{Non-free media rationale}} has a component called "source" (the most important component) and i don't see how anyone would know about the source if s/he wasn't the one who uploaded it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is an incorrect assumption, and has already been proven such. I spent two hours Thursday sourcing about 50 logos where I was easily able to find the source. In fact, I can very likely find the source of nearly every team logo related to North American hockey, and failing that, find an alternative to replace it with. All of this would have been cheerfully done if BetaCommand or someone else had made the slightest effort to contact either the hockey wikiproject, or to place a note on an article's talk page indicating an issue.

That said, photos and other images are obviously different than logos, and can be harder to find the proper source. However, such images can likely be replaced within the time limit of the speedy deletion. This can be done without disrupting the articles before it becomes necessary. Resolute 05:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey people, there's one important detail that this lengthy discussion fails to mention: are the fair-use images of logs being removed from articles obviously connected to those articles? By that, I am asking if these are logos for the company or product in question. To furnish examples, this would be the equivalent of the logo for IBM being removed from the IBM article, the Chevrolet logo from the article about Chevrolet vehicles, the unique, unpronounceable symbol that the musician Prince used for a while being removed from the article about him.

If it is not the case, despite my feelings about this Wikipedian, he should be thanked for this efforts -- he is doing the right thing & removing obvious cases that violate Wikipedia's free-use policy. If this is the case, then Betacommand is in the wrong, & should be disciplined -- these are exactly the situations where the spirit & the letter of the law governing fair-use is meant to apply. Sheesh, I can't believe this omission was only mentioned after 4 days has been spent on this debate. -- llywrch 21:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes in some cases I do remove images from company pages. the issue is that the images lack rationale and/or sources. per the FU policy every FU image must have a detailed FU rationale for every page that we want to use it on. If an Image fails policy I tag, comment out, and notify the uploader. when I tag the image I also leave a note of the pages that I removed the image from so that when/if the image's issues are fixed someone can go to those pages and uncomment them out. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The images he's been removing from articles, or at least the ones that have drawn the most ire, have been logos of sports teams, college athletic conferences etc. with obvious fair-use rationales that simply have not been attached to the images yet, generally because they were uploaded before WP's current rules to that regard went into effect. Are the individualized rationales necessary? Policy appears to be that they are, and IANAL (or even a Wikilawyer) to argue that point one way or the other. Given that, the problem is that he chose the most disruptive way possible to make his point short of overwriting/deleting the image files themselves. Furthermore, he (along with others in high places) doesn't appear to give a damn that anybody else might find this the tiniest bit antisocial or damaging to the content (assuming one might consider gaping holes in image boxes to be a problem). What are talk pages for, if not to discuss changes necessary to the article? VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 03:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

VT Hawkeye, you told me all I need to know, & wish it had been repeated a few times in this discussion. It is obvious fair-use to include a team's logo in an article about that team. No one would seriously object to that -- not the owner of the logo, not we Wikipedians interested in free culture. It is not fair use if it is used for other reasons. If the image was uploaded a while ago, & the rationale for its use has not been updated, the more productive course of action would be to update the rationale for the image -- not remove it; to paraphrase someone with more respect than me, never allow the letter of a policy to kill the spirit. -- llywrch 05:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This is almost the sole type of removal that Betacommand is carrying out in relation to logos. There are a couple removals that he has made that are otherwise. For instance, removing the logo of a soccer team from an article on the soccer league (which is not fair use). However, in these cases, he has left the logos of every other soccer team on that league's article. In these cases, if he's not using a bot, he's also not using his brain (or else he'd be removing all the logos, because they're all clearly not fair use). But, as I said, the majority of the removals are of logos of organizations, corporations, and the like from the single article the logos are on, that is, the article for the organization, corporation, or the like. I cannot imagine that his edits (which are often three-fold: addition of no fair use rationale template; commenting out image from the one article it is on; and informing uploader of image) are easier to do than to paste in a virtually boilerplate fair use rationale for the logo. That's the problem—there's no reason why he shouldn't be adding the fair use rationale instead, since, as a logo, there's only one rationale that applies to all. Lexicon (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding fair use rational is the responsibility of the person seeking to include the image. Betacommand should not have to do this when he is responding to an image that does not meet the FUC. You cannot "boilerplate" the rational, as the rational needs to be specific to the image/page. If people are upset by the removal of the FU image, they can just write a rational as should have been done from the beginning. He is responding to images that are not meeting requirements, just because you can think of a more productive way of doing it does not mean what he is doing is disruptive. ^(H) 17:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

H, in a perfect world that would be true. But in a perfect world, we wouldn't be having this conversation about fair use of logos to begin with; & in a perfect world people wouldn't leave Wikipedia, never to return or be reachable about images that they uploaded when their rationale is deemed obsolete. As for "boilerplating" the rational, when the case falls cleanly within the guidelines we have have drawn up, expecting a specific argument in this case is, frankly, thinking like a bureaucrat & threatens to kill Wikipedia with a thousand cuts. Lastly, I think the argument that other Wikipedias do not allow fair use images may be spurious in this case: even though the German Wikipedia does not permit them, for example, they include the logo for Arsenal FC in their article on this soccer team. -- llywrch 18:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh my god, would people stop repeating over and over again that a fair use rationale has to be unique? This argument holds for the vast majority of fair use images, but not for logos. Could you explain to me what would be different in the fair use rationale of the logo of the Boston Bruins in the article Boston Bruins as opposed to the logo of Microsoft in Microsoft? Every logo of an organization which is placed on the article of that organization is fair use for the exact same reason. It is fair use because it is used as a visual representation of that organization in the real world, and so serves the very same purpose here on Wikipedia.

Now, as for your argument that Betacommand is not being disruptive simply because I can think of a more efficient way of dealing with the situation than he has, that's bullshit. Betacommand knew the second he placed the first "no fair use rationale" template on a logo's image page that it would require no more work to add the fair use rationale himself, so it's not just what I've thought of. As for the argument that it is up to the uploader or editor who eventually takes it upon himself to insist that the logo is fair use on an article to come up with a fair use rationale, yes, ideally, that is how it works. However, unless you feel that Betacommand actually desires to rid Wikipedia of all the logos he has tagged, then we should understand his tagging as an attempt to include the logos on Wikipedia, and therefore he has already taken the responsibility upon himself to deal with the images in the most efficient way possible, resulting in the least disruption to Wikipedia. The short of it is that the kind of editors we want on Wikipedia actually do the necessary work, they don't just tag and forget. Lexicon (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand doesn't know how to respond except for repeating the rules and dropping off a couple f-bombs. Is there anybody with the know how to automatically add logo-rationale tags using a bot or something? Blueshirts 01:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Another arbitrary break

Having just read all of the above discussion, I have the following comments:
1. I agree that it's very important to rectify the problems that Betacommand is targeting, but I also agree that he's going about it in a counterproductive manner.
Almost all of the images in question were uploaded before such tagging was required (and many of the uploaders no longer edit), so it's understandable that they've slipped through the cracks. It's true that we need to either apply the proper tags or delete the images, but Betacommand's method ensures that the former is unlikely to occur. This is because he has no desire to see these FU images properly tagged; he would prefer that they be deleted (because this is a "FREE encyclopedia"), as clearly evidenced by his remarks on this page.
2. Betacommand is only notifying the original uploaders of undeleted images that existed under the pertinent filenames. He is not notifying users who subsequently uploaded replacement versions (often from entirely different sources) under the same filenames.
3. Betacommand wants the community to believe that he's performing these edits manually (and claimed above that he isn't using a bot). If only he'd remembered to disable the "BetacommandBot" identification from the beginning, perhaps this blatant lie might have been slightly believable.
4. For a while, Betacommand was deliberately applying the incorrect {{no rationale}} tag to images uploaded before 4 May 2006 (despite knowing that it contained an explicit claim to the contrary). He then refused to immediately re-tag the images (despite the fact that this could have misled sysops to prematurely delete them), so I performed almost 1,900 rollbacks (and I don't have a bot), thereby investing a great deal of time that otherwise could have gone toward something else. —David Levy 02:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Before you start name calling maybe you see: User:Betacommand/Sandbox that is what im using, (sorry the code is so ugly and messy without code comments) you might want a m:pywikipedia user to double check that. but that is what im using. (when you asked me to revert myself I said that I couldnt then, I had to go to work then, I said Id be back in ~12 hours and id fix it then, while I was away you mass reverted. I would have helped had I been able) Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 02:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Name-calling? What name-calling?

2. That code (which took some time to produce, supposedly because you needed to make it look "presentable" for some inexplicable reason) proves nothing. I don't doubt your ability to write a script that could be used to perform user-assisted edits of this nature, but it simply isn't plausible that all of the edits in question occurred in such a manner (even ignoring the fact that they included a "BetacommandBot" identifier).

3. Yes, I said that you refused to act immediately. Eventually (more than ten hours after arguing that it was okay to insert the improper tags), you agreed to begin rectifying the problem twelve hours after that (by which point many of the images may have been prematurely deleted). Had you not deliberately inserted a false tag in the first place, none of this would have been necessary. —David Levy 03:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

you called me a liar. and that code is still shit, I wouldnt normally publish that. Ask any good programmer, that code doesnt have documentation, and still needs a lot of cleanup. but because you called me a liar, I decided to publish it in that form. I didnt deliberately inserted a false tag I looked for the appropriate template for the images, I coundnt find it. so I used the template that best fit. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

PS let me fix the code so others can use it then please prove me wrong and that that script doenst do what I say it does. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

1. No, I did not call you a "liar." I referred to your claim as a "lie."

2. Seeking an appropriate tag, failing to find one, and using one that you know contains an inaccurate statement is deliberately inserting a false tag. Why didn't you simply create a new template for this purpose?

3. Again, I don't doubt that the script does what you say it does. I simply don't believe that you've been using it to perform these edits. —David Levy 03:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well... let me ask, does it work as advertised? If it does with no bugs and it behaves the same, then I would assume good faith here. If it does not, then we might have issues. I assume the betacommandbot summaries would have been a one line change in code, just changing what it puts in the summary field. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 03:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In light of Betacommand's past infractions of this nature (which resulted in his desysopping earlier this month), I'm only willing to assume good faith on his part in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Nonetheless, I do believe that the underlying motive behind his edits is to improve the project. —David Levy 03:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, betacommand I think it would be best if you gave us a set of instructions on how to use this python code, It should be pretty simple, download python, get twisted python... etc, but if you could do this, then we would be able to verify by trying the code that it works as advertised. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 03:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to assume that the script performs precisely as Betacommand claims. But what does that prove? We know that he's a talented coder, and he had days to write it. —David Levy 04:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

(copied from the other board as discussion there is closed) I also doubt this is a fully automatic process, a fully automatic process could not tag something as no fair use rational, then in the next edit tag something as no source, then tag something as no rational. There is *no* way to make a bot do that type of determination by itself. All the bot can see is text and keywords which the programmer has programmed into it. See this link from 4 days ago here that I found. I think he has been using this script the whole time, either that or he has written a damned good bot that can some how make that type of determination (no source versus no fair use rational) with no errors. I think I'd lean to the former rather then the latter, as I don't think the latter is possible. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 05:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know which edit(s) you're referring to, but I don't see what's so difficult about determining that a page containing nothing but templates with no parameters lacks a cited source and fair use rationale.

Incidentally, there have been numerous errors. —David Levy 05:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I don't think you understand the difficulty in doing this task with an automated bot. How are you tell what to do on an image with a fair use rational but no source? A human is required to look and see "oh, there is no source provided". Same for no fair use image. Now I can understand a bot that tags inages as no fair use rational and no source based on seeing only tags. Thats something I could program in 20 minutes with the frameworks I have at my disposal. In addition the only errors that I have seen are to articles (ie orphaning problems), In short I'm not seeing any errors with the determination of no source, or no fair use rational given. In short David, can you supply me a reason that it is a bot, other then the fact that at one time he had the "betacommandbot" thing, which very easily could have been a programming mistake when he copied and pasted old code. (probably from the orphanded fair use image bot). —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 05:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

1. It's easy to determine that a page containing almost no non-template text other than a URL includes no fair use rationale but likely includes a source citation (the aforementioned URL).

2. I just searched through a page of 500 edits to the Image namespace. I found three tagged only as "no source," and they didn't contain anything that would be mistaken by a human for a fair use rationale: 1/2/3

3. Betacommand didn't claim that the "BetacommandBot" notation was a mistake. He provided an explanation that made no sense to me (and ignored my follow-up questions).

4. By your account, most of these edits (the ones to image pages containing only templates) could easily be performed by a bot. Why would Betacommand devote hours upon hours to such a task?

5. Earlier this month, Betacommand was desysopped due to continual bot abuses. I have a difficult time assuming good faith on the part of someone who lost the community's trust because of precisely this sort of infraction.

6. The craziest part is that I barely care whether a bot was used (excepting the contrary claim). Specific implementation aside, this actually seemed like a good idea. As others have noted, performing these tasks manually would be less sensible. —David Levy 06:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well the way I'm reading point number two is that a semi-automatic tool had to be used. Thats just not consistent (and bots are anything but not consistent), as I'm sure there are instances where he tagged something with no fair use rational and no source as "no rational given". You are right though, a bot can and probably should be used for the vast majority of these. (those with no source and no rational given that the bot finds a) no text other then tags in the description b) no summary c) was after May 4 2006, if its before, take a different action). Frankly I still don't see evidence that it is a bot. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 06:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to reply to point number one :). If I did a bot to do that it would inevitably screw up on those with no url as the source. Not all sources have a url. Given that, a bot would mistag things in a very obvious pattern. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 06:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

1. I don't understand your response to my previous point #2. (Sorry.)

2. As I noted, there appear to be very few instances in which an image was tagged only as "no source." If this was done manually, I don't know how the existent text could have been mistaken by a human for fair use rationales.

My point was that a bot could safely assume that a URL is a source (even though it might not be), not that it could safely assume that text lacking a URL does not contain a source. —David Levy 07:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, ok, let me try again then :), sorry about that. You stated that you found 3 images tagged only as no source when they could have been tagged as both no source, and no rational. What I'm trying to say is that I'm sure there are instances where he tagged them as both no rational and no source, and some instances where he tagged them as no rational only. Thus his behavior is not consistent. If it were a bot it would do the same thing every time. Given a page with no rational and no source, it would tag it in a predictable manner, he is clearly not tagging these in a predictable manner.

As far as the url issue, thats exactly why a bot can't be used for such a task. It would tag articles with no urls as no source given, unless it were to use some other criteria. A bot can tag images that lack both a source and a fair use rational, as the criteria for that is clear cut, a bot however would have a very difficult if not impossible task of accurately tagging an article as missing a fair use rational, but having a source. I guess you could use the existence of a url for this, but it would not be 100% accurate, or anything very close to that A bot would not be able to tell the difference between the text saying "the source is" (or any of many other variants) from the fair use rational, and would end up screwing this up. But the other way around is not possible to do vie bot, and that is tagging an article image that has no source, but has a fair use rational. As not all sources have a url (say scanned book covers for example). Therefore I'm almost 100% sure that betacommand was using the semi-automated script the whole time, there simply is not strong evidence to the opposite effect, and some difficult challenges to using a fully automated bot that would not make predictable mistakes. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 07:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, let me try this again.  :-)

1. Did you view the three pages in question? They weren't blank. All contained text that could have been interpreted by a bot as possible fair use rationales, but none contained text that an actual person could reasonably perceive as such.

2. Again, I'm not suggesting that a bot would interpret the lack of a URL as the lack of a source citation. I'm suggesting that it could err on the side of caution by assuming that a URL (possibly among other keywords) is a source citation and tagging the image only as "no rationale" (if little or no other text is present).

3. I wish that we could return to discussing the other pertinent elements of this situation. As I said, I actually believe that Betacommand's actions were less sensible if I'm wrong (and he wasn't using a bot). I pressed the issue (among several others) because some users seem to feel strongly about it, but the core topic of discussion should be the edits themselves (IMHO). —David Levy 08:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, I was thinking of something else you said >.> In any case, thats still not possible to do vie by bot, as how can the bot tell if there is not a source in that text? (not all sources or URLs). In any case, I don't think there is a very strong likely hood of this being a bot, I don't see anything close to a smoking gun, and several difficult technical obstacles that would have to be overcome to even stand a chance of not being detected by an obvious pattern, and I don't see any ideas being put forth that would even make it close to possible, its just not technically possible to do that. In short he did not use a bot under his account. There simply is no evidence that he did. Now since we chatted about this, what were the other parts of this discussion? (other then the bot issue?) I have a feeling that he was using a semi-automated tool as the technical challenges to using a non-semi-automated tool are rather difficult, as I demonstrated above (in my last reply). Now if there are improvements or other ideas that can be given to betacommand that would improve the behavior of his tool such as not orphaning the image, and instead posting a message on the talk page (and logging the image somewhere for a checkup in a week or so for further action), please state them :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 08:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of tagged images contained no non-template text. It's possible that Betacommand manually intervened for the few that did, but that would only make some of the edits in question more inexplicable.

Had Betacommand provided a logical explanation for the "BetacommandBot" identifier (such as your theory that it was a simple mistake) instead of ignoring my follow-up questions, I might have felt differently.

Please see the first message in this subsection (from 02:12 UTC) for the other concerns that I didn't intend to be overshadowed by this one (which matters to me the least). —David Levy 08:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, lets assume good faith in betacommand and assume its not a bot. If we do that we are faced with a few issues that need resolved.

1. First he, and anyone else that uses his tool should notify all uploaders.
2. A message should be posted by the tool to all talk pages of all articles that the image is on, to notify editors on those articles that an image on that article needs a fair use rational, and or source.
3. No orphaning the images until a) they are deleted, or b) the image has not had a rational added in 7 days. This can be achieved by having the tool log all images that an action was taken on into a file such as <currentdate>_imagelog. That way the user of the tool can re-check those images in 7 days and orphan them if needed.
4. Insure that the tool uses the appropriate tags. (suggestion on appropriate tags would be nice here) :)
5. The tool must display to the user the summary that *all* uploaders used, and the names of all the uploaders (with the date of upload)

Have I missed anything? If those points above were done, would there be any problem with allowing users to use this tool? —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 09:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• It shouldn't break an article, like this [1] as I pointed out in the now-closed WP:AN discussion. EliminatorJR ^Talk 12:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

see [2] I think that should fix that issue. But as Im doing some other upgrades (some that Ive been planning and some that I have gotten from user input) I havent had a chance to test it yet. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 12:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ive added the code for the five things Eagle brought up. #4 im using {{image source2}} and {{missing rationale2}} for talk page notification. Im still debuging and testing when I am sure those work Ill release the code. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Unwarranted and repeated incivility by User:Gwen Gale

I hate reporting but this is causing me some grief. Gwen Gale has repeatedly impugned my integrity, while I am trying to have a rational discussion. Here are the diffs:

• Gwen Gale says that my discussing a problem on an article talk page to be disruptive and abusive
• I request that she assume good faith
• A few posts later she tells me to "stop trolling this page"
• I ask her to refrain from personal attacks
• she refuses on the grounds that she was being honest
• So at that point I stopped that discussion. But this evening, when I asked her to stop ignoring the central point I was raising
• Her reply was to bring up someone else's strange and unjustified complaint about me. (The complaint was turned down).
• And I objected to that edit
• Whereupon she really lays on the personal attack.

I think that this is unacceptable behavior. --Blue Tie 04:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, and? -- Ned Scott 04:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL.. thanks for asking. I do not know. What am I supposed to do? Is uncivil behavior allowed on wikipedia or is it disruptive to the project?--Blue Tie 04:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Blue Tie, I guess nobody told you. Gwen owns that article so it would be best just to move on. It took me HUGE efforts just to remove the word "Friday" from the lead sentence. With over a million other articles, I wouldn't fight it. Cheers :) --Tom 18:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect for the patience of anyone who may be reading this and only for the record, as far as I know Tom (aka User:Threeafterthree) has made zero contributions to that article other than hammering away at removing the widely documented and verified day of the week from the article's lead. Why this is so important to him, I do not know. Gwen Gale 16:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is it so important to you to keep it in the lead? --Tom 17:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that is a good way for wikipedia to operate? I was under the impression it should be different. --Blue Tie 01:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the more insubstantial complaints I have seen appear on this noticeboard, which, might I remind you, exists for matters which require the attention of administrators.Proabivouac 04:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You, however, are her friend and have participated with her in efforts against me, so I do not believe you are unbiased in the matter.--Blue Tie 14:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall having taken part in any effort against you.Proabivouac 21:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Your bias is demonstrably extreme. I do not mind that you like her (seemingly, she can do no wrong in your eyes) but you are not an unbiased editor on this matter. --Blue Tie 23:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Blue Tie, I'll grant you that some of Gwen Gale's comments linked above are sharp, perhaps unduly so, just as I would concur that your style of engagement is at times tiresome. There may be some merit in your proposed removal of the word "scathing," however that is a content dispute which requires the attention not of administrators but perhaps a few fresh pairs of eyes; an RfC on this point might attract them.Proabivouac 19:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[3] and [4] are really beyond the pale, not "sharp." Dmcdevit·t 00:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation is this way, or that way. I would strongly encourage the two of you to engage in it, before you find yourself going an entirely different way instead. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You might not have noticed this, but some of those responses she gave me were where I had asked her if we should be involved in mediation. She was not very interested. But more importantly, mediation pages say that an assumption of good faith is required for mediation to work. The fundamental issue is that she does not assume good faith with regard to me but assumes bad faith. She calls me a troll. One of her edits, that I show above, has me requesting that she refrain from personal attack and she says it is ok to attack me personally because she makes her attacks in good faith. Another one, in response to a fair request, is to bring up her beliefs that I am somehow I am not representing myself honestly, and several times she returns to that theme - evidently believing that I am somehow some other editor with whom she has had problems. So Mediation, which requires good faith, does not seem to be an appropriate venue. Just asking her to assume good faith and be polite has not worked. What else would you suggest?

I want to work to write articles in a fair, neutral way, without things getting personal and unpleasant. I do not abuse people. I do not call names. I apologize frequently when I know that I have upset someone. I rarely report anyone. And in return I find myself regularly getting walked on. This is not the first time, but I am, after a year of this, starting to grow tired of it. Why can't wikipedia be a place where rules of civil behavior are appropriately enforced, so that the process is not disrupted? Is the right answer, like Tom says, to just let bullies drive you off articles as it did with him? How is that the way to write an article well? Is that how wikipedia wants to operate? I ask the question seriously because it seems so to me and it is frustrating.

Finding mediation not very fruitful in 4 past encounters and also not believing the conditions meet the standards for mediation, I have instead come here. Have I done it wrong? It seems Arbcom is a step past this and should not be considered or recommended yet. So, what have I done wrong? --Blue Tie 14:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It occurs to me that perhaps this is seen as "too light a problem". Perhaps that is because I have not included some history going back and only discussed the most recent issues. But I generally prefer to assume good faith and let past problems just go away. However, with this user, the problems continually repeat. The accusations of trolling and wiki stalking her are not new. I just have not complained about them or included them above, because it seems to me that it is ok to put up with things for a while, but after a while enough is enough and a reasonable concern posted here should get at least a bit of attention if not respect.--Blue Tie 15:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that accusations of bad faith, and calling others trolls, is a particularly unwarranted and needs to stop in order for the content negotiations to be fruitful. In theory, the response refused or failed mediation is WP:RFAr, for cases that don't require obvious fixes like admin blocks. I'm not sure there is much administrators can do here: our technical tools are blunt. I can block someone, but for problems like assumptions of bad faith in a certain content dispute for an otherwise productive editor, that is not likely to be a net gain for the project. Administrators (because of the limitation of this being a website) don't really have many options outside that, besides persuasion. Perhaps arbitration is the way to go, if it continues. Arbitration isn't just for bans, but is designed to be able to handle targeted solutions for specific problems, like assumptions of bad faith. Dmcdevit·t 00:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I never refused mediation.

Meanwhile, as I said on my talk page, if an admin would like to point out some specific aspect of WP policy which I have overstepped, I'll be happy to stop whatever it is I shouldn't be doing. Since arbitration is for behavioural issues, and I'm willing to instantly cooperate with the leadership of this public wiki in anything the leadership asks me to do, there is no need for arbitration. Finally, this all comes down to a simple sourcing dispute. Blue Tie seems to want a 100 year old citation being used at Mountain Meadows Massacre expunged. I think it wholly complies with WP sourcing policy. Gwen Gale 02:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Good, then I suggest you two try mediation before contemplating arbitration. If you want specific problems pointed out, as I noted earlier I think the trolling accusation was over the top and a personal attack. There's no reason to make accusations of bad faith like that, and if you do, the only effect you are likely to cause is to poison the atmosphere and make a peaceful resolution impossible. Dmcdevit·t 05:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Dmcdevit, if accusations of trolling are unacceptably uncivil personal attacks, why have you engaged in them yourself?[5] In large point font and boldface, no less. If, on the other hand, "trolling" is a potentially legitimate characterization of user behavior - as I imagine you must have thought at the time you signed that - then the question is only whether the characterization is accurate.

You wrote, "Good, then I suggest you two try mediation before contemplating arbitration."

Of course, you are correct that mediation is the way to go here; however I must observe that the only one who has "contemplat[ed] arbitration" in this thread is you.

As you have blocked Gwen Gale in the past under questionable circumstances - again involving Blue Tie - it might make sense to await the participation of administrators who don't carry this baggage into the discussion.Proabivouac 06:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

First, quit the ad hominem. I'm offering a bit of advice, nothing more, and am not personally on trial just because you disagree. In regards to that ruling by the Arbitration Committee, there is no way it constitutes the assumption of bad faith that Gwen Gale's attack does, since he was trolling, and he stated so himself. Are you trying to say that Blue Tie is really a troll? Again, that is a very unproductive way of resolving a content dispute, making accusations of deliberate disruption, rather than addressing the debate at hand. Yes, that is incivility. Dmcdevit·t 16:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Dmcdevit, I assumed good faith with Blue Tie months ago, and in return, I am so sorry to say, I was wikistalked from Lisa Nowak to Mountain Meadows Massacre by a user whose edits (and even user name) were quite similar to a string of obvious sockpuppets. Nevertheless, I didn't bring any of that up until it became clear that what Blue Tie meant by a "serious meaning of the minds" and "good faith" was agreeing wholly with his notion to remove throroughly sourced and documented material from the MMM article. Many experienced editors watch and contribute to that article and Blue Tie is the only editor who has repeatedly objected to the inclusion of that widely known material (the content has to do with accusations of rape so it's very emotional and controversial, like the whole topic of MMM). What's more, Blue Tie clearly misread the source and this was pointed out to him by other editors. Meanwhile the citation conforms spot on with WP's sourcing policies, I never refused mediation and truth be told, one might understand how I could be a bit unhappy that my posts and edit history have been so wantonly misrepresented here. Lastly, I still think your behaviour towards me last month was a blockable offense but I let it drop and I'm still willing to let it drop because although I think you made a big docking mistake, I glark that from your perspective it was done from some wider aspect of good faith. Thanks for listening and cheers to you. Gwen Gale 17:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

A modest proposal: that spurious allegations of blockable behaviour be greeted with a block - David Gerard 17:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Gwen Gale has a terrible disposition with a history of attacking other users. For example she deleted all of my critics and suggestions about the lesbian article. She dared to call those trolls who ask for a scientific and phonological section on the article.--Margrave1206 13:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Would saying someone has a terrible disposition be uncivil, a personal attack, or beyond the pale? Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Haha! That's the pith. Margrave1206 characterized lesbian behaviour as an "imbalance" with zero citations to offer in support of that assertion. If Margrave1206 wishes to characterize my "disposition" as "terrible" for having removed Margrave1206's unproductive comments, which I took as baiting, from that talk page (and which comments another regular editor on that article also strongly objected to), I see it only as a typical MUD tactic for tricking a careless admin into doing something accidently untowards (like blocking me without warning for something I haven't done). So far as my editing history goes, who here hasn't had disagreements with fuzzy headed or PoV warring editors? Cheers to all though, Gwen Gale 14:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Banned user posting at RFCU

Should a banned user be allowed to post comments at checkuser? Should a banned user's comments be kept in a checkuser request out of concern to keep checkuser cases intact?

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dereks1x. I removed the banned user's long diatribe against Bobblehead, a user in good standing, from the checkuser request per WP:BAN, but it was reinserted by another editor here. I have objected to the reinsertion of the banned user's edits at the checkuser request's talk page, noting that the banning policy allows removal of the edits and noting that the banned user is merely using checkuser as a soapbox. More comments on this issue are welcome. · jersyko talk 15:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I am asking the CUs opinion on that matter on their talk page -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

removed edit by banned user · jersyko talk 04:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

With respect, freedom of speech doesn't apply on Wikipedia. WP:BAN does. Your comment sounds eerily familiar to me, though . . . · jersyko talk 19:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

removed edit by banned user · jersyko talk 04:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, WP:UCS applies here to. If he's making a legitimate attempt to defend himself or present his view, let it slide. If he's being disruptive and trolling, yank it. Seriously, just think about things and the right decision becomes clear. This doesn't need an AN/I thread. -M^ask? 22:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the situation: this is a banned user evading his ban, coming in under a new addition to his 20+ sock accounts, to make a false RFCU accusation against one of the editors who had provided evidence of his sockpuppetry. He shouldn't be able to present any view at all - he has been community banned. And the posts of a banned user should be removed and stay removed. It is a completely legitimate thing to have brought up on AN/I. Tvoz |talk 03:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Err, yes. Im retarded. Ignore me :) -M^ask? 04:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah, maybe you just read it too quickly. Tvoz |talk 17:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs)

This user has repeatedly remove the "Unreferenced" tag from Mothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (the article had no sources cited). Then the user puts in ISBN:0709302177 and there is no mention of this in the ISBN that was given. The user is also on general probation for disruptive behavior. Any thoughts on why this user does not want the article to cite any sources or have references? What can be done? Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 15:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What is your objection to using the book as a reference? I'm not sure I understand. I do think asking Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) about this on his talk page would have been a logical first step instead of coming here. --OnoremDil 15:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

there is no mention of anything to do with the article in the references that Pigsonthewing provided, atleast none that I have found. He has also reverted the article three times in a 24 hour period after being on probation for 3RR. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 16:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

A book about Mothers doesn't contain information that has anything to do with an article about Mothers?

I could be mistaken, but I believe the probation period is over now. I might be looking at the wrong page though. --OnoremDil 16:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see this page, which states here that "Pigsonthewing is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. He may be banned for good cause by any administrator from any page or talk page which he disrupts.", and here that "Pigsonthewing is limited to one revert per article per week, excluding simple vandalism, for a period of one year. Determination of when this has been violated may be done by any uninvolved administrator.". He was also Banned for a year. Since it would not make sense for the total ban and the one revert per week limit to run simultaneously, I'd assume he is limited to one revert per week from when his ban expired. The Case Closed on 18:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC), so I assume that the one revert per week is still in effect, as we are still within 24 months of that date?

He has also recently had a soft ban on all infobox-related edits. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 23:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

We have to buy the book to see it's references? That's not good enough. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 17:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Books are verifiable...just not immediately, or can there be no reliable sources that don't come with links? I guess we should just remove the section from Wikipedia:Citing sources that explains how to cite books... --OnoremDil 17:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not "put in" ISBN:0709302177, it was in the article before my edits of yesterday and today; in fact it's been there since June 2004. I note that you have ignored my comment about this issue on the article's talk page; but did post a sarcastic and unwarranted "welsome" message on my talk page. Andy Mabbett 16:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, case closed ehh. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 16:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Not until you withdraw your false allegation:

"Any thoughts on why this user does not want the article to cite any sources or have references?"

Andy Mabbett 16:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No false allegation here. You removed the "Unreferenced" tag three times. And what, we have to buy the book to see it's references? Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 16:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It is acceptable Wikipedia sourcing to require someone to buy a book to see its references. Ken Arromdee 17:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You could write to the editor who added the book to the reference list, and have him tell you something about it. It does seem fairly obscure. The book must exist, because it is found under that ISBN at amazon.co.uk and is currently available for sale. I couldn't find the book in any online library catalogs. You could ask for more sources to be added. EdJohnston 17:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I basicly did when I added the tag (that was removed) OK, the article is challenged per WP:VERIFY. There maybe a book out but one should not have to go out and buy a book that may or may not be a reliable source. A secondary source should be provided that can be checked online via a link. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 17:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It has never been a requirement that a source be online. Books by reputable publishers, by reputable authors, are acceptable sources. Corvus cornix 20:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Solution

I have added {{Onesource}} to the article. Hope this is OK with Pigs onthewing. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 18:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your logic and solution Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu, but as a sign of good faith would you please refer to him as Andy Mabbett? It's antagonistic, unnecessary, and makes you look like a WP:DICK no matter how correct you are when you don't. Anynobody 05:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Can't the user request a name change if he doesn't want people to use his, er, username? Dan Beale 14:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think they definitely should, but not abiding by a simple request like using a requested name seems to go against WP:CIVIL. Anynobody 22:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

(It also gives him something to complain about) Anynobody 22:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

He'll complain anyway, he may as well omplain about us using a username he chose! L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 17:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

He changed his mind about the username he "wants" though, and you are correct that he'll probably complain regardless. If 99 times out of 100 he complains about something he is wrong, do you want to be the one he was right about?

The point about actions he could take on his own to correct the name issue is valid though, he could do more to address the situation himself. However by directly doing what he asked you not to sounds antagonistic so instead of calling him by his original name why not call him "editor who wishes to be called Andy Mabbet" or something like that. Anynobody 22:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User: Calton

Despite admins warnings and blocks, User Calton continues to litter articles with ugly and/or inappropriate templates, WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT, etc. Recommend block user from articles around which he can't seem to stop vandalizing, reverting and making uncivil remarks. 76.166.123.129 20:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Does it have anything to do with this? --24.136.230.38 20:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oh dear, I fear our anonymous friend may just have discovered the law of unintended consequences. Guy (Help!) 20:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No Guy, don't think so. Pretty obvious Calton has repeatedly trashed articles and violated various WP alphabet. Suggest bringing in admins with a little diginity. Guy ignored the template that disputed article deletion. Any honorable admins who see the writing on the wall want to participate? If not, no reason for me to stick around. 76.166.123.129 22:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggest shutting up about your dispute over the deletion of your article. I did not ignore it, but " notable enough" does not constitute grounds for challenging deletion. It wasn't. Feel free not to stick around, and do let me know if you need help with that. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You might want to advise the anon -- who is almost certainly the owner/subject of the articles in question she's whinging about -- that she's had several MONTHS to make a credible assertion of notability (or even the slightest assertion in the case of the now-twice-deleted Seasons & a Muse, Inc.) and has failed to do so. Also, removing unambiguous speedy tags? Definitely a no-no. --Calton | Talk 11:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I'd bet folding money that the anon has also registered an account. Check the edit history of the previously deleted version of Seasons & a Muse, Inc., and I'm guessing that it was originally created by an anon IP beginning with "76". A skim of the talk page for 76.166.123.129 going back several months, including the remarkable intersection of interest with User:The Nervous Mermaid and the long-term edit-warring of the IP number makes me think quack quack and all that. --Calton | Talk 22:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we can guess the real world identity, as well, since Jeanne Marie Spicuzza appears only in films made by her own production company, and her books are also published by her own publishing company, and I can't find any obvious evidence of anyone else's work being produced by either. Guy (Help!) 08:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Note Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Telogen and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Telogen. The registered accounts haven't edited in awhile though. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Now see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeanne Marie Spicuzza. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• A one week block of the two accounts and the IP would appear prudent, to avoid disruption of the current AfD debates. Past experience indicates that this user will disrupt such debates. Guy (Help!) 08:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The user just double-voted on the AfD [6], so I blocked User:Telogen for a week and the IP for 24 hours. Feel free to review the block and shorten/lengthen as appropriate. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That IP seems to be remarkably stable, so it was probably safe to block it for longer. --Calton | Talk 02:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, but since the IP has ordered me off his/her talk page, someone else will have to perform the honors. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and possible wikistalking

It seems that User:Vlad fedorov decided to "get even" with me after returning back after 3RR block. Today he started reverting all my edits (or deleting large segments of sourced text) in many articles that I edited recently. Please see:

• [7] He reverts my last 8 edits in article Tambov rebellion.
• [8] He reverts 12+ my last edits in article Active measures
• [[9]] same - Nikolai Koltsov. Here he "corrects" direct citation from Nature (journal) by replacing word between two "..." signs [10]

rts previously protected version of article Boris Stomakhin that is curre*[11] Deletion of HUGE portion of well referenced text from article Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation - without any discussion

• [12] He reverts edits by me and others in Internet brigades
• [13] He reverts even such minor thing as a category.
• [14] He inserts poorly supported defamatory statements to biography of a living person, although two other editors disagree
• [15] He revently under official mediation, see [16]
• [17] Another deletion of well sourced text without discussion
• He edits in a highly disruptive manner article GRU.

That is all he accomplished today. Honestly, I am very tired of that. Can anyone give me a piece of advice, please?Biophys 21:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What could I say? Look into Biophys contribs since 9th of May 22:47 when I was blocked. Biophys used this moment to revert all of my contributions and all of our agreements on the articles. So, if Biophys who wasn't stopped by anyone deleting all of mine contributions is not disruptive, then why my edits, returning back the hard work that I have done searching for reliable sources and contributing to the articles, are considered by Biophys as disruptive? Please also tell since what times adding contributions to Wikipedia by me is disruptive and deletion of sourced texts by Biophys is undisruptive? Calling your opponents editing disruptive, vandalous, etc. is very easy way to win the ordinary content dispute, right? I have never reverted your contributions while you, Biophys, was blocked for 3RR. Never! And it is you who is responsible for disruptive editing.

However, if User:Theresa Knott doesn't wish to look at the articles at the issue, let me show some diffs by Biophys while my blocking period.

diff Biophys deletion of sourced judgement of the most respective international organization - changing it to the local US nongovernmental organization judgement. Article Russia. See his comment:"(The statement by Gil-Robles is outdated (2004); the rating by Freedom House is recent (2007). But maybe this statement by FH should be moved to a different place? I am not sure.)".

diff deletion of text concerning the criticism of both the author and the book in Putin's Russia. See Bophys comment:"rv - please read talk page - this article is about the BOOK, not about Politkovskaya. There is a separate article about her. This text was simply cut and pasted from another WP article.)".

diff Deletion of absolutely sourced criticism on the conflict of interests in the organization. Article Glasnost Defense Foundation. See Biophys comment:"(irrelevant info removed, see talk page)". Self-explainable? Other editors - Mikkalai and Alex Bakharev found my information useful, but Master Biophys doesn't.

diff Deletion of the information about a case on which the whole book is founded. Article Blowing up Russia: Terror from within. See Biophys comment:"(remove not relevant information copied from another WP article)". Self-explainable?

diff Reinserting again extreme POV with violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Article List of political parties in Russia. Look into history of this article - Biophys does it systematically and doesn't want to compromise with other editors. See Biophys comment: "(rv - if you want to make NPOV version - please add more things supported by your sources, rather than deleting well referenced text (this may be considered as vandalism))".

diff Reinserting again the whole POV section full of allegations and moved by user QZXA2 to talk page for discussion. Article Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation. See Biophys comment: "(rv - large-scale deletion of well sourced text without discussion. "Too POV" is not an argument. You can try to make small changes if they are justified and supported by alternative references.)" WP:OWN? Self-explainable.

diff Article Tambov Rebellion. See Biophys comment: "(Removing large segment of text copied from another article, which is completely unsourced. It creates duplications and makes the article unreadable; other edits)". Self-explainable?

diff. Article Anna Politkovskaya - deletion of all criticism section. Comment by Biophys:"(removing a few defamatory statements supported by a single unreliable source and a couple of outdated comments by non-notable people; minor editing. This article is already too long.)". Self-explainable? Any critcism of Biophys political POV - is defamatory in Wikipedia and should be deleted according to him. But if he inserts his extreme POV in the article with violation of WP:UNDUE he than typically says add your POV. But afterwards he begins his campaign about defamation and unreliable sources.

diff Again deletion of the information, that Biophys doesn't like. Again article Anna Politkovskaya and again the same comment:" (Two more non-notable opinions; Mayorov is a sportsmen)".

Yevgenia Albats. All claims of Biophys about defamation and poorly sourced statements are false. All that I described in the article is a well known thing in Russian internet. You may ask both Ellol, Irpen and Alex Bakharev in order to ascertain this. All the sources are provided to every sentence. Most of the sentences have two or more sources.

diff Reinsertion by Biophys of the category "Russian dissident" in the article of terrorist Akhmed Zakayev.

diff. Again editing the article to his POV while I am blocked. Comment of Biophys:"(more proper categorization and more consistent with sources. He is former political prisoner according to Amnesty International.)".

diff Reinserting unsourced POV category. Again. But this time Biophys doesn't provide explanations since there are no sources in support of his category.

Political repression of cyber-dissidents. Boris Stomakhin was sentenced by the court because in his publications he called to exterminate all Russians without any mercy and was calling to commit terrorist attacks on Russian civilians. Therefore he can't be described as a political blogger. Mr. Osama Bin Laden is not a dissident, or he is? Methods of repression are claimed to be stalking, bullying and psychological methods? Well there are no such information in source Biophys inserts - Bagryansky. And the creation of internet teams is described not in Bagryansky but by Saydykov article - and iit is just pure allegations without any evidence - but I left them.

diff Reinserting extreme POV. Article Jeffrey Nyquist.

diff reisnerting absolutely POV opinion with violation of WP:UNDUE.

diff deletion of POV tag without my consent.

diff Again revert to his lovely POV version. David Satter. Comment by Biophys:"(rv to 162.129.250.1 (Talk) at 03:59, 15 March 2007. Same text but better English.)".

diff Reinserting "victim of political repressions" category into terrorist article.

diff Article Internet brigades. Deletion of my tag. As for Biophys claims of deletion of his edits. It is he actually who deletes information that I insert. Just look at that latest diff.

Please also look at the history of these articles - Biophys reverts continually reinsertions of my texts by other users - he continues his work in Wikipedia using the methods of elimination of the information he personally doesn't like. This is an issue in Operation Sarindar, Human rights in Russia, List of political parties in Russia,Anna Politkovskaya, Boris_Stomakhin, Yevgenia Albats. In all these articles Biophys is fond of just deleting of the information. See his edits in history of these articles. He doesn't contribute to the content - just deletes. Vlad fedorov 09:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

As for wikistalking see the history of all the articles involved - I have edited them long ago. Biophys allegations of stalking are very old indeed and see my RfC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vlad fedorov where even my strong opponents like User:Piotrus acknowledge that there is no wikistalking.

So I think even surfaced browsing of Biophys edits could really get you into the picture that I have described in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biophys. Vlad fedorov 05:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Additionaly, for the first time on Administrators board, threats of Biophys.

Biophys regulary "threatens" to publish other such articles. Please see also his threats here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Operation_Sarindar#Let.27s_make_small_changes_gradually_and_discuss_every_change_first. And by the way Biophys perfectly fits into WP:OWN definition. He regularly mentions that he created the article and other users are always disturbing him. I think WP:OWN is perfect description of his behaviour. See even the same suggestions that Biophys always writes do match perfectly there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OWN#Comments Vlad fedorov 05:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

WPIV  ??? Pedro |  Chat  21:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't look like vandalism to me, Pedro. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, article Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation had 65 references before his intervention. Now it has only 10. Still, I am not sure what to do.Biophys 21:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

So, do you think that his actions were just a normal editing? Then he will be doing this every day.Biophys 01:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This needs to go back to ArbCom. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this was at ArbCom, but yes, something should be done. That said, we can wait a month or two for ArbCom to block the disruptive user, or just speed up the process... considering that Vlad back from his week-long ban is causing disruption and revert warring again, I really don't see why we should burdern ArbCom with an obvious situation.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  07:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And again a comment from a user trying to win content dispute with me on administrator's noticeboard. Piotrus manner to bandwagon his opponents is already a matter of arbitration against him . Piotrus, why reinsertion of my materials which Biophys deleted as shown up here is disruptive? Piotrus, however, also prefers not to explain why Biophys deletion of information that doesn't suit his political opinions is not disruptive. Should I invite my friends here too? Csloat? Ellol? QZXA2?Irpen? Alex Bakharev? And, please, Piotrus, considering that Biophys teaming up with you and your disruptive and tendentious editing are already a matter of arbitration Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus, please don't be quite hipocritical by making comments against me. It's typically, look who's talking. You also never explained why you consider series of Biophys disruptive reverts during my block period to be normal. Vlad fedorov 09:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Remain cool and assume good faith please, Vlad. These comments are not helpful in resolving this. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 10:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, why isn't user Piotrus assuming my good faith? Is good faith policy is applicable to Vlad Fedorov only? Assuming that I had not disputes with him over last 3 weeks, it is very unpleasant for me to see again how he tries to make revenge on me because of my contributions to Institute of National Remembrance, and because Biophys was blocked for 3RR and got two warnings for 3RR. Vlad fedorov 11:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

In a debate, everyone has to assume good faith. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 11:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I wish Piotrus having to assume good faith. Vlad fedorov 13:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

O, just by the way, Biophys why you haven't reported to noticeboard this English user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:217.134.106.8? You gave him so many warnings. Why you haven't reported user QZXA2? You also gave him warnings? And how it comes that so many users disrupt your "editing", Biophys? Vlad fedorov 16:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever Vlad said, everything in my initial statement remains valid, as well as RfC about Vlad's alleged wikistalking submitted by User Colchicum. So, all of this will continue indefinitely unless something will be done about it. Biophys 16:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Has any form of mediation been tried? —Kyриx 16:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

First attempt was done here Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov by User:Colchicum, see also Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov#New_episodes_of_wikistalking_by_Vlad. As User:Colchicum said, "User:Vlad fedorov (and his alleged sockpuppet User_talk:213.184.225.28) is engaged in a long-term wikistalking (WP:STALK) of User:Biophys and User:Colchicum. Vlad fedorov has been harassing Biophys for two months (since December 18, 2006, when the Vlad fedorov account had been created) and Colchicum for several days (since February 14, 2007), allegedly being quite disruptive, and it is likely that he has never tried to touch an article that hadn't been contributed to by the aforementioned editors (see Special:Contributions/Vlad_fedorov). This is actually the main point. Regardless of whether his point of view was justified or not, he has been doing nothing but pursuing User:Biophys and User:Colchicum. Informal resolution was attempted at the numerous talk pages" And so on.

Second mediation attempt is this:

• [18] Vlad reverts article under official mediation, see [19] Biophys 17:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Biophys, dear, learn the definition of revert. Revert means undoing other editors contributions. As we look at these diffs, it is clear that I do not delete any edits. I only add my sourced information which you have falsely claimed to be violating BLP. Please do not clogg this page in order to make your point more visible. You complained about my reinsertions of material sterile deleted by you? Well, you've got an answer. You asked about stalking? Well, you've got an answer on that matter two months ago. Vlad fedorov 19:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

As RfC on me was filed by user Colchicum, could you please provide any links in support of your accusation that I pursue Colchicum? If you mean yourself, Biophys, I think that Bakharev, Piotrus and others on my RfC page made it clear that I am not stalking you. But if you choose to pretend you haven't got an answer on your decision, whatever. Vlad fedorov 19:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No, no one made it clear that you are not wikistalimg me. Just the opposite. It was not me who accused you of wikistalking (I only joined the case). It was Colchicum who accused you of wikistalking of him and me, just as now I think you are after Piotr. I must tell that Colhicum is the most neutral editor I met in WP - just look at his edits of rivers, lakes and Russian state officials. But you got him. Furthermore, you personally offended him at the talk page of Alex Bakharev - using Russian - to make sure that others do not understand. Biophys 20:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice. Biophys you've just made these claims at this noticeboard. RfC by Colchicum is just another instance now. So, if your allegations are false, you should be punished in some way. You tendency to accuse me and then to tell: "I never accused, but Colchicum did" is very interesting. If you are so sure you are right, why you attribute all these accusations to Colchicum? Have I ever edited rivers, lakes and Russian state officials? And this is an answer that your accusations of stalking are false. And it is you who stalked me at Freedom House, by contacting other editors of Freedom House article, and you have stalked me on National Remembrance Institute article, as well as Przyszowice massacre -- and this is a clear matter. Vlad fedorov 03:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have offended Colchicum? I learn everytime something new from you, Biophys. Could you provide diffs and we all would see what are you talking about? Vlad fedorov 03:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You just said "it is clear that I do not delete any edits". I do not know how to qualify this blatantly incorrect statement after this your edit yesterday:[20]. We had an article supported by 65 references. Your "edit" left only 10. You simply think that no one will check your statements.Biophys 21:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I haven't deleted it. Together with users QZXA2, Camille Grey and Ellol we moved that section violating WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV to the talk page for discussion and editing. Anyone could look into the history of this article in order to ascertain this. And you, Biophys, is just trying to trick all readers and to defame me. Vlad fedorov 03:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone, please, see Biophys again deletes all my contributions in Wikipedia. Could anyone take measures against this disruptive individual? Is it no disruptive to delete so many content again?

diff Article Jeffrey Nyquist. Edit warring by deleting the sourced content. He is warring with me and English user 217.134.92.77.

diff Article Glasnost Defense Foundation. Elimination of sourced information on financing of this organization.

diff Article Anna Politkovskaya. Reinserting blatant original research not found in sources. Edit warring with other editors. Vlad fedorov 03:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions for Biophys

Now, Biophys, (1) please explain your reverts listed earlier by which you delete all my contributions to the Wikipedia which were done by you while my blocking period. And (2), please explain why you have stalked me at Freedom House, National Remembrance Institute, and Przyszowice massacre articles. Vlad fedorov 03:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I've looked through the first two links posted by Biophys. What can I say, I do not see significant changes between Vlad and Biophys's version. Questions are mostly technical. It seems however, that Biophys may still have an eye against the current Russian government, which he sees as continuation of strife against the Soviet Communism. With that, Vlad Fedorev's version (in first two articles) seems to be less politically engaged. ellol 09:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I also approve the fact that tensions between Biophys and Vladimir are significantly less than those yet several months ago. I think both users still need a bit more efforts of seeking for compromises, but they are on the right way. ellol 09:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Ellol. And by the way it is Biophys who protracts the mediation over Boris Stomakhin and Yevgenia Albats articles. I have asked him to provide his comments, but still he hasn't Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Boris Stomakhin. Vlad fedorov 11:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

O'K. I have posted my mediation comment:Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Boris_Stomakhin#Biophys. This is relevant to the current incident.Biophys 16:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is very sad that all this time and typing is wasted on disputes by these two very productive and knowledgeable editors. If only Vlad would try and reach consensus on the relevant articles talk pages FIRST all this could be avoided. My suggestion is for an "umpire" to be assigned to each article that Vlad wishes to edit and Vlad promise to notify his umpire in advance if he wishes to edit an article he has not yet edited but has already been edited by Biophys until such time as he has shown that he better understands that WP can not decide or arbitrate truth - just provide a balanced summation of properly referenced points of view. W. Frank ✉ 10:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Then, you should also include articles edited previously by Piotrus, Colhichum, and perhaps other users, see Anna Politkovskaya for most recent example.Biophys 13:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Frank, please take a look at the edit just made by Vlad in article Freedom House. Vlad said: "Ultramarine you reinsert criticized Black Book of Communism in Tambov rebellion and delete reliable sources on criticism here? I though democracy is not double standards." [21]. I must explain: Ultramarine happened to agree with me that Black Book of Communism is a reliable source in article Tambov Rebellion. So, now Vlad is coming after Ultramarine. Is not this clear and present wikistalking?Biophys 16:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Vlad Fedorov for a month this time because he started right up again with the behaviour that led to his previous block for a week. Block log. If any administrator can see any point to allowing his behaviour to continue, you know what to do - David Gerard 17:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Block of ISOLA'd ELBA

I have blocked ISOLA'd ELBA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for violating Wikipedia is not a social networking site. Out of the user's near 700 edits, 9 were to articles. The user has only made edits to user and user talk pages and has not contributed in any other way.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Many more await. --Deskana (AFK 47) 03:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with a block solely on that grounds, but the user's most recent edit is reporting an admin to AIV for a deletion someone else carried out. So in this particular case, the block is perfectly fine. -Amarkov moo! 03:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've seen them throwing a barnstar randomly at a talk page of a controversial user whom they don't know i believe. Esperanza is not active anymore. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse the block of people who are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Disruption is just the icing on the cake. Sandstein 07:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Has the editor been talked to regarding this? Navou 23:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• The user has been blocked before at least once for this. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User logging out to revert-war

Please see [22], [23], [24], [25], and this checkuser request.

Incidentally, if you scroll down the history here, you'll see him doing the same thing. There, the IP got blocked for 3RR, but no one made the right connection at the time. The user has again violated 3RR here by logging out. Someone needs to either block him for it, or tell him in the strongest possible terms to stop indulging in this sneaky edit-warring. Moreschi ^Talk 10:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This looks like an extension of the on-going turf war between Wikprojects, abbout whether or not Composers and Musicians should or shouldn't get Infoboxes. Given the duration of this fight, is it really surprising that we're seeing Incivility violations cropping up? Can't the two wikiprojects either sit down and work it out, or else wikipedia will just disband both projects for edit warring? ThuranX 11:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. This isn't really about incivility, it's about one user logging out to revert-war and violate 3RR, whether he uses insulting edit summaries or no. This particular user has done this twice, and needs to be told to stop doing so, by block or otherwise. Moreschi ^Talk 12:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please do. Checkuser confirmed he violated 3RR - he ought to be blocked - and perhaps for extra time for being deceitful and logging out to do it. The Evil Spartan 16:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've given him a niceish warning. If he does this again a lengthy block, it's just sockpuppetry. Moreschi ^Talk 11:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack: User:Ramirez72

Here's the diff. --Howard the Duck 10:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

A review of the edit history there, just going back a dozen edits or so, shows multiple Personal Attacks by Ramirez72, in edit summaries and article text edits, and multiple reverts of his uncited additions, by more than one editor. ThuranX 11:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. It's not a personal attack but Ramirez72 has continually (with warnings) removed cite-taggs from articles while writing in the edit summary "spelling" and "fix information".Rex 14:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This user is a valuable contributor, but certainly has a history of incivility. The Evil Spartan 14:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, how is that edit summary not a personal attack. It's completely unacceptable, and the user has a history of problematic contributions, judging by his block log. I'm inclined to block for a couple of weeks, because seemingly previous messages have not gotten through. Moreschi ^Talk 14:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not start this edit war with User:Howard the Duck. All I did was corrected the Philippine article introduction and he reverted it back saying it's a POV comment from a Latin American point of view, which is not true. Howard should study his country's history and demography etc. carefully before making wrongfull edits and blaming it on me. I've had past arguement with Howard the Duck before, including the article about the Spanish language. I know how Filipinos are they are very emotional people and loves the United States so much. I know this because I use to hang around with my fellow Latino and Chicano street gangs around the street of Los Angeles County when i was living in California. I have meet alot of nationalisties including Filipinos, which i find very good people and have exchange ideas and talk about their culture etc. There is alot of things that Filipinos today do not know about their culture and history. I'd like to help and expand the articles in the Philippine article, but Howard seems abit bias towards Latinos, and he wants it in his own way.. You might be surprised that the information i have provided in wikipedia articles is true after all..Thanks! --Ramirez72

None of that justifies your inappropriate edit summaries. --OnoremDil 16:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And tell me how is that not Latin American POV when you insert into every nook and cranny of demographic-related sentences "Mexican"? As discussed on the talk page, if we'd include Filipinos of Mexican descent, we might as well include everybody. The Mexican population in the Philippines is too minuscule and insignificant in the grander scheme of things. --Howard the Duck 03:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a Latino POV, I was only correcting the articles introduction, and I decided to moved the ethnic groups mentioned into the demographic section, to make it more professional. Other countries do not have an introduction which mentions Ethinc groups, that is just trying very hard. And also I defined the Amerindian section issue, since Most Filipinos of Mexican descent are mostly of Amerindian descent, some have White Hispanic ancestry..-- Ramirez

Still, it's a personal attack and there's no valid reason for you to do that. There's a discussion at the talk page and if we'll add a minuscule percentage (less than 1%) of the population, we might as well add all ethnic groups. --Howard the Duck 06:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Look man, You can add all the ethnic groups in the Philippines if you want, And Besides i'm not talking about that. My issue is why did you revert it back?, when in fact it was only doing a minor correction. Look i got nothing against you or your people o.k , man. I personally attacked you because you seem abit arrogant and every edit has to be yours!! no body owns any articles in wikipedia man. Wikipedia is an Encylopedia for everyone to use, regarless of any ethnic or race affiliation.--User:Ramirez72

This certainly isn't a minor edit. And no matter your reason, you still can attack other people. --Howard the Duck 07:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What ever man!!!There nothing wrong with that i think it's professionally written, i think there is something wrong with you!!!You make small issues into big issues..--User:Ramirez72

The reason i attack Howard the Duck was because he was really pissing me off about his nationalistic point of views that everything had to be the Filipino or Filipino-American way and every time i add an information or talk about Hispanic issues in the Philippine article he becomes sceptical. Why? -- User:Ramirez72

The reason I removed the citation tags provided by User:RexGermanus in the article "Mexicans of Filipino descent" is because the sentence does not need one. There are Mexicans of Filipino ancestry and they are found in large numbers in Guerrero, Mexico. How would Rex know, he has never been to Mexico nor meet a Mexican of Filipino descent, that's because he has never meet one. I have meet several fellow Mexicans in Guadalajara who posses the Filipino ancestry. I also believe that Pável Pardo the talented Mexican football (soccer) midfielder is of Filipino origin.. --User:Ramirez72

WP:POV, WP:OR. --Howard the Duck 03:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Have it your way ese! Pov or not You will soon realized the information i provided is true. --Ramirez

Doesn't matter. I can say I climbed Olympus Mons and it is very true. --Howard the Duck 06:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What ever man!!!Are you Satisfied man!User:Ramirez72

This is completely the wrong attitude for a "valuable contributor" to have (no offense). JuJube 19:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack User:Vintagekits

[26] Also WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Action requested. - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Pot, kettle etc. All part of a bitter ongoing feud between what Kittybrewster calls "Irish nationalists" and himself regarding articles about Kittybrewster's family. Nick 11:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There are exceptions to breach of policy? - Kittybrewster (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack. Incivility, sure, but not personal attacks. —Kyриx 14:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly let let me say, I don't think I have ever edited a page remotely connected with Ireland and definitely nothing politically with Ireland. So I have no axe to grind anywhere, and I am far from ani-aristocracy. Vintagekits and Kittybrewster have given each other the same treatment. In fact Vintagekits observations on Kittybrewster's work does now seem to being proved correct. However now, Kittybrewster's edits and insults to other editors concerning their political beliefs are going beyond what can be tolerated, the most recent example is towards the end of this page here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arbuthnot_family - He seems to have a pathological hatred of the Irish and anyone who does not venerate his ancestors in the same way he does. Several have recently been deleted for non-notability after heavy and almost unanimous voting - yet still he cannot se any fault on his part and continues to blame the Irish and bad faith editors. This is plain rubbish.

I think he needs a severe warning regarding the consequences of such comments. He claims all those do no not agree with him and his views are either acting in bad faith or from ulterior political motives. I think he either needs to put his money where his mouth is, apologise or be banned. Giano 15:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Kittybrewster apparently maintsains a genealogy website and has created articles for many of his ancestors and relatives. This also relates to disagreements about whether simply being in a peerage book because of having a notable ancestor grants inherent notability. Some of the articles nominated in AFD have been deleted, and some have been kept, because in fact the individuals were in the Dictionary of National Biography and other reliable sources. Some have been deleted because they were only cited to such sources as a family history book by his grandmother or some such relative and his own website. None of the articles I have seen were about individuals of no notability whatever. Passions can clearly rise to a high level when it is one's ancestors or relatives up for deletion, which is one reason for avoiding such WP:COI situations by not creating articvles about oneself or one's own relatives. Nonetheless, it should be possible to keep the discourse on an objective level, without hurling accusations of bad faith nominations or impugning the nominator's motivations as rampant nationalism. Edison 16:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

He is now resorting to his usual tactics of reverting warnings from his user page unarchived [27], I expect it will all end in an arb com case, it would be nice though if that could be avoided, but unless his non-notable pages are alowed to remain I don't see how that can be avoided. Giano 16:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

<edit conflict, but comment posted anyway> Note that User:Kittybrewster has just blanked his user page to remove a final warning which I issued about Kittybrewster's latest personal attack. KB has also blanked his archive pages, to make it more difficult to find locate his previous warnings on this and other subjects, including as a previous final warning about personal attacks of a similar nature. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Leave them blanked (no use getting all hyped up reverting the blankings). The warnings still exist in talk page history. —Kyриx 16:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

True! I'm certainly not getting into a revert war. It's just a pity that it's a little more difficult for other editors and admins to spot the history of previous warnings. There is a risk that editors may miss previous warnings, and issue a level-1 warning when a final notice has already been given. In those circumstances, is it appropriate to block anyway? In the case of KB, I would have to declare too much of an involvement to implement a block, so I'm asking the question as a general policy issue which would be relevant to other admins monitoring this case? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Blanked warnings remain valid as long as they were issued recently. Blocks may be and have been applied in a future incident based on recently blanked warnings. —Kyриx 17:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• I notice that nobody has informed User:Vintagekits about this accusation here. It would have been the decent thing to do to inform them that they're today's 'feature' here. Notified ... - Alison ☺ 16:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think most people can see that since this discussion instigated by BrowHairedGirl 10 days ago that I have backed off these issues and also I have not !voted in any of the numerous AfD's on members of the "Arthbutnot family" despite the fact that those who are seen by some to be on the "other side" have continued. My issue earlier was to highlight the "lockstep voting" and AfD abuse of a small cabal - I am sure I did this is an overly aggresive way but that was because I had witnessed months of this. Any I have stopped !voting on the AfD's for now as I hoped both sides would have backed off and allowed the rest of the community to make there own minds up on these articles. Sorry that was a bit rambling but I hope you got my point.--Vintagekits 17:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • You edited Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Arbuthnot (bishop) 33 minutes after writing the above. Uncle G 23:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The latest from User:Kittybrewster is this edit, altering other users' comments on my talk page. Minor, but out of order, and he's been warned about that before. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• I would like to put on record that I am very unhappy with the research of all the Arbuthnot pages and their sources. Yes those people existed, but whether they existed in the form portrayed on Wikipedia I am less sure - something is not adding up - probably nothing more that assumptions being made from poor 18th and 19th century records as to birth places, by modern day Arbuthnots anxious for some ancestors and credence - but frankly none of it is up to Wikipedia standards -it all seems to be assumption bases on supposition - and I think these pages need to be viewed with extreme caution unless they have been heavily edited by established and trusted editors Giano 22:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Then you should be looking for sources yourself, to see what additional ones exist. In looking for sources about Alexander Arbuthnot (bishop) (AfD discussion) I came across several 20th century sources that discussed Alexander John Arbuthnot. I see that no-one has added any such sources to that article. This rather implies that despite the expressed unhappiness, no-one has actually done anything about it. Uncle G 23:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Alexander John Arbuthnot is a completely different person to Alexander Arbuthnot (bishop), and no-one's proposing him for deletion - he's clearly N as a colonial governor. I don't think anyone's saying all the Arbuthnots should be deleted - the problem is that User:Kittybrewster is adding every member of his family whether or not they meet WP:BIO, and accusing anyone who questions this as being part of "the Irish Republican cabal" — iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• I'd like to second Giano above; while I do generally try to keep anything nominated for deletion that's salvageable, Kittybrewster's articles generally seem to be sourced from a single family history, and from websites mirroring that family history giving the illusion of multiple sources when none exist. Whilst some of the Arbuthnot articles are of notable individuals which can be expanded, a lot more are of extremely minor figures (see the lengthy discussion here which I don't propose to rehash), and, as Giano points out, that family history does appear to make some dubious claims, throwing it into doubt as a source. As someone who's never made a single contribution to any article on Irish politics - and, as far as I can remember, no Irish article at all other than some minor formatting standardisation of the articles on Northern Irish railway stations - I have no political axe to grind at all, but I think that, since Kittybrewster is ignoring all warnings and attempts at discussion of the matter, this is going to continue to escalate — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

GNAA and the disappearance of Madeleine McCann

The article Disappearance of Madeleine McCann is currently being vandalized by a load of sockpuppets. At least three of the accounts have claimed to belong to the GNAA. Penchking33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) used the edit summary "Stop accusing me of vandalism, I am a GNAA member, and I'm editing this article with reliable sources" (diff). Gobll03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) used the edit summary "revert: IT IS FACT, THIS IS THE GNAA POSTING FACTS FOR ONCE!" (diff). Ninio3030 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) used the edit summary "revert this, IS SOMEONE GONNA PROTECT THIS?? THE GNAA HATE YOU, AECIS FOR YOUR STINKBROOM!" (diff) I have filed a Request for CheckUser at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/HighSquires. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And how about this message of Gobll03 (talk · contribs): "LET'S SEE IF WE GET INTO THE TABLOIDS OVER THIS EDITING.!" Aecis^Brievenbus 12:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected.--Doc^g 12:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked all the accounts. There's been some good IP editing in the past few days; it may be a good idea to unprotect fairly soon. ··coelacan 12:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What's the 'GNAA'? ThuranX 12:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The Gay Nigger Association of America, an internet trolling group. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

D'oh! And I'd JUST been following the latest AN/I about them on the 'gnaa disambig page'. Sometimes the mind just slips. ThuranX 12:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You must be new (to the Internet). If this person is really GNAA, I Am Anastasia. — CharlotteWebb 16:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to remove the semi-protection in a bit. But we need to watch this like hawks - the UK newspapers would just love a story about sick vandalism and bad wikipedia in this case. We are not giving them one. Anyone reading this please watchlist, the article and the images.--Doc^g 12:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest waiting until a checkuser either blocks the underlying IPs, or declines the request. ··coelacan 13:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I was expecting something like "Jews did Madeline McCann". Another sock to block, btw. Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 13:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What about this vandalism spree? The edits and the edit summaries are still lingering in the article history atm. Should they be deleted from the article history? Aecis^Brievenbus 13:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Did anyone notice that Shabzar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) appears to be a compromised account - the edit summaries seem to indicate it. --SunStar Net ^talk 13:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Ok, they may now have hijacked the account Shabzar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). The account was autoblocked earlier this week, because the IP address was used by DenmarkEuroB11 (talk · contribs). Aecis^Brievenbus 13:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Nope, checkuserer David Gerard confirms nothing but open proxies for the last month.--Doc^g 13:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • No, that is just an account which waited eight days before making disruptive edits. Let's not over-estimate this person's sophistication. — CharlotteWebb 16:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible Iasson sock

Resolved

 – Checkuser blocked 3 IP ranges, hopefully this will stem the tide of socks. Nardman1 23:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

New user Rocksaware (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has only made contributions to pages related to banned user Iasson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This may be an Iasson sock--you may want to have a look.Blueboy96 15:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Loosedoors (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well. Nardman1 16:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Both accounts have been blocked indefinitely as sockpuppets of banned user Iasson, and MfD nomination speedily kept and delisted. Feel free to comment and review if necessary. Phaedriel - 16:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Now also Spokechief (talk · contribs). Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And Angleasked (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) too ... vandalized MY userpage right after I finished reverting Spokechief's edits. Good grief--can someone create an LTA page for this idiot?Blueboy96 15:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you please make a rfcu for Blueboy96 and Gorbrown. Blueboy96 reverted all changes automatically (using TW), but in Gorbrown case he did it mannualy and he changed the old tag. I always wonder who Gorbrown is. Angleasked 15:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And he also calls me an idiot. I am an apparent sock, but is it appropriate to call socks idiots? Angleasked 15:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Only if they're darned. Nardman1 15:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that Blueboy96 and Nardman1 are violating both WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and IF there is an administrator who respects policies here (which I doubt) both users should be punished. Angleasked 15:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, why is it that all serial sock vandals have usernames consisting of two random lexical words sewn together? Do vandals possess some bot technology shared between them that creates these? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this is the reason. Maybe not. In any case, lets search usernames consisting of two lexical words and check whether their password consists of the same words reverted. And if found guilty, lets block them asap. Occurtrips 17:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• two more darned socks: Occurtrips (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Welcome Neranei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). We should consider filing a checkuser. Nardman1 17:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Will do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Merkey, again

Despite allegedly being on "wikibreak", user Jeff Merkey continues to be disruptive. See this diff, where he vandalizes a talk page based on unproven allegations of sockpuppetry against other users. *Dan T.* 16:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not vandalism. Jeff attempted to revert User:RhodiumMiner who was shuffling other peoples comments around the page. Given the name and edit history there isn't much doubt this is a single purpose trolling account. I'm reverting RhodiumMiner's edits and blocking him. --Duk 17:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the user was copying the comments. The comments stayed in their original locations, and a copy was placed in the Straw Poll, and only where they were germane to the poll. There were plenty of other comments that were against the removal of all the tribes, but did not specifically answer the poll, and they weren't copied. The first one copied supported Jeff's case, so it can hardly be seen to be trolling (apparent trollish username aside). The comments that were clogging up the poll were then moved to the bottom of the poll, and they were labelled where they came from. A note at the bottom explaining exactly what had been done was included.

Pretty useful all around, it was certainly much easier to see what was going on. If an individual user had a problem with their comments being copied, then that would be fair enough, and they could pull them out.

It doesn't take much to see that Jeff's wholesale removals aren't popular, and his arguments regarding WP:V are not convincing. His complete dismissal of the validity of anthropoligical evidence and insistance on a single criteria makes it difficult for any consensus with him.

The sensible approach would be to admit his valid point regarding federal recognition, and note those that have it, and include the other tribes where there is other sufficient evidence. SeparateReality 05:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This account is another sockpuppet of vigilant -- the name is from personal attacks "Merkey lives in a separate reality" used by vigilant on SCOX -- another single purpose troll account. These people have access to botnets so checkuser may not reveal much. Their editing patterns give them away. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 14:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It seemed from looking at the diff that Merkey was deleting several users' comments, and made the edit summary "Remove edits of banned user Vigilant", implying that he was being judge, jury, and executioner on an alleged sockpuppet (without actually going through proper channels of requesting a checkuser). *Dan T.* 17:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I assumed the removal was unintentional. The RhodiumMiner name comes from the SCOX message board. --Duk 17:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And your proof is???... I see nothing disruptive in the editing and yet Jeff is allowed to make edits while on a wikibreak and admins are around to support him. Jeff has no idea who the editor is and neither do you without a usercheck. --Jerry (Talk) 00:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser isn't needed for a single purpose trolling account with an inflammatory name that is brought in from an off-site conflict. I note that you are active on the SCOX message board so you should understand how this account name is inflammatory - and yet here you are saying that you see nothing disruptive by that particular username tinkering with a conflict that Jeff is engaged in? Jerryg, you might want to think about this. The only problem I see here is identifying the account as a specific sockpuppet, I'll remove that note. But the block is perfectly acceptable.

...and yet Jeff is allowed to make edits while on a wikibreak' Jeff may edit whenever he wants. He's not blocked or banned. Do you know what a wikibreak is Jerryg? It's when an editor takes a break and puts a wikibreak note up to let people know that they might take a while to respond to any notes left for them. --Duk 02:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Yes, I post on Yahoo! SCOX board. I post on a lot of boards. Jeff posts on a lot of boards, including SCOX, LKML and Wikireview. Jeff tends to make the assumption that *anyone* who disagrees with him is a troll and somehow connected with the SCOX board. Whatever you and Jeff have read while perusing that board means nothing, really. You *really* don't know where and who made the edits. If the name wasn't what it was, would the edits have been disruptive? Jeff's claims of owning a Rhodium Mine are fairly well known within a fairly large group of people, a large number of which have nothing to do with Yahoo! SCOX. In the end, of course, wikipedia admins will have the last say. I hope, for all involved, we don't go down the same path we went down the last time Jeff was here. I've had my say and am done with this --Jerry (Talk) 02:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not RhodiumMiner is a sockpuppet is one question, but it's not just him/her/it that Mr Merkey has been busily labelling. My account got a "sockpuppet" tag (I'm a sock of "Talks_to_birds", apparently). It's not the first time Mr Merkey has labelled me as such, my initial questions regarding his tagging everyone as trolls were instantaneously reverted out of his talk page. here and here. I have since explained my motivations (on Talk:Cherokee) in direct response to a question from Mr Merkey, but he still labels me as a sockpuppet. It would be nice if there was a reason for this other than "Mr Merkey thinks so".Teseaside 08:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This account is a single purpose troll account. The edit history speaks for itself. Also, talks_to_birds, based upon his claims to be the proprieter of finchhaven and his public statements on Wikipedia he lives on Vason Island in Washington, "next to T(h)e sea side". Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 14:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of these folks intent

I am going to take a moment to explain these folks from SCOX and their behavior. They have only one intention, and that's to "ambush" me here at Wikipedia and make life so miserable that 1) I leave or 2) I flip out to te point I get blocked. All one need do is review their posts at SCOX (thousands upon thousands) to realize these people are stalking. Their motiviations are blackmail, jealousy, and tortious interference. Several of them have sent letters, called me on the phone, posted demands in online forums, etc. demanding money or jobs or some other garbage to stop their stalking conduct. These gadfly's started following me around after I offered to buy out a Linux license for 50K for Solera Networks. Not for Gadugi or anything else. The most recent incident occurred two weeks ago when one of the more phychotic of the lot sent letters to the attorneys handling the lawsuit over Natural Selection Foods and the E Coli poisoning of my 2 year old son libelling me. This psycho then sent a letter to Randall Spencer demanding money from me or they would keep sending out hate mail. Most of these folks smell the money and that's what they are after. The rest of them appear to be bent on just destroying any enterprise I try to start. They send letters and anonymous emails to business partners, associates, customers, etc. Bottom line, its jealousy, greed, and hate directed at someone who succeeds as opposed to a bunch of has beens, fired employees, and jilted business associates from the Linux movement who tried to stick their hands in my pockets to take money out and got sent on their way. Hope this gives folks an idea. You cannot reason with them, you cannot teach them, most of them are over 40, you can only block them. Don't waste your time with them. Were I am admin here, they would not dare set foot on this site for the purpose of this conduct -- they know I would block them on sight. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 14:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

These gadfly's started following me around after I offered to buy out a Linux license for 50K for Solera Networks. Not for Gadugi or anything else. Really? Then why did you say at http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/501632 "The purpose behind the buyout was to convert as much Linux code over as possible to another open source operating system project which is sponsored at www.gadugi.org. This project is hosted by the Cherokee Nation and is sovereign under US Federal Laws. This project is merging the Linux Kernel with the Open Source NetWare project and distributing the operating system. The site is operational and the full code repository will be posted with the merged operating system after the Cherokee Nation Public License is published in January." Inquiring minds want to know.

Well, it's a good thing you're not an admin then... it's never a good idea for somebody with a personal involvement in a conflict to be exercising admin powers over people in it... that's too much of a conflict of interest. Can you actually prove such assertions as that people are demanding money from you to stop hassling you? I seem to recall that you made such assertions in the course of some of your legal cases, and never did back them up then either. *Dan T.* 15:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, but that's ok. As for your other question, yes, Randall Spencer has copies of two letters, one sent to Mordeci, the firm representing Natural Selections Foods, and another letter from this person sent to him, and he represents my son (not me). This person also called Randall Spencer on the phone. My wife and I are no longer involved in the case since its about our son. The first letter was a smearing attack on me and offer to "help" nsfoods "defeat" "my evil claims" about my baby boy being hospitalized for a month, nearly dying, and my wife in a state that is indescribable. The second letter demanded money from me for this person stopping "use of free speech" to continue these attacks. He then followed it up with a phone call the Randall Spencer making more forceful demands for money. All of this was reported to me about a week after it happened -- I did not witness it directly. My son has some permanent health issues from all this. For an individual, group, or community like SCOX to do such a thing over issues with an innocent 2 year old just to demand money from me is beyond evil. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Those who are interested in seeing what type of a person Merkey is, and what degree of credibility any claims of his should be given, should read his complaint in a past lawsuit, where he goes on and on about how the open source community is supporting Al Qaida and other terrorism (while also noting that he tried, and failed, to launch an open source project himself), and makes bizarre accusations of conspiracies to murder him (apparently one such case actually consisted of somebody saying in an online forum that Merkey should be put in an e-mail killfile, which he interpreted as a "list of people to be killed" physically). Thus, nobody should put the slightest scintilla of credibility in any assertion this guy makes. *Dan T.* 16:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Dan T. your last edit to this section doesn't belong here. Do you understand why that is? --Duk 16:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess it might be seen as a personal attack... though it's only a link to his own legal filing, not anybody's attack on it. *Dan T.* 16:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not it. The reason it doesn't belong here is that it's unrelated crap that you are dredging up to run down another editor. It doesn't have anything to do with the post that started this section. --Duk 16:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If Merkey can bring in stuff from other places, forums, and situations to justify his own attacks on other editors, why is it wrong when I do it? Are you going to give Merkey a warning for his "Explanation of these folks intent" section? *Dan T.* 16:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Because Merkey isn't stalking people who are honestly trying to do work here, it's the other way around. He's defending himself. He didn't open this door. And most of the stuff Merkey brings up is relevant to the stalking. Dan, I've assumed the best intentions from you so far, but that's starting to run out. --Duk 16:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)--Kebron 18:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No, Merkey is accusing ANYONE who disagrees with him of trolling, sock puppetry. It is irrelevant if the corrections are true or not they are removed. It is irrelevant is one has proof of sock puppetry, it is irrelevant that no check user has been done, Merkey is right. Sorry, this premise is unacceptable. According to a sitting judge, "Merkey is not just prone to exaggeration, he also is and can be deceptive, not only to his adversaries, but also to his own partners, his business associates and to the court. He deliberately describes his own, separate reality."

[28] This is from a court document. A judge said this in an open court room. Merkey has been banned before for behavior similar to this. I fail to understand why now that he begins again EXACTLY as before, why it is NOW acceptable. --Kebron 17:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That document is a preliminary ruling in a case that was settled and never went to trial and that happened 11 years ago. Its also the work of a Judge who was removed from the case by the Utah Judicial Conduct Commission for conducting secret meetings with Novell and its attorneys. It was also written by attorneys at parsons, behle, and latimer and not the court (hence his removal). Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

To Kebron, Merkey was reverting a single purpose trolling account that was shuffling talk page comments around. What does some unrelated lawsuit have to do with that? Your last post doesn't belong here either, Kebron. I've assumed the best intentions from you so far, but that's starting to run out.--Duk 17:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again, why is HE allowed to accuse everyone and puppetry and of trolling without proof. --Kebron 18:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Kebron, are you honestly disputing that RhodiumMiner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single purpose trolling account? --Duk 18:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yet I was accused, where is the proof? DTobias was accused... once again... where is proof? I stepped away... watching the madness continue and it just gets worse and worse. It would not surprise me if HE would be doing it himself... has someone actually done a checkuser... on ANY account? --Kebron 18:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question, Kebron. This section is about RhodiumMiner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It's also now about your trolling. Tell me, Kebron, what does some court document from more than a decade ago have to do with Jeff reverting a blatant troll.--Duk 18:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the people demanding that checkuser be run are often people who know how to circumvent it. --Duk 18:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

OK... I agree... he is one troll.... but has anyone checked THE IP address of said troll, against the others or against Merkey. Court documents also give a personality of the person concerned. Merkey has been banned before as well. This has no relation at on on him? My edits were simply removed... why??? Because I was a troll according to him. It was irrelevant if my edits were correct or not. I gave up. I stopped. Now... DTobias is the next. As an admin could you do a checkuser on all the users concerned please? What are the results?--Kebron 18:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have check user authority, but you can request one at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. My edits were simply removed... why??? Because I was a troll according to him. ... Well, you've been following him around on this website for a year and a half. --Duk 18:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Best method to ascertain who is who is to use ocams razor. Accounts which are dormant for months then all of sudden become active again simply to follow me from article to article and revert, argue, straw poll, etc. are single purpose accounts here to harrass. Kebron is one of these. You can simply review their utter lack of useful contributions. As I stated previously, trying to reason with these people is pointless. If you block them they just come back with a plaethera of sockpuppets. They also have insiders in the Community to act the same way they do. If they appear to be stalking, they they probably are. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Part of my taking the time here is for the benefit of the admin community. I mean, just look at it! Jeff reverts a simple troll and it brings down a hailstorm of indignant chest thumping that goes on and on and on -- by a never ending stream of sister trolls! Utterly amazing. --Duk 18:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If I was acting like Merkey, I could accuse you of being a sockpuppet of Merkey. But, I won't... Now, comments from Merkey like : "...I will remove any content about them placed into this article under WP:V. They are not indians, they are not Cherokee, and they make false claims they are Federally recognized. They may have their own article titled "Southern Cherokee Wannabees" or "Southern Cherokee Fake Tribe who claim they are Federally Recognized are are not" or some other title that drops the Federal BIA desgination "Nation" as unverified. Wikiality does not work with unverified materials. Sorry. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)" [29] A debate the continues in the "real" world. It is not resolved in the "real" world. Yet... in comes Mr Merkey stating THIS is the authority, end of story. Unacceptable. Like I said before, I have had it. Y'all decide what you want. I am done. I have said my piece. Wikipedia and Merkey. A match made in purgatory. Enjoy each other. --Kebron 19:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Duk, you're somewhat wrong. User:Kebron isn't a troll in the manner that the User:RhodiumMiner etc are, or even the manner that I supposedly am (i.e. someone who watches this mess with interest and therefore is subject to the wrath of Jeff from time to time) . You have to seperate the very few people here (maybe just one) solely for the purpose of taunting Merkey, such as User:RhodiumMiner or User:SeperateReality, with people who are genuinely worried about some of his more pisspoor and self-aggrandising edits[30], his agenda-pushing, ignoring of consensus[31], his habitual assumptions of bad faith[32], his ridiculous accusations of vandalism[33], trolling and even spambotting[34] and use of bizarre legal sort-of-threats[35] to get his way. Jeff is just one big ball of Wikipedia disruption, even if you do disregard the actions of the one or two bona fide trolls deliberately goading Jeff (Jeff's vanity does make that an endlessly entertaining sport, alas). Kebron is a good faith editor who just happens to be embroiled in this saga. --Aim Here 09:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This section is about Merkey reverting a simple troll. Did you miss that part, Kebron? -- Duk 19:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, one more think Kebron. This is at least the second time you've promised to be done with Merkey. here is you previous promise. Please try to be as good as your word this time. --Duk

Incidentally, since someone suggested a CheckUser, RhodiumMiner = SeparateReality = ThreeVryl, which was pretty obvious already. Dmcdevit·t 20:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What about the others? Merkey seems to be happily throwing accusations of "botting", "sockpuppeting" and "trolling" all over the place with blatant disregard for WP policy, and nobody is picking him up on this. His latest set of accusations are over on the Mountain_Meadows_Massacre page where he appears to be trying to get the mormons all riled up. Honestly, the biggest troll of the lot is none other than Jeffrey Vernon Merkey.

Definite trolling...

User:81.145.240.170 has been engaging in vandalism in a few places, including Talk:Sailor Moon, and as the notice on his talk page seems to indicate, he is a sock of another user who was engaging in vandalism against User:Eternal Pink(though I don't remember who the other account was; the notice is signed "DUSTKING" but we don't have a user by that name). This is an issue of either disruption or harassment (either fits), and it would be great if an admin could look into this and take any necessary action. MSJapan 17:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, 24 hours. Trebor 18:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Dozens of the 81.* IPs have vandalised Pink's page and Sailor Moon articles, but the notice on his talk page was somewhat old. Other people have edited from various of his IPs since the time when Dust King was at his peak. --Masamage ♫ 20:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Darn I was hopeing against hope it wasnt him but it is defnatly the same guy (i wonder if he was the barn star guy to)♥Eternal Pink-Ready to fight for love and grace♥ 22:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now that we're paying attention to him he's starting to be obnoxious again (recent vandalism to Sailor Galaxia and its talk page, Chaos (Sailor Moon), and User_talk:Eternal Pink). We had a CheckUser request out for this guy last time, the intent being to see if he was editing from any other accounts...but right around the time we put it out he stopped vandalizing, which suggests to me that he probably does. Anyway, the case was pitched because of it. I think a new one needs to be made and followed through with. --Masamage ♫ 16:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Definite edit warrior...

Alaexis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in edit war on Abkhazia, Gagra and many others. Check his edits first.

User:Samuel Luo evading indefinite block by ArbCom

Hello, Samuel Luo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been using several sockpuppets to evade the block imposed by the ArbCom. (ArbCom decision: [36]) (checkuser: [37]) (recent edits: [38], [39]). He was away for a couple of days, but now he's returned. Samuel seems to have no intention to stop this trolling. Is there any chance to block his IP address permanently if keeps doing this? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 19:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

After banning User:Fyutii, a new sockpuppet (User:F44u) immediately appeared, see [40]. I tell you, this guy is going to continue as long as he's technically able to. See Wikipedia sockpuppets of Samuel Luo; all of these are blocked, but he just keeps going and always creates a new account. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest revert, block, ignore. Deny him the recognition of trolling and vandalising. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd ask several editors to keep an eye on Falun Gong and Li Hongzhi. Samuel Luo's new sockpuppets are blossoming there. If we have enough people reverting, he'll eventually get tired. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 00:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have Id'd 3 sockpuppets in the last 24 hours of his, and I admit, they're blatantly obvious as well. It's really, really annoying if anything. Evilclown93 19:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Insults in foreign language

User: Kuban kazak posts insulting messages in foreign language. [41][42] Please help. Thank you.--Hillock65 22:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Don't search for truth in others when there is none in you
2. Please don't withhold from making childish allegations of so-called ukrainophobia, there is enough (heat) without them.

If anyone sees anything insulting in them please tell me so and ban me accordingly for personal attacks. TO Hillock, don't use WP:AN/I to tattle. --Kuban Cossack 22:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

We should try to work this out diplomatically, deplomesitically, and really get our ducks in a row. Just my two cents.EELVIS AARON PPRESLY 22:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Confirm Kuban's translations; I ran it through Google. So there's nothing insulting, although it's probably best to stick to English when editing the English wiki. There are already enough avenues for communication to break down as it is. When you have a problem with another edit, please contact them directly first; Kuban could have told you the translations on your own talk page without any accusations being made. --Masamage ♫ 23:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Zdorovenki buli, Hillock65, pryemno z vamy zapiznatysya. Here you forgot that you do not understand Russian. Budte zdorovi, --Pan Gerwazy 00:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Kuban Cossack, please don't leave messages to other users in any language other than English at English Wikipedia, except on a talk page of a user who claims to know that other langauge.

Hillock65, please assume that messages in foreign languages are reasonable, unless you have a good reason for thinking otherwise.

Od Mishehu 03:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Judging from his ability to interpret references in that language... and the fact that the locus of the dispute Ethnic Russians in Ukraine which seems to be Hillock's only article that he edits... I would guess that he IS fluent in Russian. On the other hand there is a very big dispute and his rather aggressive stance is not helping, and if someone likes to mediate then please do so. --Kuban Cossack 00:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, given continuous personal attacks[43] from this user I cannot assume that messages in foreign languages from this particular user are a demonstration of good faith. He had been asked repeatedly[44][45][46] not to bother me with messages in foreign languages, but insists on posting them anyway.--Hillock65 15:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Libelous accusation

ON the page for the Daily Illini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Illini) there is an accusation against John Bambenek claiming he is a convicted child sex offender. This is a false accusation. It is libel and completely actionable. John is a respected writer and internet security expert. 68.120.68.25 01:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit and blocked the user whose only edit was to insert those lies. It has been added here before back when we had an article on John Bambenek, and it is of course completely unacceptable now as then. Thanks for letting us know. If the libel is reinserted we'll lock the page from editing. Shanes 01:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

apparently this has made the news. In Jan 2007, John Bambenek's article was deleted over allegations of sex offense. The above article was written by him on Jan 5, 2007. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

For given vales of "the news". - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

that's Bambenek's website, not a news site. Corvus cornix 04:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's not Bambenek's website... at all. If you did a whois on mercatornet.org, or for that matter, even read the "about" page, you'd see that whatever you consider it, it's not run by Bambenek. We're not trying to apply WP:BAMBI are we? Cuz, we can fire up that AfD on the New York Times again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.126.139.133 (talk • contribs) 04:57, May 20, 2007 (UTC)

Fine. It's Bambeneke's article, not a news article. Corvus cornix 18:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it is not Bambenek's site, but it is his article. Anynobody 05:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User problems

TyrusThomas4lyf (talk · contribs) has been blocked 6 times this month for removing sourced info, edit warring, personal attacks, reverting against consensus, etc. He's back and doing the same again. See here where consensus was reached and here:[47] where he again removed the info. Can someone keep an eye on him? Aaron Bowen 01:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User blocked for two weeks. He's already been blocked several times within the month of May. The most recent being a one week block. He comes back and goes right back to edit warring and uses his talk page to make incivil comments and personal attacks. He's left an unblock template so any third part administrator is free to review.--Jersey Devil 02:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. If someone disagrees, let me know. -- Samir 00:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Gurch: possibly compromised account

Former admin Gurch (talk · contribs) has just gone on an strange rampage of blanking several project space pages, and has been blocked as a possibly compromised account by Pharos. Checkuser may be in order here. Phaedriel - 02:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is Gurch. After a fairly heated exchange on #wikipedia, he immediately left the channel and went on this spree. Gurch's talk page further proves this. Sean William 02:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse the forty-eight hour block, let Gurch cool down and see if he wants to come back then. I wouldn't object to an unblock-reblock with a different reason now that the question which was put forwarded in the block log has been answered. Daniel 02:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like he was blocked indefinitely by someone else. Makes sense IMO, vandalizing talk pages is an unacceptable way to let off steam. Krimpet (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Gwernol just indefblocked. Sean William 02:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I marked it as "possibly compromised" because the little experience I had with Gurch previously was as a good editor, and the pattern reminded me of the other incidents. Honestly, I thought he was probably an admin too. Obviously I was wrong in attributing this.--Pharos 02:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Gwernol just unindefblocked[48], looks like a simple mistake. ^(H) 02:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, no... that log has nothing to do with Gurch, but with an old erroneous self-block of Gwernol. Phaedriel - 02:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I was responding to Sean William's comment at 02:39, 20 May 2007. ^(H) 02:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

He meant Gwernol had just indef blocked Gurch, not that Gwernol had just been indef blocked - check the date of the log you linked to ;) Phaedriel - 03:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Indefblock!=block 'til the end of time. Hopefully once Gurch has calmed down, he will be ready to contribute again - he would be missed if he didn't return. – Riana ⁂ 03:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

IMO, indefblocking provides a disincentive to return. This particular spree was pretty mild. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 13:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I've lowered the indef-block on Gurch's main account back down to the original 48 hours (and no action taken on the sockpuppet's indef-block). I don't think an indef-block is appropriate in this instance. In particular, we don't indefinitely block people just because they say they are leaving, and Gurch's vandalism, coming from an otherwise well-behaving former-administrator, did not merit anything coming close to a community ban, which is the only way I can see justifying an indef-block on him at this time. Now if he returns and continues to misbehave (which I really hope doesn't happen), then we might need to take further, and longer, action. --Cyde Weys 14:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, his sockpuppet was not of the "abusive" variety. I don't see a pressing need for either account (or any others he might have) to remain blocked more than a day or so. —freak(talk) 18:22, May. 20, 2007 (UTC)

Gwernol's block was unecessery and disruptive: "Extending to indef, user appears to be leaving, again" Huh?(!) El_C 15:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This clearly shows Gurch was running an unauthorised bot, as a side point to this. Majorly (talk | meet) 16:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear to me. Proof that it was a bot can be seen in... what exactly? El_C 17:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like he managed to perform 24 edits over the course of one minute; that comes down to 2.5 edits a second, which suggests he had to be using some sort of automated tool. Krimpet (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Your math is so far off as to be funny. 60 seconds in a minute, times 2.5 edits a second, is 150 edits. This is no where close to 24. -M^ask? 07:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think he meant an edit every 2.5 seconds... That makes much more sense. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 09:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hilarious you'd imply that good edits done automatically might be a more serious offense than bad edits done manually. Seriously, who gives a fuck... —freak(talk) 18:22, May. 20, 2007 (UTC)

What is important is the process, not the result. Or wait, is it the other way around? I'll have to file a request for clarification with arbcom to find out. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Freakofnurture, clearly you don't. Editing on that scale should really be done on a bot account so it doesn't flood recent changes and watchlists. Majorly (talk | meet) 19:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Please explain why mass page blanking doesn't merit a block. Is it because he's an admin who has friends? Corvus cornix 18:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

He was blocked. What more do you want? Extend it until the Nader administration? —freak(talk) 18:50, May. 20, 2007 (UTC)

I want an explanation as to why he was unblocked. Corvus cornix 19:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

To Majorly: On IRC, he told me that he used javascript to bypass double redirects. I don't really understand why this is a problem; We cut down on the numbers of double redirects very quickly. Win-win. Sean William 18:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Still, fast editing like that should be done under a bot account so it doesn't flood recent changes and stuff. I can't see why he couldn't just apply for one, he's had bot accounts before. Majorly (talk | meet) 19:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at my contribs and I'm seeing 26 edits per minute, etc., using rollback, and I have no intention of getting a bot. El_C 23:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Resolved

 – User has been unblocked and warned to be mindful of Arbcom-imposed restrictions N 10:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

After being blocked indefinitely due to a community ban, this user was unblocked for the sole purpose of participating in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered, and was specifically warned only to edit the request for arbitration, and his own talk page. However, this user has now violated this restriction on three occasions [49] [50] [51]. John254 02:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

All the instances, with the exception of the username change request, have to do with his Arb case. The username change seems to be an effort to bring the account within policy.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 03:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reblocked based on the evidence brought by John254. Since I'm not intimately familiar with his case, tho, I strongly request my actions to be reviewed and undone if deemed necessary. Phaedriel - 03:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

All 3 of those edits looked case related to me. The first is specifically mentioned in the case (an agreement to change the username). The second and 3rd look like attempts to gather evidence or comment. I don't see a violation here. jbolden1517^Talk 03:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The terms of PalestineRemembered's unblocking restricted him to editing Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered, any subpages thereof, and his own talk page [52]. He was not permitted to edit other users' talk pages and project noticeboard pages, even in a manner deemed to be related to his request for arbitration. John254 03:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse the block, a clear violation of the terms of the unblock. Daniel 03:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly object to this reblock. These edits by PR were all closely related to coordination of his defense. Though Zscout said to edit only the arbcom case and his userpage, there are other procedural issues he should be allowed to complete as part of his defence. For example, Mark Chovain has volunteered to be his advocate, so he should be allowed to write on his talk page. The username change request was specifically mentioned by PR in his evidence statement at arbcom as a sign of his willing to reform and compromise. The post on the Palestine noticeboard was a request for evidence, which he obviously needs for defense, and I have reinstated it. nadav 03:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand the warning given. I have problems with the terms being applied in that way (that literally). For example if he has an advocate (council) then that page would seem in order. We aren't talking about a vandal here, but rather a tendentious editor. I don't think its reasonable to forbid him from collecting evidence or from consulting with other parties about the case. jbolden1517^Talk 03:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I want to add that PR's case has been a sorry reflection on due process (I encourage all to see the arbcom evidence statements). We should not continue to prevent him from defending himself. (Of course, if he strays beyond these limits then that's a whole other story). nadav 03:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered can interact with others users on his own talk page. A posting to Wikipedia:Notice board for Palestine-related topics is probably unnecessary given that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered is already well publicized at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, and, in any event, need not be made by PalestineRemembered himself. John254 03:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that he be strongly warned, and that in future he should ask Mark to do such things for him. However, a complete block is inappropriate. nadav 03:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the unblock was done in order to allow him to defend himself (in the unblock message, it says clearly: Due to the ArbCom case and the need to defend yourself), I think that he shouldn't have been re-blocked, since his second and third edit were specifically for this reason. The first edit, although doesn't fit in with this, should also be allowed on the grounds that a blocked user who has a name which other users claim is problematic - should be allowed, in my opinion, to have it changed. Od Mishehu 03:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever happened, the case at the ArbCom is still open and this means that he needs to defend himself again and again until the case is closed. You should not have re-blocked him before having a look at the ArbCom case and what's going on in there. This user has been accused on false grounds and most of the blocks are still being questioned and challenged w/o any answer from the "blockers" (see his blocklog and do the math) ! Arbitrators have considered this case as a hard one and now we are making it harder for them just because he edited something very related to his case. I have to agree w/ ACADEMY LEADER, nadav and Od Mishehu. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to point out that he did canvass for support. Whether or not he thinks that is defending himself or not I'm not sure, but this is canvassing. Again it can be argued that he thought he was defending himself (and I think someone should ask him). In any case, he can stay blocked for now, he has an advocate to speak for him. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 04:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The block was not necessary here. The actions were not flagrant deviations from the provision of the unblock, and the reason for the unblock (that he should be able to comment in the RfArb) still stand. If you all want to block him simply because he violated the terms, the block should be short (say twenty-four hours), after which point he would be able to return to participating in the RfArb according to the terms. -- tariqabjotu 04:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I also want to add that John's assertion that PR was "blocked indefinitely due to a community ban" is incorrect. Discussion closed at CSN and was referred to arbitration, and there was no consensus for a block at the time of the closing. nadav 05:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This is absolutely disgusting.

• The CS ban was based on now-debunked information.
• No accusations have been brought against him in his current ArbCom case, despite my requests that evidence be presented. That ArbCom case is starting to look like a way of enforcing a defacto ban.
• One of the biggest proponents of the case has since suggested that the case not go ahead, and the matters instead go through RfC.

The first edit is clearly intended to appease those that are offended by his username. The second and third are clearly attempts to organise his defence. While he probably should have asked me to make the second change, the third was an urgent message asking one his supporters to not contribute to the discussion yet. The new block is not in the spirit of the unblock conditions; his edits are.

I'd normally be one of the first to accuse PR of being paranoid, but this looks a lot like an attempt to prevent him from defending himself. Please give him a chance to do that. Mark Chovain 05:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not think his efforts to canvass were a good thing, though it can be argued that he was only "defending himself". See this. Thanks —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 05:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how that can be described as canvassing when it's an arbitration case. Additional people might not help the process, but certainly won't be harmful (and if they are, can easily be barred from the case by the arbitrators). Christopher Parham (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Following this statement by Chovain, who's PR advocate on his ArbCom case, as well as the vast majority of comments above, I'll proceed to conditionally lift his block. I will also leave him a warning regarding edits to pages different than those specified. Once again, please review and rectify my actions if necessary. Phaedriel - 05:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly object to this block, as it adds to the appearance of a concerted effort to drive PR from the project. Catchpole 12:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we have advocates in arbitration now? Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If it gets really bad, he could email his defense to the ArbCom and it can be posted for him by the ArbCom. I have seen it done before, so if it gets really bad, we could choose that route. I didn't see this message until Sunday morning, but I want to make this clear: this might have deserved a warning earlier. I have not seen much about the debate about his username, but it should be done after the ArbCom case is over. The talk page notification was already done, so whatever else he is doing, it should be heavily discouraged. Honestly, no block should be issued now, but let this post serve as a final warning to PR. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This block is to prevent what, another violation of WP:CITE? The proposed community ban, which was based upon a good faith but erroneous charge, failed because the most compelling points of evidence were cast in doubt. That is to say, WP:CSN worked. PR should be therefore be unblocked without prejudice, and this arbitration case dismissed. I'm still not clear that either party wants this arbitration, which was to begin with initiated by a third party and likely would have been dropped were it not for third-party pressure on PR (see Pawn). Arbitration rightly exists to resolve disputes, not to exacerbate and exploit them. So, yes, I concur that this is disgusting. Unblock PR and takee it to RfC where it belongs.Proabivouac 11:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Logical stuff! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Ghirlandajo

The user here Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) here had filed a report on Rcf at 09:02, 19 May about my behavior, I asked if it is appropriated for him to make such request without even trying to discuss about the matter on the article talk. I no idea how to deal with this guy right here. He had a habit of cheating with his source on the article Ashina, which actually engendering alot of petty disputes currently, but refused to admit his mistake, he also made a personal attack on my talk after we had dispute reverting earlier, and refused to seek for dispute resolution over the article talk when I had requested so. I am irritated and vexed, as he had not only wasted his time, but also mine over these few days. Eiorgiomugini 09:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The RFC process is there to help resolve a dispute, it appears that you both have diverging opinions on various articles. By requesting outside(independent) help it will benefit both of you, the articles and wikipedia, please assume good faith with the request and work towards resolving the problems Gnangarra 11:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Another JB196 sockpuppet to block

Resolved

EXTREME T2P (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), see checkuser here. Also if someone could G5 Josh Piscura at the same time please, thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Y Done – Riana ⁂ 09:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing - canvassing?

Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - please check the contributions. Does this qualify as canvassing? Please see also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing - he's recently been banned from making infobox-related edits, so quite frankly it looks to me as though he's looking for people to edit war for him. Other issues aside, is this behaviour against the rules? Moreschi ^Talk 11:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You false insinuations are predictable, unwarranted and breach both WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Andy Mabbett 11:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Potw, asking for a second opinion because one is concerned that something might constitue canvassing is in no way a breach of anything, or an insinuation. Calm yourself, please. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm perfectly aware that "asking for a second opinion" is acceptable, and the difference between that and the above breaches of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. I'm also very calm, thank you. Andy Mabbett 11:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything very clever. If you are canvassing, please stop it, or you will be stopped. Are you canvassing? Good faith only goes so far, at any rate, especially with your record. Moreschi ^Talk 11:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"I'm not saying anything very clever." I agree. Andy Mabbett 11:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Not clever or complex. Just correct. Moreschi ^Talk 12:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like canvassing to me. In particular his message is expressly to those who have spoken "against the blanket removal of infoboxes from articles about composers, or in an attempt to reach a compromise solution" so is a message aimed at a partisan audience (only one side of the discussion). It appears to further solicit such contributions to the discussion and is the mass posting of an identical message. Fairly clear WP:CANVAS violation. I'm not convinced its an incitement to edit war, but it does seem to be an attempt to skew a discussion in one direction. WjBscribe 11:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[Edit conflict]

People who "attempt to reach compromise" are not "one side" of a discussion.

If I was "mass posting" to a number of people considered excessive, then doesn't that number itself show that consensus was not reached?

I notified people who spoke out against something that there is claim that consensus in favour of it was reached (there is also a claim that they did not do so, but I decided not to mention that) and that discussion continues. If you really think it important, I'll notify those claiming consensus that they are doing so...

Andy Mabbett 11:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That would probably be harassment. Quite apart from which, the people you are contacting are not all those who have expressed any sort of agreement with you in any sense of the word. So, stop it. Moreschi ^Talk 11:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"That would probably be harassment." ROFL! Andy Mabbett 11:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

straight forward case of canvassing. --Fredrick day 12:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If you were to have notified everyone who previously participated in the discussion that it had resumed with a neutral message that would have been better. Something along the lines of "Hello, I note you expressed an opinion in previous discussions about whether infoboxes were appropriate in articles about composers. These discussions have resumed and you may wish to contribute to them". Instead you only notified the side you agree with, which is canvassing. Generally avoiding mass postings is good. WjBscribe 12:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, Mr Mabbett says discussions have resumed. I would disagree with him there, and would object to a message saying they had. Moreschi ^Talk 12:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"Mr Mabbett says discussions have resumed." I say no such thing. I note that they are on-going. Which they are; within the last hour despite others' attempts to stifle them (not least by archiving live discussions). Andy Mabbett

Fair enough - I haven't looked at the discussions themselves. Its not very significant though... Pigsonthewing, you clearly canvassed. Canvassing is disruptive and unacceptable. You will cease canvassing this issue and I warn you that further instances of canvassing may result in a block. WjBscribe 12:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that my comments were entirely reasonable and permitted by WP:CANVASS, but I have no intention of contacting further editors with that comment in any case. Andy Mabbett 12:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice; I didn't notify "only the side I agree with"; I disagree with some of the posters I contacted (though I admit that I am grateful that they were prepared to work towards compromise). Andy Mabbett 12:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

As usual, I see that as soon as someone suggests Pigsonthewing has breached rules or guidelines, he accuses them of personal attacks. How many personal attacks have you made Pigsonthewing? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 17:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

POV-incited page blanking by User:3 Löwi

See here. Discussions and useful edits were ongoing --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Again [53] --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The page has not been blanked, however TheFEARgod in his own "POV-incited" enthusiasm has been trying to insert a lot of content which is not related to 'Fascism in Estonia'. The content, if properly referenced, would fit in a number of other articles covering, e.g., Holocaust in Estonia, Waffen-SS, etc. Regards, --3 Löwi 12:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

blanking was done without discussion, disrupting the work of 2-3 users with different POVs. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Diyarbakır - Capital of Kurdistan

There is a revert war going on on Diyarbakır (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Several parties are insisting on putting in material which third parties identified as propaganda from non-verifiable sources. -- Cat ^chi? 13:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Try dispute resolution or WP:3RR.--Doc^g 13:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I decline to revert war to the point of warranting a 3rr intervention. Such disruption (revert wars) should be discouraged.

I strongly believe a dispute resolution would be fruitless since all past discussion attempts were utterly ignored. A notable example is this mediation case. I am observing Image:Consensus new and old.svg and people reverting are not.

In addition, I feel this is a clear WP:NOT#SOAPBOX/WP:V/WP:AWT violation not warranting dispute resolution.

-- Cat ^chi? 15:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• "rv: these edits go a long way beyond what has been discussed, which implies bad faith"
• sysop only protection - "undiscussed, controversial editing"

Garzo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has reverted the article to his version and protected it. Garzo is using his admin tools to take advantage in the discussion. -- Cat ^chi? 14:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Dispruption by editor

McPhail (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Yesterday this editor disrupted Wikipedia to make a point on the Seán McCaughey article, editing anonymously.

The background to the sequence of events is as follows:

Burntsauce has raised the ire of members of the pro wrestling WikiProject by repeatedly stubbing unsourced bios of living people, examples [54] [55] [56] [57]

This has been widely discussed by the WikiProject and on administrators noticeboards - see here, here, here and here. Because I take it upon myself to rid Wikipedia of the hundreds of articles about non-notable wrestlers (which would also allow the project to focus their efforts on their more pressing sourcing problems) the project sees me as an enemy, in the same way as they do Burntsauce.

The IP editor made an edit to a wrestling article, then edits to Bloody Sunday (1972) and the McCaughey article, both of which I had edited earlier in the day. The IP editor even tried to issue me with a BLP warning, when the article makes it clear McCaughey died in 1946.

As can be seen by the edit summaries, they are the same as Burntsauce uses when he stubs wrestling articles, and this is nothing but some kind of juvenile disruptive revenge from a member of the wrestling WikiProject.

WP:A does not mean all material must be attributed to reliable sources, it clearly states it must be attributable which can easily be done with such a short article with two sources as external links. There is nothing in the policy that says inline citations must be used, in fact the policy explicitly states However, this policy should not be used to cause disruption by removing material for which reliable sources could easily or reasonably be found. I do normally use them on most articles, but there was no pressing need for them on such a short article, however I was planning to add them when I expand the article from books in my possession.

Following the IPs edits User:McPhail then tried to report me for vandalism, also also raised the sourcing of the article on Burntsauce's talk page, leaving me in absolutely no doubt that he was editing as an IP and being disruptive.

Please stop this editor from disrupting Wikipedia any further, thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The edits were not "disruptive". Given your propensity to tag articles as unreferenced on the basis that they lack inline citations or footnotes, coupled with your repeated attempts to delete professional wrestling related articles, it's somewhat hypocritical of you to protest when articles that you have edited are held to the same standards. It's not a question of your being an "enemy", or of "revenge", it's a case of applying a common standard to all articles, not just the articles that you dislike. While WP:BLP is not relevant, Wikipedia:Citing sources clearly states "attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor". Your response to the removal of controversial information on the basis that it was totally unreferenced (and no, a section entitled "external links" that does not distinguish between partisan websites and works of authority does not constitute adequate referencing) was to respond with accusations of vandalism and personal attacks on User:Govvy. This is a clear case of an editor pursuing a personal vendetta and using Wikipedia policy as an excuse, yet ignoring the rules when they are applied to the editor's own unreferenced articles. McPhail 22:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:A, which states this policy should not be used to cause disruption by removing material for which reliable sources could easily or reasonably be found. Given the article is a short stub the sources are very obvious. This is a simple case of disruption for the actions of Burntsauce, actions I have not carried out myself I hasten to add. Your actions were clearly disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Wikidiape

User replaced the link to www.gamesfever.tv with www.gamefever.tv (a spam site) [58] then c/pd the article to 3 different places with the spam link in it [59]. Suggest block this account as spam-only account. Nardman1 14:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The name is a bit off perhaps? SqueakBox 16:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If you mean the user name, diape is close to diaper, I suppose. If you mean the site name, I don't follow. One is a legit site and one is a spam site. Nardman1 16:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitely I was referring to diaper, using wiki in a name is fine (though using wikipedia is not), clever word game is all, SqueakBox 19:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Community ban

There is an ongoing community ban discussion here. Further input is required to determine consensus. Navou 17:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Vikrant Phadkay

Vikrant Phadkay, a member of the WP:POKE project, has been in opposition to a proposal to merge all the species articles into "lists of" articles. He initially expressed it by nominating List of Pokémon (1-20) and List of Pokémon (21-40) for deletion, both of which were kept. When nominating them he wished us luck in doing the merger [60]. None of this was a huge problem, until now.

Yesterday he got even angrier, threatening that the merger was going to stop now [61] and following up by blanking all of the "evolutionary line" articles [62][63][64][65][66] as well as posting elsewhere telling people to stop merging [67] He has also made personal attacks on other POKE members [68][69] [70]. I reported his spree of blanking ot WP:AIV, but I was directed bring it here. hbdragon88 19:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked him for 48 hours for repeatedly blanking articles past his final warning he received yesterday. Krimpet (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Krimpet beat me to blocking. I endorse. Trebor 19:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Administrator attention: New banned User:Brya sock puppet, please ban.

Resolved

 – Sock blocked. N 10:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User: Lodzel is a sock puppet of community banned User:Brya. Please see this edit [71] for all the evidence needed. Brya socks don't tend to be difficult to spot, and they do routinely establish that Brya still doesn't get what it was all about.

Ban link: [72]

KP Botany 19:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Trebor 19:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The Mystery of the Druids and Characters of The Mystery of the Druids

I know nothing about this game, but over the past couple of days, The Mystery of the Druids has had some less-than-likely edits made to it, and I've reverted to a stable version several days old. If I'm wrong I apologize, but does this game really have Hercule Poirot, Keith Richards and Gaston in it? And did it really appear in an article in a newspaper which will not be published until 2009? The new article, Characters of The Mystery of the Druids is new, and even less likely. Corvus cornix 20:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And...what's it got to do with AN/I? Looks like simple vandalism to me. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Tell them to take it to uncyclopedia:, perhaps? Looks mostly like generic meme stuff, but it's creative enough they might accept it over there. --tjstrf talk 20:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What is has to do with ANI is that it's being attacked over and over again and needs to be protected but my protection request has not been addressed, and some admin needs to do something. There are several new users (one of whom made an incivil attack on my Talk page) and several anons, probably all the same person (or else some concerted attack by a variety of people). There are at least three of us now full-time reverting this page. Corvus cornix 20:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And now it's being vandalized by past vandals who have had accounts here for a long time. Corvus cornix 20:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Qian Zhijun

Right, let's get this mess sorted out ourselves, no need for arbitration, we all had a little tantrum, things got closed/reopened/deleted/restored but now it's time to act like the grown ups that we all are (well most of us :-)) and sort this out as a community without the need for the all too busy arbitration committee having to waste there time and give a few people a slap on the wrist. As a community, let's sort it out once and for all. Here's what I propose;

1. Let's restore the article and run a full AfD (yes - 7 days, no more, no less)
2. Let a completely neutral administrator close it (I'm personally volunteering by the way as I have no opinion on the article, I haven't even looked at it).
3. Accept the decision and get on with creating an amazing encyclopedia!

How does that sound???? Ryan Postlethwaite 21:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Alternate plan: all of the admins supporting inclusion of this article voluntarily resign their adminship as they are obviously unsuited to the task due to their complete lack of social responsibility. Everybody else goes and writes an encyclopedia. Phil Sandifer 21:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's one of the least constructive things I've ever heard here, but hey - each to their own. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

People who are that unwilling to compromise or even talk should probably voluntarily resign their adminship too, as they are obviously unsuited to the task due to their complete lack of ability to work in a group environment. — MichaelLinnear 21:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to compromise. That's why I grant that it should be removed through AfD instead of CSD. Which it was. Phil Sandifer 21:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And that was overturned. So why do you struggle to accept that? --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

A full AFD is 5 days, it's already had more than that. --pgk 21:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I was pro-deletion, but everyone, let's ease up on the rhetoric. Newyorkbrad 21:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be great, but, as you see, people aren't open to that. People want an RfC? They'll get an RfC. When I get the nasty messages again and nothing occurs, it'll end back at Arbcom anyway, and who knows what will occur with DRVs in between. But hey, keep asserting false BLP issues and ignoring our verifiability/notability policies/guidelines in the meantime, that'll be great. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's go step by step through the history of this arduous conflict to see where it went wrong. Does everyone agree with the validity of the first AfD? —Kyриx 21:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

We could do that. We could also just drop it. Picaroon (Talk) 21:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we leave this in limbo, we're essentially just shoving our heads into the sand. Might as well put it to rest once and for all. —Kyриx 21:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to believe that the "back to XfD" closing instruction on DRV is creating a lot of these messes. —Kyриx 21:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• How about everyone just doesn't wheel war over this. Seriously, did you all go insane when I wasn't watching? Why is it worth all this to have the correct action taken IMMEDIATELY about something that none of us had ever heard about before? Because this situation was quite clearly caused by admins reversing each others' decisions unilaterally for no good reason, however much people may think it was caused by some misinterpretation of content policies. -Amarkov moo! 22:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• This was meant to be an idea to stop the bitching, not a free for all to start a war - this isn't going to just fly away so dropping it isn't an option. Full AfD, then it can be put to bed. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• There was a strong consensus for deletion between the original AfD 1, DRV 1 and AfD 2, DRV 2 and AfD 3 had more robust arguments for deletion though not an overall majority. This over zealous application of process just to try and please a few people is unnecessary and at this point, a true consensus on any one new AfD is totally unreachable, I would like to see this article fully protected from recreation for 3 months and then we'll think about another debate as to whether the article should be recreated or not, the unacceptable allegations of administrator misconduct and the stubborn process wonkery that has taken place in order keep this article will all be in the past and we can try to have a reasonable discussion to decide on the future of the article. An AfD with the current atmosphere is a disaster waiting to happen Ryan. Nick 22:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  "Allegations" of misconduct? Administrators wheel warred. Administrators are not allowed to wheel war. Deliberately doing things you are not allowed to do is the definition of misconduct... -Amarkov moo! 22:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  That interpretation of "wheel war" may be open to debate. I happen to agree with it, but I know for a fact that some people don't. Maybe we should take the "Brian Peppers" approach; if anybody cares 6 months/1 year from now, then we'll deal with it then. Otherwise, let's put this messy issue behind us and get back to writing the encyclopedia. Sean William 23:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  I really don't think an approach that merely says "Even though consensus was to overturn the original AfD, we'll let the numerous deletions stand and postpone the inevitable" is a good idea. This could have been over two days from now if things happened organically. What's standing in the way of an actual resolution is clear. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  Then you condone the escalation of this issue into a full-blown wheel war? This also could be over right now if we let it go. Sean William 23:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  I read this as "We're forcing the result we want whether you like it or not." So perhaps the "letting go" should be of the people who feel the need to exert their will on this cotinually as opposed to actually letting anyone else have a say. See below for a great example. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  You've already had your say. Are 3 AFDs and 2 DRVs not enough? The first AFD even ran its full course. Let's quit beating the dead horse. Sean William 23:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  1 AfD and 1 DRV that overturned it. Don't sit there and try to say that two AfDs that were closed by people who simply do not want to see this exist within hours of creation are representative of anything. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

  That's where your wrong, DRV's remit is not to allow people who didn't like the outcome of the AfD to complain and have the result overturned, it's "to consider disputed decisions" - there was no dispute over the outcome of the AfD, just that people didn't like the outcome, as became abundantly clear when the discussion's closure was reverted purely on an ILIKEIT basis. Ditto for the second AfD (less edit warring). Nick 00:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

  On the contrary, that's where you're wrong. The decision was disputed on policy and closing grounds, thus it was reversed. The continued deletions were what were on the IDONTLIKEIT basis. Revisionism must not be tolerated. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

  It's resolved, it's dead. --Tony Sidaway 23:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  Has anyone noticed that "It's resolved" is one of those things which is only said when it obviously isn't yet resolved? -Amarkov moo! 23:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  Well, we don't want to call it resolved when we're standing around a horse carcass with sticks in our hands. Sean William 23:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  It's deleted, and given the reaction of the arbitration committee thus far it seems unlikely to be undeleted. So in that sense the issue is resolved. Certainly the complaining hasn't yet concluded, but those interested only in the final outcome can safely stop watching, I think. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

  "Brian Peppers" was only resolved by direct action by Jimbo. But unlike Peppers, where the only source was a sex offender website, this dude is taking advantage of his fame, and giving press interviews. See [73] Nardman1 23:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  Dead as the dodo. It isn't coming back. --Tony Sidaway 00:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

  I'm incredibly glad that you have absolutely no more say than anyone else in the proceedings. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of generally keeping the peace, since there isn't going to be an Arbcom ex Machina solution, is there any good reason not to go for the Peppers solution? There's no deadline on Wikipedia and if this is an encyclopedic topic, a year from now won't be too late. --BigDT 13:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I note that the Peppers solution didn't work as designed. The theory was that after a year, if anyone still cared, we could discuss it. Obviously, people still cared, but the discussion was killed before consensus had been given any chance of forming. Since it failed in the initial experiment, and I see no change in the behaviour of our administrators to make me think otherwise, I expect it to fail again whenever and wherever tried.

I happen to believe that this will end up at an accepted ArbComm case, and believe that we should look for the least painful route there. I missed most of the weekends drama, but before the weekend we had admins promising to ignore consensus and wheel war-delete the article before the weekend, so I'm not surprised we had more drama over the weekend. Because I believe that the flagrant abuses (and yes, I absolutely mean abuse) of administrative tools have been by those wanting the article deleted, a solution that gives them what they want without a fair hearing is unacceptable. It is possible that an AFD run fairly could avoid an ArbComm case; but otherwise I don't see a solution short of ArbComm. GRBerry 13:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

One, to BigDT, I will care in a year. I'll care in six months. I'll care whenever some arbitrary timer ticks to zero. My caring doesn't really change. It's still my belief, as with GRB, that this will end up with an accepted ArbCom case, even if we have to go through the motions of an RfC before representing it. Of course, if there's a new AfD/DRV to cover the point that there were issues with the process and result of the original AfD (as the DRV that set this bomb off concluded), there's no need to have any of this. But the "kill it now" crowd won't have that, because they're afraid of the result. So that's where we stand. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, then, start an RfC. You're not going to get an accepted ArbCom case without one. Instead of standing around arguing like a dysfunctional Roman senate, let's try to get something done. Sean William 14:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm amused that getting "something done" means wasting time with an RfC first. We'll see if ArbCom changes their mind, then take it from there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The probability of 7 arbitrators casting votes to accept is slim, at best. Sean William 14:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Assuming, of course, that no one changes their mind. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Who says the Brian Peppers solution failed? Where is the article? --Tony Sidaway 14:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is unfortunately missing from our coverage, causing a significant gap. It failed because it merely postponed the issue and caused bad feelings and created bad blood among editors. This, an issue that's far less contentious, would probably be worse because there's no good reason to postpone. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No good reason to postpone, you say? Then you might want to get started on that RfC. Sean William 14:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're in such a rush for it, you know where to go to start one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You have just said "there's no good reason to postpone", and two arbitrators have explicitly requested that you go through intermediate dispute resolution via RfC, yet you're asking somebody else to start an RfC, if he is "in such a rush for it." What's wrong with this picture? --Tony Sidaway 14:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ther eis no good reason to postpone the way we did with Brian Peppers. You're conflating two issues. Enough, Tony. Find something productive to do. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio uploads by User:777a

Will somebody please do something about the uploads of this user? This person has been notified numerous times that most if not all of his uploads have no source and those I've examined are obvious copyright violations. Most of these images have been uploaded before (and deleted) which only results in the person uploading the same images again, this time under names containing slight typos, see e.g. the images of Danish royalty (Margrethe, Benedikte and Annemarie). Please go through these images. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: an editor has notified me that this account may be a sock of a previously banned user[74]. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Snowolfd4

The said user has falsely warned me on my talk page. He is trying to censor me using false accusation and also using wikipedia as a battleground to censor me. He is giving false warning to keep me from editing/maintaining the article. He has said "Removing POV external links and unreliable citations is not [Vandalism]". This is false because he removed citation from here and has said the source is not RS here but the author of the citation is a reputable Tamil scholar. Please take necessary steps to stop this sort of behaviour seeing that this kind of behaviour really is not welcoming and will make users from editing neutrally to wikipedia. Thanks Watchdogb 23:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

POV edits and repeat vandalism by Dishant55555 who has received 3 warnings

(The Malhotra and Luthra pages are currently protected from edits until disputes have been resolved) The issues as I see them are -

A) Has Dishant55555 been making grand unsubstantiated POV claims about the Luthra family and citing fake sources ?

B) Has he been repeatedly vandalizing edits by users who have reverted his POV ?

If on examining the below Facts you find that he has, could he kindly be warned/blocked from doing so.

A) Grand unsubstantiated POV claims -- Good example is on the Luthra Page under Role in Society paragraph [75] where he makes the claim and I quote "Luthras are Kshatriya and are known for their prominence as warriors and of the ruling and administrative class." and provides an alleged source for this claim Click here. The link however says that Luthra is an Indian surname NOT that they are known for their prominence as warriors and of the ruling and administrative class. He makes further POV claims about Luthra's prominence in the army but again is not able to provide any reliable source for his claims. The examples of his peacock claims can be see at this link - [76] from the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

His exaggerated claims have been removed by Admins recently for example [77] showing that I am not the only one who finds him edits unworthy of inclusion on wikipedia. Other "Prominent" Luthra's Dishant55555 had added include- a "Prominent Biologist" who turns out to be a biology student, a Prominent Politician who turns out to be a losing politician in a small municipal election etc etc. I had reverted these and left a message on the talk page saying I am happy to leave them there if he is able to provide reliable sources for his claims. He has not done so and instead has been vandalizing pages I and other users who reverted his peacock claims including Khatri and Kapoor pages.

B) If you look at the differences in his and my edits on the Malhotra page vandalism of the Malhotra page you can see an example where he has removed dozens of lines of sourced edits with external reference links. He suggests he has tried to talk to me before but has not had a reply which is fictitious. I posted my comments a month ago and on his talk page [78]

His vandalism is now cleverer and he has now changed tack and keeps adding fictitious claims that Malhotra's are Vaishya caste and converted to Islam and have changed their names to persian ones etc. He provides a single reference for all these claims which turns out to be one he has cut and pasted from the khatri page (4th last item under Reference) -even the page numbers match exactly !

He also makes a fictitious POV claim that "Most Malhotra Shaikhs are now settled in Pakistan." There is no such thing as Malhotra Shaikhs as Malhotra's never converted to Islam. A google search [79] comes up with just one entry which is Dishants5555 fabricated entry on here. Malhotra is of course a Hindu or Sikh Kshatriya caste name as can be seen on the [[80]]. In India people are proud of the religion and caste and falsely changing this on a reference work I find offensive. He also makes petty edits such as changing an edit that Malhotra's were the subject of a TV series (which is a NPOV fact) to adding " because of the commonness of the Malhotra name" which is his unsourced POV. He is also still currently deleting most of the Reference section on the Malhotra page.

Could Admins please help and stop User:Dishant55555 from doing this and revert the Malhotra, Luthra and khatri pages back to the NPOV version before Dishant55555 POV edits. "81.149.27.200 22:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)"

Christian Party (United States)

Resolved

 – Article deleted. N 10:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

At Christian Party (United States) four edits have been made by an IP. I've reverted my own revert because when I try to do the other three reverts, the software won't let me. Could an administrator please rollback all of the edits? Thanks in advance. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 23:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted all the IP's edits, but then I noticed that some of them were good. I'm going to try an article re-write incorporating some of the IP's edits. I warned the IP about NPOV. Nardman1 00:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I stubbed it out further. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User left a nasty note on my talk page. I invited them to discuss the matter here. N 00:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Good idea trying to incorporate the good text. Odd, almost Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde case, in a way. Anyways, he obviously doesn't know about any of our policies. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 00:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently I'm "a thug" as seen here. N 00:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Article is unsalvageable except as a stub, I think. The party has seen no reliable third party coverage. I put it up for AFD for notability and verifiability reasons. N 01:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I WISH HE WOULDN'T TYPE ALL IN CAPS LIKE THAT; THE NOISE IS KEEPING THE KIDS UP. OH HELL, NOW HE HAS ME DOING IT, TOO... HalfShadow 04:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Article was speedied, for those wondering. ThuranX 05:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats by User:KristinaAlbania, again

In relation to the article on Teki Dervishi, KristinaAlbania (talk · contribs) has issued legal threats, again (diff. – formatted, easier to read), after being informed about our policy on legal threats by me & by Komdori.

See also: AN/I Archive 245: "Possible legal threats by User:KristinaAlbania", 18-19 May 2007.

The details of the edit in question:

Before I made a “legal threat” (and I do intend to go to the end with this matter, if nothing changes), I tried the following...

Unreasonable or not, if I am not to pursue this matter any further one of the following things has to happen...

Not to mention the issue of civility, personal attacks, and bad-faith assumptions:

• "[Ev's] sole purpose is to be provocative and arrogant"
• "user Ev’s intention: to provoke"
• "User Ev, was openly and obviously only trying to provoke, be arrogant (and immoral), and marking “political territories off”."
• it's implied that "[Ev is an] openly Albanian – hating [person]".

Because s/he appears to be new to Wikipedia, and may not have been aware of our policies, I was patient before (see the discussion at Talk:Teki Dervishi), but I made clear that I would not tolerate more of that.

I'm not requesting a block to punish that conduct, but that some third parties ask KristinaAlbania in clear terms to stop issuing such threats and calling me "immoral" and a "Albanian-hating person".

Komdori already gave her(?) some good advice, but I believe a stronger warning would be necessary. - Thanks already. Regards, Ev 23:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

First, Kristina hasn't been on, judging by Contrib list, to reply to the message by Komdori, so wait for that. Second, A look at her 'complaints' seems to be substantiated by looking at your wide-ranging edits to the serbian versions of disputed materials, then citing that such is 'common english usage' or 'common use on wikipedia' type stuff, thus creating your own consensus to refer to. She also made the point that the UN administration of the region isn't neededon the poet's page, and yet you reinsert that repeatedly. She offered a compromise, you rejected it. All in all, it looks like she did pull the 'legal threats' trigger first, but that that has some significant content, specifically, a new editor, running smack into a provocateur. that you've run right here without giving Komdori a chance to work things out with her only pushes further to make it look like you're interested in escalations. (IANAAdmin.) ThuranX 05:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

So much for assuming good faith... a provocateur ! I'm really angry.

ThuranX, could you consider for a moment the possibility that I may be right about the Serbo-Croatian forms constituting common English usage ? And that, in that case, those are the forms the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize ? And that that's the reason why at this moment all Wikipedia articles on Kosovar cities use the Serbo-Croatian forms, thus following our naming conventions policy & its associated guidelines ?

Please, show me an example in which I'm wrong about "common English usage", or an instance in which I change a name to a version inconsistent with the title of the corresponding Wikipedia article. Or perhaps should I discuss the issue about what form should Wikipedia use in every single article, searching consensus for the same thing in every specific case, over and over again, ad nauseam, and transform every Kosovo-related article in a new Talk:Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud) ? Nevertheless, I have asked KristinaAlbania to discuss the issue in the article's talk page. The answer I got was "I don’t care discussing with people like you".

And could you consider that I may be interested in improving the article by providing a better historical & geographical context of Teki Dervishi's birthplace (and that in only 20 words) ? Are you actually saying that our readers would be better off without details, with the sole mention of Teki Dervishi [was] born in 1943 in Gjakova[81]? Period, no more info needed ? In any case, I have asked KristinaAlbania to discuss the issue in the article's talk page. The answer I got was "I don’t care discussing with people like you".

You say that KristinaAlbania offered a compromise, and that I rejected it. Could you please indicate me when/where was that compromise offered ? And when/where did I reject it ? Take a look at the talk page discussion: the only thing that could be interpreted as "compromises" that KristinaAlbania "offered" was 1) that I refrain from editing the article, or 2) that the article be deleted entirely. Are you actually saying that I should have accepted one of those "compromises" ?

KristinaAlbania mentions that this edit was a compromise. At the time, without any communication except edit summaries, I didn't understood it to be an attempt to compromise. I saw it as a simple removal of content. "A mention of only the year of birth and the Albanian-language name of the city", and that in a place as complicated as the Balkans... is that what English-speaking readers expect from an encyclopedia ?

So... trying to make the article more intellegible to English-speakers by following common English usage, contextualizing Teki Dervishi's birth-place and trying to discuss the issues at the article's talk page... makes me a provocateur ???

Finally, I promptly brought the issue here (without waiting for KristinaAlbania to respond and without giving Komdori a chance to work things out) in the hope that a couple of stern warnings from third parties would accomplish a change in attitude. It appears that KristinaAlbania will be editing this article for the foreseeable future... and I would really like to be able to have discussions at that talk page with a bare minimum of civility.

In other words, what I'm looking for is the exact opposite of "escalation": I want help to avoid any future escalations. Help to assure that from now on discussion can be carried out in a civil manner. Some of us are used to work in a civil environment, and place much value on civility. — That "provocateur" thing really made me angry. For crying out loud ! Sometimes I think I'm one of the last persons here that pays any attention to that AGF... Ev 08:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this spam?

User:Studmeister is posting a link on numerous video game pages to an online petition. Is this spam to revert? thanks. —Gaff ^ταλκ 01:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Here is the edit: [82]—Gaff ^ταλκ 01:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, feel free to revert and warn the user. -- ReyBrujo 01:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yah, already done that myself. -- ReyBrujo 01:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I gave him a couple of warnings, but did not want to go to the full stage 4 type warnings without asking an admin. —Gaff ^ταλκ 01:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith image tagging by User:Daddy Kindsoul (aka Deathrocker)

A couple of days ago, User:Daddy Kindsoul tagged several several fair use images that I have uploaded and marked them for deletion. He placed "no fair use rationale" tags on Image:Fleshbot.png, Image:Deadspin.png,Image:Leather.jpg, Image:Gawker new.png and Image:Skyscraperpage logo.jpg, and "no source" tags on Image:Gawker G logo.gif and Image:Wonkette logo.gif.

Under normal circumstances, this wouldn't bother me - in fact, I'd find it helpful. When I find a fair use problem by a user, I usually go through their upload logs, because if they're mistaken about policy on one image, chances are, they've uploaded more images with similar errors.

But I believe those edits were in bad faith for the following reasons.

1. I've recently marked some of Daddy Kindsoul's images for copyright issues and he responded hostilely, calling my notices on his talk page "spamattack", labeling a legitimate fair use concern "trolling tag" and deleting a notice tag. It seems this user isn't willing to play by Wikipedia's image policies, but more than happy to try to get my uploads deleted.
2. In addition to the above edits, the user has taken a hostile tone with me without provocation, in Image_talk:Tevez-WestHamPalermo.jpg while accusing me of lying in Image talk:Myoldladylovesneckface.jpg.
3. The images that Daddy Kindsoul tagged are all website screenshots and logos. It appears that the wording on some of the license tags have changed, but my understanding was that the boilerplate wording within the tags, combined with the "used for identification of ___" notes I left in the descriptions were enough for rationale.
4. The no source tags are ridiculous, since it's rather obvious where the logos came from and who owns the copyrights to them. To pretend that the images are not sourced is pretty obtuse, and the draconic interpretation is oddly inconsistent for someone who recently tried to argue that a screenshot was self created and uploaded a Dean Martin album cover art as a Creative Commons image.
5. Regardless of whether Daddy Kindsoul was correct to tag the images, the issues were simply procedural, and a message on my talk page would have solved them. But Daddy Kindsoul never bothered to contact me about those tags on my user talk page, which is considered good form at the very least.

Considering his history of blocks, this user takes edits too personally and could use another reminder to play nice with others. --Ytny (talk) 06:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

None of those images have usage rationales for being non-free content that you uploaded—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)==

I concede that I misunderstood exactly what I needed for a proper fair use rationale, and that the tagging of the images are technically correct. But that's beside the point. The issue is that the mass tagging was retaliation by a user who has decided I'm out to get him. --Ytny (talk) 06:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If they don't have fair use tags, they don't have fair use tags. Tagging them is the correct action, regardless of the motivation. This is not a subjective call, where their is room for dispute, like with most tags. Take it as a compliment that someone is willing to double-check your work so diligently. --Haemo 08:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Who cares why he tagged them so long as they got tagged? Fair Use is to be used only under very limited circumstances. He did a good thing. -M^ask? 08:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Atif nazir

Resolved

Messed up totally with this move. Can an admin delete this page, and move back from User talk:Syed Atif Nazir? --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 06:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Never mind, done by Ryulong. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 06:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Trouble with User

I have been having trouble with a user who has been abusing {{helpme}} notices, and has delivered personal attacks to me, see this, because he has deleted them, and this. He has also has left a note on my page, even though I told him the correct answer numerous times, twice. In addition, many others have tried to help him. And, he is going to file an RFC against me. IMHO, he is trolling and is uncivil. Please let me know what to do. Thanks. Real96 07:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ignore. I've protected his page for 4 days. Upon expiration, he shouldn't abuse the helpme template anymore. If he does, let me know and I'll take some further action. Until then just ignore him, he's trolling and your continued acknowledgement, while entirely well meaning, is feeding him. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 08:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he hasn't abused the template. His questions were a legitimate use of the helpme template and the reactions of Real96 and Magnus Animum were inappropriate. -- John Reaves (talk) 08:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen {{helpme}} abuse from this user either. It seems to me that this is just a newish user who often uses {{helpme}}s to ask questions about Wikipedia and has, at times received some rather bitey responses from certain users who are annoyed by this. --KFP (talk | contribs) 10:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It can easily look like that, yes, but IMO a little more research gives a different picture. I came across JosephASpadaro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in April, when I happened to have Real96's page on my watchlist. Some increasingly distressed edit summaries by Real caught my eye( here here and here here). Spadaro's triumphant and relentless repetiton of some well-meaning errors on Real's part looked like clear bullying, and I wrote tersely to the user, who instantly took his attentions to my page instead. Our exchange can still be seen here. OK, now please take a look at Spadarro's skimpy-looking (because he keeps blanking it) but actually extremely lively talkpage, into which new little helpers lost in the wood are constantly drawn by new {{helpme}} templates. I'm a strenuous assumer of good faith myself, to the point of idiocy, but please dip into that talkpage history; check out the user's refusal to let go of his original tiny grievance (he is now threatening to RfC Real); look at his messages on my page, look me in the eye, and tell me this isn't simply somebody amusing themselves. And doing it by distressing the young and well-meaning. Protecting his talkpage seems like a good initial call, Swat. I hope that sends enough of a message. Bishonen | talk 10:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC).

I've also encountered this user, see my talk archives about 2 weeks ago. Seems like he has good intentions, just likes to use the template. No harm no foul. :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 11:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What could protecting anyone's talk page possibly achieve? -- John Reaves (talk) 11:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I just realized his talk page was actually protected. This is an nonsense way of dealing with this so I have unprotected. If any template abuse were to ever occur (as it has yet to happen) blocking him would be fine, but cutting off his means of communication while he is still active helps nothing. -- John Reaves (talk) 11:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not feeling my points above got taken a lot of notice of. :-( John and Eagle, I'd really appreciate it if you'd take a god look at the history, in case you haven't already, and address my points about the systematic talkpage blanking, the bullying, the relentless repetition, the tone, the posts on my page, and such. Thanks. Bishonen | talk 12:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC).

My main concern was the reckless accusations of abuse and the biting going on. I agree that he is rather unpleasant to deal with. -- John Reaves (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to throw in my 2 cents, the {{helpme}} usage is not really the main issue here. The real problem is his uncivil replies (just look at my talk page). Like Bishonen, I have never lost my cool or not assumed good faith, but this user is seriously pushing his luck with the replies. John Reaves, since you seem to be in doubt here, can you help this user the next time he asks for help to see what I am talking about? ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 13:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this user can really ask a great number of questions. While these questions seem simple to experienced editors, they may not be to all users, and I do believe that this user actually wants help for these items. He does interpret things very literally, and does have problems when helpers use pronouns instead of nouns when describing things. I have only ever helped him with one item, and it went fine and he thanked me at the end, but I will agree that 1 is a small sample size. I also am not nuts that he blanked the question and answer afterwards, but #1- he used an edit summary of "resolved" and #2 - we've all been through the whole issue of blanking talk pages before, so there is no point in pursuing that. I agree that some of his responses have been less than civil, however, I think that most of it can be traced back to biting that he received. Bishonen, I've gone back and checked the earliest interactions with Real96 and this appears to be the first post of JosephASpadaro which could be considered incivil to Real96. Prior to this message, Real had 3 times posted a note on his page that he had old helpme's in the history, suggested that he seek adoption (which he did not understand, I think) and finally posted this on the user's page, which is the edit which seemed to be the one that JosephASpadaro used to begin what is being shown here as escalation of the incident and trolling. In my opinion, there are multiple parties to blame here, improper accusations going in multiple directions, and some cool off needed between some of the parties involved (not that they stop editing - just that they perhaps stay away from each other). I think that everyone should take a breath before escalating this further and I support the post that John Reaves has left on JosephASpadaro’s talk page. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Spamming IP

The user at Special:Contributions/59.92.143.16 is introducing blatent offtopic spam on various pages. Did so previously under Special:Contributions/59.92.145.240. Ignored recent warning to stop. MrZaius^talk 08:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please take future events to WP:AIV. Issued l4 warning. MER-C 09:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit War at Flynn effect

Just look at the page history of that article. [83] The edit war is between Secularrise (talk · contribs) and Ultramarine (talk · contribs). I can't speak on Secularrise but with regards to Ultramarine I have been dealing with him on the Noam Chomsky article and his editing style is one of the most aggressive I have encountered in my entire time on Wikipedia. In late 2005 he had an arbitration case against him for this very reason. I do see anything here that has changed since then.--Jersey Devil 09:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that Secularrise has no edits other than to this article and its talk page (all in the past few days). The way, the truth, and the light 10:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Humanities Ref Desk split

Over the weekend, the Humanities Ref Desk was split in a "bold" move that was not previously discussed.

Unsurprisingly, this has proved contraversial and a certain amount of heat is being generated at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk and various users' talk pages.

Posting here to notify admins about the dispute and request help with calming the situation. As you're probably aware, the nature of the Ref Desks engenders a lot of strong opinions and it would be a shame for useful contributors to start talking themselves into the kind of disruptive behaviours that are already beginning to crop up. --Dweller 09:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Tempers fly over the "bold" move. I'm also deeply concerned and frustrated at the unilateral moves that disfigured the board and drove its most helpful contributor away from Wikipedia. Please wait for consensus before implementing decisions of such far-reaching importance. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I want to point out that the "bold" move was previously discussed, twice. There was little support for the proposal when it was floated those two times, but the same editor went ahead and implemented the changes without consensus. -- Diletante 15:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User 41.205.137.21 spamming flightdiversion.com

All of this user's edits exist siply to promote flightdiversion.com and are not in encyclopaedic style or even in the relevant section of the pages they are on. see their [contributions]

Remove and report to intervention against vandalsim, just like any other common vandal :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 16:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive Pattern of Behavior by AKliman

The same editor, Andrew Kliman Akliman (talk · contribs) - who just a few days ago demanded that another editor place $10,000 in an escrow account as a precondition for him re-filing a request for mediation (which was discussed in this forum) - has continued his pattern of disruptive behavior. More recently, he deleted the RFCs posted on RFC/ECON posted by another editor. He did this to 3 different RFCs, one of them twice. RFCs are an important part of the dispute resolution process at Wikipedia and their deletion was a very serious offense as it was an attack on the entire Wikipedia community. The same editor then altered the content of WP:SHUN so that it now allows for the questioning of "disruptive" editors in an effort to get those editors to "reveal" their "motives" and as a "behavior modification technique"! The same editor then used that changed guideline on the TSSI talk page as a rationalization to ask aggressive and disruptive questions and thereby harass WP:HARASS another editor. Watchdog07 12:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

sock-puppets allowed?

An administrator may reset the block of a user who intentionally evades a block, and may extend the duration of the block if the user engages in further blockable behaviour while evading the block.

quoted from Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Evasion_of_blocks. this straight forward implies that sock puppets allowed until and unless he indulges in blockable behaviour. This is correct policy and many administrators dont know this.

i here request to modify policy to:

An administrator may reset the block of a user who intentionally evades a block, and may extend the duration of the block only if the user engages in further blockable behaviour while evading the block. 122.167.135.133 12:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• This is the administrators' noticeboard. Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy is in the next building. Uncle G 12:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring on Tamil realted pages

The same set of editors are removing sources, unwilling to discuss the changes to find concensus and are using wikipidia as a battlground, now in the follwing articles

• List of Tamils of Sri Lanka
• Allegations of mass graves at Chemmani
• Sri Lanka Tamils (native)

Two of them are long esatblished articles with attempted vandalism going for a long time. Admin intervention requested. Thanks Taprobanus 12:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing can be done. The only thing i could do is to protect all these articles and ask you to discuss. If that won't help then you may refer to WP:DR process. But do not call other contributors w/ whom you are edit warring vandals as it is not the case according to What vandalism is not. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

say goodbye to democracy in wikipedia

democracy exists only in legislature part of state.

it is wrong to chose judges and polices by democratic process and its nowhere practiced on this earth. this will result in drastic deterioration in quality.

if its democracy one has to maintain good relationship with others. so only people who are good at politics and spare time in maintaining relationships become administrator and quality will deteriorate. 122.167.135.133 12:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Administrators who were as mystified at this as I initially was should note that 122.167.135.133 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) is the same as Greg dn (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) (evidenceevidence) which has in turn been blocked for being an attempt by Vinay412 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) to evade a block. See also this edit and User talk:Vinay412#AfD for Wikipedia. Uncle G 13:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Dogmatic

User:Dogmatic is openly (and wrongly) speculating about my identity, contrary to the rules as I understand them.[84]

Please take appropriate action.

Frank Pais 13:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any inappropriate actions by Dogmatic in this diff. He can speculate all he wants. All you have to do is deny it. howcheng {chat} 16:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Brand new account trying to have Wikipedia:Non-free content deleted

Resolved

Hi, could an administrator please take a look at the activities of Phantom Renegate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for disruption. --BigDT 15:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, BigDT. I might add that it's obvious that Melacobanshia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the same, as that account immediately targeted me, after I had been resisting Phantom Renegate, and had an edit summary based on the content of Phantom Renegate's user page. Also, contributions of Ahoy there matey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Fifty five zeroes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indicate that they're the same user as Phantom Renegate. So perhaps the 24-hour block for Phantom Renegate is a little lenient? ElinorD (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, at the time I made the block, the others hadn't surfaced yet. If someone wants to raise it, that's fine ... I've added a request at WP:RFCU] to find and block other socks and underlying IP addresses. --BigDT 15:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I lengthened it to a week for the continued disruption with sockpuppets. See what RfCU brings up. Trebor 16:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

remove a deletion request from history

Resolved

Hello, I think by messing about I may have used up a three revert rule. Please can you visit Lee Groombridge and revert to the version that comes just before the deletion request. I am the person that appears and all information is correct. Hope you can help - I'm new to wikipedia. Many thanks "Tinylee 16:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)"

Non-administrative issue, talking to user on his/her talk. – Riana ⁂ 16:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)