Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Current issues

Heads-up on User: 70.128.41.152

70.128.41.152 (talk · contribs)

This anon has been quietly removing {{trivia}} and similar tags from pop-culture related articles over the last couple of days with neither significant edits nor any talk page consensus to justify such moves. I have reverted where I found them, and warned him once, but keep an eye out in case he goes back to it. Daniel Case 14:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

User:DG

User:DG has been indef blocked a few minutes ago after he started vandalizing. This editor left last August and just went back today. I am a bit uneasy about his support vote on an RfB just before the vandalism. What should we do? Strike the comment? -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

And strange that he moved the user page of the preceding voter on that RfB. And I blocked him --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 09:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I left a note but didn't strike it; it's bureaucrat discretion. Chick Bowen 20:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This user has now been unblocked by Andrevan: [1]. Chick Bowen 00:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the subject of this speculation and would like to clear everything up. First off, my account is not compromised. I am me, whatever that means. I'm a little bit disturbed at the fact that someone decided that the most appropriate thing to do was actually INDEFINITELY BLOCK ME FROM WIKIPEDIA! The reason given "possibly compromised" is pretty bogus too. Is there a trend of using the reason of "possibly compromised account" as a coverup bogus reason to block users? Not being paranoid, just wondering. Especially given that Stephen over there suggested that I was blocked "until it could be proven otherwise." So now everyone has to PROVE their account couldn't be "compromised" (however you define that) and it is otherwise assumed that they are to be blocked?

(By the way, seeing as my account is not an admin, how exactly does its compromisal pose such a dire threat to wikipedia that I and any IP I may use must be permanently and indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia? The whole compromise thing REALLY sounds like a lame excuse. Arr! Conspiracy, etc, etc.)

Okay, anyway. End-of-paranoid-crazy-rant. In all seriousness, Stephen: I'm sure it was an honest mistake, just don't do it again to other people. Pretty silly thing to do if you ask me.

Anyway, the move of User:Silence was done in something like good faith. I have reason to believe that User:Silence would have appreciated the humour behind that move.

Okay, so I vandalized Otherkin in a minor way. Mea culpa. That was unjustifiable. I didn't know we permanently blocked people from Wikipedia for that now though.

If you wish to disenfranchise me and remove my vote at RfB, go ahead. I'd rather you didn't, but I guess that is the prerogative of those mighty bureaucrats who grok the zenlike nature of consensus.

By the way, I haven't had edits for months because I've been changing computers and consequently my edits for the last few months have all been through anonymous IPs. I finally logged in again because User:Silence told me that Andre was on RfB. Seeing as I votes for him last time he was on RfB, I was delighted to encore. I hardly thought it would cost me my user account under rather ridiculous pretenses.

Anyway.

PS: The above few paragraphs may contain plenty of sarcasm and thinly veiled anger, etc. I hope you won't take it too personally. In all seriousness, like I said, I'm sure it's just an honest mistake.

Kind of stupid mistake though. Can you justify yourself?

D. G. 05:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's protective measure to preserve the integrity of a user's account, and their contributions. When someone vanishes for months, after being a productive editor, then returns making vandalistic edits, then most people think "compromised account", and an admin will protect it to ensure that that person's reputation is not destroyed. --Haemo 05:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, indefinite does not mean infinite. We had some problems with users that got their accounts compromised, and that's what came in mind first when we saw your contributions. You could have requested an unblock, the explanation you provided above would probably have been enough :). Since that got cleared up, of course your account shall remain unblocked. Just keep in mind the usual laius about vandalism... -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

DG, try looking right there on the login screen: "If your account is compromised, it may be permanently blocked unless you can prove you are its rightful owner". You don't login for months and then make vandal edits; that points to a compromised account as we've had many examples over the last months. So, thanks, I can justify my actions. The only stupidity was yours. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 12:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry. I think I may have made a complete fool of myself, and you are indeed right when you say that the only stupidity was mine.

The intention of the block clearly was to prevent someone else from ruining my reputation. What it was unable to do was prevent me from ruining my own reputation. I am really quite embarassed at how badly I've blown it here. You were just trying to do your job. Thank you, and sorry. D. G. 00:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to say that if I could retract the above crazy rant I made, I would. D. G. 01:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: 24.225.244.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has requested a new account at Wikipedia:Request an account#VfD. From this edit, 24.225.244.250 and DG are apparently the same person. DG posted a message at User:DG saying he was going on a long wikivacation and then shows up at WP:ACC the same day requesting a new ID. This seems like a pretty clear case of avoiding scrutiny from other editors. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason that you unblocked AOL Europe?

Please show me the links to the decisions concerning blocking and unblocking AOL Europe. Thank you 195.93.60.102 20:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Range was unblocked on 8 July by Sarah, who cites an OTRS ticket; we'd probably have to ask her or another OTRS volunteer for details, beyond that. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Er, okay. Sorry about that guys, obviously it was a mistake. I'll reblock if it hasn't already been reblocked. I was trying to help riana clear a block that came from an OTRS unblock request. Sorry. Sarah 08:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Woah, sorry about the trouble. And it didn't even help the OTRS customer out. Sorry for getting Sarah in strife :| ~ Riana ⁂ 10:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Smatprt violations

I claim that this user is acting in the Shakespeare Authorship without consensus and for the past year has taken complete ownership of the article. He has already been blocked twice for 3RR violation [[2]][[3]] and he has a reputation for non-consensus in his editing on other forums. For example, on 13 May 2007 we find under the Shakespeare heading that "Smatprt is trying to delete all the arguments and information from Kathman's site while retaining all material published by non experts in non-scholarly, purely commercial presses" [[4]] and this one from a google search "You might like to take a quick look at the Shakespeare plays, where a certain Smatprt has taken it upon himself to perform mass restoration of the tags ..." [[5]]. It is his custom when confronted to file a report on the Administrator's noticeboard blaming his accuser. The following example resulted in no block.[[6]] You might like to obtain the testimony of the following users mandel, barryispuzzled, Paul_Barlow, alabamaboy. I should like to see a substantial block inforced. (Felsommerfeld 11:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

I think it important to note that this complaint was in retaliation for my listing a complaint about Felsommerfeld on this same page several days ago.[7]. In actuality - the accuser is far more guilty of this - See Feldsommerfeld's deletions here: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] - all properly referenced material apparently cut because they support the Oxfordian viewpoint or mentioned the word "Oxford".Smatprt 13:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried briefly to help at Shakespearean authorship earlier, basically with copyediting, but found the unreasonableness and stonewalling of Smatprt too disheartening to continue my efforts, even though they were appreciated by everybody else there. Smatprt also seems to be a tireless pest at William Shakespeare, where he edit wars to make the classic crank Shakespeare-wasn't-Shakespeare theory as large and as undue-weighty a part of the article as possible. His intentions are no doubt good, but his practice is destructive, and he makes the lives of the other Shakespeare editors wearisome. May I recommend the new Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard (mentioned below) to your attention, Felsommerfeld? I don't feel I'm knowledgeable enough about the Shakespeare articles to list the case on that noticeboard myself. (I gave up editing them in the face of Smatprt's obstructiveness.) Bishonen | talk 22:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC).

Smatprt is undoubtedly sincere in his beliefs but his one-sidedness is unrelenting and it is seriously skewing the page. He will push and push and push to get in Oxfordian arguments by any means and exclude "Statfordian" ones by any means. What I find mu=ost dismaying is his willinglness to delete statements he knows to be factually accurate if they contradict his POV. Paul B 23:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I also think it important that Paul B above provide a list of my supposed improper deletions and "exclusions". I try to only delete a statement if it is not properly referenced, or if the Stratfordian editors refuse to provide a reference. References to personal blogs and websites by non-experts have also been deleted on occasion, after discussion (David Kathman's website, for example, which has been declared non-reliable.) On the other hand - I do indeed add material as long as I can properly reference it. Felsommerfled left this complaint with dozens of administrators, and those who have responded have not shown any agreement with Felsommerfeld or the users above. It is also important to note that the above editors are clearly Stratfordians, and they are editors who themselves are guilty of mass deletions of properly referenced material. In face Felsommerfeld's contribution list consists of 55 talk page entries and 7 mass deletions.Smatprt 00:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"I try to only delete a statement if it is not properly referenced". That is precisely the point. It is dishonest, or at best disingenuous, editing because you delete information that you know to be true if it is mainstream/Stratfordian. The obvious example is your deletion of the references to the fact that an alleged portrait of Oxford actually depicts Hugh Hamersley. The whole caption was uncited, but you only chose to delete the mainstrean facts while keeping the - also completely uncited - non-mainstream claim that the portrait depicts Oxford. This is a claim that has been rejected even by many Oxfordians. Your comments clearly indicated that you knew full well about the evidence for the Hamersley attribution. You could have added the citation yourself if your editing had been truly honest: that is, aimed at improving the article. Instead you chose to delete facts in order deliberately to distort the presentation of evidence to the reader. Paul B 12:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul -this is where your premise fails - you claim that "I know" certain things "to be true". How on earth do you know what I believe? In fact, I do NOT believe that the portrait depicts Hugh Hamersley. From what I've read, it's unprovable at this point. I do know that I came up with a reference when requested. Considering there are at least 6 Stratdordian editors actively working (deleting) this page, why on earth should I do the Stratdordian referencing? I don't have ready access to the volumes of Stratdfordia that you do - and why should I spend time researching when you guys have that more than covered? I'm filing the need for referencing Oxfordian statements, since most of the Stratfordian editors on this page actively discourage Oxfordain information and delete anything with the word "Oxford" in itSmatprt 13:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Is that it? Out of some 1700 edits you've come up with one questionable deletion? The way you talk I expected a list of at least a dozen diffs to prove your point. In fact - anyone looking over my edit list will find "additions", "cites", "refs", a fair amount of vandal reversions, reformatting of all the SH plays (part of Wikiproject), but hardly any of the wholesale deletions that I have been falsely accused of above.

Yes, you do it all the time. But the sheer tediousness of listing such examples makes it not worth my effort unless this proceeds to a formal process, which at the moment it is not. Also, you misunderstand - or willfully misrepresent- what I said. I maent that you knew the information presented in the caption to be true - that the mainstream view was that it is a portrait of Hamersley. Obvious you don't like to believe that. Even the current caption contains no clear citation of Barrell and uses misleading language (Barrell "determined" that it was Oxford. Other researchers "suggest" that it is Hamersley). In fact no-one other than Oxfordians doubt that it is Hamersley. Paul B 14:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul - here is a list of some of your undiscussed deletions: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. While I would probably agree with several (of not most) of them, that's probably not the point. The point is you are on this "He makes massive deletions" rag and I have asked for a list. You provide one example based on an unprovable assuption (what I know to be true). What you know to be true is the following - I have spent far more time reinserting deleted material than deleting anything. You know this. Just like the unfounded accusations of SockPuppetry, you knew the truth there too. Smatprt 14:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Your list of some deletions I made is pure evasion. Everyone makes deletions. Yes, I knew the truth about the Sockpupptry allegation and I said so didn't I? I notice that you do not deny that you knew the mainstream opinion. You just say that I can't proove that you did. Innocent people do not say "you can't prove it". They say "It's not true". Paul B 16:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Also - a compromise is already in the works on the discussion page, based on the input of several administrators who are taking "no sides" at the present.Smatprt 00:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Finally - Felsommerfeld has just apologized for "doubting my integrity" and for leveling accusations of SockPuppetry, proven untrue, which he also left on about a dozen different administrators mailboxes after I complained about him. [19]. In spite of this, I am ready and willing to move on and I would hope that Felsommerfeld is too.Smatprt 00:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

In August-October 2006, I (a Baconian, who signed as QBrute) spent a lot of time in rigorous debate with The_Singing_Badger (a Stratfordian) balancing the Shakespeare Authorship article. [[20]] Smatprt appeared with the clear intention of promoting his views that the Earl of Oxford was Shakespeare. He was relentlessly one-sided in debate and to my mind had already decided that his changes were going in the article. I gave up and the article deteriorated. I now see (above in Felsommerfeld's report "The following example resulted in no block") that the person who Smatprt tried to block was me![[21]] No editor or administrator has managed to halt his crusade. I am confident that if Smatprt is not removed from these forums he will succeed in destroying the entire Shakespeare project. (Puzzle Master 14:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC))

Barry left this out - See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shakespearean_authorship_question/Archive_1&diff=prev&oldid=95091606 for his declaration of support for the article after most of my changes were implemented: ""Having left this article for some time and only recently read it again I think it now has a fair representation of all views.... So, well done to those who have worked on this page." (Puzzle Master 14:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC))

And here is the article on that date: [22]. Hyphen para, 1604, etc., - all in. You called it a "fair representation of all views". The only difference now is that the lead para has been slashed down to one of the smallest and most underdeveloped lead paragraphs I've ever seen. Aside from that, and given your earlier statement, I truly fail to understand why you are back in attack mode - unless this is just retaliatory, as your above para implies.Smatprt 15:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

What Barry also fails to mention is that I was part of that discussion (scroll down in that archived conversation and you will see plenty, including my official welcome - an unwarranted attack that was later deleted and apologized for. (This seems to be the mode with many of the editors on this page - attack and make accustions, raise a ruckus with false statements, than "apologize" after being proven wrong, then accuse again. The archive also seems to show Barry using at least 3 different account names. He has deleted critism of the Bacon argument and his discussions and issues have predominantly focussed on Bacon, just as mine have focussed on Oxford. Smatprt 15:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue is this, is the 1604 section which you have fought to keep in the article pro-Oxfordian? You evidently think so "anything pro-oxford (1604 question, hyhenation of name) is being regularly deleted?" [[23]]. mandel thinks so too. [[24]] And my more recent opinion is that I did too "Following a suggestion by Mandel ...".[[25]] I would be more sympathetic to you if you could admit your behaviour ... but I don't think that's possible for you. (Puzzle Master 15:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC))

I have indeed apologized for errors in judgement and other offenses. But I should also stand up for what I believe, and be consistant in doing so. To answer you directly, yes- of course they are pro-oxfordian. That in no way makes tham any less "anti-stratfordian" - as you should know better than most. I am sorry that some anti-strat arguments can also be anti-bacon arguments, but unfortunately that is the case. Regarding the hyphen - even you admit that it is not "only" oxfordian, but none-the-less, I have agreed to see that section censored from the article. I am much more interested in having you answer me directly - why did you issue that flowery declaration of support congratulating all the editors in Dec 06? And why now have you seemingly retracted every bit of it?Smatprt 16:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Felsommerfeld is justified in making this complaint against User:Smatprt and the suggestion that he is merely retaliating for Smatprt's similar action against him should not be taken into consideration.

Smatprt's history of disruptive editing on William Shakespeare goes back many months. An example here, and my reaction on the talk page here, of when a consensus has been reached, only to be swept away by Smatprt replacing the agreed version with his own contentious edit.

Without wishing to elevate my own editing of Shakespeare-related articles to additions of any value (the topic has now been taken up by editors of real knowledge and authority) I stopped contributing solely because of the impossibility of working on subjects upon which he had taken a stand. From the sidelines I noted that his editing greatly hampered the drive to make William Shakespeare a featured article, in the face of requests from assessors to stop. An example: "It is making the article unstable". He seems to have acknowledged this point ("...I do regret my part in any of the issues referred to") here. However, one day later he "completely skews" another agreed section, commented here. These are representative of an attitude of a seeming complete disregard for other editors' views and lack of concern for progress and improvement to articles. I strongly support User:Felsommerfeld's suggestion. Old_Moonraker 08:20 15 July 2007

Budapest's one and only real name

Someone is writing the 'name' Buda-Pesth at the beginning of the article Budapest citing a 100-year-old 'source'. It can be misleading, because some English language users may think it is still used. That's NOT true. I don't want an edit war. Has anyone of you seen that form in the real world in the past decades? Come on, it's the capital of Hungary! Squash Racket 18:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe that this 100 year-old source is misleading (the term is still used in English sometimes). Squash Racket is fueling an edit war but he/she doesn't provide reasons as to why the source is not good enough besides the fact that it is a century old. Historia Regum Britanniae and the Domesday Book are a millennium old, should we disregard them? Reginmund 21:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to spelling not in a historical context, certainly. Or are we going to change every The to Ye? Similarly, Korea used to be Corea - the article doesn't use it. MSJapan 22:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ye was you in the formal form, not the.

OT, but I'll correct this; see William Caxton. He used y instead of the letter thorn in printing the word the, hence ye. MSJapan 19:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

But is it still in use? That would depend on which toponym. Buda-Pesth is actually still used, surprisingly. Reginmund 22:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME. --Masamage ♫ 22:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I am Hungarian, Reginmund is not. I've never heard that in my life, but he clamis it is still used. Exactly where? In that 100-year-old book you are citing? Squash Racket 22:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Is that encyclopedic? Is that a RS? Yes or No. The article looks ugly w/ a protection tag. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

A quick Google search gives me less than 14,000 hits for "Buda-Pesth", and over 36 million for Budapest. Feel free to mention the alternate spelling, but its pretty clear which one is more common. --Masamage ♫ 23:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been over the source I have cited. Squash Racket still will not stubbornly accept a source because of its age. That is not an obstacle on Wikipedia. I never said that the archaic spelling was more common, I just said that it should be included as an English alternative. Reginmund 20:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought we'd reached a compromise where it was going to either be at the tail end of the paragraph, or in a separate section on the history of the name, correct? I've been off wiki for a day, I'm working on a proposed solution. If Reginmund and Squash Racket can agree not to edit war again over this until we can agree on a solution, I don't see why the page can't be un-protected. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 20:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

OK with me. Only consider main article history section (archaically also (?) spelled as...) or alternative names for European cities? Buda-Pesth is archaic and was just a variant even in these times. Squash Racket 08:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Edwin rose

Edwin rose (talk · contribs) - every one of this User's edits has been to his User or Talk pages. He seems to be keeping the pages for call scripts and call tracking. Corvus cornix 23:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

My. Um, there may not be a whole lot we can do, there; I've deleted the history of both, and left the guy a note asking him to contribute or move on. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh gosh, Luna, Geocities or Angelfire? Lycos is probably the single-worst webhost out there, period. Even Blogspot would be better than those two "webhosts". I personally like Sitesled. hbdragon88 00:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

But Blogspot didn't give me a giant sack of mone-- I mean, you're right. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

He just recreated it. How long has he been editing his userpage? hbdragon88 00:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

User:R.J-1337

R.J-1337 (talk · contribs) has vandalized my user page, and I don't think this will be the last time he will be doing such a thing. I know him from outside of Wikipedia from a wrestling based chatroom I used to host. It was well known there that I disliked R.J-1337 and he came to Wikipedia for one reason, not to become an editor, but for his own personal agenda. He has convinced others to create userpages, and make them similar to wrestler articles so they could have "profiles" on wikipedia to work in conjuction with the chatroom (my old chatroom) which he is trying to bring back. If you look at his userpage, he uses it for self promotion. He will not make any meaningful edits to any page other than his own. --  Jลмєs Mลxx™  Msg me  03:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've warned him and will keep an eye on this user. Thanks. Sasquatch t|c 17:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Bucharest is 'Paris of the East'

One more thing: on the page Bucharest you can read it is 'Paris of the East' or 'Little Paris'. That is not surprising, I grew up hearing that all the time. But using it for a neighboring country's capital, Budapest is a bit strange. In fact, most Hungarians would find that pretty offensive after the Treaty of Trianon which was a disaster to this country. Squash Racket 07:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, getting countries to sign treaties does not fall under our jurisdiction. --soum ^talk 08:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Forced 'treaty' after World War I (read consequences of treaty). Anyway not the best memory of Paris, France. That's for sure. Squash Racket 08:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I still dont get it; what do you want admins to do? Protect the article? Delete it? Move over an existing article? What?

I suspect this is a content dispute. Please follow WP:DR. --soum ^talk 08:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a content dispute. The article is protected after an edit war, partly on this point. There is discussion on the article's talk page. DrKiernan 08:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar

The above named arbitration case has closed. All involved parties are granted an amnesty over the edit-warring that had been ongoing but has given the administrators the ability to sanction anyone who begins disruptive editing again.

You may view the full case decision at the case page.

For the Arbitration Committee,

- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 11:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Abuse of vandalism warnings?

User:Rob right, who appears to be a new user created just today, but whose behaviour today seems to indicate some more extensive experience, has today issued a vandalism warning against User:Jza84. A number of users have commented that this warning is absurd, given the nature of the ongoing discussion about Manchester, which is the article whose content prompted this action by Rob right. I and others consider this to be a misuse of the vandalism warbings in some attempt to stifle legitimate debate. Jza84 is a long-standing user who is well-respected amoungst UK-based editors for his work on UK geography articles. Can I ask for some action about this? I would have thought that a traceroute to determine if Rob right is a sockpuppet, and if so, whose, might be useful, followed by appropriate action iof required, but this is of course, not up to me to decide, but I gently suggest it. This kind of misuse of warnings seems to go completely against the spirit of wikipedia.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree it's not a valid warning -- content disputes aren't vandalism. Rob right, whoever they are, strongly appears to be a sockpuppet, and I've blocked them, for the time being, requesting an explanation of how they ran across the dispute. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The following anonymous talk page: User talk:195.212.52.6 might be relevant here if a checkuser has been carried out.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The anon (195.212.52.6) signs as User:Rob right here. Jza84 21:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

212.139.77.181 (talk · contribs) signs as "Prof Rob Right" here. Off-wiki comments at [26], [27], [28], and [29] may provide some background information. Mr Stephen 22:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The 195.212 IP is almost definitely the same person -- edited Rob right's userpage, as well. The other is pretty likely, as well. Some of those comments you've linked might lead me to keep an eye on this person, but if they've been involved in the dispute previously, on-wiki, then this may just be somebody who happened to register an account, today, in which case blocking them as a sockpuppet would probably be out of line; thoughts, anyone? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That's how I read it. Mr Stephen 22:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have just noticed that Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, section 47, also reports actions by this user, and contains some information which might add to the content here. I was unaware of this prior report until just now.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandal identified as Kevin1243

After reviewing many sources of history & discussion on the user with the screen name Kevin1243, other external links should be mentioned also. The use of free internet web sites is becoming very popular with teenagers, and many young individuals are also posting blogs, and creating profiles on dating services. Such seems to be the case with this user... what contributions to Wikipedia are not about. For one example only, visit http://www.faceparty.com/Kevin1243. I can't list another, becuase it's a porn site. A poll of other users that have accused Kevin1243 of SNEAKY VANDALISM: 39 AGAINST 5 Undecided 7 Users that no longer exist, with various explainations of growing weary of VANDALISM when trying to contribute. Having a short list only, user complaints on User_talk:Kevin1243 will grow. Administrators should consider appropriate action to deter future VANDALISM. StationNT5Bmedia 18:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I pointed out on Jimbo's talk page: Looks like this is a bit of a dispute surrounding Non-synchronous transmissions, where it appears Kevin1243 has placed a couple of maintenance tags, suggested a merge, and most recently removed a bunch of commercial links quite properly. Looking at his talk page, he's done a lot of new page patrol, from the looks of things, and gathered the usual complaints about articles that were either deleted or later properly developed. I certainly don't see any indication of vandalism there, and StationNT5Bmedia's attempted tagging of Kevin's page with block tags looks a bit odd. Recommending non-notable articles for deletion is not vandalism, nor is removing commercial links. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This is becoming ridiculous, and these accusations are now crossing the line and becoming a personal attack. Anyway, I'm off on vacation in a couple of hours, and so I'll have to let my contributions stand for themselves. Kevin 21:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I will watch your page. Enjoy your break. LessHeard vanU 21:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Having been contacted by StationNT5Bmedia I've responded to him with a rather lengthly observation of this conflict at his talk page. You may be interested in reading it. It is far too long to bring here. In essence I concur with Tony Fox above. Cheers! --EarthPerson 20:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

And an excellent summary it is, too. Basically, that's my observation too. Really, there's not much to see here. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

Now that this has survived MfD, I'd like to spam it a bit. The header basically describes what it's for, but I'm trying to address a growing problem that at the moment is sneaking under the radar. At any rate, it needs some more eyes: watchlist and comment, please! Editors from a humanities background especially welcome, as the maths and science people at the moment don't deal with this issue too badly. Moreschi ^Talk 18:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

URGENT Billy Blyton, Baron Blyton URGENT

A few days ago I posted the below. Nothing happended, and he has started again. Will someone please do something. He has ignored everyone. He is also vandalising Norma Major's page by ignoring her legal title. Someone please do something! --UpDown 18:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"Urgent help needed at Billy Blyton, Baron Blyton. User:Lawsonrob insists on changing the article title to William Reid Blyton, giving no reason. He has ignored the clear MofS guidelines (at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other non-royal names point 2) regarding peers. He has also moved in 5 times since 0015 this morning, which I believe is a breach of 3RR. On another page, David Clark, Baron Clark of Windermere, he keeps trying to remove the "of Windermere", which is part of Clark's legal title. Please help quickly as he is not listening to anyone, and is very disruptive. --UpDown 18:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I might recommend a request for comment. There seems to be issues with his editing behaviour going back almost to his arrival.--Crossmr 05:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)"

From his talk page this guy ahs been disruptive and at best unresponsive since he started editing, I'm hard blocking now. Circeus 19:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been quiet for 2 days now.Rlevse 12:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Umm...

[30] needs a deletion. Zeratul ^{En Taro Adun!}_{So be it.} 23:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Why? Chick Bowen 23:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Other than that SysProtect is not an ideally formatted article, both by our standards our fair use policy. . . Chick Bowen 23:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, well... "This image or media is claimed to be used under Wikipedia's fair use policy but has no explanation as to why it is permitted under the policy. Non-free images need a fair use rationale each time they are used in an article. Consider adding one to this page if possible. Unless at least one rationale is provided, the image will be deleted after Monday, 9 July 2007. Please remove this template if a rationale is provided.

Note that the boilerplate copyright tags do not by themselves constitute a fair use rationale. " Zeratul ^{En Taro Adun!}_{So be it.} 02:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

The unprovoked and continuing attacks upon me at the bottom of Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Intelligent_design by User:Odd_nature and User:Orangemarlin make it very difficult for me to contribute there. I would appreciate some form of intervention. Diffs: here, here directed at someone else, here, here, here, among others. Thanks, Gnixon 23:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Update They seem to have followed me here, where they are reverting my edits, apparently with little understanding of the subject. Gnixon 00:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Update 2 Perhaps only Odd Nature is stalking me, but he's also followed me here and made a very uninformed revert of my edits. Gnixon 00:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I see all kinds of unpleasantness at the FAR, the worst of which is coming from neither of the people you mention. I don't see that handing out blocks would help anything, nor is it justified. All we can ask is that all participants please try to work toward consensus and not post inappropriate comments out of frustration. Chick Bowen 00:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you at least convey such a message to those parties, unless you think I've somehow invited their attacks? Is there any case in which Odd Nature's stalking me to unrelated articles is acceptable? Gnixon 00:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to anyone reading this ANI, Gnixon does this on a regular basis, like here and here. He's accused others of stalking (see both of the previoius ANI's), but the fact is many of us watch these articles. He has been the subject of discussions by several admins in the past, such as here and here. I think this is getting old and embarrassing to the project. If anyone stands up to this editor, he quickly runs to ANI to file a complaint, where he's 0 for 5 or so in getting any action. Everything I stated in the FAR was factual. He did refactor pages without consensus, he edited articles without consensus, and he continues to be a POV warrior. If anyone needs warnings or a block, it's Gnixon. Orangemarlin 07:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Those two links would be the two ANI's I've filed. If the community can't regulate behavior like this, I'm not sure I want to participate. Gnixon 23:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested block

Resolved

Hi, i have run into a slight situation. Will an admin please be so kind as to block my account for 36 hours? Thanks! —ptk✰fgs 03:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't ordinarily block on request. I left a query for the user. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

User: 209.150.54.112

This user keeps consistently removing his block notice from their talk page, and leaving abuse in it's place. Please can you do something about it. Jordanhatch 07:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

JUst leave them go, removing the block notice is not agaisnt policy, elthough many people don't like it. Reinserting it is just annoying them further. Viridae^Talk 07:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Calling it "vandalism" and trying to take ownership is a problem, though. hbdragon88 08:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Emberton238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Resolved

 – Viridae^Talk 12:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

His password's on his userpage. This is quite naughty, though I've not checked to see if the password's right or not.--Rambutan (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's his password. :P Looks like he could be a potential vandalism-only account, but let's give him the benefit of doubt... · AndonicO ^Talk 11:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Password scrambled. Viridae^Talk 12:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Felsommerfeld

This user appears to be operating a "Disruptive throwaway account" used only for a few mass deletions and accusations. Out of a total 62 edits, 55 were used making false accusations against myself. The other 7 were making mass deletions of long-standing material to the Shakespeare Authorship Question article. As pointed out recently by an administrator [31]- is a minority viewpoint article. Unfortunately, Felsommerfeld refuses to see that. The reasons seem to be as follows:

1) User is a staunch Stratfordian who has stated that the article in question shouldn't even exist. He has made several mass deletions of well referenced material.[32], [33], [34], [35]

2) Because I restored this material, the user has made personal attacks, false accusations and went so far as to make erroneous reports to over a dozen administrators.[36], [37], [38]

For full disclosure I have allowed myself to be dragged into 2 edit wars/3Rs, for which I have great regret. In each case it was because staunch stratdordians were making mass deletions of properly referenced materials. I believe this user is again trying to draw me into a 3R revert. Instead, I am keeping my edits light and I am coming here for help.

I request this user be blocked or banned, whatever you feel is appropriate based on the behaviour and the pure mean-ness involved. Thanks for your consideration. Smatprt 15:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

re "Stratfordian"; Could you point me towards the relevant policy page or guideline? In the meanwhile, the rest appears to be content dispute with some pretty unlearned incivility and lack of good faith shown by various sides. As there is removal of referenced material I will request that User:Felsommerfeld refrains from doing so again. After that, it is up to all of you to find consensus of an article on who might really have written, "I have measured it from side to side, tis four feet long and two feet wide." LessHeard vanU 16:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find it was almost Wordsworth, but you've misquoted it. It was only three feet long. "Stratfordian" is a term used by Oxfordians to mean someone who believes Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. There is no policy regarding it. Paul B 16:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

:~) My response was a bit of a leg-pull (although I did mess up on the "Ode to a Puddle" bit) since it appeared that part of the complaint was that the editor held certain views (thanks for clarifying which, though) on who wrote Shakespeares' plays. I did comment at the editors talkpage. LessHeard vanU 19:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

75.211.145.215

This anon (as well as 70.212.198.46 in the past) is writing untrue statements on the Paleoclimatologist entry. Please monitor it and perhaps prohibit this user from commenting. Iceberg007 17:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This user's page is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.211.145.215

• Solved by redirecting the article. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks! Iceberg007 18:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion by Indef blocked editor using static IP

I believe that User:Neutralizer who has been indefinitely blocked for using a plethora of sockpuppets (see Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Neutralizer) is currently attempting to contentiously edit the article Michael Ignatieff. He was banned by community consensus ANI - see this discussion. This user was making extensive usage of his sockpuppets to edit war on this same article. In the discussion above he was defending himself using a series of rotating IP's and attempting to continue his edit war. Former admin and editor Sarah Ewertt protected the article in order to block him from being able to edit it. However, the article was recently unprotected and now he is back and trying to edit the article until I requested that protection be restored to the article. Protection was restored, but I believe it will only be temporary. Is there a way to deal with this situation in another manner? --Strothra 20:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Also see the discussion resulting from his request for unprotection of the article: [39] and this list of suspected sockpuppets which also gives IP ranges [40]. --Strothra 20:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Editor seems confused: "the article was recently unprotected". Article seems to have been unprotected 8 months ago[41] and I edited this article for the first time about a week ago. I have tried to communicate with him but his "retired" label and his deletions without comment annoyed me. I resent his false accusations but will not be spending any more time on that article as it seems to be a toxic article for some reasons. I am not and never have been a sockpuppet or had a sockpuppet but I value my right to edit anonymously whether Strothra approves or not. My ISP is Bell in Toronto which is the largest ISP here so it's not strange that many people here would be interested in Canadian politics. I also think the administrators should do something about combative editors who delete without comment and who have misleading labels like "retired" on their user space. I don't know if I'll bother here at all anymore but I certainly won't be editing any articles that Strothra is editing. 70.48.205.126 22:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested checkuser. If confirmed, this likely calls for another range-block. --Strothra 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That's good although I am surprised the standards for use of checkuser would have dropped so far. Assuming you're able to obtain an inappropriate breach of privacy, I look forward to your apology. No offense but maybe you are really confused; I see you are accusing this editor [42] as well even though he is in a completely different location. 70.48.205.78 02:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Both of those IPs are in the exact same range as the ranges that had to be blocked last time for similar contentious policy breeching edit wars coming from a single editor (70.48.0.0/16 block log and 65.95.0.0/16 block log). What I am saying is that both of you are the same person. If the standards have dropped? Interesting that for someone who has only supposedly recently begun editing that you know so much about Wiki. --Strothra 06:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked per checkuser.--Strothra 13:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Candidates for Speedy Deletion

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion is pretty backlogged. Just sayin'.  :) Corvus cornix 20:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Image deletions are driving good contributors away

I think everyone involved in running image tagging bot and deletions should read this [43]. While I understand the reasons for tagging and deletions, This user has made some very good points that they way we are going about it, by generally just saying "tough shit, it's gone in seven days", is pretty inhumane and is driving contributors away. I know I'll get flamed for this, but surely a project with this much brainpower could think of a way to handle this intelligently and personally, rather than just slapping automated bot crap all over the wiki. pschemp | talk 23:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think it's unfortunate that some people are having such a reaction to the copyright purge which has been going on, but we, as an encyclopedia, have been seriously remiss in the treatment of fair use images, and other types -- to the point of outright illegality in some cases. People tend to take fair use images too lightly, treating them as a kind of colloquial "well, this is a "fair" use" idea -- and not as the very serious legal-copyright principle they need to be. The same goes for public domain, or whatever else. However, the argument that most people level is that they don't like being forced to go back and fix things that should have been done originally because we have, rightly, gotten more strict about images. While is unfortunate in many cases, simply slapping a template on an image is not acceptable, and the fact that it once was is no defense. We need to get these images ship-shape, and quickly, because having them poorly or incorrectly licensed is a threat to the very foundation of the encyclopedia.

I am strongly in favor of some serious wording to the effect that uploading an image to Wikipedia under a specific license should be treated with the same seriousness that a court filing; anything less is unacceptable. --Haemo 23:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Haemo, this isn't about images being up loaded *now* but how older images and the people who worked hard to get them are being treated. Especially becasue in some cases, those editors have the rights or got the rights released, but the tags were different then. I think you didn't read the link I posted, because it's pretty clear there. pschemp | talk 00:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup, that was my understanding as commented in the second part of my response below. LessHeard vanU 00:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I suppose the debate of having bot parameters (not) adjusted so images uploaded under different criteria than that now existing being treated differently exists somewhere? The problem with GDFL, Fair Use, and other matters is that policy has to be applied retrospectively if it is to be of any use. Perhaps a link to that discussion should be included in the tag template so to assauge the ire of long time contributors who find their previously acceptable content now falls foul of policy? LessHeard vanU 23:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

To Haemo, as I understand it the complaint is that the images were compliant when originally uploaded but that the tagging may infer that it was the uploader that was lax rather than the limitations of the then procedure. I can understand why that impression may not go down well with long time contributors. LessHeard vanU 23:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be an inflexible rule, easily accomplished, that a bot announce a prospective image deletion on the talkpage of the User who has uploaded it, without exception, as a matter of course. The wording of the boilerplate needs to be carefully worded, to be as friendly as possible. This is what I should call the "bottom line." --Wetman 00:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Enforcement of policy should always be done in a way that doesn't unduly alienate good editors... we need to remain vigilant on this issue and warn people when their actions are doing more harm (driving away good editors) than good (rigid and instant enforcement policy that would have no legal ramifications if not enforced in such a way). Sorry if it sounds like I'm stating the obvious, but that so many people leave the project over image bureaucracy... apparently the problem isn't obvious. --W.marsh 03:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Pschemp is exactly right: good-faith editors are being driven off the encyclopedia by having their image contributions deleted. These images were compliant with policy when they were originally uploaded, but the tagging indicates it's the uploader's fault that the image "will be deleted in seven days". Firsfron of Ronchester 04:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

My two cents, Ive done what I can to try and make the image cleanup easier and it seems that the messages that my bot leaves may seem a bit harsh and input and/or changes are welcome. I use {{missing rationale}} and {{missing rationale2}} ^∆ 04:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You might try {{Missing rationale short}} for experienced users. Chick Bowen 05:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The solution? Take the time to review the cats before deleting. Don't just blindly clear. Often times the problem is the source not being in the summary though it is in the license. Use your head, be responsible, and don't think that deleting images requires less scrutiny than an article. A bot does not do the work for you- it just reports to you. If you can clear out a 200 image backlog in under 90 minutes the problem is on your end. Images take far more work than articles. Keegan^talk 05:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Um...

Resolved

I'm not exactly sure what to do with this!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asdfghjkl&redirect=no

Wow! You guys are fast! Zeratul ^{En Taro Adun!}_{So be it.} 02:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

BITE problem

Jamiepgs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been bitten quite badly. He's an enthusiastic newbie who has got a book of "interesting facts" which he has added to articles. He's then been accused of vandalism by editors not prepared to do a simple google search to find out that he is quite right even if some of them are marginal enough to not necessarily need adding. He's asking to be unblocked and is looking for help - I've checked all the "accusations" and left links showing he is quite right on his talk page. Could an admin unblock him asap please? I'll keep an eye on his contributions and help him get the hang of things. Thanks Sophia 11:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll trust your research, SOPHIA, but can you please check contribs after I unblock. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 11:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Elinor - I will keep an eye on him and flag up if he really does start causing trouble. Sophia 11:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I never disputed that most of his facts were true; however, his attitude and pedantry indicated that he will likely be a problem in the future. His facts were so marginal as to not merit inclusion (smell of the moon), or so pedantic as to confuse others (bangkok's name), and in one case (the U.S. state one) patently false, and he edit-warred to put it back. Just keep an eye on him. --Golbez 11:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I consider this closed now but am a little concerned that someone could interpret Jamie's contribution history as edit warring and boding ill for the future [44]. Unless he has used IP's that I don't know about he has only made a maximum of two edits to the articles he has visited and his edit summaries read to me as frustration rather than pedantry. He made one visit to a talk page where he was given a very curt reply - his only user interaction other than dealing with warnings on his talk page. [45] As to Bangkok - I personally find it very interesting that none of the locals call it by that name and consider the adding of facts such as this essential to ridding Wikipedia of its Eurocentric/North American bias. I will keep an eye on him as I'm concerned he may go off the rails due to his rough handling but he seems to be really understanding of why this all happened so I have hope. Sophia 12:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic cliques ruling AfD?

It has been noted time and again, that counting votes on AfD is especially tricky when the article concerns several ethnic cliques able to coordinate their activities outside Wikipedia (via e-mails, their national wikipedias, or some instant messaging agent along the lines of Gadu-Gadu). The problem is particularly acute with regard to Eastern Europe-related subjects. That's why I have suggested that we discount votes from accounts with all-too-predictable national background. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estophobia is the latest example of "one nation vs. another" style of voting:

• From Estonian ("Tartu", "Korps! Estonia") accounts: 7 votes - all of them to keep.
• From Russian accounts: 4 votes - all of them to delete; the nominator User:Mikkalai identifies as Belarusian.
• From Polish and Ukrainian accounts: 8 votes - all of them to keep. It should be noted that Ukrainian editors with Russophobic background arrived in droves after the vote of their eternal opponent, Kuban Kazak. it's not the first time that KK's vote provokes an avalanche of "opposes" from those who monitor his edits.
• From neutral accounts with no readily identifiable or relevant national background (an equivalent of third opinion): 15 votes to delete, 2 votes to keep, 2 neutral votes, 1 vote to userfy.

Here we go again: what's the point of counting the votes that may be easily predicted before the voting starts? The community seems to say: "If you want to have an article kept or deleted, regardless its content, please recruit as many fellow countrymen as you can and bring them to AfD". After I listed the voters according to their nationality, to distinguish the neutral ones from the hopelessly biased, I was instanly reverted by a nationalist 15-year-old who proceeded to paste warnings and threats on my talk page. It's sad to see that the nationalists succeed in casting the AfD as a meaningful discussion in good faith where there is none. Pure nationalism. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo's comments are meant to influence the AFD vote. Yes, I have a ukwiki account, but I joined English Wikipedia first. This shouldn't take the rights I have on this Wikipedia away, and it does not influence my decisions. Grouping people by projects they belong to is completely unnecessary, and it is only a means of influencing the outcome of the AFD. — Alex^(U|C|E) 11:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

We need to discuss policy in regard of nationalist-motivated attempts to derail AfDs in general. You and your off-en-wiki friend Hillock65 instantly launched a coordinated attack against me on WP:ANI, using it as a pretext for another trollfest that might attract all nationalist accounts mentioned above. Hillock65 has maintained several pages on uk.wiki which urge Ukrainian editors to go to English Wikipedia and to edit "problem pages" in order to stop "xenophobia". That's one reason why AfD has become useless in dealing with nationalist disruptions. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Its not a vote thats going on at AfD. Its not the nationality of the editors that matters, but the strength of their arguments. And when the AfD seems to be controversial, admins do pay more attention evaluating the comments. The vote count is not the only thing that decides the outcome of an AfD. --soum ^talk 11:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It's all very good in theory, but there are few admins savvy enough to follow the policy when an AfD is a flood of empty nationalist bickering. My edits were meant to help the closing admins to highlight the nationalist background for the votes, but they were summarily reverted. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing comments does not help an admin decide, rather by censoring certain point of view, you are influencing the outcome. You adding another comment asking that point to be disregarded, giving a justification why it should be, is a much better way. --soum ^talk 12:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Who removed votes? What are you talking about? Could you be more speicific in your comments? --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying removal as in deleting (I apologize for lack of political correctness). I said removal of comments from their intended-by-commenter location. That disrupts the intent of the comment (w.r.t. [46] this edit). --soum ^talk 13:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That disrupts the ambition of certain nationalists to cast their opinion as an objective take on the situation? Perhaps. Is it a tragedy? This is open to the question. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Votes should not be counted by nationality. Your edits are meant to influence the outcome, just like you stated above. Therefore they were reverted. — Alex^(U|C|E) 11:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

And who proposed to count the votes by nationality? We need to hear third opinions from neutral wikipedians, since both your and my votes are quite predictable. Your revert intentionally obfuscates the difference between the non-involved (neutral) and involved (biased) commentators. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I remember, XfD is not a vote. And I don't understand why Polish or Ukrainian national background is considered relevant for the Russo-Estonian subjects, while Finnish, Dutch or American is not. And how admins are supposed to know whether an account is Russian, Estonian, Ukrainian, Polish or something else? Humans are much more complex than you assume here, they possess free will and their decisions are not predetermined by their background. The distinction between involved and non-involved editors is far more reasonable, but it is not clear how to implement this technically. Colchicum 12:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Your lack of understanding is not surprizing, given your background. You may ponitificate about "free will" as long as you wish, but the stern fact is that no uk.wiki account (as uk.wiki is run by nationalists) has voiced a dissenting opinion. You have to deal with that, don't you? As for the free-will of Polish accounts, their attitudes towards Russophobia are still under scrutiny in the ArbCom. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

??? What do you know of my background? Colchicum 12:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I refer, inter alia, to your passionate defense of the author of Estophobia from accusations of trolling and your attempts to represent him as a good-faith editor, [47] [48] as well as today's provocative comments on Talk:Russo-Estonian relations. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Why should we even consider implementing such a thing? We dont compartmentalize articles or users based on geographic locations. --soum ^talk 12:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I would welcome comments from folks non-involved in the never-ending Hindu-Muslim debacles. Their benefit from the current AfD mess is all too obvious. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

And who are you suggesting the "involved folks" are? --soum ^talk 13:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ghirla in principle, these kinds of ethnic feuds often make AfDs and similar processes almost unuseable. There's no ready solution, except to hope that more admins will take a stronger stance about treating the "not a vote" principle seriously. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

A good idea would be to restore the page to the way it was before Ghirla decided to classify people according to his view who belongs where. That "classification" is rediculous if not unfair. I attempted to restore it, but apparently a revert war is starting over this, so I urge admins to interfere. --Hillock65 12:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Only after you explain connection between the canvassing page uk:Requested Input into English Wikipedia (recently deleted at your own urging) and this discussion of your claims of "Jewish terrorism" in English Wikipedia. No relation between uk.wiki canvassing and the mass arrival of uk.wiki accounts to English Wikipedia, eh? --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• This is unbelievable! Racist discrimination based on nationality is happening before you eyes and no admin takes a stand about this!? And is it just me, or does Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) seem to be launching an off topic personal attack at opponents on this very page and getting away with it?--Alexia Death 13:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

  You have been told a dozen times that the trolling of administrators' noticeboards by Korps! Estonia is not welcome. Is it not clear enough? If you have issue with "racist discrimination", you should address it to your own president and parliament who view a third of the Estonian population as "non-citizens". --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

  Your acidous insult filled reply displays clearly you racism issues. I appeal to admins to see this users attacks for what they are.--Alexia Death 14:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The kind of discrimination that Ghirlandajo employed here simply cannot stand, and stern action must be taken against him so he never attempts this kind of stunt again. Otherwise all controversial AfD votes will become investigations into the background of those users whose votes Ghirlandajo does not like. Balcer 13:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Overdue IfD request

Could someone close this IfD quickly (either way): Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 July 6#Image:JohnProfumo.jpg before the bad faith accusations escalate further.--Konstable 12:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Closed as delete. Garion96 (talk) 12:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Advise requested on User:BetacommandBot

I would like to get some advise on what to do about User:BetacommandBot. He has been tagging logos for some time as a fair use image that has no rationale. However, logos are the only area where a rationale is not really required. I'm strongly considering blocking the bot for disruption, as I've seen far too many logos being tagged incorrectly. However, I am putting this forward to the noticeboard for comment. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

My only opinion (as an uninvolved non-admin) is that part of what makes Betacommandbot disruptive is the sheer volume. Any bot that requires a human to clean up or deal with afterwards, and does over a certain number of these a day, should be autoblocked. Full stop. To provide an example: What if I were to run a bot that nominated 500 articles for AfD a day, based upon an otherwise valid criterion? ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 12:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)/

I'd say be bold and go for it... until we can get this logo thing cleared up at least. Sasquatch t|c 12:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Betacommandbot is now blocked until this is sorted out. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Im sorry you disagree with policy but it states per WP:NFCC10(c) that all fair use images need rationales, Logos are not exempt. ^∆ 12:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I just realised who said this: you signature is very confusing. I am blocking the bot. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

(Not Again!) This is why I have always been vocal about templated boilerplate rationales. Most of the times the reasons for usage is same and when an user feels the use matches the criteria covered by the template can use it. This does not mean I am proposing a template for blanket use of copyrighted logos. Anyway, I do not want to start WP:AN/FURG all over again.

I have another idea. Create a list of admins who want to help with wrong fair use images. Admins who wish to help should enlist themselves to the list. The bot, when tagging an image, should randomly pickup one admin and inform them that the image needs attention, taking care that no admin gets more than 20-25 images a day. That would help distribute the backlog, rather than creating a MASSIVE central pool, the appearance of which is more than enough to overwhelm anyone. --soum ^talk 12:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Not so fast on blocking this bot. Where does it state that logos are exempt from the policy requiring fair-use rationales or that the bot is not approved for performing this task. Here is the approved BRFA and no such qualification exists. If someone doesn't like what this bot is doing when it helps us enforce site policy, perhaps the issue is with the policy rather than with the bot. We can't keep blocking this bot for doing things for which it was approved just because we don't like the underlying policies. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Every single logo will get the same fair use rationale: they are there as the organisation's logo - which is a representative image of said organisation, they won't cause the company to lose money, they are there for education. There's not a single reason to tag a logo as needing a criteria. Can I also refer to you to Wikipedia:Logo, which explains this better? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Do not block the bot, it is generally helpful. The only problem is that I've seen it tag images as orphaned when they are used in article space. Logos are absolutely not exempt from rationales. GDonato (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, Ta bu shi da yu. I went to look at Wikipedia:Logo, per your request. The first thing that I noticed was the image tag which states: "This tag is meaningless without an accompanying fair use rationale which must be unique to the usage of THIS image in each article in which it is used. You must also give the source and copyright information for all fair-use images uploaded." What part of this situation do you think I am not understanding? It clearly states that a FUR is required. By the was it is incredibly bad for of you to block the bot as you have done while this discussion is on-going. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with After Midnight. Clear objections against the block had been raised here even before Ta bu made it, so he should have known there was no consensus behind it. And the policy requirements have really been discussed ad nauseam. (Disclaimer: I'm personally no big friend of the rationale requirements for logos either, but then again, I'm also not a big friend of having non-free logos included routinely and indiscriminately as eye-candy and without further special reasons on all sorts of articles in the first place.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu, are you asserting that the bot is malfunctioning or acting outside its approval? Or are you asserting that you don't agree with the policy from which the bot works? If it's the former, I suggest you make that clear and explain why you think so, or else I'm going to unblock the bot. (I'll post this to his talk page too.) --bainer (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Christine Marais

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Garion96#Christine_Marais Is it standard Wiki practice for administrators to be dismissive of reasonable requests? Is it possible that sufficient barnstars lead to a divinity complex? Could someone rationally look at this issue? 41.208.199.187 13:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)