Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at 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

Advertisement on user page

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

---

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

The greater policy question can be handled at another venue (let me suggest WP:VPP) however there was not any consensus for administrator action during the last discussion Red Pen participated in; in a few hours that is unlikely to change. Let me suggest moving the discussion over the policy issue to the more appropriate venue. --Jayron32 18:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

---

The user page User:Cla68 contains an advertisement, listing specific serivces for hire for specific prices upon contacting specific address.

Advertising is prohibited by policy, including user pages, and without regard for whether the services may or may not be related to Wikipedia.

The introduction to WP:SOAP reads as follows: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages."

The inappropriate content has been removed multiple times and been returned, ostensibly because there was not a clear consensus in a previous discussion. The previous discussion may have ended without consesus on a number of things such as whether a particular phrase of a guideline might or might not apply, and whether or not paid editing is appropriate.

I am now asking the community to affirmatively address specifically whether there is consensus to disregard policy and allow an advertisment on this user page. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I could have sworn that was what this thread was about? It closed as no consensus for administrative action regarding his advertisement within the last 24 hours. MBisanz ^talk 18:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If you think his userpage – or a particular part of it – should be deleted, you'll need to nominate it at MfD. 28bytes (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Also: if your interpretation of policy differs from another editor's the solution is not to edit-war. I see you've attempted to remove the material from that user page twice; fortunately an admin has protected it or else there'd be some edit-warring blocks coming if it kept up. 28bytes (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

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

WP:SOAP prohibits advertisement and as WP:SOAP is policy, the advertisment must be removed and consensus must be shown for it to stay. Red Pen of Doom is right! @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 11:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Plus, now that he's commercializing things, file a Better Business Bureau complaint about his editing - it's deserved :-) Not to suggest a violation of WP:NLT, but he creates a legal liability upon himself that can no longer be avoided by the free-nature of the editing...he has lost all protection (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

My word, such a pronouncment would seem to be intended to have a chilling effect on an editor's work →StaniStani  17:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyone attempting to make a profit off of the "free encyclopedia" should not only be chilled, but ashamed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Is that right? Once an editor is paid for writing something he or she is legally responsible and so could be personally sued for libel? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You can still be sued for libel (and successfully too) regardless of whether you're being paid. There's been numerous discussions about recent court cases that have resulted in this, so being paid has nothing to do with that. Furthermore, please stop your implied threats. Also, if you're being paid by a client to improve their article, then I don't see how libel comes into it at all. Silverseren^C 20:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

While the legal and liability implications of paid editing (both for the paid editor and for Wikipedia in general if paid editing becomes prevalent) probably warrant futher discussion somewhere, a (nominally closed) ANI discussion about the actions of an individual editor is clearly not the place for such discussion. Concentrate on individual editors and their behaviour here please.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Nigel, will do, apologies. I used to think closed meant closed, until I saw a new comment from Kosh here and lots of replies. But I'd like to know, Silverscreen, why is it "furthermore" and what exactly are these "implied threats" that you tell me I have made? As for libel, might not one organiusation or person want to pay for a "more accurate" article about a rival? User Cpla68 seems to make to distinctions in their advert. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me remind you guys that the user is new and these comments could be perceived as a legal threat. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 21:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

There is currently a relevant RfC on this topic at WT:UP#Request for comment - Advertising on user pages, if anyone is interested in continuing the discussion there. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 22:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

...and Cla68's userpage is nominated for deletion (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

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

The RFC is bollocks....we ALREADY have a policy SOAP which prohibits advertising. What the (certain) admins need to do is enforce that policy , not run another un-needed RFC.

@-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 20:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

King Genovese

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

King Genovese has been creating non-notable pages and performing occasional copyright infringements, despite being warned to stop several times. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] I think they may need a short block to show that we are serious about our policies on these matters. King Genovese seems to be creating these pages in good faith, but I think their persistent editing against policy requires action to protect the encyclopaedia. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• I left a friendly but firm notice on his page, telling him to go here before editing any more. Hopefully he will take is seriously and not edit any more, coming here instead. I'm very hesitant to block a user when no talk has been initiated outside of a template and there exists a chance that they are acting in good faith, however, good faith disruption is still disruption. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 17:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  They have removed quite a few of their talk page messages, so some of the discussion may have been obscured by that. (I think my diffs above got the most important ones, though.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  The problem appears to be communication or possibly an inability to understand that words won't fix. They are navigating quite well, however, so there may be more to this but I'm going to assume good faith. They left a message on my talk page, I've tried to direct them here and offered more advice on their page about mentoring. They quit adding content. Templates are often not very effective, they look like automated system messages. As is often the case, a personal, friendly but firm message got their attention. I recommend them early and often. If they start back in, a block may be justified to prevent disruption, but wouldn't be appropriate right now since they have stopped. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 17:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  I've joined in and encouraged more talk. Found he was on my watchlist but I can't remember why. (All sorts of things I can't remember appear there - bit like my house...) I'm assuming 'he' from 'King'. Shouldn't really - amongst my hollies I've got one with 'king' in the name that is female and a 'queen' that is male. They seem quite happy about it. Peridon (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks. I'm doing everything I can to keep my "block" button in the original packaging, it might be worth something someday. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 18:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• This may be related to the Don Cuneo thread above. I've attempted to contact the editor to see if the same person is operating both accounts. Calabe1992 19:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)Was trying to compliment your find and an EC bit me. I notice all of Don Cuneo's contribs fit neatly into the gaps of Kings. Perhaps someone smarter than me can take a look before we get all excited about the coincidences. I don't see any glaring problems here, yet, but good to know. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 19:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• This is a placeholder put here so that the thread won't be automatically archived - I am hoping that King Genovese can come over here and comment on this matter. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• So this is where the FBI headquarters are. What am I meant to comment, I cant do anything about what you guys say or do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by King Genovese (talk • contribs) 19:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

  Sure you can. I think we are all grateful for your efforts to contribute to our crime articles - it's just that we also need you to follow Wikipedia policy while you do it. If you can agree to follow the policies and show that you know how to apply them, then the problem will be solved. So, the $64,000 question: are you willing to check that the pages you create follow Wikipedia's notability guidelines? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

  I would also add that you are now part of this community, one of "you guys", so you get to say and do as well. Our concern is that you aren't familiar with the guidelines on adding information about real people, and adding a lot of material without sourcing. A few of us have offered to help get you up to speed on sourcing, so you can properly contribute as part of the community. We are all a little trigger happy when it comes to article on living or deceased people, as it can affect the living when you make strong claims that are potentially inaccurate. The only way we can be sure that they are accurate it to expect solid sourcing, so the standard is pretty high for sources, and articles about people without good sourcing generally get deleted, thus wasting your time. This is why we were trying to help you on your talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Why didn't this just go to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism?--Otterathome (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Because it isn't vandalism. Instead we assume good faith and try to help the editor become an asset instead of a liability. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

"Keep local" files uploaded by retired editor

As Giano appears to have really retired this time, is it acceptable to remove the {{Keep local}} templates from the files he uploaded? This would apply to files uploaded by Giano, Giano II, and GiacomoReturned. Kelly ^hi! 20:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

My recollection is that Giano expressly asked others to look out for those images, so it's best to leave things as they are. Anyone who wants to copy them (as opposed to move them) to the Commons can do that, if it's not done already. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Why would you want to remove the {{Keep local}} tag? What does retirement have to do with it? 28bytes (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

And is there a reason a notification of this discussion wasn't left on his page? Dennis Brown 2¢ © 20:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Notice posted. Nobody Ent 20:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

As commons is out of the foundation stated project scope and apparently under the control of a really small clique of editors - we should stop moving any files there - and office action remove the ability to allow uploads to the commons and start keeping all files here so as to limit/totally remove any value commons has moving forward. - Youreallycan 21:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Last I checked, this discussion wasn't about the merits of Commons, merely what to do with these files. I don't think anyone's opinion (positive or negative) of Commons is welcome here. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 23:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Last I checked, no one gets to own a discussion here. YRC makes a valid point. The people who run commons are not to be trusted. But at present, it's general practice for those bots to move free photos to commons. Is there anything special about these particular photos, that they shouldn't be "shared"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

A discussion of whether to move X from A to B logically would include the merits of B. Nobody Ent 23:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

His retirement (un-huh) doesn't change his edits. Among those was the insistence that those files be kept local. Lacking a good reason to change, they should be left as requested. Resolute 23:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The way things are done currently, there's no justification for "keep local", unless there's a question about whether they are free. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

One justification I have heard mentioned is that Commons does not inform the original uploader when the files are nominated for deletion or other important changes are made to the files. There have been instances where uploaders that are not active on Commons have had their files deleted without them being informed, and some acrimony was the result. -- Dianna (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Resolute here: the justification for keeping it locally is that's what the uploader requested. It's generally polite to respect the wishes of the uploader unless there's a compelling reason not to. I'm happy to have my free images moved to Commons but it'd be a bit rude for me to disregard the express wishes of someone who didn't want that. 28bytes (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Uh, hold on thar, Baba Looey. Since when does the uploader of a photo get to "own" that photo here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say we were required to honor their wishes. Just that it would be courteous. 28bytes (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• I really hate, and don't understand, everything about the way we handle "files", throughout the entire project. Not that this statement is particularly relevant here, but if youreallycan gets to rant then so do I!
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• While this isn't entirely a rant, I can explain quite simply why Giano (in his various accounts) took to marking his images "keep local". Images that were uploaded to Commons mysteriously got deleted. Some got overwritten by people who uploaded a different (and usually inferior) image. Some got corrupted when there was a drive to change formats, thus adversely affecting featured content on this project. None of this was visible within this project, because it all happened at Commons. Some of the images (like floor plans) that he was revising or that were incomplete got uploaded and then deleted as being out of scope. I don't understand this kneejerk desire to strip this project of its contents just because there's something similar within the WMF umbrella. There are quite a few editors who would rather swim in boiling oil than have to log into Commons. Heck, this project downloads a copy of images from Commons when the image is going to appear on the main page - because Commons doesn't protect them adequately enough.

  This is an attempt to change the English Wikipedia policy on retention of images, done through the back door. Let's not establish a precedent that weakens the ability of this project to maintain its quality, directly or indirectly. Risker (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm less worried about mysterious deletions than I am about the active vendetta conducted by a couple of the porn hobbyists there against images uploaded by their critics. I opined in a deletion debate there a while back and first thing you know, lo and behold, the same day or the next a few old images I had uploaded were all of the sudden tagged up by one of the usual suspects there. It was a truly amazing coincidence. Since then, I'm using KEEP LOCAL on everything. Those people are out of control, in my opinion. Under no circumstances should anyone overrule the uploading editor's probably well-justified wishes regarding the keep local tag. Duplicate the piece for Commons if you will. Carrite (talk) 06:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

What were the grounds for deletion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking back, I see it was one file deleted out on a template discrepancy; after being flagged I switched out one template for a more precise one ("PD-work of Soviet government," I recall) and Our Hero deleted it anyway, even though the template was absolutely valid. Other of my uploaded files were merely mentioned in a generally snarky and unspecific comment. It was 100% "payback"... Carrite (talk) 06:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• I never interacted with Giano much, but in general I'm not much in favor of messing around with someone else's files; especially when they're not around to address any questions. If it were a matter of improving an article - sure, but I can't fathom that en.wp is so depraved of disk space that there's a need to go about deleting things just for the fun of it. — Ched :  ?  11:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I greatly disapprove of this Commons bashing. Anyway, the point here is that the uploader gets to choose whether to upload to Wikipedia or to Commons - except, that is, according to the WP:Image use policy, a gallery of indiscriminate images should be moved to Commons. These images are not AFAIK indiscriminate, so there is no mandate to move them to Commons. There's no prohibition on public domain images at WP. An editor can legitimately upload to both projects, thereby hedging their bets regarding which one will be more infected by deletionists in the future. Wnt (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If you study the way the Xandlerliptak case was handled, you will discover that commons has no ethical intregrity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Relevant notes: Users of an image are notified when it is up for deletion on Commons, by User:CommonsNotificationBot. Images are re-uploaded to En on request by User:Commons fair use upload bot as fair use candidates. Wikipedia has every opportunity to recover files that are deleted on Commons. I don't object to users uploading Commons-compatible files to enwiki if they find it more convenient or don't know any better, but trying to suppress a move just because Commons is better at detecting copyright violations is trying to do an end-run around the licensing resolution. Dcoetzee 22:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • That is a really impressive misrepresentation of why {{keep local}} exists, which Risker summarizes accurately above. Personally, I have no problem with my images (over 400 of them now) being hosted at commons. But lets not pretend that there aren't very legitimate issues facing Commons which led to things like this. Besides, there is nothing preventing someone from copying such files to Commons, but the request that the local copy not be deleted in the process is fair and legitimate. Resolute 02:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Lets respect the wishes of the uploader unless there is a good reason not to --Guerillero | My Talk 02:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Teen delusions of grandeur, vandal in progress

I've just corrected repeated vandalism on half a dozen articles by someone who is apparently 15 years old and would really, really love to be knighted by the Queen. He has no user page, but his contribs are here. Would someone who knows proper procedure kindly give this kid a warning against continuing his fantasies on Wikipedia article pages? I'm all unsure of how to handle this, so I'm giving you guys a heads up here. Textorus (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped for now. Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I have left a level 2 edit test warning, informing them that if they continue it will be considered vandalism. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

For future reference, please see How to respond to vandalism. Vandals should be reverted and warned, then reported to WP:AIV if they fail to heed the warnings. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Captain. And thanks for the link, DoRD, I will bookmark it for future use. Textorus (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I had a look at Brighton125's works, mostly because I've introduced teens to Wikipedia contributing. I'm of the view that if not sociopathic, teens can become experts and long-term contributors. I am not sure if Brighton125 wants to be: "Joseph Anker, 1st Duke of Brighton," but maybe a few thoughtful words about how to get there, and some patience will send him on his way, a bit less fantastically? It seems to me, that he should have a chance, and know that others are hovering over. He could become a new user, of course, but if the same pattern continues, (presumably) he'll be easy to recognize as a new duke, prince, HRH, etc. I do wonder if the world of online gaming for kids has inspired some of this. I am considering a creative barnstar that emphasizes the importance of reality and dreams, and the distinction... Comments colleagues? KSRolph (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• I put a less menacing message on their talk page, welcoming them and inviting them to ask me anything if they needed. In cases where it isn't obvious and clear vandalism, I agree that a more gentle approach is usually sufficient. No need to bite the little boogers. I know exactly nothing about the subject matter, but it is entirely possible they added this in good faith, correct or otherwise, and no one has said anything here about how this info is utterly impossible, so my ignorance makes me conclude that this isn't a clear case of obvious vandalism. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I'm always up for learning something new. Regardless, when in doubt, it is better to gently welcome the new editor than to scold them. Then if they screw up, feel free to template away. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Follow up Their only contribs now are on their user page. Likely more of a sandbox thing, but I don't see the harm at this time. It would *appear* that their edits were in good faith all along. This is why I always suggest we assume good faith and be careful to not bite the newbs, even when they are making mistakes. Again, being a yank, I'm clueless as to the content and will leave that to more capable hands to determine. While I am assuming good faith here as well, a read of WP:VANDALISM is in order for you Textorus. Calling someone a vandal when it doesn't clearly fit that criteria is a capital offense here. It would also be big of you if you went and offered some help on their talk page, since you called them a vandal in front of god and the Queen here at ANI. That seems fair and then I would call it even. Maybe User:Captain Screebo will help you out, to avoid the much lesser penalty of being put into the stocks for a day. The proper tag would have referred to "unsourced material". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought maybe an admin had deleted something of Brighton125's edits, not seeing great offense myself. If he wants to be the 1st Duke of Brighton, then I still believe a light-spirited barnstar would be just as much fun for him, as if he were stirring up a little imagined-honor mischief. A clever barnstar would call him on it in a kind way, and do no harm. I don't want to offend anyone here, so let us all push ahead with NPOV and assuming good faith. I will drop 'the Duke' a message myself, when I think of something appropriate. KSRolph (talk) 07:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Bite me, Dennis Brown, and the high horse you rode in on. The reason I came to this noticeboard instead of confronting the user directly was to get someone to handle the situation in the most appropriate way, whatever that is. Instead, you sling shit and insults at me, an experienced, mature, responsible editor. Who is, btw, strictly a volunteer and not in any way subject to your precious jurisdiction. So in your regal fantasy, go ahead and decree my head be taken off all you like, I'm just laughing at you, man. Textorus (talk) 08:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• We all, myself included, have a tendency to throw the word "vandal" around. We all need to be more careful when it comes to new editors, or we limit the pool of future experienced, mature and responsible editors down the road. If my light-hearted suggestion offended you, well I'm sorry, as the goal was to remind us all to be careful and us the proper tags and proper terms, and I simply attempted to say it with a little humor. I thought the dramatic overtones and links to capital punishment and the stocks would have been enough to make that clear, but I guess not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 10:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

JTBX on No Country for Old Men (film)

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

---

There is a problem on No Country for Old Men (film), where JTBX refuses to follow the policy on consensus after he has been invited to discuss possible changes to the plot summary. This follows on his personal attacks on me in the context of a failed complaint he filed against me regarding edits at The Godfather. He never edited on this page before, while I have edited at No Country... for a couple years. I think a reasonable person would have realized that it was not a good time to broaden our interactions. EdJohnston has suggested a interaction ban. Can an admin intervene in some useful way on the page? Perhaps a temporary block would be useful. Thank you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Amendment: "As an observation, I was appalled yesterday, when I was aware of your weighing into No Country for Old Men, and drew it to Ring's attention, as you have noticed. Not sensible, and really very obvious!" -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JTBX&diff=489597300&oldid=489529397 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ring Cinema (talk • contribs)

Ring, when reporting here you are required to notify the user, for example using {{subst:ANI-notice}}, i find your behaviour fairly bad faith, as you do not sign your comments, link to the discussion or follow procedure. [8] [9] [10] CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Bad faith? Lack of familiarity with protocol and oversight does not indicate bad faith. Nobody Ent 16:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

For a user who has been on-wiki since 2008, [11], and made over 1,000 edits, [12], I am a little concerned about their attitude to other editors who wish to improve plot synopsis (cf. The Godfather talk and No Country) and apparent ownership issues. I just happened across this, we all forget to sign from time to time, after four years on-wiki, lack of familiarity with protocol and oversight? Really? It's just an opinion, mind. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I am happy to see that Captain Screebo has noticed the same things I have. As a long time editor since at least 2008, I have only been blocked once for edit warring for a 24 hour period, for trying to move a page title. I have never been involved in such a large conflict as this one. I don't wish to spend a day writing a gargantuan essay or adding in hyperlinks, So I will keep this as short as possible.

User Ring Cinema and I first met during The Godfather conflict about over a week ago. I tried to edit the plot to better reflect WP:PLOT. However, Ring Cinema reverted my changes and told me to bring it to the talk page. When I managed to make the word count of this draft to about 702 (keep in mind the article summary is 750) it was continually reverted again. I simply did not see, (on the talk page of The Godfather this can be read) any reason for him to be doing this. He claimed it was consensus and this that the other, but it was solely him. [13] If you look through the history, it appears that he was warring with User: Wrath X as well. We were also joined by a third editor, Gareth, a neutral party of sorts who was trying to help. After Gareth and I were editing the draft for a while, Ring added that it was pointless because my draft "had already been rejected" but by whom? Again, you can read all of this on our talk pages.

It was about this time that I decided to look into Ring's user history. It appears the editor makes little contributions other than reverts or slight trimmings, is possibly a WP:SPA, but certainly violates WP:OWN and as mentioned has been blocked numerous times, including for personal attacks against adminstrators. Call me a vigilante, but I decided to take up the case other wise this editor will continually block any meaningful changes to articles. I reported it to the 3RR notice board but it ended in a war of words in which the adminstrator, EdJohnston, (possibly due to time constraints) protected the Godfather page and stated he would nearly sanction me for personal attacks, though I don't think, as you have done, pointing out this user's history or agenda should be considered personal attacks, as well as his falsifications to dress himself up as the victim.

I edited a ton of plots yesterday, which included No Country for Old Men. How did I find this film? Well, when looking up the user's history I saw he was having a conflict with another User:El duderino using the same tactics he used against me, and whom I contacted for support. He may way in on this issue. I edited the plot fo No Country because it was over 700 words, that is it, and actually thought Ring might help if he was still editing the article, but was reverted by Ring 3 times in less than an hour. I had already brought my changes to the talk page and another User is already helping with it, but Ring feels I have violated his article and refused to discuss changes with us, instead creating a new talk section. But he has already a history of conflict on that talk page. The years he talks of editing No Country, are mostly conflicts and reverts with different Users.

I don't think the Godfather article will go anywhere. EJ's protection has ended and I tried to edit but was reverted this time by Gareth, who appears to be taking Ring's side (perhaps being misled) and discussing with him changes behind my back, including this ridiculous message he wrote to Ring, here which I replied to. Apparantly, this is getting serious because I edited an article I am entitled to, and because I contacted others to way in their opinion on the Godfather article. I think it is shameful Ring can run his ownership cabal with Gareth and obscurely edit articles without interference. Its completely against policy, and know that I simply tried to stop this editor after finding out about him. I am not worried about this report aganst me because I feel it can be an avenue for the truth to finally be revealed and to not repeat what happened on the 3RR notice board.

Again, just read the sentence by Gareth, and think for a moment :"As an observation, I was appalled yesterday, when I was aware of your weighing into No Country for Old Men, and drew it to Ring's attention, as you have noticed. Not sensible, and really very obvious!"

And you mentioned how he had left a notice without signing or linking, well his disingenuousness shows. He is also trying to create an argument on EJ's page which I have avoided. JTBX (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• STOP This is clearly a content dispute. The talk page on the article clearly shows you have been talking about the issue, both of you a bit snippy but below any threshold for administrative action. You have come to an impasse without outside participation. Take it to WP:DR, not here. All this talk about faith is a sideshow and doesn't belong at ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Why was I accused of failing to notify JTBX when I notified him at 10:22 28 April 2012? No, no bad faith on my part. It's true, I've never asked for intervention from an admin. So no bad faith on my part and ownership issues are involved. I've been following the policy on consensus and JTBX doesn't seem to respect it. Thanks for your thoughts. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I had said that the faith issue on the ANI tagging wasn't action worthy. I trust you will remember next time. For now, I'm still recommending you both need to discuss on the talk page, and both agree to seek dispute resolution at WP:DRN along with the others who edit that page. That is what that board is designed to handle, not ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Constant personal harassment of User:DIREKTOR

I have a question: is User:DIREKTOR allowed to constantly attack me personally like this? Please see examples of his recent posts:

• - another Balkans article that has a disruptive local user personally "attached" to it...PANONIAN does not really have a sound argument of any sort, nor is he at all willing to openly accept that as a fact (you can see him right now, talking about some OR propaganda posters and coins)...He will change his claims and his position continuously depending on whether it will specifically help his agenda on that article, namely the creation of a non-existent country...Because we do not "compromise" between personal opinions and POV-pushing...PANONIAN is just POV-pushing, and is wrong, whereas Peacemaker and I are just plain right...PANONIAN's "disputes" would be laughed-off the talkpage on any more prominent article. This is about a user, not a real factual dispute...What is necessary here is that the problem user be made to abide by Wikipedia policy
• PANONIAN is on an agenda, his goal is not improving Wikipedia
• I just reverted the absurd WP:OVERTAGGING and your nationalist-POV subsection switch

My point is: no matter of the content dispute that we have, this user simply should not trash my name like this and he should not to constantly accuse me for "nationalism", "POV pushing", "agenda", "disruptive behavior" etc. I wrote several hundred articles and created numerous images for Wikipedia and I did not deserved that somebody harassing me like this. Can somebody please notify DIREKTOR that he should respect Wikipedia:Civility policy? PANONIAN 18:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Ha. This is basically a preemptive report by PANONIAN. An "accuse him for accusing me before he can accuse me" sort of thing.

These are not personal "insults" or "harassment", but very real issues with regard to this user's behavior on this project. I can show conclusively that User:PANONIAN's behavior is indeed highly WP:DISRUPTIVE, indicative of extreme WP:OWN issues, and that he's very clearly on a "POV agenda". That's blatantly obvious and hardly even debatable at this point. He's frustrated the discussion to such an extent its effectively demolished, and he's taken the whole article hostage. His constant "sockpuppeteering" allegations even got User:Peacemaker67 to use caps lock. One can spend an hour researching and copying down sources quotes he's requested [14] - only to find he's simply dismissed them and started a new talkpage thread repeating the same nonsense all over again [15]. To the above list of "harassments" I will add that the user has very mediocre English skills and a poor to non-existent understanding of Wikipedia policy. He is repetitive, insulting, consistently and brazenly ignores policy and sources after they've been painstakingly quoted over and over and over again - and to discuss with him is a nightmare. He never ever concedes a single point, and there isn't even a semblance of a logical structure to the discourse with this person. he knows he can force users to compromise with his baseless position, and can afford to do ignore anything anyone could possibly write. The issue should be transferred over to WP:AE, for a thorough review of teh user's disruption on that talkpage. Its become impossible to carry on. -- Director (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly what I am talking about: DIREKTOR constantly accusing me for all these things without any evidence presented. As for quotes, I only asked from DIREKTOR to support his claims with sources. Instead of presenting sources that would confirm his statements, he copy-pasted some quotation that does not confirming his previous statement (so how exactly is disrupting that I say that "I do not see that anything from quoted text supports his position"? Am I not allowed to say my opinion about text from the source? This is exactly the problem: instead to have civilized and serious discussion about the subject this user discussing my personality and accusing me for all kinds of disruptions without a single evidence (even on this same page). PANONIAN 19:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

As for "preemptive report" accusation, I really do not know what DIREKTOR wants to say by that. Is that supposed to mean that DIREKTOR wanted to "accuse" me for something and that I was aware of that? Just another example of personal accusation and harassment. PANONIAN 19:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

PANONIAN's conduct in this arena has been absolutely reprehensible as well. I agree with DIREKTOR, this is an AE issue. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Maybe someone else will come along and try to get to the bottom of this, but at first glance, it looks like Panonian tried to "mediate" the disputes on this article's Talk page. User:Steven Zhang commented he'd prefer to do it at MedCab. Then, Direktor took it to Steven's Talk page, which seems to be the principal source of Panonian's complaint (the comments Direktor made there). I don't know precisely where it belongs, but my strong sense is that it doesn't belong here as it's essentially a content dispute with aggressively worded comments thrown in (what else is new in these sorts of articles?).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, regarding the issue of sockpuppetry accusations, I said already that I will not accuse Peacemaker67 for been a sockpuppet and I am not doing that any more (or DIREKTOR can provide some recent diff which can show that I again accused Peacemaker67 for been a sockpuppet?). PANONIAN 19:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Lothar von Richthofen, seems that you remember previous discussion from this page that was opened because of my accusations for sockpuppetry - you can see that I did not continued with such accusations. I never again said that Peacemaker67 is a sockpuppet. In this case, however, I am a victim, since DIREKTOR now accusing me for all kinds of disruptions - if I accused someone for sockpuppetry that does not mean that I am also nationalist, POV pusher (and who knows what else). I am only asking that my own integrity here is respected in the same way as you asked from me to respect integrity of Peacemaker67 and not to accuse him for being a sockpuppet (I fully accepted that and I never again said that he is a sockpuppet). PANONIAN 20:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Direktor, when you make accusations against other editors, like you have in the diffs and your comments above, you need to supply serious diffs at the time of the comment to support them. Panonian has supplied diffs, what do you have to support your allegations?--v/r - TP 20:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I am describing a behavioral pattern, not a particular incident. To actually convey it with diffs would be an immense undertaking, and an unnecessary one. I understand evidence is always necessary, but it isn't like I'm withholding it - the whole discussion on Talk:Serbia (Territory of the German Military Commander) is fully visible and savailable for review. Unfortunately, the only way anyone could responsibly confirm any of my allegations (and the only way one could truly support them), is to read through the the whole damn thing. I really can't ask anyone to spend his free time in such a way, which is a good part of the reason I did not report all this already. -- Director (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not how this works. If you want to "describe behavioral problems" you do it in the form of diffs. Otherwise you have engaged in personal attacks. Directing (no pun) others where to find the evidence isn't enough. Either provide diffs demonstrating the behavior your claiming exists or back off the accusations (and redact).--v/r - TP 21:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

If by "that's not how this works" you're saying admins don't read through discussions in order to more accurately assess the validity of accusations, then I must say I have encountered such an alleged impossibility on many an occasion. The best I can do is provide examples of various sorts of disruptive behavior, if that will satisfy. I can't (or rather I won't) relay the whole weeks-long discussion. I will have to do it tomorrow as it is nearly 01:00 here (CET). -- Director (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

By "that's not how it this works" I'm saying you can't make attacks on other editors without providing the support for those accusations and insisting others go find it. You know this dispute better than I, you know where the support for your argument is located. Panonian has supplied diffs showing poor behavior by you and has not sent us all out on a hunt. Show us what you know or take it back.--v/r - TP 23:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

There are diffs in his post... maybe those have been added in the interim, I don't care enough to check the ANI history because if we have a policy on having to add diffs when you complain about someone that's news to me. TParis is largely correct: diffs make your argument well (although there's a soundbite-culture aspect to it that's not great).

None of these diffs seem to be personal attacks aside from claiming eachother have agendas, which is tame. Also, aren't some Balkans related articles under an ArbCom restriction? Would someone more knowledgeable than me comment on that please? Shadowjams (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not see any case for administrative action and recommend the thread be closed. Try to use dispute resolution, although the subject matter (Balkan politics) may not attract many editors who have not already formed strong opinions. Director, administrators do not "read through the whole damn thing". Editors read what you present here, decide what to do and administrators then take whatever action is recommended. TFD (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that I've come late to the party - daughter's birthday today. I think that there are flared tempers here and hashing it out on the talk page is not going to help. Some form of dispute resolution is needed. Of course, dispute resolution is voluntary, the other option being this cycle continues till everyone gets topic banned. I recommend the former, and am willing to conduct the process, but it's not up to me. The parties need to come to the table. Steven Zhang ^Talk 06:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Recreation of salted page under new title, using copy/pasted text

Can someone take a look at Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show: The Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? There are multiple issues with the page.

First, the page seems to have the same issue that was addressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show (2nd nomination) ... namely, no reliable sources for the majority of the content, and the one that exists is simply a commercial site to reference the price on iTunes. Note: the original article name from the AfD was also salted.

However, even if the page were viewed as sufficiently different from the originally AfD'd text, there remains an issue that the new page was originally created as a copy of http://ed.wikia.com/wiki/Ed,_Edd_n_Eddy%27s_Big_Picture_Show ... it was stripped down and re-edited, and I've revdel'd the oldest edits which were the original copy/paste material. However, I'm not familiar enough with the copyright issues to know if that's adequate, as several of the remaining diffs still contain significant portions of that original text without appropriate attribution.

I was tempted to simply delete the page due to these issues, but wanted to get additional opinions to see if I should instead start a third AfD for the subject. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikia uses the same license that we do but it needs to be attributed. I think it's likely that the user who created the article was unaware of the AFD decision to redirect to Ed, Edd n Eddy. Since the section that Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show was redirected to was removed without an edit summary, he probably noticed the absence of coverage and BOLDly decided to write a new article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• My (non-admin) opinion: salted means salted. Delete and salt again. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

What the hell does it matter if you're not an admin? ElKevbo (talk) 03:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Because all editors have the right to chime in on things like this; adminship is not a promotion to a higher station so much as a few extra tools to be used responsibly. Coming to a consensus on how to resolve an issue is the domain of any editor, not just ones with extra buttons. GRAPPLE X 03:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

What's more, it matters because Strange Passerby doesn't have the ability to perform what's being suggested. It's potentially lazy if I suggest that something be done and then don't do it, but Strange Passerby's observation theoretically will keep people from asking him to do it. Nyttend (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If anyone is assuming that someone offering an opinion is an indication that action has been taken then we have a broken system or a naive editor. Moreover, expecting anyone who offers an opinion to act on it is a wonderful way to shut down discussion and discourage people from offering opinions and suggestions. ElKevbo (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

That's my point: Why should non-admins' opinions be treated any differently and marked as being different? ElKevbo (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This again...oyyy, this has been a four year battle with something that has had more than enough time (five years) to find plenty of sources, and never has (this one is even worse, with the only source being to an iTunes purchase link). Will definitely ask for yet another delete and salt on this. It is nothing but an overlong series finale that can be best described in the show's episode list. And I'm not willing to assume AGF on this; the EE&E community knows darned well that if they want this to have an article it needs plenty of sources and criticism to be created, but it has never been demonstrated. Nate • (chatter) 02:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Umm, why delete it? The series article is established and nobody doubts its notability; why can't we just redirect this title to the series and protect the redirect if necessary? Nyttend (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If it is a copy-paste without attribution, it is a copyvio. In that case, deletion is the only option. Though that does not preclude recreating as a protected redirect. Resolute 02:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sorry; I overlooked the copyvio issue — and I'm definitely one who routinely deletes unattributed copies under G12. I thought the problem was solely that people kept creating (wholly newly written) articles on this topic, and that the sole problem was that it wasn't notable. Nyttend (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show: The Movie should be deleted, missing attribution can be repaired without deletion. WP:Copying within Wikipedia does not apply to external sites, but the requirements of CC-BY-SA/GFDL licensing are the same. Flatscan (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

As I stated, there has never been any true sources for this 'movie' at all beyond just the usual fancruft that is par for the course when it comes to American children's cable network series. At best, it was a 90 minute episode that can be just described in four paragraphs in a "list of" article (which it already is). The editors continuing to push this article have had four years to find at the minimum, one source that isn't a bulletin board or fan wiki 'type what I see' recap, and they have failed miserably. The redirect lock should be restored at Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show and this new title, which both fails to meet MOS as the actual title of the film and with this version, reads as a end-around of consensus. Nate • (chatter) 03:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

For any unfamiliar readers, the film's title is Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show, according to the Internet Movie Database. Flatscan (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

For the record, as the one who started the thread, my personal opinion is that the article at Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show: The Movie (which is the one originally created as a copy/paste with no attribution) should be deleted. Then, the redirect at Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show should be changed to point to List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes#Film (because the original redirect target was an article subsection that has since been deleted). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Going by date and page size, this revision was copied from Wikia. According to the tag at its top, this early revision of that page was copied from Wikipedia. Flatscan (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Just now looking at the article here and the Wikia page, it occurred to me that we still have substantial copying — even the first sentence in the intro is excessively close paraphrasing. Since this content is found in all revisions, we'd have to RevDel the entire page history to get rid of it, so simply deleting the page is substantially simpler. Nyttend (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Resuming AuthorityTam ANI

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive746#AuthorityTam Nobody Ent 12:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

As anticipated, AuthorityTam waited for the dust to settle on this ANI, and has now resumed similar conduct.[16] (The addition in the section "RfC: Reinstatement in lead section" dishonestly quotes me; my response is here.) Now that he has resumed editing, AuthorityTam should provide a more appropriate response regarding his conduct, and the previous suggested courses of action should be further considered.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This has shown a clear and on-going pattern of disruptive behaviour in editing, especially in regards to several editors (Jeffro and BlackCab). As I predicted in the last, interminably long, but never-solved ANI incident, that the same case would be brought back again and again, once a month, until some sanctions are imposed. I have been involved in neither dispute, except for the ANI recaps. I therefore propose a one week block from editing Wikipedia for AuthorityTam, or a topic ban of a minimum 30 days' length from all articles even tangentially related to the Jehovah Witness religion for the same. Each incident in itself may not warrant a block, but, pursuant to "civil POV pushing" (an essay somewhere on here), all the shit together more than justifies one, as it establishes a pattern which the editor does knot seem to acknowledge is disruptive (that it is, is evidenced by being dragged to ANI ad nauseam). (Edit: this fits the very definition of a "preventative block", as it seems that this behaviour continues like the Energizer Bunny.) St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 10:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but can not see the deal here. It is making a big case out of something that isn't. He quoted Jeffro, and wanted to use Jeffro's statement as a reason for editing the article. It could be stoped by reverting the edit, and make a ordinary discussion in the talk page, not reopening this case. I suggest to at least shut down this case until it really is needed to reopen it. I am sure it will be more discussions regarded and including AutTam, but as I've stated before, the article need opinionholders challenging some of the existing one at the talk page, as it appears very few of the contributers can keep a completely neutral tone when it comes to the topic (even though, some of the users at least try). Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. There was no consensus on the last ANI and little contribution from the community at large -- just lots of squabbling amongst three editors (all of whom could improve the collegiality and civility of their interaction style). Block all 3, ban all 3, or block or ban none. Refer to WP:DR. Nobody Ent 12:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Jeez, this is no closer to a resolution than when it started. I understand everyone has the right of reply, but you guys are just going in circles here, and making it extremely difficult for anyone outside the dispute to determine exactly what the "problem" is and what you want done about it. The admin action needed here at this point is for someone uninvolved to step in, hat most of the above, and try to keep the discussion focused. Or, even better, just close it as I don't see where any action is likely to be taken at this point. Everyone just try to play nicely together, m'kay? Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 12:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Aaaaand about 90% of the circular discussion has been archived, so thanks to whoever did that. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 14:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

[non admin yawn] Again? - I don't watch the page, or any of those pages, but it has spilled over into non-JW topic areas before. As the last time it seems that the two anti-JW/ex-JW editors are as bad or worse than the one apparently pro-JW editor, as illustrated by the disproportionate amount of noise from the two anti-JW/ex-JW editors on the last attempt to get the pro-JW editor banned at ANI. This latest one simply has the pro-JW editor noting they tried to get him banned at ANI, and the anti-JW saying "Another lie" (¿En serio? Is that a WP:BOOMERANG I see?) If it's anything admin action shouldn't be one sided, it should be for all 3, e.g. JW-topic blocks for 1 month and warmly invite contributions to the wealth of non-JW articles on WP needing attention... In ictu oculi (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

With all the bad blood swirling around between a small group of editors, I don't see any hope for a resolution/reconciliation in that regard. The ultimate goal is the overall improvement of the JW articles, not the appeasement of certain editor's hurt egos. So I think the unfortunate result is that if you all want to continue editing the JW articles, then you're going to have to deal with each other, like it or not...or everyone is going to be looking at a topic ban in the future. Perhaps being able to provide evidence from this point forward that you did not further personalize the dispute may prevent that from happening if/when this is brought up at ANI again. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 14:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio image about to appear on main page?

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

---

The image File:Megitza at Copernicus Theater.jpg is about to appear on the main page as part of a DYK item about musician Megitza. The image is a fully-protected local copy of the same image at Commons. This appears to be a cropped version of this image from Megitza's website. The original image says "U Szterner photography" but that is not visible in the cropped version uploaded to Commons. Can someone please take a look at this image and perhaps also the other images uploaded to Commons (it may be helpful to compare them to the image gallery on Megitza's site which has the photographer's names)? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The uploader shares the subject's name and seems to be implying here [17] that she actually is that person, which doesn't seem too unlikely, so the licensing claim may well add up after all (if the photography was done for hire), but I agree according to our usual standards we need OTRS confirmation or something similar. I've removed the image from the queue for now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) The photo was created by a Commons account "Megitza".[18] The Megitza website includes a gallery of photos, some of which are [19] by "Urszula Szterner i Arthur Partyka". In the talk page of a now deleted album cover [20] the user Megitza wrote "Boleritza" album cover was designed, created by me, and the photo on the cover is my personal photo. Please do not delete this file. I don't see it as unlikely that the user has legitimate rights to these photos. Given that the user doesn't know the talk page of a file facing deletion is ignored (why is that anyway?), OTRS was probably never considered. (Also consider the language barrier). It is possible that the photographer could hold copyright in the photo and the user is unaware of this because it was a work for hire that isn't. But do other countries have the lunacy like in the U.S. that you could hire a wedding photographer and then be told that they're not your photos? Wnt (talk) 12:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

A friend of mine in the UK is a photographer, and does weddings too. I remember not so long ago, she mentioned about the wedding couple bizarrely asking who would own copyright to the images. From what she told me, she owns copyright to the negatives/digital back-up images. But once she hands over the developed images to the newly-wed couple, then she is also handing over copyright ownership to them too; and if she was to publish the images onto her own website to update advertising of recent "work done", then she needed to seek permission from the couple first, despite the fact she was the photographer of the images. Wesley☀Mouse 13:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how UK copyright works (although I don't think it's that different), but that's not how it works in the U.S. Copyright ownership is about authorship and the photographer is the author of those images, and copyright is distinct from the physical ownership of the "copy". Of course there are a billion exceptions and caveats, but the scenario you describe does not sound accurate to me. All of that notwithstanding, copyright law is generally insane. Shadowjams (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Why would that be bizarre? It's quite possible that the couple had heard of the concept of work-for-hire and that they thus wondered if it applied when they were paying a photographer to take pictures of them. Nyttend (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I said "my friend thought it bizarre", not me personally. Wesley☀Mouse 14:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

There's absolutely no limit to how stupid copyright law can get. [21] Though an entire industry would doubtless disagree, my opinion is that photographers claiming to hold copyrights on photos they were hired to take is simply a predatory practice, no different than, say, "predatory lending", taking advantage of naive customers who just can't imagine the law would be that stupid. My guess, however, is that a musician or other professional operation will know the law well enough to demand ownership of photos taken by those hired to do so, if their country has such an interpretation in the first place. Either way, I don't think it should be necessary for Wikipedia to do more than believe that this person is/represents Megitza and take their word for it that the web gallery, there or here, is not a pirate website. But I'm not a lawyer... Wnt (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

There's something about UK photography copyright at http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/protect/p16_photography_copyright - Unless there is a legal agreement otherwise or the photographer is an employee of the party requiring them to take the photographs, the photographer retains copyright - even with wedding photographs. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't really comment as to why my friend rescinds the copyright of photos she has taken once they're developed. One can only assume that's her personal choice, as its her own photography business. It could be a matter of each photographer decides whether to retain or rescind copyright status as part of their business plans. Who knows!? Wesley☀Mouse 14:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted the picture possibly too quickly if it needs to be brought back then please override my hasty action Victuallers (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I have emailed Megitza using the email stated on her website asking if it is her Wikipedia account, and if the image can be used on the Wikipedia Main Page and article. If I get anywhere, I will send it to the permissions WP email address. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 14:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Got permission, forwarded to permissions-commons email. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 17:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

How can permission restricted to the article and Main Page be enough? It certainly isn't for text. Bielle (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not - Megitza replied saying that it is free to use and doesn't violate copyright (2nd email to me). See the commons OTRS Noticeboard. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 21:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If the image is not CRed to "U Szterner photography", and Megitza gave you permission, why not just ask her to upload it to Wikicommons, as "own work"? — GabeMc (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

She's not replied, and it goes on the MP in 16 mins. Quick solution? She gave permission, however basic. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 23:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: By the time the above was posted the image had already been replaced by another in the DYK queue. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

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

New user directed here re: sources for Traditional Britain Group

I write to formally complain about the activities of one particular editor who has deliberately and maliciously attacked this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Britain_Group and now seeks its removal. It is my firm belief that he has a very clear agenda, for whatever reason. His comments on my personal Talk Page are rude and arrogant and self-righteous. If this is the way you greet new users then you don't deserve them. TomTower (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: It was suggested this user post here on his User_talk:TomTower. LongTone does have an agenda; however it appears to be to maintain Wikipedia's longstanding but confusing inclusion standards. Contrary to LongTone's assertion on the talk page, he has been very mildy rude -- describing the newsletters as "completely ignored" is unwarranted. Nobody Ent 13:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You need to...

1. Actually tell us who you are complaining about.
2. Notify them of this report here. (See the orange banner when you edit that says "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so"?)
3. Specifically identify this allegedly bad behavior. (See where it also says "Also, please provide links and diffs here to involved pages and editors"?)

As an aside, I've had a look at your Talk page, and I see nothing remotely "rude and arrogant and self-righteous" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

He's a new user (unless SPI concludes otherwise). LongTone incorrectly said 'go complain here' with a link and he followed it, and banners are invisible. So now he gets bitched at. Nice. Nobody Ent 00:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Taking a look at the article history and talk page, it looks like both of you have been making good faith edits, even if you disagree on several points. The exchange on your talk page is a bit snippy for my tastes, but neither of you is outright attacking each other and certainly nothing I would want to see anyone blocked for at this point. The conversation seems to be on topic. The AFD has been opened, and he has been pretty forthright about his edits to the article. Wouldn't it be better if we all focused on the merits of the article there, instead of here? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
• And thank you Nobody Ent, for placing the ANI notice on TheLongTone's page, as TomTower failed to. TomTower, you are obligated to do this when talking about an editor, even if you don't mention their name. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Guys, User:TheLongTone told him to come here after their exchange, and even provided a link. As a new user, would it make sense to notify the person who just told you to come here, despite what the orange banner says? I know that non-notification is a pet peeve of many (including myself) but in this case it really appears kind of bitey to harp on that, and Tom has had quite a bit of mild biting already in his first attempt here, being referred almost immediately to ANI after not understanding one of our more confusing policies, and having the page in question put up for AFD equally as quick. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 13:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if it looked like harping, my timing on edits made it so I didn't see Boing's point first, or I wouldn't have repeated it. I've struck mine as to not labor the point. Even though TheLongTone told him to come here, it was said in an off the cuff manner, and I wouldn't expect him to know that TomTower really was going to, so Boing's point still holds. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It was just the repeating of Boing's point that made me cringe. Thanks for striking it :) Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 13:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• I don't have anything to say that isn't already on the complainant's talk page or the afd discussion, other than that I don't think its particularly rude to say that the press releases have been ignored, given that these people have had no press coverage., an I don't think the afd is bitey, since Tom Tower has had bag of time to address the issues with the article.TheLongTone (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Judging by the tone of Tom Tower's posts and his editing interests, in particular ones only relating to a certain British "politician" (and I use that term loosely) it looks like David Lauder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/Sussexman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back again. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

On one hand I hope you're wrong, b/c I just went out of my way to defend/provide reassurance to what I believed to be a new user. On the other hand, I kind of hope you're right, b/c if not, then we can add a sockpuppet accusation to the list of things new user Tom has learned about today. :( Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 14:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm reviewing, but I will be the first to tell you that I'm not an expert at SPI. If someone smarter than I am feels there is a connection, then they should fill out an SPI. My spidey sense was tingling with the passive-aggressive nature of the initial report, but in the interest of good faith, I don't want to pick the person apart here without an SPI or clearer evidence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'll file an SPI later on, I'm more than familiar with this sockmaster due to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sussexman. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, the OP (Tom) originally posted his complaint incorrectly to the end of the above discussion without a header. Other editors (myself included) corrected that for him. That's a pretty common newbie mistake, though I suppose it could also be a clever tactic by a sock (though one I have personally not seen used before). I have a feeling we might be chasing duck-snipes here. I'd really like to see this SPI expedited since the possibility exists that we could be dealing with a good faith new user. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 15:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/David Lauder. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 16:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• After digging around the IPs and previous cases, I am hearing a loud quacking sound as well. I've also said so at the SPI, which hasn't progressed yet. From the looks of TomTower's last edits, it would appear he has left us. Nice memory and catch 2K. I would bet money on this one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Ban appeal by User:Altenmann

On 11 April 2010, User:Altenmann was desysopped and community banned, which the user would like reconsidered. Accordingly, the Ban Appeals Subcommittee seeks comment from the community on suspending the ban and interested editors are invited to participate. For the committee, SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Appeal discussion

Request BLP and NPA review at Sandra Shevey

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

---

Regarding OTRS ticket 2012022710003812, I'd like to have an administrator review the article's talk page. With permission to disclose here, the subject of the article contacted us and expressed her view that the talk page was 'anti-semitic' and attempted to denigrate her reputation by questioning whether she should have an article. There's also a reference to her off-wiki social media activity which she was uncomfortable with. She has said that if the comments aren't removed she wants the article taken down. I'll respectfully say that I don't see it from her perspective, but I would like a third opinion given her upset. Thanks, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing even remotely antisemitic on that Talk page! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Nothing that could possibly be connected with anti-semitism in the smallest respect. Notability does look pretty doubtful. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Update: now at AfD. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I should add because it was part of her complaint that Talk page discussions about a subject's notability are commonplace, and the brief discussion in this instance was remarkably tame. Shevey herself attempted to blank out the comments and insert her own self-assessment; that was resolved. Nomosk has taken it to AfD, so maybe she'll get her wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Personal attack from IP

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

---

Can someone review this personal attack from a random IP for me please, and take any appropriate action if needs be. The IP also posted several other personal attacks across a variety of article talk pages, as well as refactoring messages and editor's signatures, as shown in their special contributions. Thanks - Wesley☀Mouse 16:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Ignore that request; discospinster (talk · contribs) has blocked the IP. Thanks anyway. Wesley☀Mouse 16:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Admin required to get user to stop restoring personal attack

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

---

History, an AfD, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gemini_Wars, a couple of tetchy comments a bit late in the day, [23] [24]. This morning I struck through, and apologized for, the juvenile, uncivil comment about the fanboy sites [25] and also removed the personal attack directed at me by SL93. [26]
Despite having tried to AGF this outright personal attack, and requested that the user in question leave the {{rpa}} tag in place, they are repeatedly and obstinately restoring their comment, which I do not accept even if it's struck through (and I have cited the relevant text from WP:NPA). restore tag, request, revert of tag, restore tag and revert by user SL93, final request, WP:NPA quote (again), final tag restore with warning, latest revert to attack text. Could an admin have a quiet word with this person as they have also decided to come and pitch in on my talk page on a completely unrelated subject? I would like the personal attack removed and that this person stop removing the tag. Thanks. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh man... you both need to get a different hobby. What's the point in insisting it be removed when it's struck? What's the point in insisting it be struck instead of removed? Seriously... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Because he refuses to remove (or even strike out) all of his personal attacks towards editors. SL93 (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

"On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack." It is not a talk page. I crossed it out which is the same as taking it back, but you have not crossed out or remove any of your personal attacks as per the Wikiquette Assistance against you and what I posted on your talk page (which you quickly removed without response). SL93 (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Captain, unlucky I guess. Some people don't want to shake hands and forget about it after fisticuffs. Their loss. My advice would be to take a deep breath, move on and don't take it personally. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Screebo called an editor intellectually dishonest and said that he doesn't understand the English language. He still has no problem with that. SL93 (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey don't shoot the messenger, I was just trying to calm things down. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

But ignoring the over-arching issue does not help anything. A comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gemini Wars‎ from a different editor - "I haven't New Page Patrolled, no, but I don't appreciate how Screebo is talking down to me, (and everyone else), so much. I've spent much time here at AFD. Please, Screebo, try to tone it down a bit." SL93 (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

(several ec later) I have asked this user to stop rushing all over the place and stirring things up, (takes deep breath), thanks Basalisk for your calm and balanced approach, I will go and do some cooking or some other soothing activity and not lose any sleep over this user's insistence on trying to make me out to be some sort of ogre. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm hesitant to move fast in a situation where both parties have been less than civil and have likely share some blame for escalating the situation, to the degree that "who is more guilty than who" isn't clear, and likely not relevant. Can't we all just get along? In the real world, I would just buy you two an beer and we would sit down and talk about something else for a while, cool down, then go do the right thing, be it strike or remove. Help me out a little please, I'm slow today. Briefly, and preferably without contradicting each other, what do each of you think the solution should be? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • All that I did was call him a jerk (which I crossed out), but Screebo is still fine with his incivility previously and I don't mean towards myself. SL93 (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Maybe I wasn't clear. What do each of you think the solution should be? Not the problem, but the solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
    • The solution could have been letting me just cross out the comment instead of continually reverting me. It would have been left at that only with me, but not others. If the editor withdraws this ANI, I will gladly leave him alone. SL93 (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Simple and clear. Excellent. And now I would love to hear what Captain Screebo feels the proper solution should be. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
      • I promised myself that I wouldn't get into any drama, but then I saw incivility to just one of the many editors that I respect. It was wrong to call him a jerk though. SL93 (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• The related matter with two separate instances involving Captain Screebo are currently posted at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance#Captain Screebo. The notice for WP:ANI says, "To report impolite or uncivil communications with other editors, see wikiquette assistance." Captain Screebo has been involved in that page. I am not sure if this is proper to say, but shouldn't the matter be handled at the existing discussion at WQA since the editors were involved when Captain Screebo made this post here? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I had been only focusing on the comments in this one AFD, trying to demonstrate that their ideas for solution were almost identical and that this ANI wasn't needed, but yes, you are correct Chris, that would be the proper place to handle the larger issues. And it is always proper to bring that kind of issue up, and appreciated as I don't want to step on anyone's toes. And since you have, and the situation has cooled enough that I don't think anything must be done here this very minute, feel free to archive this thread, pointing to that discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

As I am no admin, I must politely refuse to close, but I'll cite the matter at the WQA pointing to this discussion. It all happened quickly so I just wanted to make mention of it since that was a relevant discussion area directly related to that AfD. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to be an admin to close, but I will since you are involved there, I just want to shut off this thread. Good find, seriously, thank you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Repeated vandalism

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

---

A group of anonymous IPs have been repeatedly vandalizing the Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor and Douhua articles by adding the obvious hoax claim that Charles V "created the recipe for soybean pudding" in 1535. The soybean wasn't known in Europe until it was introduced in 1712 by the German botanist Engelbert Kaempfer, and didn't become a popular crop until the 19th century. Numerous editors have spotted the joke statement, and have attempted to revert it (including User:Gunkarta, User:Brad Rapstars, User:Pmarshal), only to have it undone by some very persistent IP vandals (86.180.114.60 86.147.193.232, 213.249.223.165, 86.148.235.107), whose focus has recently been primarily on the two articles. One of the IP vandals, 86.180.114.60, has been warned before for vandalism. The original vandalism was done on an IP address registered to the University of Hall, so my guess is that this is an in-joke among students. Could an administrator look into this?--Indiandrum (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

...and have you asked for page protection? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Was about to say the same thing. The book isn't searchable online, and the vandalism isn't often enough that RPP is likely to jump in, so not sure what the solution would be, but yes, page protection would be the first stop. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted the hoax in both articles and RPPed the Charles V article as well as properly warned the latest IP. Any further attempts at reinserting the hoax should be a matter for WP:AIV. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

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

IP edit-warring

An IP who recently dropped by Croatian Liberation Movement article is hell bent on inserting potentially controversial claims, namely that the organisation is terrorist. Although there are tertiary sources who described CLM as a terrorist group back in the 1980s and 1970s they were never held responsible for any actual act of terrorism and they were never listed by any country as such. Nowadays they are a marginal political party. The IP engaged in discussion at Talk:Croatian Liberation Movement, making sweeping statements about the group's "real nature" and the quality of the WP article (which he described as "blog and history whitewash"). He started a thread titled delete this article and in spite of being asked four times about the specific "bombings, hijackings and assassinations in the 1970s" which allegedly the group is responsible for he failed to provide any, simply listing a number of tertiary sources which happened to mention terrorism and CLM in the same sentence. He deleted my comments from talk, I restored them. He deleted them again, I restored them again, and he deleted them again for the third time. On the article itself the IP insists on useless cleanup tags, claiming incessantly that the article is a "blog and history whitewash". I left a message at his talk page warning him not to engage in disruptive editing, but he simply deleted it claiming that the message constituted "personal attack". I restored the warning, he deleted it again. So all his latest deletions at article, article talk and user talk currently stand but this seems far from constructive editing. Timbouctou (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The article was written without any valid reference. This user deleted tags claiming accuracy disputes which are clearly and fully supported by 11 references in the talk pages. Instead of making his responses as a separate entry he inserted his comments into my text making it spaghetti-unreadable. That forced me to re-edit text and take his insertions and put them back in a readable manner. In addition, this user does not support any of his responses by any valid reference; he superimposed his point of view to scholarly proven and referenced facts about this organization. I did not delete anything inside existing text: I just inserted a few which is a legitimate way to ask for proofs. Moreover, another user (R-41) objected to the quality of this article in the same line as I did. [27]--71.178.101.2 (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Citing conspiracy theorists is not what WP editors have in mind when they talk about referencing. User R-41 had the same problem as you did - mainly the lack of evidence in real life for his extraordinary claims. This is a common case of ignorance mistaken for vigilance. - Timbouctou (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Putting aside the dispute for the moment, 71 is correct - the article has no sources, not even an external link. On what basis does it even exist?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This was debated some three months ago. R-41 failed to insert a single reference and then a somewhat nationalist user came along in March and inserted a source, a Croatian-language article which is no longer available online. Then 71 started tagging it insisting that the article is a whitewash, following which I re-wrote it, removing questionable parts and the single unavailable source with it. Timbouctou (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I saw that in the history, but that doesn't address the problem. The article must be sourced. I'm very tempted to stub it pending further discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I added a reference - their page from party registry with the Croatian Referral agency which gives an overview of its history. It is in Croatian. Timbouctou (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

That helps a bit, thanks, I did a Google translation, and it seems to support some of the basic material in the article. What about all the material it doesn't support? Couldn't you remove all the unsourced material? You can add material back in as you find reliable sources for it, but some of it is fairly controversial. You should be aware, though, that you're edit-warring just as much as 71 is.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Nothing in the article is really controversial. IP's problem is that he thinks the article should have a more negative slant simply because it was quite openly ran by ex fascists who escaped Europe. But the group was never engaged in "bombings, assassinations and hijackings" as IP claims, and he claims it because he read it in a book by a guy who in turn read it in a book by two journalists whose thesis is that there is a conspiracy involving anti-communists and ex-fascists. And I think Wikipedia has bigger issues to tackle than counting reverts. Timbouctou (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh and btw the prod tag which IP is abusing is supposed to be removed by editors objecting to it so long as they provide reasons in edit summaries and talk pages. Which I did. Twice. And which he reverted again, even after a reference was provided. Timbouctou (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• • The reference added is the Croatian Liberation Movement page, therefore not a valid reference! About true nature o this organization and its history references, scholars, university professors are writing, not me! Australian Senator O'Rurke gave clear evidence to the Australian Parliament about the terrorist activities of this organization in Australia!--71.178.101.2 (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

OMG how impressively ignorant you are. The Croatian Information-Documentation Referral Agency is the state agency responsible for all political party registrations. It is a government agency which keeps track of all registered parties in the country. Timbouctou (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Please remain civil, Timbouctou. I've left 3RR warnings on both of your Talk pages. I've reverted 71's reinsertion of the prod tag as it's wrong for him to put it back in once it's been removed (also he's doing it wrong and it looks like it's already expired). As for controversial, calling the party marginal, saying the party "fared poorly", and the legal problems section, just to name a few.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

These things should be easily referenced but they are not what 71 has problem with. His problem is that he heard somewhere that they were bona fide terrorists back in the 1970s but in reality there are no actual terrorist acts they were ever held responsible for or which were attributed to them. That is the gist of it. Timbouctou (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Bbb23 has correctly reverted the material back out. When adding controversial material, the WP:BURDEN is on the editor who is changing the consensus version and adding the material, in this case, 71.178.101.2. There is nothing wrong with being bold and adding it once, but after it has been reverted, WP:BRD tells us that we should take it to the talk page. I would suggest everyone leave the article as it is now, then discuss it on the talk page, as their is ample justification to block anyone here who reverts back. If reliable sources for the controversial changes can't be found, then it should not be included in the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• I would have preferred to remove the controversial, unsourced material first, but if you (Dennis) and others don't mind leaving it in for a while, I'm okay with that. One other point: as far as I can tell, the controversial material aren't "changes" - they've been there for a while, unsourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• I stand corrected on that point, I trust your judgement and would ask you finally restore the article to the previous consensus, then we leave it that way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• • • • Make that "appropriate status". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
• I've removed the section Legal problems until a discussion can be had on the talk page and until sources can be found, and left a note on the talk page. In general, we don't include claims relating to genocide without there being reliable sources. WP:V requires this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

NPAs from anon user 71.79.255.136

I've been dealing with an unpleasant anon (who I suspect is an indef blocked user who I've interacted with before) who posted a completely over the top comment in an article discussion page. Someone else removed it, and I posted a civility warning on the user's page (anon's do see their talk page - who knew?). Their response? "Suck my dick". I know the anon only has two posts, but - like I said - this doesn't seem like a new user. I'd recommend an SPI, but frankly, the user would likely just abandon this IP for yet another. Might we simply block this IP as a troll and I'll start looking for similar posts as they pop up in the future. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• I left a warning. Anyone that feels more is needed, feel free, you won't hurt my feelings. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think that Mr. Sebastian has ruffled plenty of feathers with his history of not-so-pleasent remarks to other users. It has been noted that he does tend to BITE other users fairly frequently and I concur with that assesment. That having been said, I doubt that there is only one user that are at the breaking point with his behavior and have lashed out at him. He tends to like to tell other users how to behave (in an obnoxious, pious kind of way, IMO) but has no interest in adhering to said guidelines himself. I do agree that the remarks in question may be over the top, so to speak. But I also feel that, in some small way, Jack may have "had it coming". Simply not liking a user does not make them some unnamed "banned" user. It may just mean that JS has a way of bringing this behavior out in other users. Oh, and according to wikipedia, IP editors are not "anonymous", those with account are since your account somewhat sheilds you from tracking your IP. See how that works? Suggest cooling down and considering how your own behavior may cause others to completely lose their cool. 65.204.124.130 (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Incivility from Hearfourmewesique

Someone needs to inform User:Hearfourmewesique that edit summary comments like this violate WP:CIV. This comes on the heels of a number of similar comments that aren't exactly in the spirit of CIV, as when he reacted to my removal of material plagiarized from another website without compliance with that site's license by citing citing WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, and telling me that I should've paraphrased the material myself, even though I had already told him that I hadn't seen the episode. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Need an uninvolved admin to close a POINTY MfD

After a recent edit made by User:Cla68 to his user page, much discussion on the appropriateness of self-promotional material on user pages has taken place. An RfC was begun by User:Scottywong at 20:06, 26 April 2012, in an attempt to get community consensus for this issue. Over a day later, fully aware of the ongoing RfC, User:Bwilkins started a MfD at 22:04, 27 April 2012 on Cla68's user page.

Bwilkins notified Jimbo and others of his action with the comment "Somebody had to have the balls". I attempted to close the MfD as a misuse of process and WP:POINT since there is already an ongoing RfC on the exact same issue and User:Bwilkins posted his comments at the end of the thread announcing that RfC (on Jimbo's page).

In addition Administrator:Ed17 placed the page under protection because of edit warring over removal of the promotional content, and that protection had to be overriden for Bwilkins to place his MfD tag. This is one admin overriding another, which I believe is technically defined as wheel warring. (striking the wheel comment since it seems to be serving to distract from issues)

I believe it is a frivolous and vexatious use of time and resources to conduct an RfC seeking community consensus for this and then to have a second separate discussion on the same points and issues that may reach a different local consensus. Bwilkins knows better and should not be creating a situation like this, and until the RfC has completed, I believe discussion and consensus should be arrived at in one place, not two. -- Avanu (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• As someone who has defended Cla68's right to keep it on the userpage, I don't see the MfD nomination as wheel warring. Full protection does not restrict anyone's authority to nominate a page at XfD, and once nominated the placement of the notice itself is merely a clerical act. I have never seen an edit request asking that an XfD tag be placed on an article be rejected. Monty₈₄₅ 01:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, but considering the ongoing RfC, is it a POINTY MfD? -- Avanu (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Would it have been better to wait until after the RFC? I think so, but there are enough people in favor of deletion that we should AGF as to the nomination. It is clear at this point how the MfD is going to end, lets all just put down the sticks and wait for it and the RFC to conclude. Monty₈₄₅ 01:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Link to RfC. Cla68 (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• As I explained on Avanu's talk page, the RfC and the MfD are only loosely related. There is nothing preventing them from happening simultaneously. The RfC is only intended to bring a guideline closer in line with a policy. The RfC does not need to be successful in order for Cla68's user page to be deleted and/or the advertisement removed from it, as the advertisement on the user page already violates policy, specifically WP:NOTADVERTISING. Therefore, there is no reason to close the MfD early. Accusations of wheel warring clearly are being generated by one user's misunderstanding of what wheel warring actually is. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 01:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems like an odd thing to be so certain about when the policy is 'What Wikipedia is Not'. Obviously there are many varying opinions as to what might or might not be permitted under a 'NOT something' policy, entirely subject to interpretation. If it was this obvious, I'm not sure I understand why you started an RfC on it. Wouldn't that be a waste of time? -- Avanu (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hundreds of faulty geographical templates needing deletion and edits reverted

Maxtremus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has created hundreds of geographical templates based on Wikis and other non-reliable sources that are being spammed into too many articles for any one editor to revert, cleanup, remove and AFD. This editor is also removing data from articles to replace it with this new "default template" (which are not "defaults" at all, they were just created, and they aren't based on reliable sources). A massive revert, delete, and cleanup operation is needed-- I don't know where else to take this. Here are two samples only:

• {{Largest cities of New Mexico}} is sourced to a German site citypopulation.de, here is the contact page, which reveals it to be a personal website.
• {{Largest cities of Venezuela}} is sourced to Geonames.org, which is a Wiki, not a reliable source.

In multiple instances, Maxtremus has removed local and correctly cited data to replace it with these non-reliably sourced templates, hundreds of which need to be deleted, and these edits reverted. There are messages at Maxtremus's talk page about the non-reliable sources going back to April 8, so the continued insertion of these templates is disruptive. It has also resulted in at least one deletion discussion so far, {{Largest cities of Saint Lucia}}. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry for any incovenience, i'm doing hundred of templates and i don't have enough time to search individually for each source in each official sensus in each country or state, even because i don't know all languages spoken in the countries. So I used a general source and anyone is free to modify to official sources in the templates. I'd like to, please, do not put the templates for deletion. Instead of it, try to search for more trustable sources. Thx. Maxtremus (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • You used general non-reliable sources, and the problem is not only in the creation of and spamming of these templates into articles; it is that you are deleting reliably sourced information to replace it with these templates, and adding it to Featured Articles in ways that disrupt the flow and layout of articles. Have you created a single reliably sourced template? Having seen how many of these you have done and inserted, it's unclear to me that there is any way to repair the damage except via mass deletion and reversion. In many cases, the information is not only not reliable, but irrelevant (ten largest cities of Saint Lucia, indeed-- how about Aruba?) In Featured articles, text of this nature is covered in prose. I'm unaware of any article where these templates are useful, or correctly used. Open to ideas, but for now, I hope I've at least removed it from all featured articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm definitely out of my element here, but I'd still like to put in my 2₵ worth. I noticed Maxtremus's template first at Illinois, and as I noted on the Saint Lucia deletion page, I do generally prefer prose, but at Illinois, Maxtremus's template replaced another table, providing the same information with an aesthetic improvement. I also agree (as I stated elsewhere) that it might be a bit unnecessary to have such a template for say, Nauru (cue the smiles), but for larger entities, many of which probably have home-made tables as Illinois had, perhaps this isn't such a bad thing. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Obviously if the data Maxtremus is providing is inaccurate, I would not support what he is doing. But that simply means there are two issues here, the template itself, and the data. I rather like the template, which is what I have been defending. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

First, I strongly disagree these templates are an "aesthetic improvement" (they aren't to any article I've seen-- they are disrupting prose, flow and layout, and in some cases, adding useless information). Second, even if they were an improvement, please review WP:RS-- every one of them I have checked is based on a Wiki or a personal website. Third, please moderate your tone in edit summaries, and review WP:3RR. If you had inquired on talk, you might have avoided the revert war and the insult via edit summary. Fourth, please see WP:V-- it's policy. Text must be verifiable to reliable sources. Finally, how are we going to cleanup this mess? We have perhaps hundreds of templates based on non-reliable sources added to as many articles. I've asked Maxtremus if he intends to clean up after himself; otherwise, I'd like to know if they can all be admin deleted, and I'd like to remind you both to review WP:OWN#Featured articles and gain consensus before dropping something like this into FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Cut and past move

Cut and paste move from John Marquez to John Márquez at 01:07, 30 April 2012. Kauffner (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You could have, you know, asked him to undo the improper move, telling him it was the wrong way to do it. Or just undone it yourself and told him the same. Anyway, I've undone the edits. Also, you failed to tell the user in question that you were bringing up one of his actions on ANI, as required by everyone posting complaints to this board. (I let him know for you, by the way.) Someguy1221 (talk) 04:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)