Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Durin

Yet another image patroller harassed off the project. I've mostly given up on this myself as well, as the vitriolic attacks (and the blind eye that is frequently turned to them) are just not worth it. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

More than just an image patroler, a very valuable member of the project, this really depresses me. Pete.Hurd 20:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Alas, my admin nominator. Here's hoping he changes his mind, and here's hoping the Foundation will put some teeth into its fair use policies soon. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Could I ask what exactly is this "e-pol" organization which apparently claims some sort of jusrisdiction? I visited their website, but there is nothing there to indicate what, if any, legal status it has. DuncanHill 21:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I sure second that question. Is this organisation for real? I mean, the website e-pol.org is (link now on WP spamlinks list) most certainly is not the website of an international organisation with any sort of jurisdiction and it looks like nothing else than an elaborate hoax. Well actually, not even that elaborate. Pascal.Tesson 21:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I am taking the question to the Humanities refdesk, we have some wonderful people there who may be able to pin this down. DuncanHill 21:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's sort of all under control, if I could get a straight answer out of anybody I'm in contact with. It does appear, at present, that e-pol is part of some organisation called UNOP Liaison EU, there's no information on the internet about them, however, so establishing the validity of them and e-pol is difficult. Nick 21:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Which apparently is tied to this obscure organization www.un-net.org (link now on WP spam links) which as far as I'm concerned looks like the webpage of a bullshit hoax of an organization. Pascal.Tesson 21:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_International_development#UNOmbud. I think someone is just fucking with Durin... Pascal.Tesson 21:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

UNOP = United Nations Office for Partnerships. It promotes furtherance of the Millennium Development Goals. Hardly likely to be an investigations arm. Orderinchaos 17:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, he was a great contributor. I hope he comes back... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's fucking ridiculous that Durin left in such circumstances. Maxim_(talk) 23:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

So why doesn't someone file some e-pols against the nutters that file them? like the poor misunderstood copyright violator who was hassling Durin? --Rocksanddirt 00:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, maybe I'm just being hopelessly naive, but this could all be a misunderstanding. User:DannaShinsho is rather new and doesn't seem to speak English that fluently, so the language barrier could be contributing to the confusion. From what I gather, she uploaded some images, that she claims she created, using an incorrect license. This was tagged by Durin asking for a source, and things seem to have spiraled downwards from there. As for the "legal action", it seems to be directed not at wikipedia or Durin, but at those other websites that Durin has claimed hold the copyright to the images.75.116.41.73 01:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to dissapoint but I'm afraid you're hopelessly naive. Admins should really take the time to go and check the 5 deleted images that were at the root of this nonsense to clear up any doubt they may have had about DannaShinsho's claims that she was robbed of her precious copyrights. We're talking here about an image of clothes hanging on a clothes line with a funny caption, an image of a dummy witch crashed against a tree with, you guessed it, a funny caption, an image of a funny sign over a road with yet another snarky caption and an image of funny cats (no caption, so not so funny). I just wish Durin had taken the time to tell someone before this got out of hand. Pascal.Tesson 01:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, but I would just like to express my gratitude for all the fair use patrollers out there. While I may disagree with you sometimes, you play an incredibly valuable role, and you get way too much flak. --Haemo 01:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't what Durin did that generated this animosity, it was his/her attitude. I also find it hard to believe e-pol has the power and jurisdiction it claims.Rlevse 01:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's settle that question once and for all. Not only does e-pol have no power and jurisdiction, it also happens to be a phantom organization most likely created as part of some sort of scam. Either DannaShinsho was too naive to realize that or he/she is actually behind that phantom organization. Not that I want to play detective here, but the website of e-pol.org is pretty clear about this: you should only contact them through your local police (or to be precise your local Data Crime Unit) or through some big international organization. In any case, DannaShinsho is not welcome here and now the only question left to settle is: how do we get Durin back? Pascal.Tesson 01:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Has the Office been made aware of this situation? I know that they don't usually get involved in garden-variety on-wiki disputes, even when legal threats are involved, but setting up an organization to make such threats and targeting them against people enforcing Foundation policy really is not acceptable and I think counsel should know this is going on. Newyorkbrad 01:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that what actually happened here? Are we sure that e-pol is tied to DannaShinsho?

If this was a credible threat we would need to involve Mike; as it apparently isn't, we don't, but perhaps Jimmy would want to know.

I've emailed Durin, who is frustrated over several things. We'll see. Georgewilliamherbert 03:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This is creepy, and harrasment in the extreme. I hoep that Durin returns soon. It is a growing trend, and problem, here on WP, that often our best admins and editors are targeted for harrasment by those who have axes to grind, and agendas to war over. frankly, I'm surprised that the rabid extremist groups of the world aren't all putting up attack site pages outing wikipedians left and right for editing in a manner contrary to the extremists on any given subject. ThuranX 04:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I'll miss him too. Though it's sure nice to see at least some moral support for nonfree image patrolling here, sometimes it seems like you're the only one and everyone hates you for it. I wish the Foundation would give some type of clarification on "minimal" here at some point. (Personally, I think German is ahead of the curve, get rid of the damned things altogether, but that's probably not something we could get done here right now.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is at least partially Durin's fault. First, he asked DannaShinsho to add proper tags to images. When she did that, he accused her of lying, and claimed he had proof that she is not the author.[1] She asked him who claims the copyright,[2] and he replied with this rude statement.[3] Of course I don't know DannaShinsho's intentions nor if she created the images or not, but Durin is not innocent. He needlessly escalated the conflict. And the legal threat was clearly not against him, DannaShinsho even asked him for evidence:[4]--SuperElephant 06:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The diff that you give does not show that Durin accused her of lying. He simply said he had verifiable evidence that at least two of the images were not hers, and were not available under a free license. He explained that finding something on the internet and downloading it to your computer does not transfer the copyright to you. And he was not in the least bit rude. Durin has done wonderful work trying to keep Wikipedia a free encyclopaedia, and I very much hope he will be back. ElinorD (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What is e-pol ? and what authority and jurisdiction does it have over Wikipedia ?

I don't know. But it's irrelevant in this case.--SuperElephant 18:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If you go to their website, you will see that it is incredibly uninformative. Legitimate organisations are always prepared to be informative and communicative about their aims and intentions, going to the e-pol website, however, leaves you as uninformed as ever. It is strange that an organisation that claims global jurisdiction should have their website written in bad English.

There must be serious doubts that it is a legitimate organisation. A Google search reveals nothing.

I propose that Wikipedia should set up a committee to look into e-pol and basicly tell them where to get off.

Tovojolo 11:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

An e-mail from the internet service provider basically confirms that they are not a Governmental organisation and should not be treated as one. The contact at the ISP goes onto say that if impersonating a government official or police officer is a criminal offence in your country, contacting the police would be a sensible suggestion. Nick 14:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's servers are based in America, so it is subject to American Law, above all. Impersonating a governmental or police official is definitely an offence in America so Wikipedia should make a complaint in America against e-pol.

We cannot allow any Wikipedians to feel intimidated by such groups as e-pol.

Tovojolo 15:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Assuming there really were such a thing as "e-pol", does anyone not born yesterday really think a police organization would post their planned arrest activities, or whatever, on a public website? Good grief, Charlie Brown.Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}

3 things to say: (1) Durin shouldn't have left during those circumstances. (2) The WMF needs to become more stringent with its FU policies, and (3) Epol.com should probably be put on the spam blacklist... –Animum 16:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I can only help with one of the above, and that's just confirming e-pol.org plus all of the UNOP Liaison EU websites we are aware off have been blacklisted locally. Nick 17:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[deindent] Off topic, but that e-pol.org website has some horrible web design. I can't even read the font, it's that small. —Crazytales (t.) 23:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

E-Pol is definitely not a bona fide organisation.

Look at the company's internet profile E-Pol Internet Profile.

If you look, you'll see that only one organisation links to e-pol – and that's www.bn23hosting.com – which is a Linux web hosting company !!!!!. So this great "regulatory" organisation that's supposed to police the Internet, has, in reality, no internet presence and is hosted on Linux !!!!!! I'm guessing some college kids in Hong Kong set it up – which is where Danna Shinso who threatened all the legal action comes from.

It would all be so laughable if it hadn't caused so much trouble.

I think someone should tell Durin so that he can come back.

Tovojolo 02:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame he left when he did, as he was in the middle of a debate on the inclusion of fair use images in the List of Pokémon series of articles (see discussion here). Now no one knows what to do - the Pokemon Wikiproject wants to re-add the images as soon as possible, but as Durin is unable to defend his point, they're understandibly unwilling to do so unilaterally. It's just led to image-warring and inclusion of pointless cruft, which no one on either side wants. Morgan695 06:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This "e-pol.org" website resolves to the same address as "specialdataservices.net" and traceroutes through Amsterdam, Netherlands. When I go to that page I get a web page design effort a high schooler could have bettered, complete with really annoying Flash noises, and isn't even complete and doesn't give a phone number. The website itself, while better designed, tells you nothing, makes vague claims, and uses terrible English. If I were not mistaken I'd say this is a very small company that does some sort of investigations for a fee. It also does not provide a contact telephone number. A random selection of 10 private investigation companies' websites stop short of putting their contact details in lights. Another site (which I just discovered when trying to save is in Wikipedia's spam filter list) is the backup site and also does not provide a phone number, and is also hosted in the Netherlands. On hitting Google, only 3 unique hits, one of which is DannaShinsho's talk page and another of which is a web designer from New Jersey who claims he worked on it. Factiva, a search engine which indexes newspaper articles from all over the world, does not have even one hit for this organisation. Orderinchaos 17:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. Why was this user blocked? It doesn't look to me as if he was threatening Durin, or Wikipedia, or WMF. The post he left on Durin's talk page is not threatening him. It seems as if he is using e-pol.org to take action against the people elsewhere on the net who are using the images he claims are his, not Durin. He presumably notified Durin of this because Durin was the one who said they were being used elsewhere without Danna's consent. i ^said 19:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

New message from the same user

Please have a look at this doozy on my talk page, which I can see was canvassed to other peoples' pages as well. It seems... Semi-legitimate, at first glance (through sleepy goggles,) though I do get the feeling this user is trying to game things at least to a small degree. I'm very tired right now and can't really give this my full attention tomorrow either, so, there you have it. Good night (in Central Time Zone (North America),) all. Grandmasterka 09:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the diff I think you were referring to, the content has since been removed from your dynamic link above. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yes thanks Chairboy, I was about to post that diff. Seemingly, this is a misunderstanding, but I am still interested in this e-pol. This person said they found out about e pol from "Dean", and since I haven't dug to closely into this, I don't know who that is. The e pol website does look very shady, if they are a genuine organization, which I doubt, they do a terrible job of conveying that. daveh4h 16:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

After doing a little digging, it seems clear to me that e-pol is not a legitimate operation, and is at best a silly hoax, and at worst part of a fraudulent charitable organization. According to PIR whois, epol.org is registered to "UNNET," and lists a contact email at "ns213un.net". That website in question is a mess of poorly obfuscated JavaScript and pseudo-classified-information gobbledygook. un-net.org, which seems to be intended as the main website of this "organization," is the same. I'm not sure what the point of this "organization" is, but it's clear that this user is only citing e-pol.org as a childish scare tactic. --krimpet⟲ 20:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This website needs to be reported, nonetheless. Anyone know how we can do that? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

That site (and it's clearly bogus) is trying to suggest a link with the UN, I suspect there legal people would be unimpressed to say the least - not sure what department to contact there... --Fredrick day 23:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, harassment is bad, and this unquestionably was harassment. But when someone asks you for evidence behind your assertions, you can't just ignore it and assume you're right. That is what Durin did, and that is what many of the "image patrollers" do. -Amarkov moo! 23:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that normally, one cannot casually ignore such requests. In this case, however, the editor in violation was uploading standard internet meme images, and now is claiming they are 'his' because he uploaded them here. I recognized, jsut from Durin's description a number of them, includingthe witch into a tree with silly text image, which shows up all over livejournal, myspace, and so on every october. It's at least 4 year old. That this guy seeks to lay such specious claim to such inattributable items isn't really worth the response time. ThuranX 02:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

So what was wrong with Durin responding with what you just said? What you said was more informative than what Durin said. The thing about image enforcers is that they often try to do too much, and get burnt out. If more people helped out, then there would be more people to help explain things to those image uploaders who get upset. If Durin's retirement is permanent (and I hope it is not), then it sets a bad precedent that could encourage some people to think that issuing legal threats is enough to drive people off Wikipedia. Does Wikipedia give advice to people on what to do if they receive off-wiki legal threats regarding their on-wiki activities? Carcharoth 03:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible that E-pol is a primarily Chinese organization, and that the "fraudulent" website is just a poor translation for the benefit of English speakers? That seems most likely to me, seeing as the Dean of Shinsho's college recommended it.

As for who owns the images - unless we can prove that others hold a copyright to these images, it's quite silly to claim that they are not fair-use/public-domain/etc. I'm not an admin, so I can't check the actual images in question, but from the description of events it appears that Durin never actually verified, other than in his own assertions, that these images were copyrighted - even if they are not Shinsho's creation, they could still be used unless copyrighted.

It also seems pretty clear, at least from the message left on Durin's page, that no actual legal threats were made (unless he got some e-mail that he didn't post on wikipedia). Yes, it could be interpreted that way, but that would be by taking it out of context. Shinsho has denied threatening Durin, and unless we get some proof that there is a threat, then all of this hullabaloo (kaneck, kaneck) seems to be a bit retaliatory.

For the copyright bit - Shinsho did ask for them to be removed, which seems in keeping with Durin's wishes, and then asked for the necessary info in order to correct the copyright info - thus allowing for her to fairly re-add the images, which should be in keeping with Durin's wishes. Unless it was in some response that only admins can see, I don't see how this is an unfair request - this should actually be what the whole "image deletion" thing should be about - not deleting non-free images, but replacing them with free ones. Otherwise, we're just anally deteriorating the project.

Basically - for e-pol, that's fine, you guys do your thing. For Shinsho - unless we can prove that those images were copyrighted, and that a legal threat was made, this whole punishment is quite biased, and seems illogical.KrytenKoro 20:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

"Is it possible that E-pol is a primarily Chinese organization" - not really, according to the WHOIS lookup, they use an American for-profit registrar and gave an address in Belgium (also, there were no link to other languages, including Chinese). One of the uploaded pictures (a cartoon) had the author's signature on it. It is highly unlikely that after signing it, the author (who was not Shinsho) would release it under a free license. Finally, none o f them were remotely encyclopedic and could only have been used as userpage decorations. Mr.Z-man 20:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

How can you know that Shinsho wasn't the author?--SuperElephant 21:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me, looking at the whole history, that you can't discount the possibility that it's just a misunderstanding, as some others have said. The user doesn't seem to speak or understand English very well, which may explain the clumsy ineptness with which they expressed themselves, and, while that e-pol organization seems bogus, we don't know that this user has anything to do with it; they may have just stumbled onto it and thought that it could help their problem. The "legal threats" (which are bogus if this is indeed a bogus organization) do seem to be against the (unnamed) other websites that allegedly "stole" the images, not against Durin. The later actions of immediately deleting all efforts by that user to appeal his banning give an impression of unfairness. *Dan T.* 21:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Dan, maybe I'm just a disgruntled, old editor but looking at the edit history of User:DannaShinsho, I'm surprised to discover that he showed a lot of interest in things like Template:User Nice to Newcomer & Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the newcomers without any evidence that he encountered any hostility from other editors. Add to that interest his activity with a WikiProject (whose goal I don't understand), & I can't avoid suspecting that Durin was driven away by a troll. His interest in e-pol.org (whether or not they are a real organization) is just frosting on the cake. -- llywrch 00:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Durin's and DannaShinsho's first contact seems to have been a disagreement on User_talk:^demon. Later Durin tags DannaShinsho's images, and she retaliates by tagging his articles. Template:User Nice to Newcomer was created by User:DannaShinsho and advertised on Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the newcomers, which doesn't strike me as suspicious. As to the WikiProject, perhaps try reading their page again as it's objectives seem clear. I agree that e-pol.org seems to have been designed by an eleven year old, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's illegitimate. There are a whole lot of suppositions, and it could turn out to be a troll, but it could just as well turn out to be a well meaning contributor. I don't see the negatives to allowing User:DannaShinsho to explain herself, but meh. Just a whole bunch of very short fuses all around. 166.166.23.212 02:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Fred Bauder wants to unblock DannaShinsho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See here. ElinorD (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

He's unblocked now, with suitable warnings, but has not edited at this time. I don't think he actually directed a legal threat at Durin. Fred Bauder 01:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have vacated a previous message here given that it was used for further harassing me.

I have made all that was expected from my side. If harassment continues please don't let me know, I will totally ignore anyone who harasses me, thank you ^{Danna❀Shinsho} 17:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we please cut the crap. The page that Danna Shinsho just created should be deleted without a further waste of everybody's time. The page is of course full of contradictions:

• it gives the charter of a business, not that of an international not-for-profit organization which e-pol.org claims to be.
• It is patched up from various things, one of them being information on the epol group, a commercial entity.
• It claims that the offices of e-pol were destroyed during 9/11 but, gee, the rest of the Internet doesn't seem to remember.
• Refers to the E-POL 2000 ANNUAL CONFERENCE ON CYBER-TERRORISM & CYBER-CRIME but, hey, seems like that conference never had a website and didn't have any proceedings.
• Is full of small typos and grammatical mistakes which makes a whole lot of sense for a worldwide organization.
• Drags into this well-known law firms such as Serko & Simon which I'm sure will be delighted by that association.
• One particularly funny paragraph is "E-POL initial interactive sites were targeted with multiple cyberattacks and the domain itself hijacked. Since 2007, the domain and site will be exclusively informative. E-POL is not a public service and since it is a constant target of harassment calls and cyberattacks, E-POL has limited its availability to public contacts." That makes a lot of sense, right? And of course, it's only natural that e-pol.org be a constant target of cyberattacks since nobody's ever heard of it despite its contacts with Interpol and the WTA, despite it having centers in Brussels, Malmo, Amsterdam and Geneva.
• Where did Danna Shinsho get that info? I quote: "This info was provided by a friend who is in a senior post in the Ministry of Interior of his country and he said he got it from their contacts with international law enforcement".

Now let's get real, Danna Shinsho should never have been unblocked. Pascal.Tesson 15:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. ElinorD (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please leave me in peace and don't slander, thank you ^{Danna❀Shinsho} 15:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• I believe that the unblock of User:DannaShinsho was highly inappropriate, given that User:Fred Bauder made no attempts to discuss the matter with me in any respect. This is not to say that I feel I should have control over whether User:DannaShinsho should be blocked, but that not consulting with me fails to recognize my direct involvement with this and what I perceive to be ongoing involvement in this legal matter because of the lack of independent confirmation that I will not be involved in the future regarding this case with e-pol.org, only that I am not currently involved. I have written further about this and User:DannaShinsho's actions in general at User:Durin/Departure. --Durin 16:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I also find it disappointing that Durin was not consulted, especially since he had received an email from this e-pol, whatever it is, and no attempt seems to have been made to verify that there is no action against Durin, and that Durin has been made aware that there is no action against him. ElinorD (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• No, it's fine. This is not Durin's first over reaction about "legal threats" (remember Kelly Martin, "slander", and the irc mess from a while ago). And, frankly, if you're going to leave, just leave instead of accusing people and using your "departure" as a vehicle to elicit sympathy and to make polemical statements. As for DannaShinsho, the best course of action for you would be to provide proof of your identity/credentials and authorship of the images in question to WP:OTRS. If you're genuine, that should shut-up the others. 166.165.134.138 16:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• You are certainly welcome to your own opinion as to regards to legal threats leveled against you. To accuse me of over reacting when I am the subject of a legal threat is entirely inappropriate. I have every reason to react as I have with regards to this legal threat. You don't take them serious. I do. I respect your own stance. Respect mine. This isn't about you. See third paragraph of User:Durin/Departure#Events_that_followed. --Durin 16:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with others that an unblock was not appropriate while the status of any legal action by e-pol.org is unknown. I'm quite disappointed that an extremely valauble contributor such as Durin no longer wishes to edit due to the accusations and actions of User:DannaShinsho. I strongly support reblocking her, at least until it's confirmed that e-pol.org will not involve Durin (or any other users) in legal actions. Chaz ^Beckett 16:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The unblock was inappropriate, and some admin should reblock until the legal threat is withdrawn. Whether the legal threat is bogus or not, is of no consequence. It has driven away a valuable editor and has left a troll to edit. And anyone tyring to create all this drama about a non-existent governmental organization such as e-pol is a troll. Corvus cornix 17:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd like to point out that Fred Bauder unblocked because the legal threat was not directed at Durin. Sure. However, I'd like to point out once again that the 5 images that form the basis of this whole mess are wholly unencyclopedic and that involving anybody in that dispute is so utterly absurd that I don't see how DannaShinsho can be trusted to behave responsibly around here. And at the risk of sounding like a broken record, this whole thing about e-pol.org information being given to her by a high source in government is complete junk. The IP that posted a cease and desist on ANI today was, a few months ago, trying to add external links that ended up being blacklisted as likely scams. Pascal.Tesson 17:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• The IP isn't necessarily being used by the same person -- though that makes it more suspicious, not less, this alleged international organization not having its own IP address. I notice that a variety of IPs tried to re-add the same legal threat here, and they resolved all over the world (Berlin, Czech Republic, Malaysia, The Netherlands). Also, I left a message on the first IPs talk page earlier today -- a little while ago received a somewhat panicky message from an unlogged-in user User:Heltzen ([5] & [6], whom I'm pretty sure is NOT the e-pol "rep". --Calton | Talk 17:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Danna Shinsho posted some curious information about e-pol, she's deleted it now but here it is [7]

Points : If it is legitimate, why did she delete it ?
If e-pol is such a reputable organisation why does it have no internet presence, see above for the e-pol internet profile.
If it was set up in America originally (supposedly headquartered in America at the World Trade Center before September 11) then why is its website so badly designed and written in such poor English ? Americans are capable of better designs than that.
Fred Bauder should publicly explain why he unblocked her.

Tovojolo 17:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think he has already: that he confirmed that DannaShinso did not and did not intend to file legal action against a Wikipedian, nor did they intend to threaten it. Since that was the reason for the block, it was undone (which is what we normally do when someone rescinds a legal threat or clarifies it). Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Calton...again

As asked by admin El C, I have had zero contact with User:Calton, have not posted to his talk page, have left him be.

A discussion of radio station articles with VigilancePrime somehow drew the attention of Calton and this response. Calton was not apart of the conversation nor is he apart of the group in question, WP:WPRS.

I responded on VigilancePrime's talk page, as the "advice" Calton had given in his unrequested post was incorrect and I don't want VigilancePrime having bad information.

About 25mins ago, I am greeted with this beautiful post on my talk page. An incivil, ranting, demanding post, again stating the same bad information quoting on VigilancePrime's talk page.

It has become obvious that Calton is not going to curb the behaviour that many admins have asked of him, for us to leave each other alone, which I have. Posting on VigilancePrime's talk page about radio stations needed no response what-so-ever from Calton. I am tired, oh so tired, of asking for help with Calton and would like it very much if he would curb this behaviour and leave me alone as I have him.

So, I kindly ask an admin to please have a word with him, it probably won't do any good as he doesn't respond well to messages from anyone especially criticism from admins and even people work Wikimedia.

Many thanks for any help that can be provided. Take Care....NeutralHomer ^T:C 04:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Calton is absolutely right here, your assertion was false, having an entry in a directory s not and probably never will be a qualifier for inclusion on Wikipedia. Your best way forward here is to stick with the policies which do govern content, notably verifiability, neutrality and attribution. When giving advice to others I advise the use of qualifying terms. So: in general having an entry in the directory is taken as an indication that the subject is likely to qualify. That would be unproblematic. Was that the kind of help you were looking for? Guy (Help!) 10:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• It's my experience -- and I'm being perfectly serious here -- NeutralHomer doesn't track nuance or qualifiers. He wants everything black-and-white. --Calton | Talk 11:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• All right, NeutralHomer is at least partially right: I mixed up -- God knows how -- his reply as being in response to a message I left for VigilancePrime on August 29th, not to an earlier message (which I'd forgotten about) I'd left for VigilancePrime on August 23rd. I blame sloppy reading, and I apologize for that.

On the other hand (and I note he left this out, despite my putting it in my message linked above), it seems obvious he HAS been stalking my Talk page. The chain:

• User:WarthogDemon leaves a note on my User Talk page about a suspicious user page at 03:26, August 26, 2007 [8]
• Twenty-five minutes later at 03:51, before I even have read the original message, NeutralHomer responds to this message left on MY page to WarthogDemon's User Talk page [9].
• Later, after seeing the notification on my User Talk page, I go to WarthogDemon's page and discover that NeutralHomer has been, in effect, "reading my mail" (despite an admin's friendly advice to stop the stalking) and has gotten there ahead of me. I am irritated, but too busy to respond.
• Today, while scanning the Talk Page history VigilancePrime, I see NeutralHomer's name, and respond -- sloppily -- as above.

And you might want to take some of his "evidence" with a grain of salt: eight of them concern the same editor, who was blocked for edit-warring over adding tags to an article -- followed about an hour later by vandalism to my user pages by an IP from said editor's city [10]; and two are simply my adding a {{trivia}} tag to said article. His padding the evidence ought to give the reader pause.

While I was wrong on the most recent incident, as far as I'm concerned I'm right on the specifics: he's been trying this stunt for months, of watching my edits, putting his oar in where he can, running off to tattle to WP:AN/I in hopes of getting me banned, and pouting when it isn't done. Rinse, lather, repeat. And I'm getting tired of it. --Calton | Talk 11:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Calton, your confrontational manner of talk page posting seems to be escalating relatively minor editing issues into personal grudges. Might I suggest that you'd be much more effective with a little politeness? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 13:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, Calton was right about policy, and the supposed complaint is extremely thin stuff that would be laughed out of court in any kind of dispute resolution. Now would be a good time to chill, people. Guy (Help!) 16:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: I am only commenting on the policy (as I am not allowed to comment on anything else). As far as I have been told as apart of WP:WPRS, radio stations are allowed an article. LP stations, given their small broadcast area are as well, but will more-than-likely be deleted because they reach like 12 people. The same "if it has an FCC link, it has a page here" ideal is what gives us pages for almost 98% of all TV stations in the US on Wikipedia. Which is what is trying to be done with the radio stations.

Again, I will only be commenting on the policy and nothing else, as again, I am not allowed. Take Care...NeutralHomer ^T:C 21:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, either you remain consistent to that, or you don't. But you cannot play both ends. El_C 21:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

NeutralHomer, what you are saying is that you are attempting to make a directory of radio stations. But Wikipedia is not a directory. No amount of consensus among people interested in a single topic area will trump Wikipedia policies. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

On the WarthogDemon related incident... I note that Neutralhomer apologizes for taking so long to get to it. Which doesn't make alot of sense in relation to something posted only 25 minutes prior... on someone else's talk page. WarthogDemon responded with a simple 'no problem' message. Are we sure that there wasn't some prior notification of this issue that Neutralhomer was following up on?

Given that the page in question was deleted as spam at 3:44, 18 minutes after WarthogDemon's message to me but 7 minutes before NeutralHomer's message to WarthogDemon, it's pretty clear to me why NeutralHomer apologizes to WarthogDemon for the "delay" -- but that should have been easy enough to check, even for a non-admin, and an admin could certainly have checked the page history for added tags or whatever during the time it took to compose the sentence above. --Calton | Talk 15:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Er, I'm not sure of the whole thing going on here. I just dropped by this page and since I saw my name pop up. I'm not sure if I've caused any confusion/problems. But in any case, I will throw in my recap if it helps clear up anything.

I sometimes browse usernames for inappropriate use of userpages. (Usually I do this by going to the User Creation Log, selecting whatever name is at the top of the list, and putting it in Special:Listusers.)

In this case though, I came across it in Recent Changes. Now admittedly enough time is past that I don't remember if it was band promotion or something else. I do remember not being sure what it was, or what to tag it with. So I decided to bring it to Calton's attention, figuring he'd be in-the-know. So I did and moved on to other Wiki-editing stuff.

I do like to check back on my Recent Contributions. (Various reasons: Too see if I've made any mistakes others have corrected, check on users I've talked to recently, etc.) Plus I also wanted to check the Rome User's page in case Calton had already tagged it. Checking Calton's page again (since I made no edits to Rome's page), I found Nihiltres had deleted Rome's talk page and so I went to Calton's page to say it had just been taken care of. Nothing further on that until I got a message from Neutralhomer. I didn't think anything odd of this; I just assumed that Calton and Neutralhomer were working together or something, so I just told NeutralHomer "no problem" and that was that.

In the interest of full disclosure, I found my name using this. As a bored Wikiholic I sometimes get curious of where things are linked to. Saw my name here and wondered if I had messed something up. I hope I haven't and that my recap clears any confusion. (And hopefully doesn't cause more...) -WarthogDemon 18:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As to Wikiprojects having, "zip, zero, none, zilch, nada, nil" authority... technically true, practically inaccurate. In 'The Great Road Names Debate' state road wikiprojects which had established and updated the relevant pages to a particular naming standard were given deference even when that standard contradicted a later general standard for road names. Many of the notability and manual of style guidelines for particular topics have been drawn up by the related Wikiprojects. Et cetera. It is certainly accurate to say that Wikiprojects have no inherent authority. However, Wikipedia works by consensus and the consensus of a group of people actively working on a particular topic (aka 'a Wikiproject') is seldom going to be over-ruled in relation to that topic... basically only when the community at large disagrees. So, no, Wikiprojects 'have no authority'... but groups of people working on a topic and establishing a consensus about it do. And that's what a Wikiproject is. In the absence of a community holding to the contrary, the consensus of the people actively working on the topic is alot more than "zip, zero, none, zilch, nada, nil". --CBD 08:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

and that's why the special interest groups (Wikiproject is the wrong word, it implies a level of professionalism that is absence from most) we have are so dangerous - especially on the cruftopedia side of wikipedia - those SIGs are self-selecting groups of fans who work in their best interest of their fan-based interest not wikipedia. Yes I agree, that they might have some authority when left unchallenged but we should be ever vigilant against those SIGs and constantly challenge their ownship of articles. --Fredrick day 08:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Noone owns articles, that's the whole point. And I agree that some WikiProjects are unprofessional or in some cases even unnecessary (then there's the cases of the one-person wikiprojects)... however, many projects are professional, organised and well-maintained, and are able to handle internal differences of opinion and are often better at reaching consensus than official or semi-official Wikipedia processes. Orderinchaos 09:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

CBD is somewhat missing the point, since NeutralHomer kept making reference to the "rules" of his particular Wikiproject -- not special interest, not special knowledge, rules -- and declaring implicit ownership over such pages. --Calton | Talk 15:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Semantics. Clean up the verbiage and what he was saying was, 'this page meets the established notability standards for radio stations'. That's not a declaration of ownership. It's an argument against deletion. Yes, he called them 'rules' rather than 'notability standards' but the distinction is not always understood. That these standards are established 'only' by the Wikiproject on radio stations does not seem, to me, the damning indictment it is above made out to be. Absent a consensus to the contrary by the community at large the consensus of a group specifically devoted to and working on this topic carries weight and is a more than reasonable guide to follow. Not 'rules', but far from "zip, zero, none, zilch, nada, nil". A polite discussion of the distinctions, if you felt the need to 'follow' that edit link you saw with his name on it at all, would have been preferable to that hostile and not entirely accurate denouncement. --CBD 11:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• NeutralHomer is clearly not getting the message. Worse, he appears to be personalising the dispute to a quite unacceptable degree, see this diff. I have blocked hiom for 24 hours while we decide what to do for the best. Will an RfC be necessary? Or do we simply need to spell out the fact that Wikiprojects don't override policy? How best to progress in correcting a pattern of problematic behaviour form this editor? Guy (Help!) 09:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't disagree with this block - that comment was pretty below-the-belt - and In light of Firsfron's diff below, I have struck this part of my comment. I'm a bit amazed now. ~ Riana ⁂ 16:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC) An RfC might be a very good idea, considering this NeutralHomer v/s Calton farce has been going on for long enough. I do have to say at this point, however, that Calton does not go out of his way to interact politely with his fellow users. In most of the interactions I've noted I've seen what I can only describe, and forgive my bluntness, as an overriding desire to impinge his apparent intellectual superiority onto people. I realise this is not a violation of policy, and I value straight talk as much as the next person. Calton, however, seems to take this to another level entirely. This is not merely with Homer, but in most cases, so I don't know whether he's been pushed into such actions by these disputes, or it's just his style. IMHO the actions of both contributors need to be examined. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I have to agree with Riana. Carlton is usually right about policy, but some of his responses are so unpleasant that minor issues grow into these unproductive feuds.--Kubigula (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with Riana and Kubigula. I really can't understand why we keep turning a blind eye towards Calton's rude and contemptuous behaviour. I haven't had to deal with him since his proposal to community ban User:GordonWatts where he was generally patronising and nasty, down to referring to User:Musical Linguist as "my dear", in an obvious attempt to antagonise. Sadly, I see nothing has changed in intervening months. I really don't care if he is right about policy or not, there's no excuse for his abuse. I also agree with Riana that there seems to be "an overriding desire to impinge his apparent intellectual superiority onto people." I honestly don't know why we keep turning a blind eye to his abuse and the fact that we have done so for so long just plays into the apparent sense of superiority over everybody on the project. I would support looking at the behaviour of both parties, this provocation and abuse really needs to stop. Sarah 16:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I"m inclined to agree with Riana here. This has been going on some time and Calton has been rude in the extreme. Looks like NH just had the wrong buttons pressed in their exchange. No excuse for that, mind, but the circumstances show a certain provocation here - Alison ☺ 17:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse the block, issue a general reminder to everyone to be just a little more civil, and try DR/mediation/RFC for any other lingering issues. Moreschi ^Talk 12:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I will not endorse this block. It is clear Calton has acted equally incivilly as NH in previous disputes between these two, and talk page edits in June indicate JzG is not exactly a neutral party. NH's comment that JzG can go ahead and laugh at him is met with "Thank you, I will do just that." and this comment ("I will be standing in line when it comes to time to ban you ") worries me, too. Baiting users into giving them blocks should be discouraged, and the blocking admin shouldn't escalate the situation by insulting the user. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse the block - we're talking about a 24-hour, not an indef here. That is not to say there is not issues which need resolving on both sides, but some of the stuff that has been going on on this page with new sections opened up in short order seems a bit disruptive to me. WP:DR is the place for it. Orderinchaos 20:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm allowed to comment here or not, but I am the person who informed NeutralHomer of the comment Calton had left on VigilancePrimes user page. So if Calton is trying to accuse NeutralHomer of wikistalking him, that is incorrect, rather Calton came across (was stalking, I don't know) a comment NeutralHomer left and couldn't stop himself from running NeutralHomer down. As far as I can tell, that is supposed to be against the rules. I saw above that people are trying to defend Calton because he was quoting policy correctly. That's fine, but what about adding the rude comment about NeutralHomer? I ran into Calton a long time ago, and as a result have not edited Wikipedia since. I watch his talk page because I am constantly amazed at what he gets away with, and that is how I knew about his past problem with NeutralHomer, and that is how I found the comment left on VigilancePrimes page. I have no doubt that if I was incorrect to post here, or if I have said anything inaccurate Calton will pounce on me, but I wanted to make sure that people know NeutralHomer wasn't looking for a comment from Calton, I saw it and informed NeutralHomer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.35.127.0 (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to question why on earth NeutralHomer was blocked and yet Calton is not? Is Guy a close friend of Calton? I don't edit Wikipedia, as I said above, so I don't really care if I am blocked or whatever for saying what I think. I think what Calton gets away with is ridiculous. NeutralHomer came here for help, because Calton made an unwarranted comment about how he thinks NeutralHomer doesn't have a good grasp of policy on a different users talk page, and some admin or whatever Guy is, (who already has a problem with NeutralHomer and obviously has wanted a reason to block him for some time) blocks NeutralHomer, and doesn't do a darn thing to Calton, who started this particular fight. Calton is nothing but a bully, and everyone allows it! He single-handedly drove me away from editing, I wonder how many others he has done that to? And yet no one seems willing to do anything about it! Are people afraid of him? Does he have a couple of admins in his pocket? (The block on NeutralHomer certainly makes it seem that way) Why, why, why are those who have the ability to stop Calton doing nothing??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.35.127.0 (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate that we are all busy people with multiple focuses, I think it would be nice for JzG and/or Calton to respond to some of the above concerns. ~ Riana ⁂ 01:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Here, SSP, or CU?

Asking for an admin to step in, as I don't want to seem like i'm on a vendetta.

I noticed this edit [11] today, and what concerns me is that it's a first edit that handles an external link with ... do we call taht cover text, or labelling, or what?... whatever it is, perfectly. It supports the website of this user, User:AdamFendelman, who runs that very site(evidence of which was on an article about him). I don't want to pursue this, because I already nominated the article about that user, as a Speedy A7 after trying to clean it up left me with nothing BUT extenal links and peacock terms. To go after him any further would seem like I'm 'after him'; I'm not, but this is sort of foolish stuff. AF has been adding his site in as a reliable site and so on, and been reverted a few times[12] and [13], so this is more than coincidental, I think. Thanks. ThuranX 06:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

AdamFendelman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a COI/spam-only account. Virtually every edit he's ever made has been reference spamming for hollywoodchicago.com, and citing himself. [14] [15][16] This account should be indef blocked.

Itsallthat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has only made one edit [17], spamming that same, obscure, PageRank zero website. This is an obvious sock, so it too should be blocked. - Jehochman ^Talk 06:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The editor has contacted me, and left a note at the article talk, protesting complete confusion about the reverts of his edits, but his talk page has a lengthy litany of warnings and communiques about this sort of thing. I find it hard to believe that when you declare it to be your original content blog, you don't understand, as a journalist, the sort of unverifiable nature of the writings, and the conflicts it sets us up for. ThuranX 06:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Despite asking me on my talk page, and at the article page, for how to cite things correctly, the editor immediately jumped to another article nad did EXACTLY what got him into conflict before. See his contribs here. [18]. While my reply to him came at the exact minute as his First edit to Julie Delpy, he made another right after, which suggests to me that he really is a spam account. ThuranX 06:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an obvious case of a disruption-only account. The user has made virtually zero good faith contributions. Everything is spam and COI. - Jehochman ^Talk 06:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, he readded the link to Julie Delpy, because I just removed it along with another one he added as an inline ref. He knows what he's doing. - KrakatoaKatie 11:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

User continues to act in the same manner, despite my attempts to communicate with him, after posting here and talking to Jehochman. ThuranX 06:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup. I've cleaned up about 50% of the spam, but I have to go to bed. Here's the rest that needs mopping up. - Jehochman ^Talk 07:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Please be patient with the editor and talk to him rather than snap-blocking for this. If that's really his name and his userpage is accurate, he's a legit journalist and this is just a communications gap over what Wikipedia is all about. Try to explain nicely. Georgewilliamherbert 07:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

His actions are not limited to The Dark Knight. He attempted to add content to Spider-Man 3 back in May 2007, and he was warned by another user and myself, as seen on his talk page. I agree that his contributions do not seem to reflect good faith -- to constantly cite your very own site and pretty much nothing else does not reflect positively on the editor. If the editor's contributions reflect a more varied background of contributions, there may be some argument here, but there is not. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

GWH - As mentioned above, I have, in fact, tried a couple times to explain to him that linking to his own blog, especially in the self-promotional manner he does it in, and quoting his own reviews about movies, represents a violation of the COI policy. He keeps asking how he's supposed to link to his blog correctly, and how he's supposed to link to his blog if we don't let him link to his blog. As such, his primary, if not only, concern in all this is getting his blog out there. After being notified of this AN/I thread, and having it explained to him a couple times, he continued to edit to include his blog and his commentaries on the film and actor/-ress pages that his blog had covered. Perhaps hearing from an admin would help? ThuranX 12:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, this editor has made virtually no good faith contribution. He's added dozens of spam-COI links to his own site. That's all he's ever done. If you like talking to a brick wall, fine, but please don't expect the rest of us to assume good faith when there's overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The fellow has received numerous warnings and hasn't stopped. He's not clueless. He knows exactly what he's doing, and he's playing us for fools. This is why it's so damn frustrating for some of us who don't have tools. After we spend the time to investigate and clean up a mess, most admins still want the formulaic four warnings within 7 days. A savvy spammer can run a slow-motion spam campaign and fly below the radar. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to block him for as long as six months, maybe even indef, and also willing to put the domain on the spam blacklist if he spams again. As I said above, he knows what he's doing even while he's feigning innocence. Users like this guy drive me crazy and are our biggest problem, at least as I see it. KrakatoaKatie 11:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The biggest, I don't know, but top 10, definitely. I suport such a long term blocking, although he's sure to rail against it on his blog/newssite. ThuranX 22:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Njyoder (talk · contribs) continues personal attacks

This editor continues to make personal attacks in the course of this discussion. he's been twice reminded about NPA and CIVIL, and has a long history of being blocked for this very thing. His latest [19]. You can see the paypal talk page in the sections previous for several more examples.--Crossmr 15:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the template in the heading. x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

He continues his personal attacks with edit summaries like this: [20].--Crossmr 12:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

He's also editing disruptively by making edits like this [21], and additional personal attacks as such [22].--Crossmr 12:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this user is disruptive, too - although I think it is down to being argumentative. I'm not familiar with this case and it does look confusing - but his block log seems empty. x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Something wrong with your link: [23]. He has 8 blocks--Crossmr 14:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the summaries there may have been a previous arbcom case against this individual for this behaviour. While these were awhile ago, he's made very little edits in that time. Which just goes more towards showing a continuation of previous behaviour.--Crossmr 14:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, his previous arbcom case was about this exact type of behaviour it seems its not limited to just gender issues [24].--Crossmr 14:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I should probably address these blocks. There are only 7 if you exclude the block that was removed due to conflict of interst. ePlease try reading what they were blocking me for--basically I was forbidden from criticizing any admin actions. Several of them were clear conflicts of interest. Note how it was basically the same the one admin doing it, who held a grudge against me. One of the blocks was even reversed by another admin because they thought they were deliberately distorting the meaning of what I was saying to be an insult and that it was a clear conflict of interest. Another was for an alleged legal threat by the same admin involved in a conflict of interest. I was blocked for criticizing him for abusing his power by one of his friends (David). One of the admins involved even threatened to block me for creating a straw poll about policy. Notably, one of them, snowspinner/phil sandifer, has had various RFCs against him and several arbcom cases involving abuse of admin powers that had nothing to do with me (although those were rejected because he knows the arbs involved much to the chagrin of users who thought it was clear favortism). -Nathan J. Yoder 06:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an abuse of AN/I. Ultimately, this is a content dispute and he's using me accusing him of acting in bad faith and lying (which he most definitely has and you can read it yourself to see where I pointed out it) as an excuse to get support on a content dispute. Remember, this is a guy who violated 3RR on one of the articles, even though he claims to fervently abide by policies (he never even apologized or conceded that it was wrong to do). He's even carried his grudge further--following me into other talk pages just to disagree with me and add nothing to the discussion (including in WP:V andWP:RS) where I made considerable effort to write an essay for other people there and obstinately stated he didn't need to add to the debate and instead it was acceptable to just repeat that he thinks I'm wrong over and over. The arcom case against me was for personal attacks in part, but mostly it was about a content dispute, although arb isn't allow to rule on that so one arbcom member added a bunch of other random charges without providing evidence for them. People generally assume that because it was decided against me that they don't need to check it to see how true the claims are. -Nathan J. Yoder 03:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Your current behaviour and unending personal attacks and disruptive editing are all the evidence anyone needs as to whether your behaviour continues. You were reminded on your talk page that forums were unacceptable citations by another editor and yet you continue to edit war by reinserting text on the paypal article which clearly does not have citation. The burden of evidence is on you since you want to restore the material and you're failing to do so. Your arbcom case was very clearly decided against you and you're continuing that behaviour here.--Crossmr 04:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You selectively ignored what I said. You, yourself, are repeatedly accusing me of soapboxing and pov pushing, so don't act so innocent. You are turning this into a content dispute, which is inapproprite for AN/I--it's a bad faith accusation. You just commented on my essay on WP:RS yet again just to repeat how wrong you think I am, without contributing anything new and also bringing in this outside dispute (which has nothing to do with the wp:rs talk page) to accuse me of soapboxing and trying to get support there. If you were being honest, you'd take note that the person who commented on my talk page disagreed with you too that my edits were disruptive and even stated that the forum was notable.

YOU violated 3RR, not me, so who is the one making disruptive edits? "Edits I disagree with" is not "disruptive edits." That makes this . You're poisoning the well (I expect you to ignore this). My arbcom case was decided against me, and I acknowledged that, and I sp ecifically made the point that people aren't bothering to read through allt he claims to decide how true it is. Good job being honest and addressing what I actuallyy said, though. -Nathan J. Yoder 04:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

In fact even after being told again that forums are unacceptable sources [25]. You continue to edit in the face of policy and consensus by reverting material without the proper citation. [26]. If you are trying to draw a conclusion about whether or not a criticism is common you need a reliable source (e.g. a newspaper article) to say "This type of criticism about paypal is common". If you try to support your argument with an unreliable source (like a forum) and draw a conclusion on your own about the commonness of the criticism, you're violating WP:NOR. Even assembling a bunch of reliable sources which state a given criticism, you're still violating WP:NOR by drawing a conclusion which a reliable source doesn't draw for you. You don't have to revert more than 3 times in a 24 hour period to violate 3RR, maybe you need to not only read the policy again, but read the comment left on the complaint you made.--Crossmr 04:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

And in addition you admit to violating policy [27], yet continue to do so.--Crossmr 04:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are you ignoring the points that they made stating that you were wrong? You keep ignoring when other people point out when you're wrong, but try to rub it in my face when they agree with you. At best that's hyperbole and at worst that's a lie--I certainly never admitted that. I never admitted to violating policy. Considering WP:RS is a guideline, it would be hard to violate a policy and furthermore, arguing an exception (which is explicitly allowed) would also not be a violation of policy. Again, you're using AN/I to argue content, oh well. You are making a straw man argument, I was using the forums to determine notability of paypalsucks and the criticism therein, for the purpose of including it--I never stated that I'd include a statement saying they were common. WHat is wrong with "the people of paypalsucks.com have said...." or even just including a link to paypalsucks.com. It is absolutely necessary, by your own admission, to determine commonality of viewpoints to determine due weight. That's what I'm doing--assessing it to determine whether or not to include paypalsucks can be included, which doesn't require saying how common those criticisms are. And remember, you've already stated that it's necessary o assess commonality for NPOV--you can't backpedal. BTW, one of the reliable sources actually does say that many people hold a certain criticism, but you rejected that on the basis that the author allegedly doesn't consider it notable, which is irrelevant. Point ot the specific part of 3RR that supports you not violating it, but I think you'll refuse to do so. The comment left on the 3RR was simply that they decided not to block you, not stating that you didn't violate it. -Nathan J. Yoder 05:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

they also stated that they felt you were edit warring to in violation of 3RR even though you didn't go over 3 edits, or did you chose to ignore that?--Crossmr 05:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Who stated that and where? Are you trying to twist someone's word again? I don't recall anyone accusing me of violating 3RR. In fact, I recall that guy said that I'm not technically violating it. Can't you admit that you violated it? Please be honest. Since you started this ridiculous grudge-fest against me and are violating WP:NOT (bureaucracy section) by starting this arbcom case, I think I'll stop commenting in this place to you for a while, unless something unexpected comes up, especially considering I have made an extreme attempt to address everything you've said, and you've responded by running in circles instead of giving thoughtful responses. -Nathan J. Yoder 05:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The editor who commented agreed you were edit warring, but misinterpreted WP:3RR as he said because the reporter is also edit warring, even if not technically breaking 3RR however 3RR states you don't HAVE to commit 4 reverts in a 24 hour period to be considered breaking 3RR. But its moot since you decided to violate it last night when editing intellitxt.--Crossmr 13:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal rapid transit article, again

User:Avidor is again repeatedly adding the POV tag to the PRT article without specifying any actionable items to fix. I've asked him on the talk page to provide specifics for his concerns, and he refuses to do so, but continues to add the POV tag. This dispute has been going on for almost two years now, we've been through multiple rounds of mediation, and every line in the article has been meticulously battled over. And since I don't know what Avidor's problem is with the article, I couldn't even go to RfC if I wanted to - Avidor is the one who has the complaint but he refuses to fix it or specify what needs to be fixed.

Avidor recently opened two COI cases, neither was judged to have any merit, so he started posting his appeal on admins' talk pages - the last one (Radiant) told him to go to dispute resoution. Avidor didn't do that, and now is warring on the POV tag. I should point out that Avidor is a SPA that has never edited any article other than PRT-related articles.

I've reverted the POV twice, and I've asked him several times for specifics, but he hasn't provided any. I have no issues with the article so I can't even file an RfC, yet I'm hesitant about reverting the tag because of 3RR. Can someone please help? ATren 01:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I did that here That PRT article is full of POV pushing, weasel words, original research and uncited sources. Many of the sources are self-published and unreliable (see discussion on talk page)...Avidor 01:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Which weasel words, and which uncited sources? You've been making the same claim for 20 months without specifics. And I also believe someone told you RfC is the next step, why haven't you filed? I am asking you to stop making vague assertions of POV and please provide specifics, otherwise this is just a never-ending game. ATren 01:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

ATrens User Page: "Full disclosure: I have a blog (written as "A Transportation Enthusiast") called "Weiner Watch"... I really don't think I should have to argue with an anonymous editor who links to an attack blog on me on his user page....Avidor 02:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As an interesting side note, immediately prior to Avidor going on his latest kick, somebody with the IP address 71.222.132.52 tried to delete virtually every Wikipedia reference to PRT that they could find. Curious... 69.114.55.236 02:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That IP appears to be from Albuquerque, NM, and Avidor is located in Minnesota, so it may be just a coincidence that those edits appeared now.... ATren 03:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have posted a detailed answer to all of Avidor's stated complaints on the PRT talk page. It is my conclusion that there is nothing actionable in Avidor's complaint: every concern he raises is either (a) already covered by the article or (b) original research with absolutely no support from reliable sources. I will let this sit for the next day or so, and if nobody objects, I will remove the POV tag until Avidor can provide specific details as to his complaint. I don't wish for this 2-year-old war to be rekindled again, so I would appreciate others' suggestions as to whether this is the best approach, or if there is some other path I should take. ATren 03:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

ATren's user page refers to 'fraudulent claims made by Ken Avidor about PRT'. I suggest that this language on a user page violates policy, and ATren should remove it. Our article says that fraud is a crime, so you can't keep the phrase there without attacking Avidor. EdJohnston 04:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

On rereading what I wrote (a while back) I agree that "fraudulent" may be construed as an attack and so I've removed it. Do you have a comment on the POV tag issue? ATren 06:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'd hate to say this, but if this dispute really has lasted for two years, I'd suggest taking it to the ArbCom directly, as other methods are unlikely to help any more. I realize this is at heart a content dispute, but I've seen many allegations of misbehavior, POV-pushing, revert warring, and of general nastiness from both sites. The ArbCom also has the authority to determine conflicts of interest, if any. >Radiant< 09:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me..also include the Skytran/Unimodal PRT article, thanks...Avidor 13:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to go to ArbCom if you like. In the meantime, there is the issue of the POV tag on the PRT article - please respond to my questions on the PRT talk page or I will remove the tag. WP:NPOVD states "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies... Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." You have now applied the POV tag 3 times without giving specifics as to what is wrong, so once again, please either specify actionable items on the talk page, or I will remove the tag. Thanks. ATren 13:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Done that. ATren has vowed on his user page to "defend" this article. WP:OWN I think it's time for editors with a more neutral opinion of PRT to work on the PRT article...Avidor 14:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no connection to PRT whatsoever, financial, political, or comical. :-) I hadn't even heard of PRT until 2 years ago. For two years, you have been trying to get this page to reflect your well documented view that PRT is a scam, yet you don't provide any sources for your claims; indeed, there is a great deal of reliable evidence to oppose many of your claims. Please see the talk page, where again I have made every effort to address, in detail, each of the concerns you listed. Since your primary actionable complaint seemed to be the Skyloop article, I've added a qualification for that link, and I've removed the POV tag. Please do not edit war on the POV tag, and discuss any further actionable items you may have on the talk page. ATren 15:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Well, since both of you appear still to be in disagreement here, and both of you have stated you find arbitration an acceptable solution, I would suggest that either of you make a request on WP:RFAr. I don't think I'm sufficiently familiar with the background of this dispute to explain it to the ArbCom myself. >Radiant< 09:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom is perfectly acceptable to me, but I'm not going to file it for the simple reason that I don't have a problem with the article. If Avidor does, he can file the case. ATren 09:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No, but you do appear to have a problem with Avidor. And vice versa. >Radiant< 09:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the issue with the POV tag seems to be resolved for now, so feel free to archive this section (if nobody else objects) ATren 09:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

User Democrat4 paid to create articles in wikipedia for customers: A new MyWikiBiz?

There is an ebay user with multiple listings not unlike MyWikiBiz, offering to make articles for a fee [28] . The user, Diremine (ebay account) also Had a wikipedia account that was indefinitely blocked, now has another sockpuppet, user:Democrat4.

The evidence, showing little need for checkuser other than to make sure he or she has no other sockpuppets: Old edit on Diremine's page about a blog

And Edit with same edit summary, same owner of same blog

The user is creating articles that on the outside appear to be perfectly legitimate, but seems to be gaming the systems by carefully stylizing the articles and being careful not to break any rules, but in the end the user is just a paid editor.

An example was Gloria Irwin, which was recently deleted.

A current example is Kevin_Eggan, which is currently listed under AFD.

Just thought I'd bring this here to see what should be done. Note that in the previous case, MyWikiBiz was blocked indefinitely (twice by Jimbo, in the end by the community). Cowman109^Talk 02:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Is there any wmf policy prohibiting this that we can block him under? —Crazytales (o rly?) 02:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I went hunting with checkuser, and Diremine is the only sockpuppet I found. Raul654 02:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've indeffed per WP:SOCK. Someone please take care of the templates. Durova^Charge! 03:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I used a screen shot of that eBay auction at a recent presentation on the "SEO Reputation Problem". Somebody should complain to eBay because the seller has a very strong reputation score: 6580. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this is a sock of MyWikiBiz, just another entrepreneur with some similarities in the MO. Durova^Charge! 13:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

MWB socks are often anagrams of the phrase "Jimbo Wales Sucks" (JossBuckle Swami, MuscleJaw SobSki, etc.). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with blocking him in spirit, but as usual I question the wisdom of blocking external paid editors while permitting paid editing at WP:REWARD. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I cannot remember where it was, but there was discussion about the principle of allowing (third party) editing. I believe it was generally agreed that if the editing didn't violate any policy or guideline it would be no different than volunteer authored work and therefore valid. The only possible problem would be WP:COI but if it was undetectable in the work then it isn't really a concern. LessHeard vanU 20:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This editor is committing a fraud upon eBay by promising things that violate site policies and that this person cannot guarantee. Durova^Charge! 05:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Allgoodnamesalreadytaken: Abuse of Warning Templates, Stalking

I made a SSP case against User:Allgoodnamesalreadytaken, and as part of following the instructions, put an SSP tag on the relevant pages. He called that vandalism and slapped a vandalism tag on my Talk page. I restored SSP tag, and requested that he follow WP policy of leaving it there for 10 days. I gave a link to the relevant policy if you are suspected in sockpuppetry. He slapped another vandalism tag on my Talk page (and deleted the SSP tag). I tried one more time, and he put another vandalism tag on my Talk page. I now have 3 vandalism tags on my Talk page from this user, even though I committed no vandalism, and actually just tried to follow the WP instructions.

He is also stalking me. I added a comment to an incident report here about User:Reinis (now archived) and he immediately added an attack against me to that section. I made a comment about whether policy and practice were properly aligned regarding SSP cases, and he immediately added an attack there [29]. I am not averse to flame wars, but I don't think Wikipedia is the place. If this continues, and there is no aparent way for WP to stop it, maybe I should just let him have it (???).Bsharvy 05:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

On the SSP case, it was closed with

"Gtadoc and Allgoodnamesalreadytaken say they know each other in real life, and Allgoodnamesalreadytaken states in this very case that Gtadoc asked him to comment on an article. These are exactly the sorts of circumstances that point to a violation of Wikipedia policy on meatpuppets (if not sockpuppets), but I don't see any evidence of an actual violation--for instance, there's no evidence of joint participation in AfDs or other types of "voting". Therefore, there's no reason to block either account."

Therefore, there's no use to add the tag on the userpage, as Akhilleus had already commented and closed it. As for the wikistalking, it might be best for you to just ignore him. For the vandalism warnings, feel free to remove them or archive them. Cheers. —D_arkF_alls ^talk 11:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to ignore the vandalism tags and the stalking. I want it to stop. What is the point of WP having rules against disruptive behavior if the rules are ignored? False accusations of vandalism are personal attacks; wikistalking is disruptive. The behavior here is repetitive and disruptive. Does WP have a way of handling it or not? What happens if everybody engages in this sort of behavior? Hm?Bsharvy 21:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

An important thing to remember is that the best way to stop personal attacks is to ignore them. The vandalism tags are meaningless; you have committed no vandalism. Remove them, but do not say to the other user "I have removed your vandalism tags because they're false", as this will only further the debate's progress toward a nasty end. Remember, the other user is not a sockpuppeteer or a sock puppet. They have not used multiple accounts abusively, and have not had other accounts maliciously side with them in any debate. What they have done is lashed out because they felt offended by you placing SSP tags in their userspace. I am not saying you were wrong in doing this, just that not interacting with the user in any way is the best possible way to move this forward. Hope this helps, Arky ^¡Hablar! 21:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You can't ignore them if they are the result of following WP procedure. I put the SSP tags on his page because the steps for filing a SSP report said to do so, and as a result he put vandalism tags on my page. Your advice may be good in most cases, but when the abuse comes from trying to follow a mandated WP policy, it is more serious. There were two choices: ignore WP policy about SSP tags, or follow it and received vandalism tags. Is that OK with admins? Also, the user is very defiitely a sock-puppet. I have probably spent hours dealing with him (and the puppet) in a controversial topic, so I'm sure I know the case better than the admin who closed it. Bsharvy 04:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It may not be clear, but the SSP tags can be removed if the SSP case has been rejected or closed with the user proven innocent; the former being the case. The SSP steps are not policy. merely a set of guideline about what to do when a user is suspected. It needs to be acted alongside common sense. Also, vandalism warnings are not a golden ticket for blocking, they are used to notify users of suspected wrongdoing. If there is no wrongdoing, a user just removes the warnings and ignores. If you are convinced of sockpuppetry take the case to WP:RFCU. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 06:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course they can be removed if the conclusion is that there is no sockpuppetry (but, the user was not "proven" innocent; an admin decided the case didn't warrant blocking, and showed no interest in anything else). I'm not sure what you are saying. The steps to be followed were instructions. Whether instructions are technically policy seems unimportant. I will rephrase the problem, see if it changes the problem... "There were two choices: ignore WP instructions, or follow them and receive vandalism tags." Is that acceptable to WP? Bsharvy 08:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

All sockpuppets are to be blocked under WP:BLOCK#Disruption, and if they were not blocked, then it is safe to conclude that the admin did not feel that there was sockpuppetry. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 09:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Overstock.com/WordBomb/Judd Bagley

I've just blocked 65.116.112.0/21, which is an IP range (a) owned by Overstock.com (b) widely used by them for spamming, COI editing and attempted intimidation of administrators dealing with them. I strongly suggest against unblocking this range under any circumstances; requested unblocks should probably be run past the ArbCom, who are very aware of Bagley/Overstock's odious work, before acting - David Gerard 13:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I copied your message to Category:Requests for unblock, to advertise it a bit. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The spam problem will get plenty of attention on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam --Hu12 16:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I only get one IP (65.116.112.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) from that range that has edited the project. Tagged it accordingly--Hu12 16:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

David Gerard is a checkuser so if he says that range has been used abusively, he probably knows what he is talking about. Thatcher131 16:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

And I've verified the finding. There are worse things than spammers. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean like Suppressive Persons or Unpersons? That seems to be how that guy is regarded by the WikiClique, resulting in actions being taken against anything to do with him without permitting anything resembling discussion or debate... you know, the sort in which there is more than one side allowed to present their case? *Dan T.* 17:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Bagley's case is that he's been stalking people with quite some viciousness for commercial gain. He even got writeups in the NYT and NY Post, so I can state he's an odious stalking arsehole with Reliable Sources! I urge you to start reading up - he's really at a new and exciting level of odiousness - David Gerard 18:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest, Dan, that you research before knee-jerk reacting. Informed opposition tends to be given a lot more respect than reflexive opposition. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What I've seen is that there's a big pissing contest that's been going on for years between the guy at Overstock and a guy at Wikipedia, with some other people involved too, and the whole thing has generally proceeded with the maturity level of junior high school, and the dignity level of monkeys flinging feces at one another, and has generated much more heat than light. Each side postures about being knights in shining armor saving the world from dastardly evil-doers, and likes to slant the playing field so that only their side gets to be heard. Frankly, Wikipedia would be better off rid of everybody in this dispute, regardless of which side they're on. *Dan T.* 23:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

And I'm supposed to get balanced information on the dispute, in order to be well informed, how? On Wikipedia, where the topic seems to be taboo, and barely mentioned in polite company, and a lot of the relevant stuff has been reverted, deleted, or maybe even oversighted, and pretty much everybody from the POV opposing the clique here is banned? On the infamous "attack sites", where you can see lots of relevant info, but it's probably mostly bullshit? Perhaps in the New York Post (mentioned above in this thread), which from what I've seen of it (a co-worker of mine is an avid reader of it and brings it to work every day) is a sleazy tabloid not all that much above the National Enquirer in the area of providing objective journalism? *Dan T.* 00:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to do your homework for you in this case. And obviously I have no power to stop any admin undoing the block should they seriously consider it unrighteous. However, I do suggest that, in the case of receiving an apparently reasonable unblock request, they forward it to the arbitration committee rather than undoing it themselves - David Gerard 15:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• overstock.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

The link however does seem to be a problem--Hu12 16:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I used virgil's wikiscanner, however reliable that is. LOL. --Hu12 17:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I got the IP range by doing a whois on an IP used by a pile of obvious overstock.com socks - David Gerard 18:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the arin output:

>whois -h whois.arin.net overstock.com

[Querying whois.arin.net] [whois.arin.net] Overstock.com (OVERST) OVERSTOCK.COM (OVERS-2) Overstock.com (AS25655) OSTK-COM 25655 Overstock.com USW-OVERSTOCK-3 (NET-216-160-9-16-1) 216.160.9.16 - 216.160.9.23 OVERSTOCK.COM Q0909-65-116-112-0 (NET-65-116-112-0-1) 65.116.112.0 - 65.116.119.255 Overstock.com SNGLDG-OVERSTOCK-NET-1 (NET-68-142-145-176-1) 68.142.145.176 - 68.142.145.191

1. ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2007-09-03 19:10
2. Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.

They have been very naughty. A good case for localy (en. only) blacklisting the url. The links realy don't have a place on the project outside Overstock.com's article. --Hu12 22:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't run across Overstock.com's nasty Wikipedia work; I've only read about it in the newspapers and blogs.[30] When it becomes that famous, IP range blocking is a good start. And when the IP range block is noted in a blog,[31] there probably is more work to do. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Deliberate, repeated violation of WP:BLP by User:Sesmith + incivility

I recently noted that User talk:Sesmith had, contrary to WP:BLP#Categories, made large numbers of additions to categories such as Category:Latter Day Saint entertainers, Category:Latter Day Saint artists, Category:American Latter Day Saints etc., despite providing no citations from reliable, published sources to justify the subjects' inclusion in the categories, and despite the fact that the subjects' supposed religious affiliation often played little or no part in the reasons for their notariety.

I pointed out to User:Sesmith with a friendly reminder that WP:BLP#Categories requires that: "the case for the category must be made clear by the article text"; [t]he article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced"; "[c]ategory tags regarding religious beliefs... should not be used unless two criteria are met:

• The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief... in question;
• The subject's beliefs... are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources."

None (or very few) of his additions to these categories, as far as I could ascertain, satisfied any of these criteria, let alone all of them: there was usually no mention of the subject's religious affiliation in the article text, which is a requirement. The absence of such information in the body of the article also tends to suggest that "the subject's beliefs" were not "relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life." As well, of course, the requirement "these facts must be sourced" from "reliable published sources" was completely unmet.

User:Sesmith responded with a dismissive note inviting me to be more specific. He deleted my notice from his talk page with an edit summary that suggested he was already familiar with the policy. I took his request for greater specificity at face value, and responded with a selection of the offending inclusions and citations of the relevant portions of WP:BLP to make it clear what was at issue.

User:Sesmith responded[32][33][34] with a hostile note asserting, essentially, that he was already aware of the policy, and claiming that the violations were negligible and anyway (for some reason) not his responsibility because they were part of a "batch update" and were ancillary to category additions by previous editors -- implicitly conceding that in spite of being aware that they violated WP:BLP#Categories, he had made such changes to, in his words, "hundreds" of articles.

I responded by saying that he is responsible for his own edits, reiterated that the edits violated WP:BLP#Categories, and pointed out that he had created a large mess he should now clean up, and that he could consider removing any similar violations he might find in the articles which now required cleaning up. User:Sesmith deleted my message with an abusive and uncivil edit summary.

Not only did User:Sesmith not revert his improper additions to these categories, he actually restored[35][36][37] specific ones I had mentioned as being violations and had removed -- again, evidently in full knowledge that doing so violated WP:BLP#Categories.

He then proceeded to the article List of Latter Day Saints, an article likewise afflicted with large numbers of unsourced claims about religious affiliation, and is the subject of a notice on the BLP noticeboard. I have been in the process of moving through the list removing entries involving living people where no citation from a reliable, published source justifies keeping them on the list and had explained the rationale here. User:Sesmith, who now appears to be following me around, intervened in the exchange with this uncivil and abusive response and then promptly restored all the violations to the list -- now without any doubt deliberately and in the full knowledge that restoring these entries violates WP:BLP. (Admin User:Jossi has since deleted the offending entries, and placed a warning against restoring them on the article talk page).

In my opinion, User:Sesmith:

• Should face a block for disruption (specifically, "persistently posting material contrary to the biographies of living persons policy") for:
  • deliberately and repeatedly violating WP:BLP, and in particular WP:BLP#Categories, in spite of having a clear understanding of the policy.
  • his repeated abusiveness and incivility ("ignoramus," "anal," "on a personal power trip" and so forth).

• Should be instructed to cease his incivility in the future or face the possibility of further blocks.

• Should be prevented from editing articles in this subject area unless he can commit to observing WP:BLP henceforth, and should face a longer-term block in the event he resumes violating the policy.

--Rrburke^(talk) 17:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you give us the Cliff's Notes version of the above discussion? Raymond Arritt 17:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll try:

He did this, this, and this after I told him here that doing so violated this. Doing it after being informed of the policy, which he said he already knew anyway, means that he did it deliberately, knowing that the edits were violations.

He claims to have made similar edits to "hundreds" of articles,[38][39][40] and in that last set of diffs implicitly acknowledges he was already aware of the policy, which confirms he was not acting ignorantly, simply ignoring the policy.

If more confirmation were actually needed that he engages in deliberate violations, he restored a whole host of WP:BLP violations with this edit, long after he'd been informed of the policy (the edits were later removed as WP:BLP violations by an admin in this edit) and after reading and participating in this discussion -- so he is not just violating the policy in question, he's repeatedly violating it actively and deliberately, and presumably plans to go on doing so.

He's also abusive and uncivil, as this edit summary and this edit, for example, make clear.

But the long version is better :) --Rrburke^(talk) 18:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If people making mechanical category changes (category renames/merges, etc) are to be held responsible for the categorizations of every article they touch, nothing will ever get done (except, possibly, deletion) at CFD. Why not go further and say that ANY violation of ANY policy in ANY part of an article is the responsibility of the last editor who touched it, even if they didn't insert it. This is essentially the same as holding someone who edits a template responsible for a pre-existing BLP-violating transclusion of that template. --Random832 19:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

A further question - why is it that BLP#Categories applies to ALL categories whereas BLP itself applies only to "contentious" material? This even seems to apply to stub sorting: Picking an article at random, Joe_Allen_Evyagotailak provides no sources for the claim that its subject is canadian, or that he is a politician. Or for that matter that he was born in 1953, that he's Inuit, that he's from Kitikmeot Region, or anything else the categories say. I'm not going to violate WP:POINT by actually removing the categories, but CLEARLY there is something wrong with WP:BLP#Categories as it stands. --Random832 19:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a live issue in this case: this case is these about improper additions of categories to individual articles -- lots of them -- not about changes to the categories themselves. --Rrburke^(talk) 20:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The letter of BLP#Categories (and this complaint is definitely sticking to the letter in some of those cases) forbid ANY unsourced categories, which severely impacts stub sorting (no, this is not a case of stub sorting, the point is it's a clear example why the rule is messed up). And, the words that he's twisted into "admitting that he's deliberately violating BLP" (those words, incidentally, constitute no such admission) are clearly a case of (regardless of if it's true), him claiming that he's applying something akin to a category naming convention change rather than actively categorizing articles. --Random832 22:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "sticking to the letter": this is about as cut-and-dried an example of violating the policy in question as I can imagine: the policy requires that if you're going to add a living person to the category Religion X, the article text must also say the person belongs to Religion X. These (and a great many more I didn't include -- "hundreds" according to the editor himself) didn't. The policy requires that a reliable published source be provided to corroborate that the person actually belongs to Religion X. These didn't.

The policy is especially precise about category tags claiming religious affiliation: they "should not be used" unless "the subject publicly self-identifies with the belief" and "[t]he subject's beliefs... are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life," with the requirement of verifiability: "according to reliable published sources." A great many of these category tags were added to articles on sports figures and entertainers, and so didn't satisfy any of the criteria -- and all of them need to be satisfied. Also, no sources were cited. Adding a category tag for Religion X to an article about a baseball player, when the article itself doesn't even mention the player's religion, let alone contain a quote establishing "self-identification" together with an inline cite, fails every one of the criteria -- and there were lots of examples just like this one: Roy Halladay.

I have to say I take some exception to the claim that I've "twisted" anything into anything else, if that's supposed to imply some intention to mislead. First, I never used the words "admitting that he's deliberately violating BLP" -- those are your words, not mine. If you're going to claim that I'm "twisting" something, please at least quote me accurately. I sent a short note to the editor on the assumption he was violating the policy innocently, asking him to remember to observe WP:BLP#Categories. He replied, "I always do, thx." So I gather from that he's already familiar with the policy, and was familiar with it when he made these "hundreds" of similar edits -- which is a different thing altogether from violating it innocently. If he then continues violating it, it can't be because he's never heard of it. Even if he had never heard of it, I then, in response to his request for greater specificity, quoted the relevant portion of the policy and gave specific examples of edits of his -- a few among "hundreds" of similar edits -- that violated the policy.

After you've had the policy cited to you and been given specific examples detailing edits that violated it, if you go ahead and do the same thing again, you're violating the policy deliberately, in full knowledge of what you're doing -- even if you hadn't already acknowledged you were familiar with the policy to begin with, which this editor did. And it's not a question of misinterpretation or different people having different understandings of the policy, because WP:BLP#Categories is a very straightforward and uncomplicated couple of sentences with a handful of easy-to-understand criteria.

You seem not to like WP:BLP. Naturally, that's fine and I respect it. I'm sure plenty of people agree with you. But your responses appear to confuse your dislike of the policy with the question of whether it was violated in this instance, matters which don't really have anything to do with each other. --Rrburke^(talk) 11:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, it seems pretty obvious to me that "the facts supporting a category's inclusion MUST be sourced" (even if they're not contentious) is one of those rules that only applies if someone has it in for you. --Random832 22:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't seem at all obvious to me, and the issue seems pretty straightforward: "these facts must be sourced" in this instance merely means that in order to add a living person somebody to the category Religion X, the person in question has to have said "I belong to Religion X," and a reliable source has to be cited to prove he or she actually said it. This is a simple question of verifiability, a core policy -- with the added burden to get it right that WP:BLP places. --Rrburke^(talk) 11:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

edit warring, sock, incivility, etc...

59.91.254.20 (talk · contribs), apparently a banned user, edit warring at Romila Thapar with Ankush135 (talk · contribs), apparently a new user. topped with incivilities ... etc. Doldrums 17:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have tagged the user as a suspected sockpuppet since the ip claims he is User:Kuntan and has a similar ip address to his other sockpuppets. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 18:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

59.91.254.20 (talk · contribs) is certainly Kuntan, but it's worth noting that in posts on my talk page he's accusing User:Ankush135 of editing from an open proxy User:203.112.84.138, and also being a sock of User:Bharatveer. I have no idea if either of these things are true, but someone else might want to check it out. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP address for a week. Picaroon (t) 18:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion

DCBMSNB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a sock of the permanently banned Float954 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Skarth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (same SPA topics).

He appears to have made a brief revisit as an anon 'bad hand' 85.74.181.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to repeat nuisance edit pattern of removing tags from a range of Salamis articles (and vandalize the page of the editor who had placed the tags [41]) then come back immediately as DCBMSNB to edit those same articles. See identical edit pattern at Ampelakia, Agios Georgios, Salamis etc.

Does anyone have any ideas on how to handle this long-term? While registered edits can be tackled as and when they appear, the main problem is that this editor is using revolving IP addresses to keep obstructing cleanup on this block of articles. Gordonofcartoon 22:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

User:88.86.31.1

88.86.31.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is clearly a sockpuppet of blocked CoCoWaWa (talk · contribs). The IP has now been blocked three times for a period of 24 hours each time. They've said they'll be returning. Any chance this IP address can be blocked for a longer period of time? Corvus cornix 19:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I extended the block to 1 week and fully protected the CoCoWaWa userpage from editing. Edit: Avraham extended the block even further.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I think the blatantness of the sockpuppet entry called for a longer block. I'm late here because I was asking this to be checked at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. The ISP resolves to Syria while some DNS info is returning Jordan. This may be perfectly fine, but I'd prefer it checked by our experts. -- Avi 19:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Geogre and Peachoid

It's just odd - There is a dead image link on this page that three different editors have removed, but User:Geogre is edit-warring to keep it in there. He huffs that we don't ask the reason why he wants it, thus we "cannot get our way." Serious ownership issues with this page. --David Shankbone 20:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• With incivility and personal attacks. [42] --David Shankbone 20:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, please don't tell on me! I'm so ashamed. I was found to be unpleasant, and that's just shocking given the 3RR gaming you're doing. Geogre 20:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The personal attacks are continuing, as is the incivility. --David Shankbone 20:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Or

Or, the image people tagged an image and then a bunch of -bots deleted it. -Bots then went to remove the link from articles. I disagreed both with the deletion of the image and the idea that a human being might not be able to find the image with its legitimate source. Since the image (and people never, ever, ever seem to be able to read articles) that was lost showed the artifact at the time of its construction (fruited fields and nothing else) and all others are user-generated photos from the current day (neon parking lots), and since the entire point of the photo was not to illustrate what an article already described quite well, but to demonstrate that folly architecture can have an economic impact, I did not believe that removing the link was fruitful, since its presence reminded me and the two other people who (get this, folks!) actually work on the article to go find a free image or the source of the imperiously deleted image.

Now, has anyone asked me why I wanted a dead link? No. Has anyone brought up the issue on the talk page? Not until today. I received a scolding and arrogant message from the ever-delightful user:Angr explaining to me that I should never interfere with the vital work of the image squad, but not a word on Talk:Peachoid until today. So, if there are other people who work on the text of the article, how have they been made aware of the issues involved? They haven't! If there is a need to call out for more searches for the original, how have they been made? They haven't! All we have is -bots, then -bot fiends, reverting, and no one discussing anything. "Why would they," DavidShankbone asks. Indeed. Why, on earth, would anyone bother to ask? Why on earth would anyone enter into a discussion with a long time user who happened to write the article?

Oh, that's right: it's what we're supposed to do to prevent edit wars! Until people learn to talk rather than revert, I can and should be as imperious, because I have neither motive nor invitation to be otherwise. Geogre 20:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

---

There are two things wrong here. First that I can see is the inappropriate use of administrator rollback. Second is the wheel warring over the deletion of Image:Peach2.gif.

• 10:24, 1 September 2007 Angr (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Peach2.gif" ‎ (I4 (no source given))
• 21:08, 31 August 2007 Geogre (Talk | contribs) restored "Image:Peach2.gif" ‎ (8 revision(s) and 1 file(s) restored: USgovt PD; Please learn to READ)
• 19:22, 31 August 2007 Angr (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Peach2.gif" ‎ (In category Images with unknown source s of 23 August 2007; no source)
• 02:46, 23 August 2007 Geogre (Talk | contribs) restored "Image:Peach2.gif" ‎ (4 revision(s) and 1 file(s) restored: It HAD licensure, USgovt PD, but those tags got removed in all the bot frenzy; if PEOPLE read these things, it might work out better)
• 15:56, 22 August 2007 Cholmes75 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Peach2.gif" ‎ (In category Images with unknown source as of 14 August 2007; no source)

If this image really has a source, why is it being repeatedly deleted? This needs to be discussed. Burntsauce 21:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does need to be discussed. I would like some time to try to find it. I was not the source of the thing, or we'd never have this issue, but it was editorially important. It is imperative that a shot from a light up parking lot from 2007 not be employed in that spot. Therefore, if people want to play games and try to lock the article, lock it with no image displayed there. I've left it now with the images commented out. They could even be put in comment fields, for all I care, but no one discussed. No one was willing to find out why I wanted that placeholder. No one would extend the slightest bit of faith to someone who has a pretty sterling record in these matters, and I can't help but find that offensive and churlish. Geogre 21:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Keeping a dead link in an article is frankly bizarre. Secretlondon 21:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No one disagrees with that. I want to know why it was being deleted. Does it have a valid source or not? It would be best to settle this and move on so the article can be unprotected. Burntsauce 21:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it hasn't got a source, that's the whole point. And that's also why Geogre's whole anger is so misguided. Why are people not discussing with him? Because there is nothing to discuss. The image has no source, it must be deleted, period. Why he wants it, why he thinks it's valuable for the article, that's all unfortunately completely irrelevant. The only question - to him - is: what's the source? Once somebody brings that, the issue is solved. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The source appears to be [43]. The image was originally tagged PD-US-Gov, but since there was no source it was a valid deletion. The source makes the PD-US-Gov tag suspect, the site is the Gaffney web site and is copyright noticed to the webmaster I think, works of local governments are not automatically public domain as works of the Federal Government are. It's too bad Geogre didn't try a non-free but fair use rationale based on the fact that this is a photo of the peachoid before development around it and thus can not be replaced with a free version. Wheel-warring, of course, sucks, but Arbcom doesn't seem to care lately. Thatcher131 21:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that is the source. The Gaffney site has stolen liberally from Wikipedia. I know this because, when I wrote the first draft of the Peachoid, I went to the Gaffney, SC page, and it had almost no illustration. It had a good enough description of the project, and that was my major source, but the image was added by another user, and I liked it precisely because it seemed to show the water tower long before any of the Gaffney photos. Gaffney has now grabbed much from us and copyrighted it (stupidly, because, of course, it is not really copyrighted, but merely the web designer's automatic copyright). This is what has kept me from being able to clear up the provenance of the image. This isn't about the image (this AN/I posting) but about being treated with utmost scorn by people who refuse to discuss matters and insist merely that their -bot overlords must be obeyed. Geogre 21:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Most confusing to me is that the Peachoid article has plenty of images to begin with, so I'm not sure why we need to fret about one that doesn't even have valid sourcing information. Oh well. Burntsauce 21:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well they are clearly showing different things. Also at least two of the photos have time and date stamps. Secretlondon 21:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The site Thatcher links to includes a disclaimer on the front page that it's "maintained and owned" by a private individual, and not the City of Gaffney. Which suggests even more strongly that this image, should it have originated there, is not a public domain work. --InkSplotch 21:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It isn't about wheel warring or anything else. I have said it and said it: my "anger" is at people not willing to discuss matters. Treated with reverts, I reverted. Geogre 21:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, there are "plenty of images," and absolutely none of them does what is needed in that position. This is my editorial stance. No one even seems to understand what is needed in terms of illustration. It is precisely because the article has gobs of gaudy pictures of cartoonish aspect that it needs a Govt photo of the structure immediately after construction. There is no significance to the Peachoid at all (it's way, way below my standards) except that it had an effect. I do not write articles about things that are just neato. Geogre 21:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Take a deep breath please. You just broke admin policy by revert-warring on a protected page; I'm sure you broke 3RR in the process... there really is no justification for this. The way you're going, you're heading for desysopping. Much as I would hate to see that, believe me. And on the matter itself, I repeat what I said just above: there is nothing to discuss. No source, delete, period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was simply removing the protection which had been applied in contravention of policy. The article was not reverted. Indeed, no one has offered a single rationale for the image that you placed in the lead. Furthermore, there has been no wheel war over the image. Of course the image is gone, and I do hope you're actually reading this exchange. No one has been disputing the presence of the image. The reverting of people who revert without discussion is absolutely not a 3RR violation, and if you believe that there is some kind of sanction, you go ahead. I do ask, though, that you save yourself the bother by disentangling these issues and clearly understanding them.

1. You applied protection without discussion, without listing the page.
2. You reverted to a form of the page that had a particular image in the lead and that removed a dead link.
3. No discussion took place on the talk page to justify this change.
4. To be neutral, I undid your mistaken (I hope) breaking of policy by unprotecting and, to keep anyone from having the upper hand while the matter was being discussed here, commented out both the dead link and the oddly substituted image.
5. This was not a reversion to "my" form. It was a neutral form that simply had no displayed image in the lead.

I remind you that discussion is necessary, and you have not offered a single byte to the discussion before the threat, above. Do, please, take care. Geogre 21:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Geogre, could you please provide the diff where Fut. Perf., "reverted to a form of the page that had a particular image in the lead and that removed a dead link."? And why is discussion necessary before protecting a page over which editors are, for good or ill, revert-warring over? --Iamunknown 21:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Why? You got me. It is the policy, however, because protection is not supposed to be used lightly. Take a look through the history. The dead link was to "Peach2." The one that shouldn't be in the lead is the one from the stupid Fatz parking lot. If there cannot be a meaningful photo that will add to the significance of the object, then there really doesn't need to be a picture at all. We shouldn't be making pages to show off kewel places. Geogre 21:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, from your fourth sentence on, I'm lost. You say that the protection of pages should not be done lightly. I agree. I would argue more, however, that edit warring is even worse than page protection, and that page protection is a necessary evil to attempt to stop edit wars. However, that was blown right out of the water once you edited the protected page, but I digress... --Iamunknown 01:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Geogre must be seriously misreading the edit history there. I made a standard protection on the "wrong version", with no changes except for the standard protection tag. [44]. Geogre then edited, while the page was protected, re-introducing the redlink to his image and thus essentially reverting to his version (while incidentally also deactivating the other image) [45]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• The question is: why does Geogre need a dead link on an article while he tries to find a source? Why is that necessary? --David Shankbone 21:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The question? You want to ask now? I hope we don't weary of your postings to AN/I, then, because you should have been asking long ago. Geogre 21:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • Restored with an appropriate fair use rationale. I would like to think that Geogre had better reasons for wanting a dead link in the article than just making a point about image deletions and license tags and people who overuse templates. Thatcher131 21:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Editors aren't required, or even expected, to ask the motivations of other editors who continue to make questionable edits. It is up to that editor to explain their "motivations". This seems to more about an editor needing attention, than any dispute over adding broken links. Crazysuit 21:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
        • The contact address for http://www.gaffney-sc.com/Waterpeach.htm is gaffney-sc (at) gaffney-sc.com. Would someone like to email them to ask where they obtained their images? Even if they copied the image from us (Wikipedia) initially, we still need to provide a reliable source which documents this image as being in the public domain. Burntsauce 21:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

IMO that isn't a very good fair use rationale. Perhaps this free image could serve the same encyclopedic purpose - that is, show the peachoid in a non-developed location. --Iamunknown 21:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrong peach. Thatcher131 21:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops! --Iamunknown 21:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If Geogre believes that the image was not originally on the Gaffney web site then it needs to be deleted as no source. I'm not sure why he thinks this image should be exempt from the normal rules. Thatcher131 21:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't. It's not about the image. I wanted a dead link so that I could go look for the original. By having the dead link, even in a comment field, I could be sure of the file name, so I could not forget what I was looking for. Since it's a low traffic page, and since I am reliable, I figured that I'd give myself about 48 hours to look. If I couldn't find anything by that point, I would take a second look to see what we needed to do. I do not think that a contemporary photo is a good idea, but I was going to (there's that word again) discuss it with the others who have worked on the page to take their temperature. However, none of that would be allowed. Well, revert without discussion, and you're creating conflict. It's that simple, and I should very much like it if the image -bot minders realized it. It's probably a lost cause, globally, but perhaps one on one they might reconsider their bad behavior. I see now that even that was too much to hope for. Wikipedia is not about discussion any more. It's about projects and -bots and templates and tags and hierarchies of obedient little users and the mighty. Geogre 21:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• WTH? I just realised Geogre is an admin?! Personal attacks, edit warring, disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point... how do these people become admins? I would suggest and support the removal of Geogre's admin status , this behavior is bad enough from an editor, but totally unacceptable from an admin. Crazysuit 21:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• • You are entirely uninformed about me, but now you're totally informed about me? Gorsh. Geogre 21:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, people need to take deep breaths here. Thatcher's adding the appropriate fair-use tagging to the image is an important and helpful step that may help move this seeming tempest-in-a-teapot toward a resolution. I see little reason for the level of hostility present in this thread. I agree with Geogre that image-taggers and other editors should discuss their actions when other users express concerns about their actions, but I would also submit that it is in order for an editor with a concern to begin the discussion himself or herself, before bitterly faulting other users for failing to discuss. Newyorkbrad 21:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me as if Geogre has been consistently trying to begin discussion. Several editors have been quite rude here, and Geogre is not one of them. All problems above seem to stem from action without discussion. Purples 22:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it started when Geogre got into a 9-day long revert war with some image removal bots rather than address the problem with the image that was causing the bots to remove it. Thatcher131 22:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll try and avoid a useless squabble, suffice to say I disagree. Purples 22:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

One thing for future reference is that it is far too easy for Wikipedia's processes to help people steal copyright. One of the steps in the process is images being deleted as unsourced or as "copyvios". When we have unsourced images (or indeed text), we quite rightly demand rigorous sourcing and copyright information. What we must be wary of doing is not requiring others to do the same. The mere claim of copyright on another website is insufficient to demonstrate that that website actually holds the copyright to the text or image. They must be able to demonstrate that they hold the copyright by providing a certain minimum of information (usually the date of the photograph and the identity of the photographer). Failure to do this makes a claim of copyright suspect, and probably unenforceable. I'm not going to comment on the behaviour of the people involved here, as that is distracting from the real issues. Carcharoth 23:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Who cares about what image is used for pubic hair, as long as we don't let the HMOs privatize Wikipedia's health care, I'm feeling alright! El_C 23:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The reverting is truly weird for one reason: the text could easily have been hidden. Use <!--Image, Blah blah--> and nobody sees it. *Shrugs.* Marskell 15:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Him

This user has been attacking me for no reason making false statements I agreed that I will comprise but they haven't shown any signals of editor editing and making articles more neutral. Also this user falsely makes accusations against other users including me I never edit warred that is not my intention while he states that, please show me where I revert warred. [46] --Hu1lee 23:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• In the whole article he says I edit war I only did this I added it personally. [47] --Hu1lee 23:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem at Intelligent design and associated articles

IfD's concerning the display of non-free book covers in the above were recently closed by Nv8200p, with the decision that the images would be removed from certain usages. However, it appears that the editors at the articles involved disagreed with the close, but are simply reverting the closing admin's edits rather than take the decision to a deletion review. There are also reversions taking place at the image pages themselves. This has resulted in some multi-sided reversions. The images are Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg and Image:Darwin on Trial.jpg; the affected articles are Intelligent design, Irreducible complexity, and Phillip E. Johnson. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely IfD shouldn't have jurisdiction over editorial decisions over usage of non free images? That should be a question for something like Wikipedia:Media copyright questions? I thought there was a specific place to discuss usage of non free pics (as opposed to deletion of such pics), but couldn't find it. Carcharoth 00:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That's part of the problem. WP:FUR is the closest we have that I know of, but it's really just a place for people to ask questions about non-free media use, and doesn't have any authority to make binding decisions. IfD has, in the past, made decisions on restricting usages of particular images as opposed to simply deleting them, I don't think that's been controversial until now. (In the same way that AfD might direct a merge, or a change to a disambig or redirect, as opposed to article deletion.) Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) For an example of this type of IfD closure, see Image:John Cleese.jpg. I think it's appropriate when some usages of an image comply with policy, and some don't. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I like that. Maybe that kind of process should be standardised into policy? What happens though when circumstances change? How would such a decision be reviewed? Carcharoth 00:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:FUR is what I was thinking of, thanks. As for your AfD example, AfD may direct a merge, disambig, or redirect, but in reality those are all editorial decisions. What AfD does is say "keep the title, let the editors decide what happens to the text under the title", and discussion then continues back at the talk page of the article. This is a well-established principle at AfD. Carcharoth 00:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

IfDs are generally populated by people who are very active in image cleanup and have a good understanding of the image policy. Article talk pages are populated by people interested in a particular article, who may or may not know or care a lot about image policy. (In the case of this article, a fair use image of a living person had been there for a while, with no protests from the regular editors, fair use images had been added to the article talk page, and when it was pointed out that they should be linked, not displayed, the person who added them said he disagreed with that, but wouldn't object if someone else changed them to links, and finally, the editor who added them had a draft of the article in his own user space for a few weeks, with the fair use images.) It's perfectly normal that the article editors protest against the removal of the images. I've seen it happen in numerous articles. This case was unusual, because the editor who originally added a fair use disputed tag to the images was reverted repeatedly by article editors, so he nominated them for deletion instead. However, he didn't actually think they should be deleted; he just wanted them removed from the articles where he felt (and most of the "regulars" in image work felt) that they didn't fulfil WP:NFCC#8. So he nominated them for deletion, stating that what he really wanted was to nominate them from "removal" from the articles where they didn't belong. Interestingly, another one that he nominated was only in intelligent design, so, even though lots of intelligent design editors voted to keep, the closing admin gave more weight to the arguments that it didn't fulfil NFCC#8, and deleted. There was no wheelwarring. But when the closing admin in the case of images that were to be removed and not deleted removed the images from the article, he was reverted.

See the following:

• Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#Intelligent_design
• Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_August_21#Image:Darwin_on_Trial.jpg
• Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_August_21#Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg
• Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_August_19#Image:Time_evolution_wars.jpg

ElinorD (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Another image in the same bag is Image:Pandas and ppl.jpg, which wasn't IfD'd simply because the "fair use disputed" tag wasn't removed until recently. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

True, but deciding whether an image should be used in an article is a content dispute, not an XfD issue. It seems like something like dispute resolution is needed here. This is edit warring over the inclusion or not of an image, regardless of the reason for the dispute. Carcharoth 00:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Panda image is in the same bag. I believe it's quite normal to nominate an image for deletion based on the fact (or opinion) that it doesn't fulfil WP:NFCC (particularly no. 8). However, normally if the closing admin deletes, that's it, unless there's a bit of wheelwarring. Or perhaps it goes to deletion review. In this case, the closing admin did not delete, because it was felt that the images were valid fair use in the articles about the books. So the image still exists, and the admin who closed the IfD is now being reverted when he removes the images from articles. ElinorD (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Great, now the closing admin has been templated by User:Orangemarlin. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

And do I feel good about it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

New derived rule for this kind of conflict: if there's a conflict between actual editors on a page, and some central point, the actual editors "on the ground" win, or at least get the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not simply making this up, by the way. It's a simple logical conclusion from the existence of both wikipedia being an encyclopedia , and not being a bureaucracy.

--Kim Bruning 01:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC) in summary: Encyclopedian beats bureaucrat O:-)

Even if it goes against the Foundation's policy and our own? Local consensus doesn't overrule the broader consensus of policy. Striking digression, this is about whether an admin's decision should be ignored (or possibly wheel-warred, I'm unclear if any reverters are admins. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It's fun when people quote your own words! :-) This is exactly true. So even though the folks at Intelligent Design might win out against IFD, they still might not win out against the codification written by Mindspillage and Eloquence. <scratches head> Perhaps the compromise here is that some discussion can be held on the article talk page, to find replacement images? <ducks> --Kim Bruning 01:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Striking response to digression. If someone is not using their admin tools, they are acting as a normal editor (so no wheel-war is possible). If a normal editor gets reverted, then their changes were not well liked, and they should take special care. --Kim Bruning 01:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Until and unless we beef up WP:FUR to a process with "binding" authority, the application of Fair Use is an editorial decision and should be decided the same way that we solve all our editorial disputes - through discussion on the appropriate Talk page. In this case, I could see arguments for both the article's Talk page or the image's Talk page but when this has come up before, the image's talk page tended to gather more informed opinions. Only if that discussion reaches an impasse (or reaches a conclusion that is blatantly in violation of applicable law) should we have to worry about escalation. Rossami (talk) 01:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A review of the discussions at [{WP:FUR]], the IfD discussions, and the article talk page show about as clear of an example of an impasse as is possible to see. An admin had to make the call whether the images were a violation of policy, and he did so, amply backed up by precedent. This type of non-free image usage is normally nuked on sight, the difference here was the high-profile status of the article. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Also perhaps the high-profile status of the editors. Some of the editors active in that article are well-respected, established editors; some are admins. They've done fantastic work on the article. However, I've come to recognise names of people that I "bump into" when I'm doing image cleanup, and none of the Intelligent design editors seem active in that area. The removal of these images seems completely in keeping with precedent, as I have witnessed in numerous other articles. ElinorD (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well said, ElinorD.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding precedent: This comes up regularly. The editors active in deletion debates have become increasingly polarised, and the administrators have remained mostly in favour of deletion. (I apologize if I am oversimplifying or marginalizing anyone.) Thus deletions which would normally have been done without comment in months past now are subject for bitter controversy and allegations of administrator abuse. It is becoming tiresome. Consensus on Wikipedia has never been so bitterly contested, in my view, than in relation to non-free content. Stare decisis means nothing. Every day, more images are nominated, and each deletion debate is equally bitter. Then, when an administrator closes a debate as "delete", it is contested at WP:DRV, or in this case is edit warred over; or when an administrator closes a debate as "keep", it may likely be nominated again in the future. And no one ever changes their opinion.

There. My rant.  :-) I could probably continue, but I will spare this board any further off-topic rant. --Iamunknown 01:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm officially on wikibreak, so I'm not going to wade into this right now... but I noticed that Nv8200p, after edit warring over this, protected the article Phillip E. Johnson on his preferred version. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

His action was correct, I believe. I wouldn't characterize his actions as an "edit war", WP:3RR allows an exception for reverts to remove clear violations of the copyright, spamming or non-free content policies (emphasis mine). Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on the talk page, discussion and closure by an uninvolved admin followed by deletion review, or something else - we need to decide how disputed fair use is going to be handled, and enforce the decision. Otherwise these divisive arguments will continue, disputes will be won by whoever can edit war most effectively, and the only rule enforced will be 3rr. I thought we had some mechanism for discussion, closure, and review. People need to respect that and take this to deletion review, not bully the closing admin, or wiki-lawyer to get around the decision, or sling 3rr templates. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Althoug edit-warring over the Phillip_E._Johnson article, User:Nv8200p chose to protect it, in his preferred version. An uninvolved admin needs to re-protect it. Guettarda 03:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be overlooking the fact that User:Nv8200p entered the situation as an uninvolved admin, in his closure of the IfD discussion. And reversion to uphold policy is not "edit-warring". Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Since you're involved as well, your removal of his protection could be interpreted as wheel warring. Especially given this comment on Nv8200p's talk page. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"You seem to be overlooking the fact that User:Nv8200p entered the situation as an uninvolved admin" - yeah, someone who protects the page after reverting it three times is an "uninvolved admin"? Nope. He's an edit-warrior. Please familiarise yourself with the page protection policy. Guettarda 06:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I made a slew of mistakes handling this issue and would like to apologize for them all.-Nv8200p talk 16:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

BASICS: Please note the following:

First, please re-read WP:DGFA

With respect to Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg, an IfD was brought by User:Videmus Omnia here. The terms of the IfD were as follows:

*Remove from usage on Intelligent design and Irreducible complexity, retain for use on the book's article. In the first 2 articles, the image does not satisfy the criterion of WP:NFCC#8 - removal of the image from those articles would have a negligible impact on the reader's understanding of either of those topics. [[User:Videmus Omnia|Videmus Omnia]] [[User talk:Videmus Omnia| ^Talk ]] 20:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Some 12 users expressed their preferred outcome as explicit "keep". One of them, User:Dave souza, expressed that discussion should defer to the local consensus. Five users explicitly expressed a preference to "delete" or "remove" from articles other than the article on Darwin's Black Box. Those users were: User:Angr, User:Anrie, User:Quadell, User:ElinorD and User:Borisblue. Along with the nominator, User:Videmus Omnia, that makes six users who expressed an explicit preference to remove from Intelligent design and Michael Behe. Note carefully that these six users who voted or explicitly expressed their preference to remove this image from the two additional articles are all regulars around those parts of the wiki where the focus is upon deletion of images. Note also that the explicit preferences to keep the images in the additional two articles, intelligent design and Michael Behe, were expressed not only by regular participants in the local consensus process in the intelligent design project, but also of various other participants, including the Director of the featured articles project. In this instance, not only did Nv8200P overrule a lack of consensus to delete from these two articles per WP:DGFA, but also overruled a clear consensus to keep the image in these two articles.

With respect to Image:Darwin_on_Trial.jpg, an IfD was brought by User:Videmus Omnia here. The terms of the IfD were as follows:

I am actually proposing that this image be removed from its usages on Philip E. Johnson and Intelligent design, although usage on the article about the book should be OK. The image should be removed from those articles per WP:NFCC#8 in that omission of the image from those articles would cause negligible detriment to the reader's understanding of the topic. I know this isn't the ideal forum for this, but the 'fair use disputed' tags keep getting deleted and there is no better forum to which to take this. [[User:Videmus Omnia|Videmus Omnia]] [[User talk:Videmus Omnia| ^Talk ]] 13:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Some 16 users expressed their preferred outcome as explicit "keep". Five users explicitly expressed a preference to "delete" or "remove" from articles other than the article on Darwin on Trial. Those users were:User:Abu badali, User:Quadell, User:Angr, User:Anrie, and User:ElinorD. Along with the nominator, User:Videmus Omnia, that makes six users who expressed an explicit preference to remove from Intelligent design and Phillip E. Johnson. Note carefully that these six users who voted or explicitly expressed their preference to remove this image from the two additional articles are all regulars around those parts of the wiki where the focus is upon deletion of images. Note also that the explicit preferences to keep the images in the additional two articles, intelligent design and Michael Behe, were expressed not only by regular participants in the local consensus process in the intelligent design project, but also of various other participants, including the Director of the featured articles project. In this instance, not only did Nv8200P overrule a lack of consensus to delete from these two articles per WP:DGFA, but also overruled a clear consensus to keep the image in these two articles.

... Kenosis 03:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like an argument for deletion review. Why isn't it there? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It may sound like it to someone who's never seen a duck before. What it has become, unfortunately, is a review of the appropriate range of administrative discretion that can properly be exercised in this type of situation. The terms of WP:DGFA are relatively clear, though seldom cited, while the terms of WP:ATA, an opinion piece, are quite vague and, well, merely an opinion, though quite frequently cited when users sense the possibility that an administrative override of consensus may result in their preferred outcome. Thus, I'd speculate there is some work to do to clarify these kinds of issues. If WP needs to be increasingly an oligarchy of sorts, then let's not beat around the bush, and be much more straightfoward about it than has recently been the case in many, many instances. If not, let's by all means get administrative range-of-discretion back within the agreed bounds. ... Kenosis 04:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, take it to deletion review. If something fails policy, and the use on that article has been deemed inappropriate, edit warring over it and claiming "local consensus" is not the way to go about it. If you disagree with the deletion, take it to WP:DRV. --Haemo 04:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to take it to deletion review. The images are still there. The consensus having overwhelmingly been to keep each of the two images in all three articles in which each has, respectively, long been displayed, this is a matter for the local consensus at the relevant articles. There's no DrV in need of pursuing here. ... Kenosis 04:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no deletion to review. There's a "ruling" on fair use, made with no reference to the deletion debate. No one has "deemed" the usage inappropriate. One editor simply expressed hin opinion when closing an IfD. Nothing more. Guettarda 06:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

As a deletion review regular, I'll say that there is no deletion review case here. So long as the image page is not deleted, no deletion has occurred. Deletion review does not normally involve itself in the differences between keep, merge, and redirect for articles, and our advice in such cases is to take it to the talk page of the article (or target article after a merge/redirect). Analagously for IFD cases, so long as the image is kept, deletion review would say to take it to the talk page of the place where the image is being used. I remind everyone about the policy Wikipedia:Consensus's section entitled "Asking the other parent". The rationales and reasoning used in the IFD need to be given due weight, not simply ignored. GRBerry 13:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If fair use is going to be whatever a majority on the talk page says it is, then have the not-a-vote on the talk page and move on. Make whatever changes are needed on the policy pages. If there is some other way to handle disputed fair use, then take it to review. There's no point with saying we do one thing, but really doing another. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Codyfinke6

This user has repeatedly keeps making unproductive/incorrect/down-right wrong edits to articles. Additionally, he has been cited for creating non-notable or nonsensical articles

This is not the first time that this user has come up for for discussion. He/she has been repeatedly asked to refrain from making these edits, but does not respond on his or the article's talk pages.

He has been blocked once and I am afraid that he or she needs to be blocked again for minimum of one month (preferably), permanently if possible.

Thank you for your time in this matter, Jerem43 00:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll monitor the user for now... It's been 4 days since his last deleted article creation, so hopefully, he'd stopped. Recent edits seem to be constructive... --D_arkF_alls ^talk 13:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Linkspamming by new editor??

Not sure if this is the right place to report this, but I'm a bit disturbed by the treatment of a newly registered editor, User:aaa intern, by several other editors, including at least one admin. This editor has been blocked from editing (just 7 minutes after a first warning!) for adding links that other editors have acknowledged improve the articles. See discussions here, here, and here. The editor may or may not be involved in linkspamming, but it seems that Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith and Wikipedia:Please don't bite the newcomers are scarcely in evidence. It seems to me that such aggressive enforcement of anti-spamming policies will ultimately do more harm than good. Moreover, User:Hu12's block of aaa intern has apparently had the unintended side effect of blocking at least one other registered user. MrDarwin 00:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Some discussion is located Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fwww.aaa.si.edu

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

Contributions to wikipedia from that account consist soley of adding external links to an organization the account is associated with. The account seems to be a WP:SPA Role account which is a violation of Help:Username#Sharing_accounts. "Role accounts for the purposes of conducting public relations or marketing via the encyclopedia are strongly discouraged and will be blocked for violations of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines." The block does not affect User:Aaa intern's ability to edit or discuss on his/her own account talk page. No discussion, nor unblock request has come from this account, however the only discussion seems to be from MrDarwin. Account was blocked for 24 hours, I have now indefinatly blocked it as a spam only account and per ubove policy, which now should no longer affect any one sharing IP 160.111.254.11, any subsequent addresses they attempt to edit from or preventing new account creation. It appears there was an Autoblock, ID: 613575 attached to the account, this should no longer be an issue as it has been corrected.--Hu12 01:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If the intern wishes to register a new account, and agrees to follow all policies, I expect they could do something productive. Instead of adding COI links to articles, the intern could leave notes on the relevant talk pages suggesting these references/links and explaining why they'd be appropriate. The Smithsonian's online collection may be worth linking to, but this should be decided by editors independent of the Smithsonian. - Jehochman ^Talk 01:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

From an actual examination of the links that were added by aaa intern, I'm hard-pressed to see that these edits were made for the purpose of "conducting public relations or marketing via the encyclopedia". Moreover, I fail to see how aaa intern violated Help:Username#Sharing_accounts; as far as I or anybody else knows, these edits were made by a single person, editing under a single user name.

I'm also bothered by the implication that editors will be prevented from editing articles in which he or she has any particular knowledge or expertise. For the sake of improving Wikipedia and making it the best that it can be, I hope that these policies will be re-examined and leavened with a modicum of common sense. MrDarwin 02:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've verified that the user was adding links to Smithsonian Institution archives materials on specific artists to articles on those artists. It seems to me, to say the least, highly questionable that the only possible purpose of adding links to Smithsonian Institution materials to articles on (often very obscure) artists is solely the marketing and public relations of the Smithsonian Institution. Therefore, it seems to me that it is by no means certain that WP:COI WP:SPAM, which requires such a purpose to justify an indefinite block, has occurred. I believe WP:COI in fact specifically permits interested parties to make an edit that would be clearly appropriate if done by a non-interested party, and this would seem to be such a case. Moreover, WP:COI is a guideline, not a policy, and relevant materials in Smithsonian Institution archives would seem to be sufficiently relevant to the articles involved that discretion in applying the guideline seems appropriate. I have advised the user that a block can be appealed. I would recommend that the user be unblocked, or at least not indef-blocked. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC). Clarified --Shirahadasha 03:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the username violates WP:U and needs to be changed. There's not so much value in adding links to articles. Google works pretty well if somebody wants to find something. I think this sets a bad example for others if we allow it. I'd rather have the intern use the article talk pages. - Jehochman ^Talk 02:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked the user. If I am further overridden I will not act again on this matter, but believe that WP:SPAM simply hasn't been met since the material is not promotional in nature, is specific, relevant, and useful to the articles it was added to. I also believe that this material would be accepted by a non-interested editor if added by an ordinary user, hence WP:COI does not require interfering. I will ask the user to voluntarily refrain from adding links to the Smithsonian Institution for the time being and discuss the issue. One can question whether articles should have links at all, but the link policy permits it. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Fundementally, spamming is about promoting your own site or a site you love. Even commercial sites are often appropriate. Links to sites(any) for the purpose of using Wikipedia to promote it, are not. my 2 1/2 cents. For now, let see how this pans out. Contributions relating to COI need to made on the article talk pages. We all want the best for the project. Lets hope this doesn't set a bad example ;)--Hu12 03:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

For those who are interested, there have been several lengthy debates about spamming behavior by representatives of libraries, archives, what-have-you, but no consensus so far. We really need to develop a policy on this. See the discussion here and the previous discussion linked from it. There's a thread on how it's possible to be non-profit but still have a vested interest in driving traffic to your site. Katr67 03:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think the deleted Archives of American Art links should be restored. User:Hu12 might suggest this to User:Aaa intern. Thanks - hopefully alls well that ends well Modernist 04:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect User:Aaa intern is unfamiliar with policies here and needs some help learning the guidelines. Modernist 12:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is clear that everyone involved in this situation has acted in good faith according to his or her understanding of the situation and what is best for the project. Nonetheless, the net effect was a very serious WP:BITE violation against a good-faith new editor with valuable information to offer, and I hope this sort of thing can be handled very differently in the future. Newyorkbrad 12:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Matt Crypto

I have found that this administrator frequently will revert changes made by an editor even if they had every right to make the change. This has happened to me, but looking over his talk page, I am not the only one. He is abusing his admisistrative privelages by acting as a dictator, and not listening to people's opinions. Often, he will rule against a clear concensus by claiming that Wikipedia is not a democracy. While I agree that Wikipedia is not a democracy, one of the pillars is supposed to be collaboration and consencus. This administrator frequently throws that out the window. I would be happy to respond to any inquiries or questions you have, and hope that you can do something about this. Thank you.--TyGuy92 01:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you cite some examples in the form of diffs? Thanks. Picaroon (t) 01:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the locus of the dispute is Push up, which TyGuy92 is incorrectly attempting to redirect to Push Up (which itself is a redirect to Push up) Raul654 01:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason it is incorrectly linking is because I make the changes which Matt incorrectly reverted back by doing a sloppy job. Also, the "push up" dispute was just my bit, if you look over his discussion page you see other incidents where he has been unfair. Just by skimming over his page you should start to see a pattern. In one occurence that later ended with an agreement by the two partiies, he reverted "humor" to "humour". Also, he has been accused of doctoring comments made by others. Also, in this exchange you will see that he has been abusing his administrative powers seemingly just for the hell of it: here. If you need further information, I would be glad to give it.--TyGuy92 01:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

TyGuy, you were performing a cut and paste move, which violates the license under which Wikipedia is copyrighted, because it splits the history. Matt Crypto was reverting your improper move as he should have, and I imagine the reason it seemed sloppy was due to you two editing at the same time. However, I can see no evidence that he bothered to inform you that cut & paste moves are inappropriate, which is somewhat disappointing, as this is a common error. Natalie 03:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"He is abusing his admisistrative privelages by acting as a dictator, and not listening to people's opinions" - the administrator tools do not include a tab which says "act like a dictator and ignore everyone else". I seem to be repeating myself a lot recently on this, and here goes again: an administrator can only be considered to be 'abusing' their administrative privileges if they block or unblock a user inappropriately, delete, undelete or publish deleted content inappropriately, protect, unprotect or edit a protected page (including MediaWiki) inappropriately, or use administrator rollback inappropriately. Incivility, personal attacks, ignoring other users, etc. is not absuing their administrative privileges. Daniel 07:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Given the matter that initiated this entry (Talk:Press up), I think it is worthwhile to duplicate my comment placed on that talk page here, which was prompted by some statements made by TyGuy92 about what he was about to do:

I draw your attention to WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a democracy. Additionally, the comments about the variety of English used by the first author may well apply here (see WP:MOS#National varieties of English. Further moves could be viewed by some as being potentially disruptive because they would seem to be part of an edit-war if you persist in re-establishing the page-moves before allowing more information to be gathered to reach a consensus. The correct way forward is not to announce that you will be making the move again, and that you are advising people to discuss it with you via email, but to encourage anyone to discuss it on here in public in order that as many viewpoints can be expressed and to allow any consensus for a move to thereby emerge (a consensus may not emerge, in which case, the original version stays.) WP:CANVAS may also prove informative during this process. I wrote this message is made to help you avoid pitfalls that would help no one in these circumstances.

Thank you.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Chrismaster1

(cur) (last) 01:00, 4 September 2007 Chrismaster1 (Talk | contribs) (14,350 bytes) (Undid revision 155324121 by Justlettingyouknow6 (talk)do not delete the band i btich slap you) (undo) This is an entry posted by Chrismaster1 on the Northside High School Warner Robins Georgia page. Chrismaster1 uses abusive language and posts information that is inflammatory and not relevent to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.119.239 (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I gave him a notice about WP:NPA and on a related issue, WP:OWN. Mr.Z-man 02:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Vonones

Resolved

-- looks like it won't happen again --Haemo 17:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This user just posted {{sock}} on my userpage, for no reason. He then removed it a couple minutes later. If that's a joke, I don't find it funny. Not something like that. See here: [48] (before) [49] (after) ^{El Greco (talk · contribs)} 01:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing it with them? Viridae^Talk 02:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, he accused you of being a sockpuppet of yourself. The quick revert suggests it was an accident. But yes, talking is always a good idea...Someguy1221 03:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, I didn't put it as a threat or anything at all. --Vonones 03:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Just be very careful next time. An accusation of sock puppetry is a very serious issue and, if unwarranted, can lead to a great deal of stress to both the users involved. Cheers, Arky ^¡Hablar! 03:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok well I don't think accusing him of his self is really going to be a problem ;-) it won't happen again. --Vonones 03:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Wikimachine revealing the e-mail address of a banned user

See User:Good friend100. Why is User:Wikimachine revealing this user's e-mail address on his behalf? Is a banned user not allowed to even edit his own user page?--Endroit 03:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the first part - however to your second question: a banned user can only edit their talk page.--danielfolsom 03:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, if it looks OK to everyone here, I don't see any problems. I guess they're probably friends with each other.--Endroit 03:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if Wikimachine is revealing the user's email on their behalf, it would indeed suggest they are friends. Perhaps the user was unable to edit their page, and needed a way to give out their email? Either way, I agree, there seem to be no problems. Cheers, Arky ^¡Hablar! 03:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The only issue I see at the moment is Wikimachine's edit history, which shows he seems to be continuing a revert war that user:Good friend100 was participating in. Cowman109^Talk 04:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

If I want to go to Arbitration over a case of User Conduct, do I have to go through Formal Mediation first?

Sardaka 07:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Formal mediation does not deal with disputes over user conduct, but rather content disputes. The Arbitration Committee, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Before requesting Arbitration, generally require that a user conduct request for comment be completed before filing a request for arbitration. Cheers, Daniel 09:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You can also take a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for some other options, and you might want to monitor Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration to see what types of cases typically get accepted or not. Arbitration is meant to be the last step in dispute resolution, so I think what they are really looking for is concrete evidence that earlier steps were tried (or in occasional cases, that they couldn't possibly have worked). Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 12:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Bennyboyz3000 (talk · contribs)

Resolved

I've just been flicking through the contribs of Bennyboyz3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and it does look like he's been somewhat abusing twinkle. He's tagged a number of pages for speedy deletion using twinkle that quite simply aren't candidates; [50][51][52][53]. He also is abusing the automated reversion part of twinkle, labelling very good faith edits such as removing spam as vandalism; [54][55][56]. Looking at his talk page history[57], he's had plenty of other warnings, and either reverts them using twinkle or clears his talk page to make it look like he's had no problems. I'd like to disable twinkle from his monobook and block him if he tries to re-add it, but thought I'd bring it here for evaluation first. Ryan Postlethwaite 07:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd agree. I've warned him for a couple of his edits recently and for some of his edit summaries. The Rambling Man 08:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Lately I've been in the wrong frame of mind. I don't think a few stray edits in the past week (highly stressful for me) should result in disciplinary action. Take a look at my contributions a bit further back. For anything I've done, I apologize,. None of my edits were done assuming bad faith, it's just easy to click the button :-). I've permanently stopped tagging articles for speedy deletion, as I suck at it. I periodically clear my talk page from everything (see history), not just notices/warnings. Not trying too make excuses, but aren't you coming down a bit harsh? Taking this sort of action won't help the 'pedia. Again, for anything I've done that has offended anyone, I apologize --Ben^complain 08:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC

You said it yourself, it's just one click of a button. That's the problem here, users have to act responsibly if they are allowed to use automated tools. Please tone down on using them, if anything else comes to my attention then I will remove it from your monobook for a period of time. You don't get a free right to use twinkle here, it's a privilige. Ryan Postlethwaite 08:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ryan is right. While I can't talk (my first RFA failed because of misplaced speedy tags), I myself noticed a few articles in CAT:CSD that shouldn't have been there... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't focus on the problems of the 'pedia, don't look to condemn, improve. --Ben^complain 08:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

We're currently discussing whether removing your access to the Twinkle .js would indeed improve the encyclopedia. Daniel 08:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

OK then, I'm outta here 'till I cool off. Obviously I've been out of line lately, and I'm officially off twinkle and on a wikibreak, so I'll be out of contact for a while. Please don't kill me while I'm gone! :-) --Ben^complain 08:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. We won't. If this re-occurs when you come back, though, we'll have no other option other than to rip the script out of your monobook (hey, that beats blocking you). Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 09:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed section

(JzG’s response on a removed section)

Sounds like we deleted some self-promotion and maybe blacklisted a link that was being spammed. We've had this before at the spam blacklist and on OTRS, where people assert that not allowing them to advertise or link on Wikipedia is harming their business. The consensus view is that they can think again, since there is no expressed or implied right to use the resources of the Wikimedia Foundation to promote your business, organisation or other interest. However, there may be some courtesy blanking required if the complainant can identify the places where he feels his organisation is being denigrated. Guy (Help!) 12:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A courtesy blanking would be prudent. What's more disturbing is the readiness to dismiss that comment as trolling. Mr. Lundgren is obviously not aware of WP:NLT, but it seems rude to simply censor any communication without at least offering an explanation. If anyone from the concerned organization is reading this, please be aware that this is a specialized forum for non-editorial maintenance tasks. Users/admins will not engage in any legal dialog on this page. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the case of the now-blocked User who supposedly tried to start a legal case with User:Durin with the organization (blanked above), which caused Durin to leave Wikipedia. Questions arose as the standing of the above organization to even hear an in-Wikipedia case, and various Users' searches for the organization and its standing came up with nothing concrete. See [58]. Corvus cornix 16:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Musugunda Vellalar

Resolved

Will someone delete this as a hoax or clean it up per standards? — Moe ε 10:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, not sure which speedy criteria, but it didn't really have a context however the major problem was the formatting - it was like their own personal website! Read like an advert as well. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. — Moe ε 10:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Second Battle Group

Resolved

Please could somebody keep a watch on the Second Battle Group page? User:Colditz and an annonymous IP editor keep removing sourced infromation from it. I can no longer restore it without breaking the 3RR. Unknown Unknowns 11:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'll see what I can do. Mackensen (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• I've protected the article. Mackensen (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

CyclePat

See User talk:CyclePat#Arbcom Notice. I think that by common consent it is acceptable to appeal a community ban to ArbCom, could someone please copy this to WP:RFAR for Pat. I anticipate a speedy rejection, i.e. endorsement of community sanction, but don't see any reason not to give Pat a fair hearing. Guy (Help!) 12:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Taken care of, as you say, it will probably be speedily rejected, but certainly no harm in letting him try. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Request feedback

Similar to the perennial proposals for standardizing on either American or British English, or for standardizing on AD/BC or CE/BCE, there is now a proposal to mandate "gender-neutral" language in all of Wikipedia. Since debate is getting rather heated ("How dare people use sexist language" - "How dare people endorse grammatical errors" etc), it may help if some experienced users give their opinion, either at User talk:Tony1/Gender-neutral language (draft), or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. >Radiant< 14:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I panicked for a second before realising you meant "all of Wikipedia's articles". I can't believe singular "they" upsets so many people. Neil ム 15:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, I know this issue has generated a conflict between you and Tony1, but with respect to the gender-neutrality proposal, it's best to separate that and present the issue as neutrally as possible. The manual of style is a guideline; it doesn't "mandate". And unlike the issue, for example, of standardizing to British/American English, the practice of not substituting masculine pronouns where gender is indeterminate and another option can easily be used (as in the examples on Tony's draft) is standard in news and many other world organizations, and Wikipedia would only be catching up if we enacted this guideline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Princess Mabel of Orange-Nassau

201.237.112.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is violating WP:BLP, and is writing down alleged personal details of another Wikipedian. Quite serious violations, too. See Talk:Princess Mabel of Orange-Nassau. important diff. User:Krator (t c) 14:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone has copy-pasted it to a Dutch language forum. link. User:Krator (t c) 14:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I see nobody has even made any comments to this user on their Talk page. Have you tried discussing this with them? Corvus cornix 16:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal complaints on Newsvine article

I am having trouble with an anonymous user who continues to make edits like this one to the Newsvine article. I've reverted the edits because the user is clearly just using Wikipedia as a soapbox. After numerous reversions, I even opened up a discussion on the talk page, to no avail. Is there something that can be done to take care of this situation? – Mipadi 15:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried talking to the user? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 16:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Raasgat - possible sockpuppet of User:Paul venter

I've been discussing some controversial edits by User:Raasgat with that editor regarding headings. Upon further investigation into the edits of this user found similar patters with a User:Paul venter, who was once blocked for copyright violations and personal attacks. I wasn't sure what to do or where to report this, but here are some links:

• Paul venter created a copyvio article at Vibration-powered generator. Raasgat recreated the article at the title Vibration powered generator diff.
• Raasgat's account appeared log a few days after Paul venter was last blocked log.
• Raasgat's has edited the same articles Paul venter has edited:
  • A short list: Orothamnus, ‎Selmar Schonland, ‎Thomas Robertson Sim, ‎Cathy O'Dowd, ‎Arnold Theiler, List of South African plant botanical authors, etc.

Since I've been so involved in the discussion with User:Raasgat I'd appreciate some help determining the correct course of action here. Thanks! --Rkitko ^(talk) 16:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, another likely sockpuppet appeared in the DRV of a Paul venter article: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 17. Roxithro (talk · contribs). --W.marsh 19:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

User : 194.144.111.210

User:194.144.111.210 has repeatedly reverted edits on the list of thrash metal bands. User reverts the removal of a groove metal band Devildriver from the list. Here is the diff of his latest edit [59]. The user has been blocked previously [60]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weltanschaunng (talk • contribs) 16:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please report at WP:AIV ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I did that before I reported it here (me being new to the admin process). It is being ignored there, I guess. Can you do something about it? Weltanschaunng 16:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem at AIV is that, while the edits may not be great, they are really not strictly "vandalism". It's also not particularly current, with only a single edit today, over 4 hours ago. I've seen the report there for a while, and decided to let some other admin handle it. If other admins are doing the same, that may end up being why it is sitting there unanswered. - TexasAndroid 17:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this post appropriate?

I probably should of brought this up a few days ago when it happened, but I didn't have time then. It's about this post. Is the post appropriate? The user in question clearly uses foul language in it. Does the user need to get warned about his attitude towards the FAC or the other user in the post? Davnel03 17:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The same word has been used both as a verb and an adjective by administrators [61]. I think it is mostly when it is used as an imperative that problems arise with WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. --Mathsci 17:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Phil Sandifer/Rambutan

Phil Sandifer and Rambutan are engaged in a long-standing dispute about lots of petty things. Phil just blocked Rambutan for the umpteenth time while at the same time engaged in an editing dispute with him, as evident from this, this, this etc. I do not endorse Rambutan's actions, but Phil shouldn't block a user whom he (admittedly) had lots of negative interactions with. Melsaran (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)