Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive88

Image Deletion

I found a "red category" Category:Images on Wikimedia Commons as of 26 April 2007 full of images that should have been reviewed for WP:CSD#I8. It looks like the category was never created so the images were likely never reviewed. I've created the category placed it in Category:Images on Wikimedia Commons with its sibling cats, so someone may want to start sorting through it. (I can't do that while at work.) --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey Dahmer

While it's probably nothing I would rather err on the side of caution and so I have contacted the Pewaukee School District about this. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Wise move. You should also send this to the local police and/or sheriff's dept. b.c the school may not receive the info since its the weekend. Best, --Alabamaboy 22:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

My quick deletion and undeletion of Template:GFDL-self

I had to bust an obvious GFDL violation (a cut and paste move), which depended on a documentation page for my old template, Template:GFDL-self-no-disclaimers/doc, which would not make sense with this template if moved to Template:GFDL-self/doc. I then repaired the undeleted template to remove the disclaimers and false interwikis. Jesse Viviano 23:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Block of Telemar Norte Leste S.A. (Brazillian ISP)

Due to repeated abuse of editting priveleges exhibited from an individual IP hopping from day to day on 201.29.0.0/16, I have softblocked this range for a month (anon only, account creation open)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You blocked 400,000 anonymous users (according to Telemar) from editing Wikipedia because of one vandal? Have you got some examples of the persistent vandalism? Seems a little heavy handed to soft-block the approx. equivalent population of Sacramento, California because of one vandal. -Halo 02:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It's been constant abuse that I have nto been able to stem at a handful of articles I watch (persistant abuse, semiprotection is not a possibility as it would lock out helpful edits). The abuse has been going on for some time, and I have an actual user who has since been blocked who I know is the source of this vandalism. It's been much more difficult to block singular IPs that match the M.O. of the user than it was to try and single out a smaller range to deal with this. I will seek out some other assistance later to see how much damage I actually have done (anonymous editors have been the source of the vandalous edits, but I have allowed for account creation).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Google search reveals what happens if vandalism isn't reverted quickly...

second entry down, read the summary

Google had better update this soon because this is sure to anger many people. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 23:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The offending edit seems to have been reverted within 2 minutes too. That's a case of very bad timing by the Googlebot. Will (aka Wimt) 23:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

How often does Googlebot update? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully quite quickly for a page such as this (but it could still be a matter of days). However, I have contacted Google giving them the details of the situation so hopefully they should set it to update soon. Will (aka Wimt) 00:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Does googlebot do spelling corrections? In the diff, the vandal says "sx" , on google it says "sex". --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's go Yankees!) 00:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nah that was just because of the particular diff I linked. The user actually made two edits. The first made the spelling mistake, but then they corrected it. The Googlebot must have trawled after this correction but before the reversion (which happened in the same minute). Unlucky stuff. Will (aka Wimt) 00:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If it really needs to go, a developer could register here and get the page recached. Prodego ^talk 00:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought.. 2 minutes.. but what if that 2 minutes also happened to fall into a period in which this specific webpage was updated on the wikipedia cache server ? Because I trust the GoogleBot is just an anonymous user. That way it can have been on that page considerably longer then 2 minutes for many people. Perhaps this is something we can solve by treating googlebot in another way. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Treating Googlebot another way would probably mean a massive increase of the load on the database server. —Centrx→talk • 00:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would solve the problem either (I doubt there is really a solution as such). Even if the Googlebot bypassed the cache somehow, it would still find vandalism if vandalism happened to be in the article as it trawled. Will (aka Wimt) 00:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: It looks like its been fixed! -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 01:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S: It looks like someone edited it to remove the nonsense. The cache link is missing and there is todays date.

Excellent. At least Google are quick at fixing these things when they come to light. Will (aka Wimt) 01:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved here from below

News story. Relatively simple changes in the Wikimedia software could minimize the risk of a search engine caching a badly vandalized page. We can use a strategy called content delivery. When a search engine shows up, easily identified by the user-agent, we could deliver the last known "good" version of a page. For simplicity, we can say that any page edited by a user with more than X edits is "good." (Users who vandalize almost never have more than X edits.) Search engines may cache a page for weeks or even months before they return for a fresh revision. It would be a terrible thing for the subject of a minor article if slanderous or obscene material showed up at the top of the search results under their name for such a long time. Speed of reversion doesn't matter. Bots come all day long and will inevitably have bad luck now and then. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 04:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

At least it's over 200 years too late to be a Biography of a Living Person... *Dan T.* 04:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Google uses a feed from us, updating on a periodic basis when we tell them that an article's been updated recently. As such, there shouldn't be the problem of bad caches lasting months. Ral315 » 21:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Google is only one of many sites that cache Wikipedia. How about Baidu or Yandex? These are leaders in their own markets. How often do they refresh? How about all the Wikipedia mirror sites. This isn't a simple issue, and it will only get more complex. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 07:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The challenge is not that we don't know about this, but rather that there's not enough people to code this. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Searchresulttext

Somebody brought up on IRC the fact that MediaWiki:Searchresulttext currently does not have any easily accessible external links to searching Wikipedia, while MediaWiki:Searchnoresults (which only shows if absolutely nothing comes up) does. They proposed linking to wikiwix.com, which seems to me to be a good site, but I wanted to see whether this would be a good move, or whether the link to Wikipedia:Searching is enough. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I am the person who talk to IRC, i just want to signal that we are the first search engine external for wikipedia on real time:

http://www.wikiwix.com/?lang=en&action=gouvernement+fillon

Pmartin76 11:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Already on the french wiki (see), this engine is really sharp on the search. In fact, this is one of the best right now. ThrillSeeker 11:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

we make difference on this type of search

http://www.wikiwix.com/?lang=en&action=football ==> second answer

http://www.wikiwix.com/?lang=en&action=new+york+city ==> geolocalising result

http://www.wikiwix.com/?img=true&lang=en&action=new%20york%20city

real time is not yet available, it will be on on the next week

Pmartin76 12:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added some code to Mediawiki:Common.js, taken from fr.wiki, to give us the different search links. Martinp23 13:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Re WikiWix, why is it that (a) it doesn;t have a wiki page, and (b) that when one is created, it's then immediately removed and it's history excised even from the activity log of the person creating it? If Wikipedia has a special policy regarding WikiWix, it shouldn't be a secret, and if Wikipedia is suggesting that users try WikiWix on its search results page (suggesting a relationship), then I didn't think that Wikipedia was supposed to be allowed to censor information about itself. There seem to be "trust" issues here. Okay, perhaps this isn't the right place to ask, but someone with WikiPriveleges seems to be erasing all trace of the pages where we should be asking. ErkDemon 22:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfriendly ISP template

The wording of Template:ISP is in my view unfriendly, and scary to the new users most likely to see it (I'm an old user and it bothers even me). I tried toning it down [1] but Netsnipe reverted based on the idea that it's not a welcome template (I'd pasted in some text from Template:WelcomeIP). Netsnipe suggested at the talk page that I ask here for further opinions. I'm not sure I disagree with Netsnipe about anything specific: I'm not claiming the text from the welcome template is especially important, but I do think the current wording is unnecessarily hostile so I wanted to soften it. Also, the stuff about "IT staff" is pretentious and/or misleading. AFAIK Wikipedia's IT staff is Brion, Tim, and one or two others whose names I've forgotten, and none of them need to be advised of the RSS feed, so the wording seems aimed more at intimidating new editors who aren't familiar with the setup (WP:BITE). Anyway I'd like to undo the reversion or change the template wording in some other way to make it friendlier. I'd appreciate it if anyone else wants to weigh in. Regards, 75.62.6.237 04:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I support the changes that you made. DXRAW 07:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I belive that "IT Staff" is addressed to staff members employeed by the ISP, not by wikipedia. Perhaps this should be clearer, but such people have a legit need to monitor those feeds. DES ^(talk) 08:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This guy needs to get banned from the wiki forever

Go here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:205.222.248.29 he has more then 12 warnings and he was blocked 3 times. He made sooo many vandalism, such as calling my favorite game VMK gay, stupid and retarded. See his user page! Its because his IP is from a school, so no wonder. Dacheatcode 12:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Or maybe its possible that because its a school, there are hundreds of people represented buy that one IP address, and therefore almost all the vandalism is unrelated and highly unlikely to be one person? —Dark•Shikari^[T] 12:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Indeed. There are asses at loads of schools who have nothing better to do than vandalize, but there are also valuable wiki contributors who use the same computers. David Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 13:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible sock of User:Jim_Burton

Posted here rather than WP:SSP due to the circumstances surrounding this ban. This edit [2] to a pedophile related AfD is very similar to previous edits by the user, and the IP has previously edited pedophile-related articles. Could be wrong, but thought it was worth mentioning. EliminatorJR ^Talk 17:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Whois shows a different location from Jim Burton. Fred Bauder 17:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. EliminatorJR ^Talk 17:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Protecting the recently deceased

I wanted to come here and share with you what can happen when we don't protect the high-profile recently deceased fast enough: Negative Publicitay! As soon as I heard that Falwell has kicked the bucket, I ran over to the article, and semi-protected it as fast as I could. It was being vandalized one or two times per minute around the time if memory serves.

I think people should take heed and sprotect when in doubt, because subjects in the news are invariably googled, we invariably come up at the top, and understandably receive unwelcome negative attention when people read about Pat Robertson's appendage. In other words, failing to prevent this kind of vandalism hurts us a lot and is easy to remedy without giving up all we stand for.

Either that, or we need stable versions - yesterday. -- Y not? 05:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not semi-protect to pre-empt vandalism that may happen - it's extremely bad form, particularly considering the amount of legitimate contributions anonymous members make. -Halo 08:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah this kind of attitude is exactly what I'm talking about. We're nota fledgling website anymore: our reputation will increasingly depend on how we appear in high-profile situations. It's extremely bad form to allow what we allowed with Falwell -- Y not? 12:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - sometimes this can prevent valid new content being added. But I confidently predict that when Margaret Thatcher snuffs it at least one anon will add "ding, dong, the witch is dead!" to that article... Guy (Help!) 12:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Guy, it's very bad form to bet on certainties. With stable version, presumably we'd update the stable version to reflect their recent decease? Moreschi ^Talk 12:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This "kind of attitude" is called a well-established policy that was deliberately introduced to stop kind of abuse of semi-protection that you're suggesting. Please don't abuse admin features - we're not a fledgling website anymore, and as such admins abusing their features and going against policy isn't going to generate Wikipedia any positive press, or improve the media's already tarnished view of Wikipedia process and policy-making. People who edit with an IP address are already treated as second-class citizens despite making significant valuable contributions to the site, and rogue admins deciding to sprotect against policy certainly isn't going to stem that tide. -Halo 20:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And that policy is exactly what I was trying to discuss by bringing up this thread. Don't call me names, Halo. -- Y not? 00:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, and I'm expressing my point of view that the actions you're proposing are wrong, against policy and abuse of admin features. I don't appreciate being told I have an attitude when my entire attitude stems from well-established policy which you're suggesting people ignore. If the purpose of this is to start legitimate discussion about changing the current policy, rather than quite wrongly encouraging people to go against it, this is totally the wrong place - you should do it in the WP:PUMP. -Halo 13:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

How doctrinaire of you. Btw, attitude != bad attitude. Attitude is a neutral term. -- Y not? 23:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

How is it doctrinarian to suggest that admins follow both the spirit and explicit word of policy when using an admin feature, particularly when it comes to a policy that was intrinsic in its arrival? How is it doctrinarian to disagree with misuse of an already misused feature that prevents a significant amount of contributors to contribute? How is it doctrinarian to believe that suggestions to create unofficial moderation rules made without discussion that make Wikipedia less wiki-like are a bad thing? How is it doctrinarian to speak for that silent majority who edit using an IP address and don't follow policy discussion? Please justify your comments when throwing around big words with major implications. I'm not bound to policy, I just strongly believe in the sentiment behind it and admins not deciding to use their additional features on a whim against policy, particularly when it's increasingly apparent that they don't have to justify their actions unless they delete the main page. -Halo 00:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Remember folks, Wikipedia is something that cannot possibly work in theory, it only works in practice. Yes, someone might make bad edits to an article after a high profile someone dies, but the wonderful thing about the project is that someone else will fix it. Pre-emptive protection is from the 'works in theory' camp, it assumes that the project cannot function properly and that every day the site stays up is a miracle of god and that at any point we're just one determined vandal away from total collapse. I'm throwing my hat in with the "works in practice" group, who has confidence in the community to deal with this stuff. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh. The person who wrote that article about the vandalism of the Falwell page is probably the one who vandalised the Falwell page. Anchoress 15:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't pre-emptively protect high profile bios. They are not the problem. Hight profile bios get vandalised - but they get quickly reverted. And if crap is added - people know enough about the subject to spot and remove. Further, the subject or her relatives are unlikely to be upset by a few min of vandalism before the revert. All that really happens is we look silly. Protection also discourages people who go there for the first time and wonder about this editing bit. However, low-profile bios should be semi-protected a lot quicker. Here vandalism goes unnoticed - POV and lies are not easily identified - and the subject can get very upset as this may be all the info people can find on them.--Doc^g 15:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

See above thread about George Washington being vandalized yesterday. The vandalism was reverted two minutes later, but unfortunately Googlebot visited during the intervening time, and an obscene sentence was shown all day long whenever people Googled George Washington. When we have 1,000,000+ articles, odds are this will happen again and again. I suggested that we only show stable versions to Google. Stable versions can be created automatically based on user profiling. Wikipedia has become big. With great power comes great responsibility. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 15:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree; it's past time to be more protective of good content. It's not always '2 minutes' - I've seen just in the last few days vandalism that remained for 7 minutes, 90 minutes, 36 hours. The "most vandalism is reverted in five minutes or less" myth is actively becoming harmful to the project if it makes us suffer Google caches of that ilk on high-profile subjects. -- nae'blis 15:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think public perceptions of unreliable content are hurting Wikipedia more that than the benefits of allowing anonymous edits across the board. I see this in the media regularly, and it is now common parlance in the general public. I think empirical facts are required on this issue (e.g. a survey) rather than the largely ideological debate about "free editng" vs "reliable editing". Editor's opinions don't really count for much. One negative incident is equivalent to the effect of ten positive ones. I think some pro-active precautionary measures to protect quality of content such as the suggest to semiprotect the bios of deceased is prudent. Peter Campbell 14:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

We realy need to encurage google to use our live-feed features. I'm fairly sure they subscribe to it already, but it dosn't seem like they use it all the time. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Same goes for TFAs. A year ago, the argument that "we get good anon edits" was valid. Now? A valid edit will probably cause conflict with a vandal one. Not so long ago, I restored an ENTIRE SECTION that had been missing for weeks after a MP appearance.Circeus 19:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

History merger

I am currently translating the Spanish version of the China Poblana article at User:Nardman1/China poblana (sandbox). Would it be possible for someone to perform a history merger at the mainspace article for GFDL reasons (and possibly so I can recruit other editors to help me finish it)? Thanks. When you're done you can delete the sandbox version.

Since you are the only editor of your version, why not simply copy your latest revision into a new revision of the mainspace version? The only GFDL need is for attribution, and from that perspective it makes no difference if all your work appears in one edit. --pgk 22:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Roger that. Thanks. Nardman1 00:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Another unfortunate Google grab

Jim Carrey Sancho 00:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• One resolution strategy is to use an allowable form of cloaking, called "content delivery." It should be trivially easy to apply the semi-protection criteria (not semi-protection itself) to article history to determine that last version that was saved by "good" user. This version can be accessed with an additional URL parameter, such as ?version=stable. When a search engine bot, such as Googlebot shows up and identifies itself (through the user-agent field in the http request header), you program a conditional redirect via .htaccess to append "?version=stable" to the URL. This isn't a big deal, won't slow down the servers, and would avoid further embarrassment to Wikipedia, and unnecessary harm to subjects of articles. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 04:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The people that you need to take changes to MediaWiki up with are developers, not administrators. Uncle G 11:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • If you have a specific idea on how to implement this, make a feature request at mediazilla:, the MediaWiki bug tracker. --ais523 11:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

How can I fix this? Urgent!

Resolved

 – Well, it's all resolved unless you want to snicker at Ryan. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It's me, RyanGerbil10. After reading about the fiasco with admin accounts being hijacked, and changed my password to strngthen it. Unfortunately I changed it on a German keyboard (I was in Germany), and I don't remember/can't figure out what it was changed to because the keyboards don't map out the same here in the United States. (I changed it by using the same keys as in the original password but by holding the shift key down for certain characters. For example, if my password had been "thisisnotmypassword111" it was changed to something like THisNOtmYPasSWorD!11." I requested another password be e-mailed to me, but it doesn't work! What can I do? If this is better discussed by e-mail, I have e-mail enabled on my account. 208.104.117.109 01:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I guess I'm just an idiot sometimes (like that time I blocked myself.) RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 01:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

How exactly did you manage to block yourself? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Viridae (talk • contribs) 01:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC).

I don't know, but here's the evidence: [3]. howcheng {chat} 02:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I've seen four users accidentally block themselves. It isn't a hard mistake to make if you are in haste. Don't act in haste :) I have one block for one second during a Colbert vandalism spree when I was mistaken for a vandal during a revert. No harm, no foul in that case because we were all tossing out blocks like candy. Moving along... Teke^talk 03:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I've done it too ... it was early in the morning, and I was swatting vandals just a tad too fast ... [4] Antandrus (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have done it to myself multiple times on purpose. Still trying to work out how you click the wrong name etc. Viridae^Talk 12:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Brent Corrigan

Talk:Brent Corrigan, which appears to be the discussion page of a minor male pornographer, has been summarily locked. If I were to need to mention suggestions to the page, this appears to be currently impossible, Thank you. Also, octopuses 07:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• The page has been semi-protected, because of the repeated attempts by John celona (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) to post an unsubstantiated accusation against the article's subject there, placing it in edit summaries and in xyr signature at one point. Xe has been directed to our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. I note in passing that John celona's latest edit was at 2007-05-19T20:07:29 UTC and the creation of your 10-edit account was at 2007-05-20T03:07:55 UTC. Uncle G 12:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Maria Callas and fair use problems

Do we really need all those fair use images? Are they all legal? Does the inclusion of so many really comply with policy? Could someone with better knowledge of copyright than me sort this out? The number's ridiculous, something like 10 fair use images there. Moreschi ^Talk 12:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Not one of those images has a fair use rationale. Since they were uploaded after the bright line date, I have tagged them all. MER-C 13:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, MER-C. In addition, plenty of them are book covers, which are, apparently, meant to discuss just books, rather than anything else. Moreschi ^Talk 13:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Feature Request: display of logs of user block by the user name of the blockee

Hi. I was recently looking at the logs, described as "a combined display of upload, deletion, protection, user block, page move, user creation, user renaming, and user rights logs." at Special:Log. That description doesn't tell the whole story, as logs of user block are currently filed by the user name of the blocker, rather than the user name of the blockee. Please enhance the logs (or the logging of user blocks) to allow display of logs of user block by the user name of the blockee, without reducing the functionality of being able to display by the user name of the blocker. For reference and an example of what I'm writing about, please see User talk:Gwernol#User:GOD HATE FAGS AND SO DO I. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Bugs and feature requests should be made at the BugZilla since there is no guarantee developers will read this page. --Deskana (AFK 47) 15:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I've now made one.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, the "user" field is for the user who performed the action and the "title" field is for whatever the action was done to. For blocks, "user" is the admin who placed the block and "title" is the user account which was blocked. So to find all blocks placed on User:Example, you would type "User:Example" into the "title" field on the log. Don't forget the "User:" in front of the name. --bainer (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It's still counter-intuitive, though.  :(   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Community ban

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

A request, there might be a ban conversation in progress there at any time, if you're posting a notification, it would be helpful if you mentioned who it was regarding. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

777a (talk · contribs)

This is a "heads up" to admins about this user. Although also a sockpuppet issue (compare contribs of A67 (talk · contribs) and A87 (talk · contribs)), the more pressing problem is their uploading of images with incorrect source information. Either no source is given, or the GFDL licence is used, but for images which appear to be professional portraits or magazine shots. Please see their contributions to understand what I mean. The pattern is so obvious and consistent, only a look at a number of image uploads and one should see what I'm getting at.

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 21:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Another editor has already posted about this at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Copyvio_uploads_by_User:777a

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 22:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Harassment by Tfoxworth

Hello;

I am being harassed, or "WikiStalked" (if there is such a term) by the user Tfoxworth. Many months ago, he was involved in creating several POV forks for articles regarding members of the previously-sovereign Russian Imperial Family and had his various articles deleted on those grounds.

His last edit at that point was on December 1st, 2006. Recently, Mr. Foxworth has returned to editing (under this name on May 18th, 2007) and all of his edits so far have been reverts of my edits (for no reason) or unfounded and unwarranted chastisement and insults on the talk pages for some of the articles. Mr. Foxworth's first recent edit was outside of his usually "territory" and was directed at me on the talk page for Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case. Just before that edit under his username, there was an edit by the anonymous IP address 68.3.40.59. At this point, the user's only edits have been at the two pages that Mr. Foxworth has edited at. If this user is not Tim Foxworth, it is a peculiar incidence that the user's only three edits have been at the two pages where Mr. Foxworth has been attacking me.

He also edits from the IP address 12.146.101.146, as evidenced by him signing the IP address' posts. From this IP address he edited the Maria Vladimirovna talk page, even creating what is problem an unauthorized subpage. Additionally, there is a new user called I_vonH whose first edit was one in agreement with Tim Foxworth's 12.146.101.146 IP address. I have a suspicion that this user is probably also Tim Foxworth.

For what it is worth, I feel that Mr. Foxworth, who has a somewhat extensive warning history, should be dealt with in a manner in which he will no longer be able to harass me. He has not made any constructive edits and for the most part, all of the history differenced between his edits and mine are him reverting my edits ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]), inserting his specific point of view about certain people ([12]) or him running his mouth about me on talk pages ([13], [14], [15]). Many of these pages are ones where he has no previous edit history and has been stalking my edits. Charles 03:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use Images in templates

I have just run a bot that detects fair use images in templates, (along with removing fair use images in userspace). I have a listing of them at User:Eagle_101/fairUseInTemplates. None of these should exist per criteria number 9 of our non free media policy. Anyone who wants to get to work on removing all of these images from template space feel free. The list is structured <Image>;-;;-;<template location>. If someone wants to organize the list into sections or whatever thats fine with me. In a week or so I'll re-run the bot, so that we can pick up stragglers. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Any reason we can't just delete them from the list, rather than mark them as done (which is what was already there, so I followed that standard)? It'd be easier to wade through the list if it got consistently shorter... EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Do whatever you like :) The list will get re-generated some time next week. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you open yourself up to all sorts of trouble with "whatever"... ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Its a wiki, I trust you, and anyone else that happens to want to help :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 22:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Boy, that's a big list. Removing from the list makes sense, if you make a new list next week we can see how much of the removal of images has stuck. Garion96 (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed all items marked as done, and added headings every three letters (roughly), which should help make removing items as they get resolved a bit easier. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I just found Image:Blackmoonr.jpg on the list; it was on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 25, 2007 (it got removed, but I restored it). I'm pretty sure that the project namespace is fair game (for the front page and the like), no? If I'm wrong, feel free to remove it again. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well non-free images shouldn't be used on the main page (see this for instance) but that isn't really the same issue now that TFA has been and gone. Will (aka Wimt) 21:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There should be no fair use images outside of mainspace, per criteria number 9 of our fair use policy. Cheers! —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 22:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty, I've reverted my restoration. Back to the list... EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• A late comment. See Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Replacing deleted images in the archives for my attempt to discuss this after my pass through the archives doing a lot of bold replacement of deleted (usually fair-use) images with (hopefully) free images (I did check, but any double-checks would be greatly appreciated). While checking the archives, I did noticed that a lot of fair-use video game covers, album covers, book covers, and similar images were still being used. Whether those need to go or not, I don't know, but is there a reason these have not been picked up yet? Carcharoth 12:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Actually, since I last looked, a lot more have got removed. Some are still there, such as Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 20, 2007. Carcharoth 12:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Image speedy deletion backlog

The backlogs have crept up again, after going down to manageable levels sometime last week. Please lend a hand if you're bored - even if you clear 20 images a day, it helps. Thanks guys :) – Riana ⁂ 04:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Im bored and im reading this for fun but I have no idea what it is. HELP! Lmc169 15:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Potential userspace violation

Could a few sysops look over User talk:Nik Wright2? It appears to be a violation of WP:USER#NOT. Specifically, it seems to be a "polemical statement". It also seems to be in violation of the inappropriate content section which specifically notes that soapbox restrictions apply to userspace. This user's contributions are limited and directly related to his soapbox campaign. It was recommended to me that I seek input from request for comment, but I wanted to receive some additional input before proceeding. Thanks for your time and attention. Vassyana 22:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Through examination, I have come to these conclusions:

• • This user has violated the usage of user talk namespace.
  • This user's pure purpose on Wikipedia is to lead a soapbox campaign, namely to make aware to everyone that Wikipedia is defamatory (on the user's talk page), similar to a single-purpose account, except on a wider scale.
  • A RfC is appropriate in this matter.
    

Others? Sr13 02:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Although I can agree that the page in question does not represent the recommended use of a talkpage, and parts of it are also very hard to follow, upon reviewing the page I am concerned by the underlying allegations described there. In substance, the editor alleges that he has been critical of a certain religious figure, that external webpages maintained by adherents to that figure have published a spurious affidavit never filed in actual legal proceedings in which the editor is described as a member of a "hate group," that the links from Wikipedia to these pages are contributing to a situation in which this allegedly false accusation is being given enormous publicity, and that the editor's concerns about this matter have allegedly not been taken seriously or addressed by anyone within Wikipedia.

I have not had the opportunity to study this matter in complete detail as yet and some of the fine points of the personalities and legal proceedings involved may prove inscrutible to anyone not already steeped in the dispute. However, my first impression is that novel BLP-related issues concerning the potential effects of our links upon this individual, who is not himself alleged to be notable, may be presented. I will try to look into this matter further in the next day or two, and would urge others to do the same. In the meantime, I think it would be ill-advised to open an RfC on the content of a user's talkpage before considering whether the substance of the page, even if stridently or "soapbox"ishly presented, discloses that the editor has a genuine and substantial grievance. Newyorkbrad 05:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In any case, an admin is not needed here I don't think, if you want to open an RFC, feel free to do so. I don't think alerting admins here is going to give any result. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 05:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the user wanted an external opinion on the matter by admins to see if RfC was appropriate. RfC would be the solution in this case. Sr13 07:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but if an RfC is started then it should involve all the related issues, not only the concern about Nik Wright's talkpage, and notice of the matter should be given to all affected editors. Newyorkbrad 16:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Malomeat dodging removal of links to play-asia.com

Over the past couple months, I've noticed that Malomeat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding a number of suspicious links that are described to be originating from Play-Asia.com, a site that sells video games. Previously, he made direct links to the site that were removed quickly (usually by bots like Shadowbot), but his more recent edits are rather fishy:

• [16] on Gyakuten Saiban 4
• [17] on Moero! Nekketsu Rhythm Damashii Osu! Tatakae! Ouendan 2

In both edits, the links go to a Lycos site, but clicking on the links reveals they're actually mirrors to Play-Asia pages that allow someone to buy the game. When I've warned him about this spamming, he's removed the warnings despite leaving everything else on his talk page intact ([18]) and has done the same to warnings he recieved when he was directly linking to Play-Asia ([19], [20], [21]). Considering that WP:EXTERNAL recommends not linking to "sites that primarily exist to sell products or services" (which Play-Asia is) and the zealousness with which he's been removing spam warnings, I'm really suspicious of all his linking. Would anybody mind dealing with him? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What he is doing is forwarding users through his site, which then goes to Play-Asia.com to purchase the game. The trick of it is that when it is sent to Play-Asia it is including his affiliate code so if the person buys the game or anything else from the site, Malomeat will get a cut of the money as a forwarding affiliate. Kill this type of behaviour on sight and warn them about it. It's not appropriate to link to a site so someone can buy something anyway, but to do it and put your affiliate code in so you get a cut of the profits is definitely not on. Ben W Bell talk 07:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

And if I've warned him before and he's still restoring the links? He's made the same link to Gyakuten Saiban 4 three times already and he's removing any and all warnings he's recieved. It's obvious he's not going to stop. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I've given him a warning that if he does it again he'll be temporarily blocked for spamming and attempting to circumvent anti-spam policies. If you spot him doing it again, let me know. Ben W Bell talk 08:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Admin vitriol formula

Are you a math geek? Or an observer of admin related flame wars? Then please, look at, and improve if you can, Wikipedia:Admin vitriol formula. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 06:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The equation lacks the critical variable of "c" which is how crazy is the editor against whom the admin action was taken. The c-factor multiplies the vitriol in a similar way as the speed of light does in Einstein's famous equation.:-)--Alabamaboy 10:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Also filled in formulae for G, V and O.Circeus 20:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I love it. A masterpiece of mathmatics!--Alabamaboy 01:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not clear on the purpose of pages like this. .V. _[Talk|Email] 00:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It was used to explain how my seemingly-innocuous action at an AfD turned into this. Daniel 08:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think things such as these may be a bit too inflammatory. .V. _[Talk|Email] 04:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Aaargh!- Wikipedia is not MySpace

I'm afraid we have to go to greater lengths to get the message across that Wikipedia is not myspace - I've found about 100 myspace user pages today and probably will come up with more if Special:Linksearch can be coaxed into namespace specific output...

It's time we made it clear to lusers who think it's OK to create personal profiles intertwined with links to Photobucket without any intention of contributing to the encyclopedia that they are not welcome here. This is a call to arms against this scourge, which is a serious waste of time. We cannot let Wikipedia degenerate into the stupidity and childishness that is that stinking pile of vanispamcruftisement that is myspace.

Sorry, I had the urge to blow off some steam. But the problem is still there and its getting worse. MER-C 14:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, I think you are way overreacting. I would wager that many people come here with the intention of participating, but without a real understanding of Wikipedia. They quickly find out that it's not for them and drop out. If they were really using their user pages as MySpace, then they would be more frequently editing them. Most of these type pages seem to get created and never edited again. To me, that implies they set up the page with the intention of contributing, but then left. -- JLaTondre 14:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

But they still need to be deleted. --Spike Wilbury 16:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here's an idea to solve the underlying cause: how about soft-blacklisting all Myspace links (ie. only established editors can add links to myspace.com)? I assume most people who intend to just spread their personal profiles for fun, profit and Google juice won't stick around for four days (just to use the semi-protection as a benchmark). The only downside I see is that we might lose some new potential editors (I've found that some of them do end up becoming productive editors if you explain to the them exactly why the page they just created got CSD'd, which admittedly tends to require a lot of patience and more than a template.

Another possible solution (which, I reckon is even less likely to get consensus) would be to implement prod2-like system for links: a bot goes through RC/NP and tags suspect pages based on a scoring system. If the tag doesn't get removed by an established editor within -say- 4 days, it removes the links or comments it out. -- Seed 2.0 18:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

My talk page is open if people don't feel like prodding these. User:Christianreeve in particular was a real gem: i am christian reeve, born 12/5/93, i sk8(sk8board),drink big amounts of alcohol,smoke fags and sumtimes weed, ima random fuck, apprently im sxc , but most peeps are blind,i do stupid things for the fun of it, and i neva stop talking lol, i cud say more but cba x. – Steel 16:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone reading this have SQL access to the database? Let's get a listing of all users whose only contributions are to userspace, and who have no edits in (say) the last two months. I completely agree that this "myspacification" of Wikipedia is a problem. Wikipedia is hugely popular and visible, and it's become a cool place to be.

I used to "userfy" vanity pages more often than I do now (i.e. move an autobiography from the mainspace to the user's page). What I learned was that most of the time those userfied pages just stayed on forever, and the author rarely did anything else; he had successfully gotten himself to the top of Google rankings by creating an autobiography here, and userfying his autobio just assisted him in making it permanent. Antandrus (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Userfy spam just moves it. Secretlondon 19:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I update my userpage far more often than my MySpace profile... I don't see this as quite the earth-shattering problem that others are apparently seeing it as; if it's not linked to from anywhere, the chances of someone stumbling across it are fairly slim. I'm all for deleting vanity pages or telling editors who only want to make a userpage to shove off, but I'm not going to get riled up about this. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I just don't think there is much of a way to get rid of them; it's up to the editors who db them and the admins who delete. David Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 18:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

As for a better way to find such user pages, I recommend Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkSearch. This wikiproject creates lists of all pages containing external links to the primary spam websites including MySpace, Bebo, etc. The lists are sorted in alphabetic order so it's easy to go through the User: pages. -- JLaTondre 02:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

A preliminary compiliation of likely myspace pages is available here. There's about 3000 of them. MER-C 03:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to check their upload logs too, as Wikipedia isn't Photobucket. MER-C 04:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I recommend being very careful when using User:MER-C/Burnination and User:MER-C/Spam. In fact, it seems wise not to use the former at all until some very serious problems with it are rectified. The former gives no indication of whether the user is actually contributing to the encyclopaedia and includes on the list pages such as User:Phaedriel/Soundtrack of Wikipedians (Phaedriel (talk · contribs) is an administrator and has 1754 contributions to article space), User:Rich Farmbrough/Talk Archive 6 (an archive of the talk page of Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs), also an administrator and with 39708 contributions to article space), User:Alison (Alison (talk · contribs) is an administrator with 5269 contributions to article space), and User:KF/For future reference (KF (talk · contribs) is an administrator and has 12233 contributions to article space). The latter includes pages such as User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult/archive1. Uncle G 11:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe MER-C was recommending everything that contains a MySpace link be deleted. I believe he intended his page simply as a listing of pages with such links to make it easy to review user pages and determine which ones should be deleted. He could have picked a better title, but there is nothing wrong with the list itself. Whether one uses that list, the WikiProject Spam lists (which has the same user pages you mention), or Special:Linksearch (which also has those same pages), one still needs to think and not blindly tag / delete. -- JLaTondre 12:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. I haven't looked over the majority of the contents of the first list in detail - I just copied and pasted the linksearch results. Before deciding whether a page is deletable, I check the user's contributions, in fact I have removed a few false positives already. As for the spam list, the archives contain copies of deleted vanity in the userspace. I made them a different colour to distinguish them from the rest. MER-C 13:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I started going through them last night, and yes, I bypassed any that had any valid mainspace contributions, ever. Some who had only contributions to their own userpages, and who hadn't edited in many months, have on the other hand been "burninated." I found it interesting that those on the livejournal list tended to be ok, while those on the photobucket list had a much higher probability of being here only to make a vanity user page. Antandrus (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your comment earlier about userfying autobiographies, one solution to avoid Google ranking is just to userfy it and then blank to a (polite) warning, with a link to the history version. That way the material is still there in the history, and you can then wait a few months to see if the user comes back and does anything or not. After those few months, you can probably safely assume it was a drive-by self-advertisement, and start deleting stuff. In general, blanking pages to a warning is a good way to avoid Google exposure. Carcharoth 12:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a random thought: why not mark user pages as "ignore" in the robots.txt file? Doing that will result in no one's user page being indexed oon Google, & all incentive for vanity pages are gone. Personally, I don't care if my Wikipedia user page is indexed on Google or not. -- llywrch 18:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Then how are we going to search user pages and archives? Also, I see no reason why preventing Google searches would discourage vanity pages. Even if these people knew about it, which is highly unlikely, they generally aren't creating vanity pages to get Google hits. —Centrx→talk • 18:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Spam userpages is an issue and we get renaming requests so that their "article" is named right. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brian_Szymanski is an example of this stuff. He asked for renaming and his user page is an article listing credentials. We turn him down for renaming and prune his userpage. He responds by moving it into the article space. It gets put on Afd and people vote userfy! We don't want this *anywhere*! People impressed by wikipedia credentials are not necessarily going to pick up the difference between User:Fred Bloggs and Fred Bloggs. Secretlondon 19:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Still an unresolved problem

Now User:Northmeister has gone too far! Sorry that I cannot assume good faith any more.

• A devoted Elvis fan (see his user page), Northmeister repeatedly deleted well sourced material not only from Elvis Presley (see [22], [23], [24]) but also from other article pages such as Graceland. See [25], [26], [27]. He even denies that there is an Elvis cult at Graceland, although many sources say that this is the case. See [28]. As I am frequently citing my sources, this behavior is not acceptable.
• What is more, Northmeister not only removed my well-sourced contributions from article pages but has now copied from old talk pages blocks of material which had already been discussed exhaustively in a very heated manner two years ago and placed it in the current talk page in order to harass me. See [29]. Significantly, this is exactly the same material that my old opponent, multiple hard-banned user Ted Wilkes alias User:DW alias IP 66.61.69.65 alias IP 24.165.212.202 frequently removed from talk and article pages in the past. See [30], [31]. In his recent edit, Northmeister even confuses me with another user who edited under the IP 129.241.134.241 and was also part of the 2005 edit war with Wilkes alias User:DW alias IP 66.61.69.65 alias IP 24.165.212.202.

Query: why should Northmeister be so interested in this old stuff if he was not deeply involved in the edit war with me at that time?

• Furthermore, the expression "Elvis Mafia" mentioned by Northmeister here, which refers to the world-wide Elvis industry, was only used once by me in this edit of 24 April 2005 in the course of a heated dispute with Wilkes's IPs!

Query: how should Northmeister, who, according to his contribution history, first visited Wikipedia on 5 February 2006, know that I posted such an expression more than two years ago, if he was not involved in the dispute at that time? It should be noted that the said edit of 2005 was immediately deleted by IP 66.61.69.65 alias Ted Wilkes. See [32].

• Interestingly, Northmeister reappeared on the scene removing Elvis-related topics at exactly the same time when the many sockpuppets of User: Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo were revealed as edit warring with me on the same topics. See [33].
• More significantly, Northmeister addressed me in the current heading on the Elvis talk page as a user from Duesburg (see [34]). The only other user doing so was Ted Wilkes with his IPs and his sockpuppet, User:Duisburg Dude, a user identity that was only created in order to harass me and also repeatedly deleted my contributions (see [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]). Consequently Duisburg Dude was banned from Wikipedia on 6 August 2006.
• Some additional facts concerning Northmeister's edits of 2006. As already mentioned, this user first appeared on the Wikipedia scene on 5 February 2006. It should be remembered that around the same time Ted Wilkes had created some other sockpuppets: User:Danny B. (usurped) and User:Cynthia B.. The history of Northmeister clearly shows that his aggressive behavior is very similar to that of Wilkes. Like Wilkes, Northmeister is very interested in Elvis Presley and, apart from some edits he called "improvements", this user, from the beginning of his appearance, frequently removed well-sourced paragraphs from the Elvis article which were not in line with his personal view. See these old edits: [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]. This is also very similar to Ted Wilkes's deleting tactics. Furthermore, it is very interesting that, in the past, Northmeister was repeatedly blocked by different administrators for WP:3RR, incivility and disruption, etc. See, for instance, [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57]. See also these comments concerning Northmeister's accusation that User:Will Beback allegedly violated the three revert rule. [58], [59]. Interestingly, multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes also frequently violated the three revert rule and repeatedly accused me of "outright fabrications" or "vandalism" in the past. Is it just by chance that Northmeister accused Will Beback of "outright vandalism" (see [60]) and of harrassing him (see [61])? Compare also these edits: [62], [63] and [64].

To conclude: Northmeister's recent edit certainly proves that this user must be identical with hardbanned user Ted Wilkes alias Duisburg Dude alias User:DW alias alias IP 66.61.69.65 alias IP 24.165.212.202. By the way, IP 24.165.212.202 once claimed to be someone who knew Elvis all of his life. See [65]. IP 66.61.69.65 claimed that he is "in close contact with many of Elvis' friends, former employees and family." See [66]. Furthermore, the same IP is somehow related to entertainment reporter Bill E. Burk, who runs a fan site on Elvis, and to Elvis's former friends, the members of the Memphis Mafia (MM). See [67], [68]. This would explain why Northmeister is so keenly interested to remove all material which isn't in line with his personal opinion of Presley. Therefore, as his aliases User:Duisburg Dude, User:DW, etc. etc., Northmeister should be banned from Wikipedia. 80.141.230.18 22:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you repeat that, but be concise?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Summary of the main facts:

• User:Northmeister repeatedly deleted well sourced material from Elvis Presley (see [69], [70], [71]) and Graceland. See [72], [73], [74]. *Northmeister has now copied from old talk pages blocks of material which had already been discussed exhaustively two years ago and placed it in the current Elvis talk page in order to harass me. See [75]. This is exactly the same material that my old opponent, multiple hard-banned user Ted Wilkes alias User:DW alias IP 66.61.69.65 alias IP 24.165.212.202 frequently removed from talk and article pages in the past. See [76], [77].
• Northmeister falsely claims that I am identical with another user who edited under the IP 129.241.134.241.
• The expression "Elvis Mafia" mentioned by Northmeister here, was only used once by me in this edit of 24 April 2005 in the course of a heated dispute with Ted Wilkes's IPs! This means that Northmeister must be identical with multiple hard-banned user Wilkes alias User:DW.
• Northmeister reappeared removing Elvis-related topics at exactly the same time when the many sockpuppets of user Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo were revealed as edit warring with me on the same topics. See [78].
• More significantly, Northmeister addressed me in the current heading on the Elvis talk page as a user from Duesburg (see [79]). The only other user doing so was Ted Wilkes with his IPs and his sockpuppet, User:Duisburg Dude, a user identity that was only created in order to harass me and also repeatedly deleted my contributions (see [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86]). Consequently Duisburg Dude was banned from Wikipedia on 6 August 2006.
• In the past, Northmeister was repeatedly blocked by different administrators for WP:3RR, incivility and disruption, etc. See [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93]. See also these comments: [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100].
• To conclude: Northmeister's recent edit certainly proves that this user must be identical with hardbanned user Ted Wilkes alias Duisburg Dude alias User:DW alias alias IP 66.61.69.65 alias IP 24.165.212.202.

Um, just a wild guess but is it possible that this could be more efficiently resolved at WP:SSP? Please also remember to sign your comments - it's easier to follow the conversation that way. Cheers, -- Seed 2.0 23:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

As DW was an editor hardbanned by Jimbo Wales himself, maybe it would be better for administrators to deal with this directly. — MichaelLinnear 04:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This complaint [101] seems to have been filed by Onefortyone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a/k/a Anon 80.141.et al. See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone, User:Duisburg Dude and User:Willy on Wheels. Onefortyone was topic banned from Elvis Presley on April 27, 2007 for two months, but the ban was lifted because of sockpuppetry by one of the users requesting the ban. I am deeply suspicious that we are being trolled here, and suggest that this material be removed to WP:SSP for thorough investigation. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 05:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It should be added that it was my old opponent Ted Wilkes alias hardbanned User:DW who requested this arbitration in 2005. However, there were subsequent arbcom cases (see this case of 2006 and this newer arbcom decision) which proved that my edits are O.K. now. Therefore, my opponents were banned from the Wikipedia articles in question. For instance, in the case of 2006 the arbcom said that my former opponents "Ted Wilkes and Wyss have repeatedly insisted on an unrealistic standard with respect to negative information regarding celebrities that is current in popular culture, gossip and rumor." Therefore, according to the arbcom, "Ted Wilkes and Wyss are banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality," and they were both placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. If Northmeister is identical with Ted Wilkes, who was banned from Wikipedia for one year, he has clearly violated his probation. The third, more recent arbcom case concerning the Elvis Presley article confirmed that my "editing has substantially improved from that in the earlier arbitration cases. A sampling of edits shows reference to reliable sources without overstating of their content." Furthermore, the arbcom said that my opponent Lochdale, who, to my mind, is also somehow related to Ted Wilkes, "has removed large blocks of sourced material from Elvis Presley" and that he "shows evidence of misunderstanding of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." Therefore, Lochdale was "banned indefinitely from editing articles which concern Elvis Presley." It should also be noted that Wilkes and his supporter Wyss even harshly attacked arbcom member Fred Bauder. For more details, would you please contact Fred Bauder and the other arbcom members. 80.141.193.38 17:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Some further additions. IP 209.247.5.139 also seems to be identical with Northmeister and Ted Wilkes who repeatedly claimed in the past that my edits were "outright fabrications" and that I am a liar, etc. See these recent edits by IP 209.247.5.139:

• "Every single thing this Harvey Carter has put here about Elvis is total nonsense and outright hateful fiction. ... The lies about his sexual preferences...it's total BS!" [102].
• Concerning some sources that IP 209.247.5.139 doesn't like: "Bill Dakota is another hack like Dee Stanley, who Elvis openly never excepted as his stepmother and she was trying to make a buck off his name with a book full of lies after his death, and Albert Goldman was even worse. Goldman clearly had nothing but disdain for Elvis as his entire book showed" [103].
• Concerning Professor Goldman's critical book on Elvis: "The quote above from Goldman's book should NOT be included in Elvis' bio page and I would like for it to be removed. This is not only just Goldman's OPINION, but an opinion from a guy who had intense disdain for Presley and whose entire book demonstrated this! The entire book was condemned as trash by fans and critics both" [104].
• Applauding Northmeister's deleting tactics: "I am happy to see what I think are some nice improvements in this Elvis page since the last time I was here, including seeing some misleading and totally unsubstantiated garbage by people like Albert Goldman and others, removed..." [105].
• On user Onefortyone: "It's clear what his intent is, (smear) and it shouldn't be tolerated in Elvis Presley's page or anybody else's" [106]

By the way, User:Steve Pastor also repeatedly removes sourced content he doesn't like from the Elvis page. See [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119]. And he places hyperlinks to fan sites in the text of the Wikipedia article. See [120].

Part of the Elvis fan group endeavoring to whitewash the Elvis article may also be one-topic editor User:Nigel77 who frequently includes hyperlinks to fan sites in Wikipedia articles. See [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133]. 80.141.244.117 14:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Northmeister now continues to whitewash Elvis-related topics removing well-sourced material from the Memphis Mafia article. See [134]. Exactly the same material was frequently removed by Ted Wilkes. See, for instance, [135], [136], [137], [138]. Northmeister even removed the same external links that Ted Wilkes repeatedly deleted in the past in favor of two websites of Joe Esposito and Jerry Scheff. See [139], [140], [141]. Significantly, Northmeister now put exactly the same two external links in first place that Ted Wilkes preferred. See [142] and [143]. This is certainly not a coincidence. There can be no doubt, Northmeister is identical with Ted Wilkes alias multiple-hardbanned User:DW. As Northmeister, as a sockpuppet of Wilkes, clearly placed material related to Elvis Presley'a alleged homo- or bisexuality in Talk:Elvis Presley (see [144] and removed a well-sourced quote dealing with Natalie Wood's remark that Presley and the Memphis Mafia members might be homosexual (see [145]), he has clearly violated Ted Wilkes's probation. The arbcom says that Wilkes is "banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality". See [146]. May I ask some administrators to put a stop to the disruptive behavior of this user. 80.141.242.149 03:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Request some independent assistance

Could another admin have a serious word in the ear of StuRat (talk · contribs). He is a consistently disruptive editor who regularly accuses admins of abuse and cabalism. This evening alone he has been:

• Accusing an admin of "an abuse of Admin authority" in protecting a page being targeted by a persistent banned user (whom, incidently, StuRat was an erstwhile colleague of and still occasionally adds content on his behalf).
• Goading an editor who indicated they are leaving the project (after a run in with a new editor with a suspiciously detailed knowledge of the project)
• Replacing the goading comment after three independent editors expressed disaproval (the aforementioned new user gets in on the act too).

I have already warned him, but he ignored me, and I am a bit too close to take any action without stoking the claims of abuse. Thanks. Rockpocket 05:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• I believe RP made an error here, I only reverted him. After others expressed disapproval I ceased to revert. Someone else did put my comments back in, however, and RP apparently mistook them for me. StuRat 06:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Does this have anything to do with User:Light current? —Kyриx 05:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

How did you guess? Rockpocket 05:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The names are familiar, and I commented in Friday's admin recall mess. —Kyриx 05:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Y'all are a pretty useless lot. Maybe try supporting deserving editors instead of coddling the disruptive ones.—eric 07:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Eric, I have discussed the matter with Clio privately, and I don't really think my actions today could be described as coddling. Rockpocket 07:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hm, the user has a history of incivility and a talk page full of warnings. Looking through his recent edit history reveals many incivil remarks or attacks [152] [153], as well as complaints of abuse [154] and vague threats [155]. I think this is well beyond what we usually tolerate with respect to wikiquette, and have blocked him for 12 hours. >Radiant< 14:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Despite his unblock request being denied StuRat is is claiming that the muliple admins are "involved" and inferring they are biased. I encourage anyone who has never heard of StuRat to review his case (User_talk:StuRat#Request_some_independent_assistance). David D. (Talk) 17:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it normal for a request to talk to a user to be ignored and for that user to be blocked instead, as happened here ? StuRat 06:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Abuse of power block

This IP User talk:70.171.38.69 block is an abuse of power, however, in order to not disclose my username I registered a new one. I would like to not be known, seeing as this administrator abused power. --Uuy 20:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• And you're using a sockpuppet to evade a block. You don't get to do that. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Account blocked indef; IP reblocked for a week.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets are bad. So is blocking after only a single warning. No real problem with the block, but I'd expect more from an admin. --OnoremDil 21:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Which block do you object to? In the case of Uuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy mandates we block them. In the case of the IP, how many warnings would you suggest before blocking for sockpuppetry and lying (as shown above)? Picaroon (Talk) 21:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the original block of the IP was quick. Sorry, I must have missed the above section which shows the lying and sockpuppetry that led to that block... I have no problem with the sock block. --OnoremDil 21:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree - I'm not going to lose any sleep over this one, since the IP was clearly aware of policy and behaved in an unecessarily querulous fashion. Using a sockpuppet to evade a block is unacceptable. However, I have to say that a) the IP has a history of good-faith contributions and is not a vandalism-only address, b) this was not blatant vandalism (I don't see bad faith, just stubborness), and c) El_C was correct about the need for sourcing, but reverting someone twice and then pulling out the banhammer without warning is inevitably going to lead to bad feelings, charges of abuse, etc. that outlast the 24 hours that the encyclopedia is "protected" from the user in question. You have to wonder if it ends up doing more harm than good to the encyclopedia. It only takes an extra minute to say "Don't reintroduce that unsourced material or you'll be blocked", or even better, to get an uninvolved pair of eyes to handle it. MastCell ^Talk 21:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but this user changed the order of the The Bible. A little context helps. El_C 21:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

And they are now claiming that El C created the sock account. HOW COULD YOU?! Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we have {{uw-vandal's 1-4}} for a reason? I'll just start reporting them to AIV after the first bad edit. Yes, it was vandalism. Yes, I would personally still like to see more than a single warning...even in cases of blatant vandalism. I see the context, but still think that it was a quick block unless there was further history here. --OnoremDil 21:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The blocking policy leaves it to my discretion. El_C 21:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Habibz edit warring on Criticism of Islam but also a suspected sock of User:His excellency

I didn't know where to post this (i.e. 3RR board, sock board) because of multiple violations. The user Habibz appears to be a sock puppet of indefinitely banned user His excellency (who has had multiple socks blocked recently). At this time, the user (presumably H.E.) is totally out of control, in a mad revert war on his user talk page and at Criticism of Islam. --ProtectWomen 21:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked the account for twenty-four hours. You are free to make a request for checkuser at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/His excellency. -- tariqabjotu 21:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank u Tariqabjotu ♥--ProtectWomen 21:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I edited to include cited content, credible sources, pointing to the use of criticism of Islam as a pretext to incite or denigrate Muslims. My sources are strong, and my interpretation of them perfect. ProtectWomen's userpage and talk page shows he makes a habit of inciting Muslims through his provocative display of an Islamic userbox surrounded by pro-gay flags. He made comments that homosexuality is evident in the Hadith and Quran. I have nothing against gays, but he is clearly aiming to anger those muslims of a conservative mindset. His reason for objecting to my edit on Criticism of Islam is obvious- he is one of the types of people those articles talk about. Bigots using 'legitimate criticism' as an excuse to hate monger. Habibz 21:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for joining the conversation, His excellency. I knew you'd have no problem finding the Administrators' noticeboard. Why do you keep referring to me as "he" and "him" ? Anyway, it appears there is an unlimited number of socks in this users' drawer. For you in your anti-gay bigotry to try and call me a bigot is quite sad. Please remember Wikipedia's policy WP:NPA... or is that why you were permanently banned in the first place?

Anyway, there are millions of gay Muslims- there is nothing wrong with being gay, we were born this way. If you want to claim that being proud of being gay is wrong, because it incites conservative muslims, then you have a lot to learn about the civil rights movement in the U.S.A. A lot of bigots (such as yourself) were incited and made angry by the black leaders who made the controversial demands that they be treated as equals. Well now it's our turn, and someday the anti-gay hatred you espouse will become extinct. --ProtectWomen 21:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks against other users should not be tolerated. Please don't make any considerations about P.W.'s edits based in his/her user page. You may consider it an 'offensive' presentation, but that does make such a thing the intention. Either way, the your ad hominem arguments do not excuse you from moving to the talk page when your edit does not pass consensus opinion. Please, if someone takes an issue with your edit, move to the talk page for discussion. Do not continue to add the text amidst accusations of 'discrimination' and 'Muslim bashing'. And if you do happen to be a sockpuppet, then I would suggest you cease this habit and find something else to do with your time. --C.Logan 21:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

His behavior, with his edit history, makes his reasons obvious enough. One article specifically mentioned 'baiting' as a tactic of the bigots-clothed-in-critic's-clothing. The reason he and Merzbow jumps immediately after that edit is because the content exposes their own behaviors here. And Wikipedia cannot be allowed to be turned into a megaphone for the bigots out there. You claim to be a Christian, is this hatred what Jesus inspires in you? Gridges 21:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC) -- delete comment left by banned sockpuppet of Habibz (i.e. sockpuppet of indefinitely banned user and puppet-master His excellency)

I'm sorry, but can I please ask you to provide sources for these accusations? Considering that I am mostly unfamiliar with these individuals, I would ask that you be a little more thorough if your going to make further accusations to editors who apparently were deemed unworthy for the editor in question to reason with. This is childish behavior. If the consensus is against you, then take your issue to the talk page. The contentious material should be removed until at least some defense of it is put forth by the contributor, in a clear and concise manner- devoid of ad hominem accusations. And just so you're aware: my personal beliefs are not to be used as a tool in your argument. Do me a favor, and do not mention it again unless it is outside of this discussion. --C.Logan 21:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Permitting a disruptive BLP subject to edit?

I'm somewhat troubled about the status of a BLP article that's been the subject of controversies in the past. (I'm purposefully not naming the article here.) According to the subject's own account, she has previously had lengthy spells of compulsory psychiatric treatment. However, to put it bluntly, she is clearly still very unstable and has proven extremely disruptive on the talk page of her article - constant attacks on other editors, including "outing" them, both on and off Wikipedia. She was eventually banned altogether for repeated breaches of WP:HARASS and a number of her edits were oversighted to remove personally identifying details of other editors. Since then, she's continued to post occasional messages to the article's talk page using dozens of sockpuppets, some of them mimicking my own username.

Personally, I don't think there's any realistic possibility that she will be a productive editor. Given her apparent mental health problems she may not even have the capacity to engage productively with others. Even so, I still feel uneasy about the fact that she's banned from commenting on her own article. I'd be grateful for any thoughts or suggestions on how this could be handled (if indeed there's any scope for handling it in any way than it's already been dealt with). -- ChrisO 02:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

She can send email to the address at the bottom of Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) if she has concerns about her article. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 02:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Block notice

I've just blocked RubyKLM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely. For my reasons, see WP:BN#Alert to 'crats: User:RubyKLM. Since this is an issue of obvious interest to all admins, I thought I should link to it here. Obviously anyone who has good reason to believe I was wrong should go ahead and unblock. Chick Bowen 04:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks solid to me; as has been said, the only compelling evidence would be if RN makes an appearance. --Masamage ♫ 04:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Proposed deletion as of 16 May 2007

Resolved

Hey folks, I started to clear the backlog (this is only a day old), but I am unexpectedly off for the night. If someone else would like to pick up my slack that would be great. Otherwise, I'll pick it back up in the morning. Thanks! Teke^talk 05:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Requesting Assistance

I recently indefinitely blocked User:JBAK88 and User:BOV1993 as abusive reincarnations of User:JBAK. User:Deon Steyn told me that he suspects of the following IPs are also used by this user.

• Special:Contributions/82.13.45.78
• Special:Contributions/82.3.81.225

I am not sure what the normal process is for handling these issues with abusive users using IPs. Assistance from other administrators is requested. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 06:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Huge Backlogs

Images without a fair use rationale currently has a 11 day backlog. These images need to be deleted. mrholybrain's talk 01:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

We admins definitely do realize that the backlogs are growing. We are trying to take care of them as quick as possible. Sr13 01:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What can we do to reduce the bureaucracy and nit-picking that surrounds WP:RfA? I've seen a lot of good people being discouraged by comments like "You need to have at least X edits," or "I won't support a candidate without a WikiProject endorsement." More administrators could mean fewer backlogs. If people seem reasonable and want to help, hand out mops. You don't need to know the fine details of every Wikipedia process to be able to tear through some of these backlogs. We should encourage more people to become admins. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 04:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It is my perception that mops are currently being passed out at record rates, but I would be receptive to seeing some statistics to the contrary. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There have been temporary spikes before. Also, the backlogs are growing at record rates. To really keep them down we would need a rate of admin creation on a totally different level: not 20 or 30% higher than normal but 200 or 300%. Chick Bowen 04:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

We definitely want more sysops, but at the same time, we don't want to be too careless in our decisions. I agree with what Jehochman said above, though. We shouldn't be nitpicky just because of one or two "bad" diffs. Sr13 07:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There might also be possibly helpful ideas away from RfA. Grandmasterka 08:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe some adminbots would help here? You hardly need great judgment to delete these images. Even a non-adminbot that removed images from articles once you'd deleted them would help: I don't think that exists. Moreschi ^Talk 09:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Down to ten days, I'll be offline for a bit but I'll swat some more later. Fair use is a joke, we should get rid of it altogether. And get some more bots! Moreschi ^Talk 10:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the first thread on wp:ani. It's obvious that many of these deletions wouldn't be uncontentious, since some people tag the pages without looking at their content. It's a lot better to have a backlog than to get rid of that backlog through mindless deletions. - Bobet 10:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism-only account

User: Blehhhahaha!! appears to be a vandalism-only account. I have reverted all his edits. --Eastlaw 04:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, but please see WP:AIV next time. — MichaelLinnear 05:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

My monobook

Resolved

 – EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Could an admin please blank my monobook.js page please? I'm user:GrooveDog, and I accidentily put a script on it that won't let me log in.GrooveCat 23:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• I looked (via WP:RPP) and the page is already blank! - Alison ☺ 23:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I blanked it and then realized GrooveDog had already been working on it; apologies. Chick Bowen 00:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul series of articles needs an admin to adopt them

We could use an admin or two to watch over the Ron Paul article and its associated articles - the main article is semi protected, but we have people new to wikipedia who don't get all the nuances - like 3RR, edit summaries, NPOV, consensus - and I think some administrative oversight would help. A few people have tried to flesh out the article and keep it neutral, but as a presidential candidate article there are some very partisan people over there and it's getting tedious. So - does anyone like politics? Thanks (I wasn't sure where to post this - let me know if there's another more appropriate place.)Tvoz |talk 09:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Block of 69.134.117.202

Hope I'm not taking up space just an FYI that when 69.134.117.202 was blocked I was on this IP and I am confident it did not happen in my building. Is this a shared IP? Thanks for the help! --Trumpetband 14:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP and the deceased

I've let this drop for a bit as there was some hot feelings but it is continuing currently and needs clarifying.

The main point of this post is that there seems to be a step to apply WP:BLP to the dead. It started with the article Adrian Adonis in which Burntsauce (talk · contribs) removed most of the article citing WP:BLP. I reverted the changes citing the fact that BLP does not apply to a person who has been dead for nineteen years, resulting in a rather unneeded full protection that was soon lifted.

During this time wikipedia foundation member Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) and myself had a discussion on our talk pages over this article. Most of the postings related to Jimbo stating the articles needing sources which I agreed with however I argued my revert was based not on the lack of sources but the application of BLP to a dead person being entirely out of the scope of BLP leading to this comment: "Arguing that the guy is dead, and therefore BLP doesn't apply, is really a stretch."

I decided to leave it there however it seemed very odd to me at the time that we are now applying BLP to dead people. Thinking it may be over I didn't post here for a time because it seemed like an isolated incident however the same thing has occurred at Chris Candido, Orville Brown and Rodney Anoa'i. All of these articles relate to deceased individuals however each has been reverted and full protected under the grounds of violating WP:BLP.

I am not here to debate whether the articles need sourcing, which I believe they do, I am however here to inquire as to whether BLP is being misused or should be re-written to apply to all persons, past or present. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• There should probably be a different set of standards. The articles of the recently deceased frequently get vandalized, especially when they're controversial figures (such as Jerry Falwell recently). There are different impulses. It's a lot of work, but I think it would be worth the effort to have separate standards for the deceased. JuJube 00:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• BLP does not create new restrictions on content, it just mandates removal, and exempts that removal from 3RR. Unsourced negative information is not allowed anywhere, it's just more imperative that it be removed on BLPs. -Amarkov moo! 00:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• The information removed was neither negative or controversial. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Then it would be a misapplication of BLP to remove it. Either way, saying "BLP doesn't apply!" is silly. -Amarkov moo! 00:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm trying to figure out why that is, because to me saying "BLP doesn't apply to the dead? that is silly" is... well silly, hence why I brought this here. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not saying that BLP applies to the dead; whether or not it should, it self-evidently doesn't. However, there is no material which may be removed under BLP that shouldn't be removed anyway. So it doesn't matter if BLP applies or not. -Amarkov moo! 00:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• The thing is these particular articles refer to people that could be argued are "recently" deceased, as far back as 20+ years ago. The application here of BLP to me signifies that there are stricter reasons for material removal than for much older deceased persons. As an example I chose Chester A. Arthur which has been pretty much entirely unsourced since creation and has been tagged since December 2006 however there aren't people currently removing the unsourced information on the page despite six months of tagging resulting in no improvement. It seems like either misapplication or a double standard. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• If WP:BLP can apply to dead people, then up is down, black is white, night is day. It says "living people" in WP:BLP over and over and over. It doesn't say "persons living or dead". However, I'd like to think that Jimbo misspoke and was really just saying that there are other reasons besides WP:BLP to remove the offending material, such as that it was unsourced crap. wikipediatrix 00:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The first line of the "Rationale" for WP:BLP is: "Wikipedia articles that contain information about living people can affect a subject's life." This is the basis of the policy requirements to edit sensitively and conservatively, etcetera. This rationale clearly does not mean that negative material must be excluded, but it stipulates that unsourced negative material, or non-encyclopaedic material (tabloid allegations, etc.), must be removed. This stipulation is not only about defamation laws, but rather, as the rationale states, is due to the fact that Wikipedia can affect people's lives. And, even though this rationale states that information can affect the subject's life, it is also clearly the case that it can affect those people close to or surrounding the subject. Thus there is a difference between writing about Henry VIII and writing about somebody who has recently died, and who may have a spouse, children, etcetera. Wikipedia editors ought to be sensitive wherever the potential to negatively affect people's lives is clear. Again, this does not mean negative material must be excluded. But this requirement is a very good reason why, in my opinion, WP:BLP continues to apply to those who have died but whose relatives and associates remain alive. There is nothing to be gained for the encyclopaedia by asserting that this policy does not apply in such situations. FNMF 01:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Where is the line between "recently deceased" and "deceased"? A year ago? Five years ago? 20? A century? Are we meant to be catering these articles until every person that person could've been known or loved by will be dead as well? –– Lid^(Talk) 01:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion this is an artificial and unnecessary question (this is not meant to sound hostile). Where there are reasonable grounds to think the material can affect someone's life, editors ought to adhere to WP:BLP strictures. A case could be made for including something more explicit about this in WP:BLP. But, until that happens, editors ought to be able to use good sense and judgment about such questions. The fact that editors do not always use such good sense and judgment is one argument for introducing such a clarification to the policy. FNMF 01:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a statute of limitations defining a period after which claims against the dead persons estate are not permissible? Six years? While the estate is still active I should think BLP should be applied rigorously. After that period then it is not as urgent (but still important). LessHeard vanU 21:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If that is so, and we enforce this position, it still doesn't apply to 3 of the four articles currently locked as BLP as they have been dead for longer than 6 years, up to 4 times as long. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being paranoid, but I'm finding it slightly odd that, out of thousands more articles, so far all those that have been "nuked" happen to be pro wreslters'. There are exactly 3 references in Rick Rubin, one in Kris Kristofferson, and none in Tom Petty or Jimmie Rodgers (country singer), I wonder what would happen if I nuked everything unsourced over WP:ATT or WP:BLP concerns... Circeus 03:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

50-50 you will be blocked for WP:POINT/vandalism or be held up as a crusader for upholding WP:BLP, every previous discussion on the focus on professional wrestler articles being cropped down has prettyu much resulted that way if we go off previous experience. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps we need a new page Wikipedia:Biographies of dead people? >Radiant< 12:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If one of the primary intents of BLP is to reduce the risk of Wikipedia's liability, then BLP should apply to all persons recently dead inasmuch as their estates could be an issue. Reasoning would dictate this is a number less than 100 years. It would be impossible to assign a specific number or rule as this it would be a matter for individual courts to decide. Quatloo 20:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you are suggesting, we wait for the courts to decide what? When we can start to edit these articles while not under the umbrella of BLP? –– Lid^(Talk) 05:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying only a court can decide when an estate has standing in a libel case. Quatloo 06:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Simple: BLP = Biography of Living Person. If they're dead, they're not living anymore, now are they? Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That would seem like the obvious position, but it seems there is some dispute over this hence this posting. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The individuals are not living but their estates are living entities, capable of filing lawsuits. Quatloo 03:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If BLP applies to the deceased, then the title of the BLP policy needs to be changed then.--Wizardman 03:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Monobook JS (Again)

For the third, yes, the third time, I have messed up my monobook (My memory of bad scripts is horrible). Could an admin please blank "GrooveDog"'s JS? Thanks. GrooveCat 02:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Y Done --Deskana (talk) 02:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If you didn't know, you can disable javascript in your browser and revert yourself, unless something is blocking changing the settings. Prodego ^talk 02:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll remember that in the future when I messup again. :) GrooveCat 02:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

GordonWatts

I blocked GordonWatts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for egregious WP:POINT violation. If anyone can find a productive edit since his last block expired they are welcome to look, I can't find one but then I didn't look to hard because what limited patience I have with him expired some time ago. Enough already, I'd say. He is, in his own opinion, always right, and will continue to explain why in excruciating detail until you lose interest or die of old age. Guy (Help!) 20:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You might want to see the discussion on Gordon over on ANI or CSN, Guy. CSN, especially might be a moot point now. SirFozzie 20:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Given that Friday has just re-blocked him, I think he can be considered banned unless somebody unblocks him. I certainly won't. Mackensen (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Nor me. Endorse Friday's judgement on the block. Daniel 08:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Henrygb

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. For abusive sockpuppetry involving the accounts Audiovideo, Facethefacts, and SE16, the administrator privileges of Henrygb are revoked. He may reapply at any time, either a) by appeal to the Arbitration Committee, or b) after giving notice to the committee to allow verification that no further abusive sockpuppetry has occurred, by reapplying via the usual means. Henrygb shall edit Wikipedia from only a single account. Henrygb is banned until he responds to the Arbitration Committee's concerns on this matter. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 14:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoa. That kind of jumped ahead of the line, didn't it? I suppose it was a relatively straightforward case then. hbdragon88 22:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"Line"? There's no particular order in which we handle cases. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, wrong word. I was surprised to see this case be closed so quickly based on the usual length of cases. hbdragon88 01:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Some cases are way easier than others. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 13:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Cowboy Rocco's block

Cowboy Rocco has been constantly calling me and asking me to request his block extension be reviewed. He asked me to tell you all that he was "unjustly blocked" because the unblock template should be removed because it said

"This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer."

at the bottom so please review his request so he will shut up and get back to acting normal when he talks at school. --Kkrouni 00:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like Raul654 (talk · contribs) was the blocking administrator, probably acting as a checkuser. Have you discussed the block with him? Mackensen (talk) 00:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well kind of... I don't think that he thought that he was trying to cover up his sockpuppetry incident. He even wrote in his edit summary's that he was trying to obey the template. --Kkrouni 00:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

CoybowRocco was a large-scale sockpuppeteer. I caught and blocked dozens of his sockpuppets. (Note - Kkrouni is one of them who I have, against my better judgement, decided to allow to continue editing.) When I made a note of this on his talk page, he tried to remove it. Raul654 01:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I swear to GOD that we are two different people! We have known each other since the third grade!--Kkrouni 01:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, where do I remember this name? Oh yeah, Susan Walton's RfA, who has been blocked as a sock. Note that I typed the first half of that, then checked the userpage fully expecting to see the sock tag. No alarms and no surprises, move along folks there is nothing to see here. Teke^talk 03:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Supplemental reading, in case you can't just move along: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Cowboy Rocco. Checkuser cleaning. Teke^talk 03:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes but Raul blocked him for a month for sockpuppetry, and added two months for that template. I don't see how removing a template that says "remove me" warrants an extension of a block. --Kkrouni 11:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem at Dennis Kucinich

I have been contacted by e-mail by Aivazovsky (talk · contribs) (formerly User:Clevelander), who said he didn't want to have the articles Mayoral administration of Dennis Kucinich and Cleveland recall election, 1978 available to the general public anymore but wanted to keep them for personal use. He asked whether I could delete these articles, which I declined.

• Aivazovsky has redirected both articles to Dennis Kucinich and replaced the link there with a summary account.
• Aivazovsky is not the sole editor on these articles.
• By publishing these texts, Aivazovsky has put them under the GFDL, a non-revocable free license.
• The GFDL allows Aivazovsky to use his contributions to these articles elsewhere, too (for instance, for publication in some journal), though if doing so, it would probably be a good idea to state that the text has been published on Wikipedia already, which in practice may mean that it could be hard to get the text accepted at a journal.
• I have not checked whether there is a potential WP:BLP or WP:COATRACK issue here.

I'd like to see more input on this case, from Aivazovsky and from others. My initial reaction was to un-redirect both articles and undo the changes made at Dennis Kucinich. What do you think? Lupo 06:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If he put his work up on Wikipedia then he agreed to release it under the GFDL, it's no longer his place to say what can or cannot be done with the work. Ben W Bell talk 06:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The combination of your 2nd and 3rd points - that he's not the sole editor and every edit screen explicitly states that you agree to license under GFDL - seems to me makes this an open-and-shut case. In fact, even if he was the sole editor it wouldn't matter. (If he wants to get an article on the topic published in a journal, then he'll just have to write a new one if he can't separate out his own words from the words of other editors here. This isn't our problem.) As for the redirects - unless the material in the main article completely encompasses the material in the redirected articles, which I doubt, I think the redirects should be removed and the articles reinstated. Tvoz |talk 07:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, according to WP:CSD#G7, if not for the second point - he would have the right that the article be deleted. Od Mishehu 07:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ben restored one article and I restored the other. We should talk about controversial mergers before doing them. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 07:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The one I restored I did as it covered a lot more detail and was a specific article not solely pertaining to Dennis Kucinch and didn't deserve to be redirected to the later. The other one I left as I was a bit more unsure over that one as a lot of the info has been recently incorporated into the later page. Ben W Bell talk 07:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The mayoral article can not be covered by CSD G7 as he is not the author of the article, and thus him redirecting it makes it even odder, while the second article which he did author does not relate solely to Dennis Kucinich making the redirect unfeasible. In both cases the articles should remain as sngle entities. –– Lid^(Talk) 07:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me anymore. I'll just rephrase myself if I decide to use this information. -- Aivazovsky 10:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No need, you can use it exactly as-is, provided you either include the text you submitted, verbatim, or attribute the text you take, to Wikipedia. Releasing under GFDL absolutely does not preclude publication elsewhere under other licenses. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention

Could we get more admins to watchlist and patrol Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention? It's getting quite a bit of activity (especially from the bot) and yet reports are sitting for more than 2 hours at times. It's a pretty straightforward board. Just need some assistance. Thanks. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. --Fire Star 火星 16:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's unblock of VK35

I'm concerned by Jimbo's recent unblock of VK35 (talk · contribs). I became suspicious that VK35 was a sockpuppet of banned user Dereks1x (who has a considerable list of socks) a few days ago. Jimbo's explanation for the unblock was that he has "reasonable confirmation that this user is a real physician."[156] Per the original community ban, Dereks1x was banned in part for using a confirmed sock (Doc United States), for whom he claimed medical credentials, to bolster his own arguments (i.e. Dereks1x's) at Talk:John Edwards. Doc United States was confirmed to be a sockpuppet via checkuser here: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dereks1x.

In that very checkuser request, Doc United States attempted to prove that he was indeed a doctor, even uploading a photo of a medical degree and posting it in the RFCU in an attempt to demonstrate that he was a doctor and was not Dereks1x. Checkuser confirmed that Doc was a sock of Dereks1x.

The community ban discussion followed. Joining in the discussion was Atlas87, who argued that we should provide greater "legal safeguards" for banned users while also agreed to revert Doc United States' edits per WP:BAN. Atlas87 was eventually confirmed to be a Dereks1x sock as well via checkuser. Community consensus was unanimous in supporting a ban.

Several other Dereks1x socks eventually surfaced, which were accompanied by more RFCU requests in several circumstances.

Then I recently noticed VK35, who expressed a similar concern (to Atlas87) regarding Wikipedia's approach to banned users. Additionally, VK35 used the word "dictatorial" in describing an RFA candidate (later striken by VK35), a word that had been used by at least one other Dereks1x sock (and I believe others if memory serves) regarding administrators. Additionally, VK35 volunteered to be a checkuser clerk just a few hours after an IP check was submitted regarding Dereks1x on May 18. In fact, VK35 appeared to have a particularly acute interest in both check user and the banning policy for a brand new user. Finally, I noticed that VK35 created his account less than 2 hours after Dereks1x was indefinitely blocked.

I confirmed that I might be right to be suspicious with another user in good standing familiar with the situation off-wiki. I then e-mailed Dmcdevit, asking him to run a checkuser on VK35. Dmcdevit's e-mail response stated that though VK35 was editing from a dynamic IP range, Dereks1x was editing from the same range. He indicated that the probability of sock puppetry in this case was very likely given corroborating evidence. I blocked VK35 and began rolling back his edits at that point per WP:BAN.

Thereafter, Jimbo unblocked VK35, making the physician comment at my talk page. As I asked Jimbo, I'm curious as to why this user decided to try to prove he was a physician when it wasn't even the reason he was blocked . . . unless he was familiar with the Dereks1x situation. I am not certain whether Jimbo is aware of the user's prior attempt to claim medical credentials, though I did note it at Jimbo's talk page. I still think it is more likely than not that Dereks1x is attempting to pass false credentials, as I'm not aware of exactly what evidence Jimbo has been provided to prove VK35's credentials (given the degree photo that was provided previously, however, I doubt it has great probative value in any event). I do not completely discount the possibility that VK35 is a doctor, either. Like everyone else who was familiar with the situation at the time, I assumed Doc United States' attempt to prove his credentials was insincere, meant merely to bolster his puppet master's talk arguments. Even if the user has medical credentials, that doesn't excuse the behavior in my opinion, as sock abuse is improper regardless. The full conversation between me and Jimbo (and others) is here.

Thus, given that check user confirms that VK35 is editing from the same IP range as Dereks1x and his other socks and given the corroborating evidence, I am wary of the unblock. I think administrative input would be useful in this case. · jersyko talk 01:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Right now, I suspect the best thing to do is keep an eye on VK, and ring the bell if he starts getting in the same patterns as Dereks did, which does not seem to be the case right now. Although Dereks is known to be highly deceptive, I don't believe there is a reason to really worry until VK gets in trouble with pages relating to Democratic party members. Circeus 03:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I failed to mention above that VK35 had begun serving as an RFCU clerk before I blocked him. Whether that affects your opinion or not, Circeus, is obviously up to you. Thanks. · jersyko talk 03:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely concur with Jersyko on this. Several of us have been following the trail of Dereks1x's disruption and repeated instances of sockpuppetry, and his community ban for falsely claiming to be a doctor, and VK35's approach is strongly reminiscent of how one or another of Dereks1x's 20+ socks responded to the accusations. While VK35 has not gotten involved in the same content disputes as some of the other puppets, he has shown an unusual, and very early, interest in Jersyko (the admin who blocked and/or gave evidence against most of Dereks1x's sockpuppets), a good example of which is what would otherwise be a random AN/I discussion, except that it was VK35 coming in to comment on a false RFCU accusation that one of Dereks1x's confirmed sockpuppets made a few days ago (in defiance of his ban of course) against another editor who had participated in previous Derek SSPs and had initiated a couple of IP checks on Dereks1x suspected puppets. Even his edit summary is reminiscent of the dozens of Dereks1x's that I have read. What is the likelihood of the coincidence of an unrelated observer -VK35 - coming in out of the blue to comment on that particular AN/I thread out of the hundreds of administrative matters that are discussed every day, and then that user being erroneously confirmed by checkuser as a Dereks1x puppet as we would be led to believe? The easier answer is usually the better one - and that would be that the checkuser confirmation of independently formed suspicions about VK35 and Dereks1x was not mistaken, and they are one and the same.

And I truly do not understand why Jimbo feels that VK35's sudden claims of being a doctor - whether or not they are true - are somehow proof that he is not a puppet of Dereks1x who falsely passed himself off here as a doctor, complete with photo of a bogus diploma. I don't really find the doctor issue to be relevant - at least not in a way that it supports VK35's claim of not being Dereks1x's sock - but maybe I'm missing something.

I have written elsewhere about my concerns regarding VK35 as a checkuser clerk - he volunteered for the job a few hours after one of Dereks1x's new socks was listed for an IP check. I see that as a result of the unblock VK35 has been reinstated in this role and I again say that if he is a sock evading a ban, one that has undergone numerous IP checks and checkusers, having him on the inside of that process to glean whatever insights there might be about the checkuser process is a matter of concern, and I would urge that there be more oversight on the selection process, even if there are no privacy ramifications.

Finally - this description by VK35 captures what Dereks1x did when he created User: Atlas87 when he was undergoing an SSP. Atlas87, a few days after being created, came into the discussion about Dereks1x's community ban and was soon revealed to be another sock. Is VK35's description another coincidence?

I completely share Jersyko's conclusion that VK35 is another Dereks1x account, and I am disturbed that the checkuser that confirmed it is being disregarded here. I strongly encourage adminstrative input on this unblock as well, as I would like to understand this. Tvoz |talk 06:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Not that I want to unleash Dereks1x's "editing style" upon Wikipedia again, but based upon Jimbo's confirmation of his medical credentials should the community ban be revisited? A stroll through the community ban discussion indicates that some of those voting in favor of the ban did so because they thought the credentials were false in addition to his use of socks to support his viewpoint. If the community banned him for just the sockpuppet use, then Jimbo's reasoning for unblocking VK35 would be moot and this latest account could be sent back into blocked-land.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like most people wanted him banned for the false credentials. Funpika 21:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The medical credential problem was the proximate reason for his ban, yes. However, this was a highly disruptive editor before the medical persona arrived here - disruptive under the master's account and disruptive under a number of socks who were used to defend the master's positions in disputes. He appeared to be on the road to longer-term blocking, when the medical persona burst on the scene to defend the master's position in a dispute regarding a medical matter, and the master had called for a "medical expert". The questionable credentials that were presented at the time eclipsed the issue of disruptive editing when the community ban was considered and implemented. The user was not deterred by the ban, as other socks continued to emerge, this just being the most recent one uncovered. Tvoz |talk 06:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama

I've copied over the commons version of this article because it's more complete than our version. Unfortunately there are a few differences when viewed side by side (mainly encyclopedic tone and formatting). I'm going to integrate the versions later, but I have to go to work. If somebody else wants to take crack at it in the next 12 hours, they are welcome to. -N 10:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Gosh. Look, the commons page is not for nothing in the "Commons:" namespace. Would you ever had the idea to take a "Wikipedia:" namespace policy or guideline and copy it to article space? Probably not. This will need a lot of work if it is to become an article. In particular, the whole list of countries should go and be replaced by a link to the page on the Commons. Lupo 10:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and revert if you want, the version we had before was virtually identical, except for a few sentences. You do bring up a valid point though, maybe this is in the wrong namespace. Anyhow I'm off. Cheers. -N 11:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The previous version was also copied from the Commons... Lupo 11:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Versions merged. Consensus for moving to the Wikipedia namespace and leaving only a stub about the legal concept of freedom of panorama in the article space? -N 15:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Going to do it, per WP:BOLD -N 23:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Uncle G has made a thoughtful and wlel-reaosned suggestion for WP:BLP to clarify what we should do in the problematic cases where all the sources on an individual refer to a single incident. I added this to WP:BLP because it seemed to me to make good sense, but needless to say a brief revert war ensued. I encourage people to review Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#The new section people are putting in and pitch into the debate. Guy (Help!) 13:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

So much for actual changes... JzG has protected the page under his version. Milto LOL pia 16:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a different sysop undid that protection and re-protected (on the m:The Wrong Version of course). Mackensen (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I unprotected it myself almost immediately, since I thought better of it. Irrelevant, though, since as you say someone else reprotected it in response to a WP:RFPP. Needless to say all page protections are at the wrong version (fsvo). Guy (Help!) 17:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

As per my recent posting here, WP:BLP and the deceased, BLP either needs renaming, a complete re-write to encompass both living and dead, as editors believe BLP now applies to dead people (including Jimbo Wales and admin Alkivar) or possibly a re-write to make it much tighter in who it applies to as in the last two weeks BLP application has resulted in three rather large cases of "process" debate (Little Fatty, BLP applying to the dead, Crystal Gail Mangum). –– Lid^(Talk) 01:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"Status" of fictional characters

I think that the "status" section for fictional characters (deceased/active) in their character bio box should be removed, because it leads to a lot of OR. In a lot of films, for example, the main villain may supposedly die at the end, but it is never actually stated that they are dead, and therefore there is a possibility that they may have survived, so listing them as "deceased" is relying too much on human perception (look at Ernst Blofeld for example).--70.251.189.99 15:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Plus it's entirely in-universe and in any case depends on which work in the series you happen to be looking at. I completely agree. Howver, this is not the place to talk about it... Guy (Help!) 16:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Where would be a better place to post this?--66.143.166.156 18:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Possibly somewhere on the village pump. Confusing Manifestation 05:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

CFD slow processing

Resolved

 – Discussion moved to User talk:TonyTheTiger. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The following WP:CFD has not been properly handled (renamed): Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_6#Category:Chicago_films. I have attempted to contact the closing administrator. Let me know if there is anything I should do (preferably at my talk page). TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Responded on the user's talk page. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Question about deletion of templates

While going through the list of articles for speedy delete, I noticed a number of userpages which were up for speedy delete. Turns out an editor had placed the speedy delete template on several user box templates (see [157]), which then caused every user page using said user box template to come up for speedy delete. It's probably my ignorance, but how do we avoid this? Or is this a simple case of this is what happens when you try to speedy delete a template? --Alabamaboy 20:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You stuff it in <noinclude>Bad tag</noinclude> tags, which means that it is not transcluded or substituted into articles that contain that template (or page). x42bn6 Talk Mess 20:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. That's what I needed to know. BEst, --Alabamaboy 22:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A request for an admin to talk to an editor

I have come across an editor who I think may need some assistance from an admin today. User:Dolmance placed an edit on the Michael Palin page that was full of unsourced POV and original research. As I perused through the edit history for this editor virtually all of their edits followed this same pattern. There is one warning on their talk page from Josiah Rowe referring to this. As a wikignome I have no idea where to begin to try and have this editor's contributions brought more into line with wikipolicy so I have come to this page in the hopes that one of you will be able to discuss this situation with them. It is possible that I am overstepping my understanding of wikipedia and that you will be okay with their edits, but, as this person does edit fairly often, I thought that I should bring this to your attention so that you can decide whether this is worth taking care of or not. My thanks for any assistance that you can provide. MarnetteD | Talk 21:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:WARN has a nice list of warnings you could use. Anyone can inform another editor of errant behavior, not just admins. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. It just seemed that as I looked at their edits, especially the things that they are posting on various talk pages and their reply to Josiah Rowe's warning, that they should be informed by someone who is more conversant in all aspects of wikipolicy than I am. MarnetteD | Talk 21:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This user has received two previous warnings, and I just left a third. If you see the user causing further trouble, file a report at the appropriate notice board and somebody will investigate. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 21:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up: A changing of usernames by Teke

Not meaning to follow the recent trend of renaming to actual names, I have filed a request to usurp User:Keegan, scheduled to occur if there is no contest on 1 June at minimum. This will be my second renaming, should it occur, having renamed (second from the bottom) from User:TKE to User:Teke on 2 June, 2006. Transferring the flag as well. I originally renamed to avoid confusion with other T** acronyms, such as User:TKD (now a sysop). As we had no usurpation policy to take Keegan , Teke has been what I've rolled with until now. So here I go, no responses needed. Just borrowing 30 seconds to let y'all know. I'll make a similar post if/when the rename occurs. Teke^talk 05:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ganging up

Content dispute. Disputte resolution is down the hall.--Doc^g 15:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

post closure thread moved to talk page.--Doc^g 13:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I hope an administrator can handle this situation: I left this original message on admin User talk:Jayjg - ganging up a few days ago. It looks to me as though there are several editors ganging up against one Bus stop - here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_converts_to_Judaism and here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_notable_converts_to_Christianity, can you look into it? Modernist 17:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User:JJay seems particularly vindictive against User:Bus stop. Thanks Modernist 11:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Each day the situation appears to be getting; is getting worse, there and on other pages like Talk:Bob Dylan. User:Cleo123 has attempted to help User:Bus stop, but the abuse by John Carter, JJay, Logan, Gustav von Humpelschmumpel, and several others continues. I think an administrator should intervene, as a somewhat outside observer it looks ugly to me. Kind of like a hornets nest. Is there anything you can do? Modernist 18:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering that I'm mentioned along with the editors above, I'd hope you'd articulate the full reasoning behind your accusations, and moreso those reasons concerning my own involvement in 'ganging up' on Bus stop. Bus stop has never allowed the possibility that the editors who disagree with him might actually be arguing behind a point of reason- he appears to have always assumed that such editors (myself included) have been operating from behind a heavy bias. He often makes accusations which, I believe, are quite libelous and without support. Every opposing suggestion and personal defense of character made by the accused editors have been dismissed by him, and it seems that he refuses to believe that any other editor is operating for neutral reasons, preferring instead to see the motivations behind the editors involved as "proselytizing for Christianity", "winning a victory over a Jew", and 'warping' the article (which has had the same parameters since its creation, apparently) to "capture Bob Dylan on the list" (and it should be noted that Dylan has been listed on the article since the article's creation[158].) Thankfully, Cleo has tried to discourage him of such behavior, but I've seen no change as of yet. The discussion, which should have ended long ago, has persisted for... I believe it's been exactly a month now. Now, as a form of compromise has been proposed by Cleo, myself and John Carter (although we all seem to disagree on the specifics of it), you would think the discussion might cool down a bit. Well, I've yet to see it, but I have my fingers crossed.

Also, it should be noted that there's been no conflict, as far as I know of, on the List of notable converts to Judaism. The only real involvement of the editors mention was Bus stop's unwarranted(?) removal of a 'citation needed' tag (referring to the claim that 'Judaism is not a proselytizing religion', which is challenged by recent proselytizing efforts made by some branches of Judaism), and JJay's restoration of the tag with an explanation.

It would seem that Bus stop's own perception of a 'gang mentality' in the opposing editors is based more on the perception of one who holds a minority opinion being faced by a strong majority than in any actual 'ganging up', although I haven't thoroughly observed the behavior of the other editors involved, so I can't defend them. However, in regard to the route taken by the discussion, it would seem that Bus stop prefers to mold the discussion to work around whatever argument works best for his ultimate goal of removing Dylan from the list. Note the escalating demand for quality of sources, which peaks at the point where Bus stop rejected (and still rejects) 3 published biographies (reliable in accordance to WP:BLP standards), the Encyclopedia Britannica, the New York Times, and a Jewish Newsletter's study of Dylan's faith (at one point, baptism records were suggested to be 'sufficient'- a strange suggestion, considering that many Christians do not find baptism to be a necessary step in conversion. Additionally, if we begin to require baptismal records for conversions, many actual converts to Christianity would not make the list because of the difficulty in finding such sources, or because of the non-existence of such records in the first place). After the sources became generally accepted, he switched the argument to one regarding the merits for inclusion- and this is the point where personal attacks against the motivations of editors opposed to him intensified. I can't claim innocence in action for any editor involved, but Bus stop is not a defenseless individual, and he has committed equal, if not greater, errors in comparison to the other editors involved. Therefore, concerning this issue, one should keep that in mind before vilifying any single side in the discussion. --C.Logan 15:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Wanted to second everything Modernist has said. I've been keeping watch over there, and, although the subject falls outside my own area of knowledge, there does seem to be a great deal of hostility and bad faith editing going on against Bus stop. Freshacconci 18:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please follow WP:DR or bring up on WP:AN. Tyrenius 20:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I am hoping this can all be amiably and reasonably worked out, so they can all edit articles in peace and with quality. Thank you, Modernist 20:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I’ve watched this issue since coming across it some time ago (it’s rather hard to miss), but have avoided becoming involved due lack of time and the apparent futility of engaging in it. From my perspective, the putative “ganging up” is more a result more of exasperation over Bus stop’s persistent pointism, as he makes clear in various places. Cf. Bob Dylan shouldn't be on List of converts to Christianity and You do not put a Jew on a list of Christians for clear expositions by Bus stop of his or her position on the issue. While the advisability of having “Lists of notable converts to XYZ” on Wikipedia may be readily debatable, it is a historical fact – according to Bob Dylan’s own testimony – that he at one time became an evangelical Christian. It is likewise “reliably reported” (in the Wikipedia sense) that he has more recently participated in Jewish worship practices, and later since that Dylan says he now subscribes to no organized religion. None of this changes his Jewish ethnicity, but since Mr. Dylan has always been rather private about his personal religious beliefs, it’s unclear what his current religious preferences may actually be at this time. The status of the “Jewishness” of ethnic Jews who are non-observant or apostate (or formerly apostate) is a controversial issue in Judaism, so it is unhelpful for someone to arbitrarily conflate them in Wikipedia – least of all simply to preserve a “body count.” It seems to me in any case, that Bus stop’s chief complaint would be better addressed on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) as to whether or not “Lists of converts” are properly encyclopedic, and if not, deprecated as such. However personally offensive he may find the issue to be, trying to unilaterally enforce his objections on a single such list can only be disruptive over the long run without there being a consensus to support it. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You've made some very good observations. I don't want to go into both sides of the argument here, but it seems like Bus stop is motivated by personal offense and unwarranted assumptions about why opposing editors are opposing him, while I, at least, am more concerned with transmitting information that is relevant to the article at hand in an un-conflicting way, and fighting censorship on Wikipedia. Bus stop has a legitimate point buried somewhere in the accusations, assumptions and dramatic language, but it's become too integrated to analyze one element without the other. --C.Logan 19:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You do not put the Jewish person named Bob Dylan on the List of notable converts to Christianity because in doing so you contradict yourself. You do not contrive parameters in order to relieve that contradiction because doing so constitutes a form of "forcing." If he doesn't fit, then he doesn't fit. One does not force him onto that list if he doesn't fit. He happens to be Jewish. It is a list of Christians. Therefore he doesn't fit the parameters of that list. We don't present contradictions on Wikipedia. We don't say that black is white. And we don't say that white is black.

We don't blur distinctions. We respect differences. And yes, it is an offense to put a Jew on a list of Christians. As enthusiastic as the Christian philosophy of the salvation available through Jesus Christ may be, Jews do not accept that. Jews consider that incorrect. Jews do not accept that Jesus was the Son of God. Jews do not accept that there is salvation in accepting Jesus as one's Savior. Jews do not accept the New Testament. You respect a Jew by not forcing him onto a list of Christians. Equally important Wikipedia has no allowance for contradiction that I am aware of. Bus stop 14:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

But that is POV. Clearly, overwhelmingly, Jews believe you can't be both Jewish and Christian, But some people do identify themselves as both - indeed many thousands. That's a significant minority opinion which must also be represented on Wikipedia. Identity is always subjective anyway. It is not a matter of black and white 'facts'. This is POV dispute - and you need to reflect both sides (whilst making clear the mainstream view). At any rate, not a matter for admins.--Doc^g 14:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

An observation: By that reasoning, it would be offensive to put Christ on a list of Christians. I understand he was a Jew, too. Perhaps if you tone down the rhetoric and discuss this with a eye towards consensus, there will be less grandstanding and complaints all the way around. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This is all got to do with mainstream Jewish POV pushing that wants to eradicate any mention that there are, and always have been, 'Messianic Jews'.--Doc^g 14:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

C.Logan, Askari Mark -- As for my "switching" arguments, that is incorrect. I first encountered the "contrived parameters" on the Talk page of the Bob Dylan article. That was before I became aware of the List of notable converts to Christianity article. Editors posed the question, "shouldn't Dylan be removed from the category 'converts to Christianity,' since he is no longer a Christian?" To which came the reply that it was a category of "all those who had ever converted to Christianity. That struck me as contrived, and an unfair pushing of a Christian point of view. I eventually found my way to the List of notable converts to Christianity where I continued to encounter that contrived line of reasoning. In point of fact, it was always that contrivance that I was indignant about. I don't think Wikipedia should be pulling the wool over the people's eyes.

A 'gang' is not just a gang because its members act in concert with one another. Another reason that the word gang might be chosen is because of the improper activities that members may engage in. In this instance that runs the gamut from insulting comments to point of view pushing to the excessive use of the Wikipedia legal system. But I won't get bogged down in complaining about every one of those things.

WP:POINT is not applicable. I am not trying to do something that runs approximately parallel to some other thing. There is no attempt on my part to prove my point by doing something else. I am entirely aboveboard in my contentions. In other words, my words mean exactly what they say. How does that involve the violation of WP:POINT? I'm not doing one thing in order to prove a separate point. I don't see that WP:POINT is applicable. Bus stop 14:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time grasping that there is anything to argue about here. Maybe I'm too simple to see the big picture, someone want to explain it to me? Dylan was a Jew. He became a Christian. Maybe he was both at the same time, maybe he wasn't, but his own words in reliable sources say he was a Christian. Whether or not he's still a Christian or has become a Jew again (if he ceased to be one when he became a Christian) is irrelevant to the list, which is about people who converted, regardless of lapses back (or reconversions) to their first religion, conversions to third religions, acceptance of agnoticism or atheism, or whatever. Lexicon (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Do articles on conversion to other religions follow the same "contrived parameters"? If so, then they're not all that contrived. It makes sense, in one way, because while you may have information about the "conversion event" you can never know if an individual still practices. Last week Mel Gibson might have rejected Traditionalist Catholicism for all we know. Lexicon (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Doc -- Do you have a source for present day Messianic Judaism for Bob Dylan? Do you even have a past source for Messianic Judaism for Bob Dylan? Bus stop 14:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Lexicon -- Actually that is a contrivance. If you look at the List of converts to Judaism you will see the parameters for this sort of list minus the contrivance. The List of converts to Judaism clearly has the tag on it reading This page is a list of Jews. In point of fact that same tag hung on the List of converts to Christianity. (Except that it read This page is a list of Christians.) It was only removed to accommodate the contrivance I'm referring to. I know that to be the case because it was removed in a direct response to the challenges to Bob Dylan's presence on the list. The List of converts to Judaism follows far more restrictive guidelines. If any name can be proven not to be a Jew then it is liable to be removed for that reason alone. Why is the List of converts to Christianity casting a wider net for the names on it's list?

Furthermore, the title itself says that only Christians are on the List of converts to Christianity. Convert in this sense is a noun indicating Christian. But Dylan is not a Christian, so why would he be on a list that in it's very title indicates that it is a list of Christians?

Parameters for lists need to be simple, or they leave themselves open to being contrived. And this is clearly just such a case of parameters that have been made more complicated than they are in their most basic state, and they are in this instance a contrivance to push a point of view. There are really only two ways by which a person can acquire either Jewish or Christian identity. Those two ways are by birth and by conversion. Basic parameters for this list are therefore simply "those notable people who have found Christian identity by way of conversion." It is only by way of an enhancement to those parameters (which constitutes a contrivance) that one arrives at the the criteria that it is a list of all those who have ever converted to Christianity. That group is incalculably larger than the first group. It appears to me that there is an agenda at work here that wishes to enhance the contents of this list either in quality or quantity or both.

Finally, sources have areas of inapplicability as well as areas of applicability. Contemporary (1979) sources using the word convert don't confer convert status on someone 27 years later. We know Dylan has had nothing to do with Christianity in 27 years, or at least we have no evidence that he has. And he was born a Jew. Birth has lasting applicability in such things as religious identity. And there is evidence of normal Jewish involvement in quotidian Jewish affairs in the intervening 27 years. No one is arguing he is a pious Jew. But the average Jew, and Dylan too, shows some level of involvement in the holidays, for instance, found on the Jewish calendar. An observance of a Jewish Sabbath is occasionally reported for Bob Dylan. In one photograph he is seen wearing the traditional Jewish "skullcap," as well as the extremely arcane Jewish adornment known as "phylacteries," worn on the head and arm. My point is that the sources from 1979 do not have automatic applicability to 2007. They are more clearly inapplicable. Bus stop 15:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Redirecting proponent

I've come across a user who is trying to improve Wikipedia. Good I hear you say, normally I'd agree with you and they are acting in good faith. Unfortunately the User:Mathiastck has just discovered the #Redirect command and the meta soft redirect and is setting up many redirects. Some of them are fine, don't get me wrong, but some are just bad going to double and sometimes triple redirects, and also creating redirects to end articles that really aren't directly relevant to the initial redirects. I've tried mentioning some words to the user and they are truely acting in good faith, but it's becoming a bit of a frustrating exercise. Can anyone else have a look and put forward their views as maybe I am being a bit hard here. Ben W Bell talk 07:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I will look into it and try to discuss the issue with them. Vassyana 08:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with your view, and you are warning him appropriately. Redirects aren't bad, and there's nothing wrong with being inclusionist, but creating too many irrelevant redirect pages and causing double or more redirects becomes a problem. I'm sure those edits are done in good faith, but he's pushing it a little bit. After all, there are other ways to improve the encyclopedia, such as adding content to articles and sourcing. Sr13 08:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I wrote this question on his talk page and was met with this and this. Good faith only stretches so far for me, maybe someone else cares to hold his hand through it... Again. Grandmasterka 07:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I gave him a firm warning that further abuse of the redirect system would lead to a block for disruption.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Abusing userspace for political propaganda

I think we should have a clear policy about expressing political beliefs in userpages. I had a sandbox on my userpage, User:MariusM/Heaven of Transnistria, which included some personal opinions (but also some sourced facts) about current government of Transnistria. My sandbox was deleted by User:El C and it was reported as an example of "abusing my userspace for political soapboxing", for further actions against me.

What I find strange is that the same person who deleted my sandbox is abusing his userspace to make Communist political propaganda User:El C, User talk:El C. He put Lenin's and Che Guevara's photos and quotes from those two guys on both his userpage and usertalkpage. There were millions of people killed because of Lenin, he is one of the big criminals of the 20th century, and such an userpage is deeply offensive for people who suffered because of Communism.

Based on the precedent El C himself created through the deletion of my sandbox, I am asking User:El C to remove Communist propaganda from his userspace.--MariusM 18:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You may have better luck addressing your concerns directly to User:El C on his talk page. MastCell ^Talk 21:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I did [159].--MariusM 22:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

MariusM seems to think that expressing nationalist pov, as he does on his user page, is different from my own in terms of the userpage policies. He said that he will respect the results of the DRV which confirmed my deletion of his subpage, but obviously he feels compelled to engage is soapboxing ("millions of people killed because of Lenin") on the noticeboard. Luckily, the RfAr involving himself is almost concluded. El_C 01:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

MariusM is right to point out that Wikipedia seems to use politically-correct standards of what is acceptable on user pages. 'Millions of people killed because of Lenin' is fact, not propaganda. The way, the truth, and the light 01:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in having polemical exchanges on the noticeboard. El_C 01:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Marius, I'll do my very best to AGF on your part, and believe bringing this here is in fact a confusion on your part, and not a vindictive action towards El C. So please, bear with me. There's a big difference in posting a PD image of a former Chief of State (who, as controversial a historical character he may be, is still revered by millions of people - and no, it's no Stalin we're talking about here) or a notable Cuban politician, and keeping a repository of strong political propaganda in userspace. Frankly, from my modest perspective, having a famous quote by Che Guevara that has nothing to do with Communism in itself (the only quote El C has in userspace, btw, as fas as I can see) cannot be compared in any possibe way with the collection of strong-worded and biased political stuff contained in the now deleted sandbox. And yes, I do agree that this has no place in this noticeboard either.

We are all entitled to our personal opinions, and that includes our political ideas, yes. But the point is, to which extension is it acceptable to let our POV leak into our Wikipedia activity. And while El C's action appear as nothing but a decorative way of expressing his own political sympathies, the contents on your sandbox seemed more like explicit advocating of a political POV, sometimes resorting to strong words like "dreary, corrupt, and run by a repressive regime funded by arms and people trafficking" (sic) There's nothing bad in using your sandbox to write and prepare articles, even on political matters; it's all in how you do it. So please, drop this - El C simply did what any other admin would have done, he just got there first. Try and write a different article, and I gladly volunteer myself to proofread it and enhance it for you. Regards, Phaedriel - 01:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Phaedriel for assuming good faith about me, others are not making this effort. I want to make some corrections at your message: Che Guevara's quote is not the only in User:El C's userspace, he also has another: "Parliamentarism does not eliminate, but lays bare the innate character even of the most democratic bourgeois republics as organs of class oppression - Lenin" (you should scroll down his userpage to see it). From examples like El C's userpage I was convinced that is nothing wrong to have political opinions in userspace, but, as result of El C's actions, not only that my sandbox was deleted but it was reported at arbcom as a basis for a ban proposal against me. We, ordinary wikipedians, consider admins like our role-models in Wikipedia, if El C is allowed to keep Communist propaganda in his userspace, other wikipedians can fall in the same trap like me, believing that is legitimate to have political opinions in own userspace, only to see themselves banned for that.--MariusM 07:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Basically, if you're upset about the deletion you can go to deletion review. It appears you may have already done so; if that's not worked, then I'd suggest the same thing as User:Phaedriel - if you rewrite the article, try to address the issues raised that led to the deletion. If you feel User:El C's userpage is inappropriate and should be deleted, then the correct process would be to nominate it at WP:MfD to get community input. There really isn't any administrative action to be taken here. MastCell ^Talk 03:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Community input is not important. In the deletion debate about my sandbox the majority was against deletion [160], however El C deleted it, based on the famous rule "this is not a vote" admins are using to show that opinions of ordinary wikipedians is not important. Still good that people who supported my right to keep my sandbox are not subjected at their turn at ban proposals (with one exception). Funny that El C is accusing me of harrasment [161] as I asked him to remove propaganda from his userspace, is exactly how I felt when my sandbox was proposed for deletion.--MariusM 07:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I am user:Wikidudeman Someone please help me.

Resolved

 – Alison has fixed the monobook file. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I seemed to have messed up my ability to edit when I was working on my User:Wikidudeman/monobook.js file. I can't revert it since it's protected. Can someone please revert the edits I've made? You can do it here [[162]]. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Testing123Testing (talk • contribs)

• I just blanked it. Try now! You can revert to the 'proper' version when you get back in. In future, you can probably disable JavaScript in your browser (at least I can on Safari here) and get back in and revert it. - Alison ☺ 06:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

• Tobias Conradi may be blocked up to an hour by any administrator for any personal attack or violation of civility.
• Tobias Conradi is limited to one revert per week on any article. This includes moves.
• Tobias Conradi is prohibited from maintaining laundry lists of grievances.
• Should Tobias Conradi violate any ban or prohibition imposed by this decision, he may be blocked by any administrator for up to one hour. Blocks need not be logged.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 08:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Nice. The laundry list thing is a good call, I shall bear that in mind in some other cases. Guy (Help!) 09:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"Please do not vandalize Wikipedia regardless of what happens on TV"

Resolved

 – Notice removed (mmmm, beans). EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That needs a period, like the "Early registration for..." sentence. --zenohockey 04:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're talking about. --Deskana (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be this edit. - auburnpilot talk 16:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What happened? hbdragon88 18:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Colbert, of course. --Carnildo 21:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Can someone keep an eye on...

User Florenda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his apparent IP, 66.252.50.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I'm going to be on a plane in three hours and away for a few days. User was main contributor on three articles all deleted by me upon closing of afd debates: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of WCMA (encompassing two articles) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Briggs. In addition to attacking one user in particular on those debates and others, spilling onto user talk pages, he thereafter recreated those articles multiple times and under various, slightly different names, resulting in a block [163] following ignoring warnings. I followed up by protecting a number of titles from recreation here. This morning he added a screed to one of the closed debates and recreated a talk pages of one of the deleted articles with attack text under his ip address--please see his response to my warning from today. So if someone can keep an eye out I'd be obliged.--Fuhghettaboutit 20:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. If the user or the IP starts acting up again, I'll proceed as necessary. Sr13 03:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Apology

I've decided to apologize for my conduct over the past few days. My behaviour was unacceptable and all blocks were fully justified. I have been, in short, a complete asshole. Sorry.

I apologize specifically for my disruption of Gracenotes' adminship request. I advised Gracenotes against accepting the nomination on the grounds that adminship is a most unpleasant experience – and it appears my concerns were not unfounded – but I no longer care. I realize now that I made the mistake of getting to know another contributor; I shall avoid repeating this mistake in future.

I seem to be incapable of engaging in discussion in this environment. So I won't. I will, of course, act exactly as desired by those who enforce the rules, and their personal interpretations thereof, without question. If anyone catches me trying to express an opinion rather than blindly following orders, they are invited to block me as appropriate. If I am at some point rendered obsolete by a bot, I will go quietly. Thank you for your time.

– Gurch 21:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Gurch, I will see if I can replace you with a shell script, but it might take some coding. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

There are some who say that someday, someone will create a bot that will be programmed to react the same way to certain stimuli all the time. There are some who say that humanity can never build anything to replace humanity. There are some who think this has already happened. (couldn't resist the badly paraphrased HHGttG joke there) SirFozzie 23:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Gurch now officially replaced by Gurchzilla, took plenty coding. Bishzilla would block if entrusted with admin tools, HINT HINT Bishzilla4admin. Bishzilla | ROARR!! 01:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC).

See also: Turing Test (needs editing). Jehochman ^Talk 09:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking

I request that an edit comment containing identifying information be redacted [164] and the offending editor warned. Editors have a right to be anonymous on Wikipedia. Thanks. Abe Froman 19:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well then "Abe", perhaps you shouldn’t send me any more annoying emails. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a matter for Requests for oversight. Admins can't perform the action you're requesting. Leebo ^T/C 19:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. However, TDC you're out of line for pulling private information exchanged in an e-mail onto Wikipedia. That is something of concern for administrators. --Durin 19:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, not whine, but it has happened to me, and no one said a damn thing. Abe want to send me an email mocking my inability to revert him because of my, now expired, Rv ban, then he loses all expectation of privacy. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• This doesn't make it right. You are way out of line for posting personal, private information regarding this user that was received outside of Wikipedia onto Wikipedia. Seriously, seriously bad judgement. --Durin 20:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Had the same thing happened to you, you have the right to request oversight. No one loses the right to privacy, whether you personally disagree or not. Leebo ^T/C 19:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have never emailed TDC. I do not know why he is outright lying about this,and I find it troubling. I do not want to be stalked. Abe Froman 19:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If any admin want proof, I would gladly fwd the email ... better you I would give temporary access to my email account to make my case. Dont try and bluff me Froman, I'll call it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

TDC is now stalking my edits on other pages [165]. Will someone please help? Abe Froman 19:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

And you are fishing for troops for your edit war. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to be sure: e-mail can be easily forged. Would anyone be feeling particularly malicious enough to deliberately try to get you two to fight? --Kim Bruning 20:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Just between you me and the gatepost, I dont feel the email is a fake, and judging on Mr Fromans activities elsewhere, I could se why several people would though. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's recall that this isn't the first dispute in which these users have been involved. Would it be possible to make it the last? All we're doing here is writing an encyclopedia. There's no substantive basis for this newest dispute. Let's just move on. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 09:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Wassermann's increasingly aggressive and uncivil behavior

User:Wassermann appears to have extremely strong feelings about deletion in general, and categories in particular, and seems obsessed with categorizing Jews. He tends to refer to people who removes categories, or anything else he feels should be in an article, as "vandals" and "censors". He has been blocked in the past for this kind of uncivil behavior, when he was known as WassermannNYC; see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive221#Persistent_violations_of_WP:CIVIL_by_User:WassermannNYC and [[166]] Here are just a few examples of recent edit summaries:

• Reverting Jayjg's vandalism -- the removal of valid material is VANDALISM; please do not quote policies to try and justify your censorship
• Revery Jayjg's idiotic edit...
• Fixed vandalism: reinserted categories that are persistently removed by a vandal --
• Reinserting valid categories that are persistently removed by vandals --
• PLEASE desist from removing valid, relevant, and sourced information from articles...it is considered vandalism
• NOTE: REMOVAL OF VALID CATEGORIES/INFORMATION FROM ARTICLES CAN BE CONSIDERED VANDALISM
• DUH....-- NOTE: the removal of VALID SOURCED MATERIAL can be considered vandalism
• Jayjg, the removal of valid, relevant, and sourced biographical information from articles is vandalism -- please stop
• NOTE:removal of valid material is VANDALISM
• PLEASE NOTE: the removal of valid material from Wikipedia is considered vandalism
• trying to remove any and all traces of Toaff [AKA censorship isn't very NPOV, is it?]
• Revert censorship
• Revert censorship
• When will this censorious madness end?
• reverting Jayjg's censorship

He has even threatened new editors with false invocations of vandalism.

His relatively few talk page comments are also often warnings to people not to "vandalize" or "censor" articles [167] [168], rants about "underhanded sysops" and "censorious screeds", etc.[169]

His obsession with "censorship" has led him to continually try to advertise the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikipedians_against_censorship project on article pages: [170] [171] [172] [173] [174], along with the requisite accusing others of "censorship". [175]

In addition, he has persisted in other disruptive behaviors; for example, when a Jewish category he liked was nominated for deletion, he proceeded to nominate over two-dozen other Jewish categories for deletion in a period of 10 minutes. [176] [177] [178] [179] [180] [181] [182] etc. - see [183]

His User: page contains a lengthy screed about "certain administrators and others are abusing their high positions on Wikipedia to censor and/or delete valid information", and he warns these "rogue adminisTRAITORS" that he plans to ignore all rules when it comes to them.

Today he took that quite literally; although fully aware of a recent CfD discussion [[184]] he recreated the category under a slightly different name [185] and proceeded to populate it with the same people who were in the deleted category, and encourage others to do so. When I told him to stop re-creating categories, he used the very same "all or nothing" argument that had been rejected at the CfD, and threatened and insulted me, saying If you continue this type of editing behavior (POV, reverting fully valid/factual edits, incivility, vandalism, irrationality, alienating editors rather than working with them) I will have no choice but to take some sort-of formal action against your increasingly unhinged and disruptive behavior. Please moderate your editing behavior or else face the necessary consequences. When I responded that the category had been deleted, as he well knew, he responded with more insults. At this point I'm not sure what should be done; a 48 hour block only stopped his abusive behavior for a couple of weeks. Perhaps a 96 hour block? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I blocked him for a week this time. Suggest 2-4 weeks if he persists. Crum375 00:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the block. He seems to be very aggressive, and obsessed by who is or isn't a Jew. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I was aware in a general way of the antisemitic trolling of this user, and of the way he zooms in on Jayjg, but I'd no idea of the extent of it until Jayjg collected all that. I completely and utterly support the block, and will support rapidly progressively longer blocks if he persists, indeed. Thanks for putting that whole case together, Jayjg. ("Unhinged" was rather good, though, I haven't been called that yet. :-) ) Bishonen | talk 00:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC).

Agree with the block. FeloniousMonk 02:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the block; very agressive user. Sr13 03:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed this user's aggressive defense of Jew categories before, but it looks like he has only become more fanatical about it as of late. I support this block, and hope that we can soon move to limit the excessive use of these categories. nadav (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As an FYI, related issues about what circumstances make it appropriate to mention or stress that an individual is or was Jewish are presented in a pending ArbCom case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar. Wasserman is named as a party to the case, although I haven't seen him mentioned in the statements or evidence, and I don't know if his problematic editing is related to NYScholar's. Newyorkbrad 01:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Jerry Jones (talk · contribs)

JJstroker (talk · contribs)

I keep thinking this user resembles the long-banned Jerry Jones. Have we ruled that out? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 09:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Per Bishonen, I fully endorse the block. I had seen some of this user's behaviour, but hadn't realized how disruptive he was being. Musical Linguist 16:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

CSD AutoReason

It's been updated again, and I thought I'd pop over and let everyone know. I've also added a users page, so I know who to update in the future, if anyone wishes to add their name. Cheers, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I wish I had known about this earlier. Excellent tool, ^demon. Sean William 19:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It makes deletion fun and easy again, it cured my herpes, and it gave me rock-hard abs in only three weeks. Not only that, but it can cut through steel and tomatoes with ease. I love it! EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest you give it a little more time before you pronounce your herpes "cured", but otherwise I agree with you. MastCell ^Talk 19:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I love it! Many thanks, --Alabamaboy 19:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• This tool rocks my socks. Trebor 19:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you demon! Bishonen | talk 01:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC).

Bot adding "trivia" template to articles

Special:Contributions/Android_Mouse_Bot_3 is adding the trivia template which places articles in "Category: Articles with large trivia sections". In the case of Maine a list of fiction novels under sub-section "In Popular Culture" was considered "trivia" by the bot. Could someone kindly point me to the guideline which says that information from "In Popular Culture" has to be "integrated into the article"? Thanks. --Chrisbak 18:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Not in the strictest sense, but popular culture sections tend to group a bunch of very loosely-related facts together, like trivia. hbdragon88 19:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

90% of "in popular culture" items don't actually rise to the level of trivial :-) Guy (Help!) 19:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a scary category. Any chance of sneaking =+ *Trivia *=+ into the spam filter? —Cryptic 19:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not against the bot... it may encourage people to convert trivia lists into verifiable paragraphs. And Chrisbak, checked Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles and Wikipedia:WikiProject Laundromat? -- ReyBrujo 19:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue may be that WP:TRIVIA is an essay. Systematically enforcing one's opinion on a large number of articles via a bot can easily be seen as disruptive or at least unwelcome. --ElKevbo 19:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... it has been a style guide for months... -- ReyBrujo 19:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA used to redirect to Wikipedia:Handling trivia, and ElKevo might not have been aware that it was recently changed. I had to consciously remember to always link to WP:TRIV, which is the style guideline. hbdragon88 19:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I missed that change. Apparently it only happened a few weeks ago. Thanks for the correction! --ElKevbo 19:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the tolerance of the bot may need adjusting. For example, Dinosaur#In_popular_culture was tagged, when it is a section composed of a link to Dinosaurs in popular culture, a paragraph noting that dinosaurs appear in popular culture, and a paragraph with five specific examples. This doesn't seem to be a "large trivia section" to me. J. Spencer 20:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It previously tagged popular culture sections but I've now restricted it to only tag "Facts", "Trivia", "Miscellanea" and "Other information" sections over 512 bytes in length. --Android Mouse 22:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That;s an improvement - the popular culture sections are not necessarily trivia at all. Tvoz |talk 22:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree: it is troubling that any pop culture section can be labled as "trivia" even if the section mentions specific non-trivial pop culture appearances. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

When an article has a "Trivia" or "In popular culture" section, that's usually a sign that the article needs the attention of good maintenance editors. If you disagree with an edit made by a bot, revert it unless the edit was removal of clear vandalism. --Tony Sidaway 23:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What the bot does is pure vandalism in my opinion. See my comments on talk:Avoid_trivia_sections_in_articles . Mlewan 04:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not. WP:VANDAL says that "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia... ...Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." If it was vandalism, it would not be approved for trial. Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 20:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Not an admin here so here I'll make it brief: I think this bot doesn't help, and will tend to drive Trivia sections underground (cf. this article, with no Trivia section), and discourages new editors. See my comments in Wikipedia talk:Avoid trivia sections in articles. / edgarde 21:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Will, you are right that it is not vandalism in the common Wikipedia sense of ill intentioned changes. Considering the forum, I should probably have used another word. Mlewan 04:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Merging the various edits collected under trivia, trivial or not, requires a bit of thought and research; deleting the section requires a couple of clicks. Not surprisingly, the latter seems to be the option used most frequently. I think that this has become a defacto stage in a protocol of deletion. Step 1. move an item into a section called trivia. 2. Wait for the tag to arrive. 3. Delete the section within 48 hours. 4. Refer all contributors with excluded edits to policy. 5. Argue ad infinitum that the item was trivia. Note: This works best with new users who can be easily intimidated and other editors who might only check their watchlist every now and then. This effectively conveys a message that newbies and those devoting less than 14 hours a day to wikipedia are not welcome, even if their trivial edit might be an opportunity to expand or improve the article. Just an observation, my own contributions have not been affected. A newer editors 2¢ worth. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 21:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, if the bot is going to tag fiction sections as separate from trivia sections it should toss the Template:Fictionlist template on them if it's a nonfiction topic and the Template:Fictioncruft one oif the article is about fiction but still has too many. Or maybe one of the other tags. The trivia one seems inappropriate in many cases... although if the idea is to tag sections indiscriminately to remove them without any sort of editorial oversight then tagging them trivia and pointing to WP:TRIVIA might be the tactic they want, I don't know.

There's been too many bots going around tagging things indiscriminately lately. That's not a good sign. DreamGuy 05:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Help with TfD

I'm closing some out of date TfDs, but I'm not on my normal computer and I don't have access to AWB. Could someone please remove a template per Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_13#Template:Infoboxneeded? The result of the debate was to delete, but with over 400 transclusions, there's no way I can do it by hand. Anyone want to de-transclude, and then delete? RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll get on the untransclusions. -Amarkov moo! 04:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Um... there are 1700 transclusions. I'm going to go get ^demon to set his bot on it. -Amarkov moo! 04:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ye Gods. Mackensen (talk) 04:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Meh, AWB is stupid and allows duplicates on the list. It's only about 800, but I'm still getting the bot. -Amarkov moo! 04:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I did say "over 400", I didn't specify how many over 400... RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Come on, that's 800 free edits just waiting to be snapped up! Mackensen (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

That reminds me, what is my edit count now? -Amarkov moo! 04:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Mine's nearing 9,000, and I do TfD regularly. With any luck, I might hit 15,000 by the end of the summer. 800 would be nice, but I don't need 'em. :) RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

My count is greater than yours, and I still can only close keep decisions. :P -Amarkov moo! 04:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, to have run for RfA in the bygone time of July, 2006. (Also, everyone was distracted by this). RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

To be fair to my opposers, I was quite an idiot for a while back in January. Anyway, at the risk of dragging this further off-topic, I OPPOSE U BCUZ U DUNT HAV ENUF ARTICLES. ADMNS MUST RITE 25 GUD ARTICLES TO SHUW DAT DEY BLOCK PPLZ RITE. -Amarkov moo! 04:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ha! That's funny (and scarily accurate). One of the things they don;t list on WP:ADMIN is that one never must be concerned with remianing on topic. Then again, I still have TfD open in another browser window even as I type this. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

On a more serious (and on-topic) note, would anyone like a go at this one as well? Not sure how many trophy edits there are to be had, but definitely more than 400 again... RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

878. I say we call bot again. -Amarkov moo! 04:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yay! People working on TfD stuff. I love it. :) One of our "admin backwaters". Anyway. Appreciate the help everyone. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a chance to try my newfangled linux perl AWB replacement... CMummert · talk 00:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot's running, hold your horses... ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok done. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to handle this one too if you have time. My testing can wait. CMummert · talk 01:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Now in the TFD holding cell to await its final fate. Serpent's Choice 05:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Adam Morris

An article previously on the page for Adam Morris was removed, due to problems with the content, a while back. I have consulted the administrator who removed the article, kingboyk, and he said once to standard, to submit it here, so that it can be put onto the page for Adam Morris, which is currently protected. The article can be found at User:Adamiow/Temp. Please can you put check this article and then put it up on the page. Thank you. Adamiow 17:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Notability, in particular Wikipedia:Notability (people). Having a brief look at your stub article I don't see that it asserts notability or meets the criteria in that notability guideline. There's also a worrying amount of external links to the subject's personal pages. Thanks/wangi 18:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is in relation to a radio DJ on a nationwide radio station. Whilst the PDF is on a personal site, it is actually from an industry magazine, which did an article on him. Please can you have another look. Thank you. Adamiow 20:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If you disagree with the deletion of an article, or want to nominate a new article to be moved to the place of a previously deleted article, you can file a request at Deletion review. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Attacks and harassment by Crockspot and others

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Several editors especially user:Crockspot and including Jinxmchue and CWC are very upset over the new light being shined in the Blogosphere on Michelle Malkin's 2002 9/11 Conspiracy Theory article Just Wondering and are trying to suppress any mention of this article, and are harassing me at every turn, including all my good faith efforts to work with them to bring the articles that their actions would cause many to believe that they think they 'own' into NPOV compliance. I will make no accusations of cabals, but I request that some NPOV admins look at the Michelle Malkin article talk page in particular and note how certain editors have worked togther to drive off and thwart the efforts of numerous other editors to bring this article into a NPOV state instead of being a fawning fan page. Note the many observations that this 'fan page' article is lacking balance, and how certain editors seem to 'own' it, as they have driven off any editor seeking balance. Note one editor who says the multiple sourcing from right wing blogs is OK, but no left wings blogs can be used to balance out this hagiography. I have attempted to communicate in a civil manner with Crockspot and other editors over POV and WP violations on the Malkin and Jeff Gannon articles only to be met with outright incivility, rudeness and harassment. They are deleting my warnings too. Please look at Crockspots highly incivil diatribe above, and try and get them to follow WP NPA, AGF and CIVIL. Thank you. TheDeciderDecides 01:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: this discussion is related to #Another one to keep an eye on. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Interesting that you say "especially" me. I don't think that I have EVER edited Michelle Malkin or Talk:Michelle Malkin, and if I did, it was to format citations. It's ironic that while you were typing this screed, I was typing this. Don't assume that because I am a conservative, that I automatically give a rat's ass about the things you think I should give a rat's ass about. I could care less about Michelle Malkin. What I do care about is disruptive editors who come to Wikipedia with an axe to grind. If you're going to accuse me of something, you should provide some diffs. If that was your shot, you didn't even hit the paper. - Crockspot 01:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • And stop putting these stupid warnings on my talk page. I already told you I will revert anything you put there after reading it. You are the one who is harrasing me. - Crockspot 01:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

More blatant incivility. Can't some Admin get this editor to follow WP CIVIL? TheDeciderDecides 01:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, that there is just funny. So do you have a substantive reply to me at Talk:Sicko, or are you too busy causing disruption to focus on content? - Crockspot 01:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Crockspots complaint above 'another one to keep an eye on' is directly related to Malkin, her 9/11 article, my mention of this article, and that it might be notable. Why his claim here otherwise? TheDeciderDecides 01:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it was directly related to what I perceived to be disruptive behavior on my talk page and on Jinx's. I thought it was interesting that you brought up CT on my talk page. I have never edited a CT article, and am not involved in the CT disputes. All I have done related to CT is express my opinion in AfD's and RfC's. You're really barking up the wrong tree, and your decision to target the particular editors that you are targeting tells me that you are here to "give it to" the conservative editors. Again, I'm trying to work with you civilly on Sicko. Apparently, you're not interested in that. Did you post the message on Talk:Sicko just to stir the pot? Or did you wikistalk me to that article? Inquiring minds want to know. And BTW, before you give me any more NPA or Civility warning for what I post on this page, know that admins read this page, and if anything I posted warranted a warning, an admin would have warned me already. - Crockspot 01:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Could the two of you please take your disagreement to dispute resolution? You're not getting anywhere this way. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't have a content dispute with this person. He's just harrasing me and a few others. I'd like him to leave me alone now. - Crockspot 01:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

So this "We don't have to tolerate your crap in our user spaces. For the record, you are not welcome on my talk page, and anything you post there will be reverted. Got it?" is OK, then him deleting my warnings and harassing me and attacking me over my good faith efforts to communicate with him regarding WP and NPOV issues is too? TheDeciderDecides 01:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I am perfectly willing to discuss content issues civilly with you on article talk pages. The only problem is, you only seem to be interested in Michelle Malkin, and I don't edit that article. But when we cross paths in articles, I will have reasonable discussion with you. But you are not welcome on my talk page. Period. Is that so difficult to understand? - Crockspot 01:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It might appear to some that you have WP OWN issues. You do not OWN your talk page anymore than you OWN the Jeff Gannon article. If an Admin directs me to not post on your talk page, I'll comply, but in the meantime I strongly suggest that you read WP regarding user pages before you embarrass yourself further. TheDeciderDecides 02:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I don't own Jeff Gannon. Even if I wanted to own Gannon, User:Gamaliel would never allow it, and would have made complaints against me long ago. There are a number of disputing editors, some admins, on that article, and we have been hashing out our differences civilly. And I don't own my talk page. But I do control it. And I don't have to leave warnings on it that were issued frivolously. Several of the warnings I removed were for comments on this page, and apparently no admin thinks that I have done anything here to warrant a warning. - Crockspot 02:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he DOES own his talk page, in the sense that it's supposed to be for civil conversation on improving Wikipedia, and if he insists you are not allowed to post there anymore because you have been abusive, he has the perfect right to tell you to not edit it anymore and to revert any and all edits you make without reading them. Ignoring that makes you a harasser. I suggest you find some other way to resolve this dispute, because the way you are trying won't work, it just proves bad faith on your part. DreamGuy 05:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have never been uncivil on his talk page, and I will continue to post WP violation templates on his or any other editors talk page who attacks me or violates WP in accordance with WP. TheDeciderDecides 06:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• I, too, find that I am the one being harassed by TDD, not TDD by me. I've never personally attacked him and have only commented on the content of the material he's posted. In response to my edits, I have been accused by him of making personal attacks against and harassing him with no legitimate proof whatsoever to back up those accusations. (Hrm... It's déjà vu all over again.) Jinxmchue 03:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edit summary deleting the well sourced fact that Michelle Malkin did indeed share the same conspiratorial concerns as the '9/11 Truthers' about Flight 93 being shot down, and doubting the Bush administration's official explanation in her 2002 article Just Wondering with the edit summary 'RV POV Garbage' is what started all this. Now you claim that this edit summary wasn't a highly inflammatory WP violation? You're kidding right? TheDeciderDecides 06:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You're either a previously banned editor or simply a disruptive sock account. Having started this account just a few weeks ago, I see you're very first edit was to nominate an article for deletion.(which was kept). Please stop wasting our time, thanks.--MONGO 06:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Betacommand trying to remove all album covers?

It seems that User:Betacommand is trying to nominate every single album cover for deletion. I thought he was only attacking some La Toya Jackson covers (i.e. Image:2003so.jpg and Image:A_no-relations.jpeg) but from looking at his talk page, it appears that he has nominated other random album covers for deletion as well. He leaves 2 messages to the user who uploaded the album cover explaining why it isn't fair use rationale, which I don't quite understand since it's common knowledge that album covers are indeed fair use. (See my talk page). He's trying to say that it needs a source, which also doesn't make much sense. I've just added to both of my uploaded covers that the image is a scan of the original. Anyhow, it's getting annoying to me and other users and I think User:Betacommand needs to be informed by another administrator of the correct policies regarding album and single covers before he nominates every single one for deletion. Rhythmnation2004 14:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You haven't provided fair use rationales. This is necessary. If you don't do that, the images get speedied. Moreschi ^Talk 14:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the fair use rationale? Aren't all album covers fair use rationale? It already says that on the image's page: It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of such covers solely to illustrate the audio recording in question, on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Isn't that enough? Rhythmnation2004 14:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No, not in the slightest, per Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline. You need both the tag and a proper rationale. Moreschi ^Talk 14:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I diagree. The fair use rationale is already stated in the tag - why type the same thing twice? A waste of time and energy. Can another administrator please step in? Rhythmnation2004 14:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The tag merely identifies the need for the rationale: you actually have to say, for each image, why it is justified to use it in each place you want to use it. —Phil | Talk 14:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• You're conflating fair use and fair use rationale. An album cover can indeed be fair use, but a rationale for it being fair use must be provided in order for it to be legally allowable. See Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline for assistance. All images used under fair use here on Wikipedia must have a rationale for each use they are intended for to be present on the image's description page. See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria item #10, part c. Sorry for all the legalese and policy quoting, but this is how things are and must be done. Any image without these rationales is subject to deletion, and betacommand is in the right. --Durin 14:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope. This is an example of what's required, and there probably are better examples. No way around the fair use policy. Moreschi ^Talk 14:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Moreschi is correct. Also note that edits like this [186] to provide the rationale are insufficient. You're just restating the tag. --Durin 14:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This seems to require an unreasonable amount of jumping-through-hoops to get an album cover or movie poster included, with no really good reason (unless the real motive is to try to edge towards not having fair-use images of this sort at all), since the reasons will be basically the same for every one of the album covers / movie posters (so why aren't they built into the template in the first place?). *Dan T.* 16:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • It is, but such is the life of Wikipedia and copyright paranoia. Of course, Betacommand could just as easily set his bot function to put a legitimate fair use rationale on these, but he chooses not to. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Ive said the same thing jeff. I think his bot could put legitimate fair use rationale instead of just tagging them for deletion. If i could possibly tag as fast as he was tagging them for deletion, I would valunteer to manually enter proper fair use rationale. I may actually start on that now. Well see though, I dont have alot of time. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I'd do it, but I don't know how to code and I'm not that good w/AWB yet. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
          • And just how exactly is one supposed to code a bot to examine an image and an article and then add an appropriate fair use rationale? Asking a bot or even a random editor not involved with the article(s) to make a snap judgment about fair use ("by far the most enigmatic doctrine in U.S. copyright law") is a bit daft, IMHO. I'm sorry that it's complicated and seems unfair but we didn't write the copyright laws or establish the case law. --ElKevbo 17:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Very easily. A fair use rationale for an album or book cover is very simple to create, and if you make the bot add it to any image that is used in one article (which, in 99% of the cases, are the album articles), the issues are mostly solved. Those extra 1% would need further examination. So instead of tagging 100% of the images in an unhelpful, useless way, we're tagging all the images in a way that's benefiting the project. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
            • It is complicated for sure....seems like a bad place to use a bot I would think. RxS 17:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Use of a bot to place a fair use claim is not acceptable. Each image must have its own fair use rationale. As I said before, why bother with a bot doing it, you could just include the rationale in the template, but we can't do that because it requires a specific rationale for each image. Corvus cornix 18:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
            • This is a fallacy. In many fair use claims, such as album covers, book covers, and movie posters, a bot or biolerplate is absolutely acceptable, because the claim will be exactly the same for each image. The problems only exist when they're used outside of the articles about themselves - the cover of Automatic for the People in R.E.M. or the poster of Star Wars in George Lucas. A bot that puts the proper fair use rationale in any non-free album cover/book cover/movie poster-tagged image used in one article solves almost all of our issues with the majority of our fair use images. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
      • you know, that's sort of what I was thinking. I mean, tagging each image/use for deletion, why not tag each use with the proper fair use rationale? Only when there's a legitimate rationale of course. We're trying to build an encyclopedia, why not fix those occurances where there is proper image usage rather then delete them? Seems to make more sense to me anyway...RxS 17:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I am going to start manually including fair use rationale. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
          • As am I, just as soon as I have the time... I'll see how many I can get tonight. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that we've had a hit-and-run attitude to uploading in the past. It's a doddle to upload an album cover picture ripped from some website to Wikipedia, and that's what hundreds of uploaders have done in the past. Betacommand's actions here are a drop in a bucket, but we do need to start clearing out those smelly stables and replacing the mess with properly sourced, properly justified non-free images where they are needed.

Some uploaders have repeatedly asked that we get the bots, or those who point to the absence of proper sourcing or rationale, to do their work for them. If this were possible, it would still be very risky. Determining authorship and sourcing for an album, book or DVD cover is tricky work and has to be done by hand. I know that the cover of the Beach Boys album Surf's Up is inspired by a famous sculpture known as End of the Trail, but it would be another matter to determine who owns the copyright of the oil-on-canvass rendition that appears n the cover. --Tony Sidaway 17:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If every article that somebody uploaded was not proplery cited was instantly deleted, we would lose alot. That is why there are tags to alert people certain areas is in need of attention. Lets help out the people who dont understand. I would much rather help clean up somebody elses mistake than delete it because it is "easier" and "not our job to do that" I think it is my job on here to make this a better project. Lets face it, for the longest time people believed the templates were good enough for fair use contention. Ok, so they are not, I will agree with that. But, after that is realized, dont go instantly tag for deletion, take the time, personally review each one. Add the rationale for somebody. Dont take the easy route and just tag it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of alerting people, couldn't the image links in the articles have some sort of placeholder inserted rather than just commenting out the image? The placeholder could alert editors that there's a problem with the image's copyright and that they should go to the image page and rectify it. Otherwise, unless one is keeping a close eye on the edit history, one might never notice that an image was commented out.—Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 17:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Chris, on the subject of "losing a lot", really that's not true at all. All of the items we'd lose are non-free, the vast majority have been ripped from some website somewhere. None of our properly licensed free content material would be lost at all. just the mislabelled, unsourced, poorly justified stuff that doesn't belong to us. While I don't advocate it, it's conceivable that we'd be much healthier in the long run if we just summarily deleted all unsourced or unjustified non-free media. The stuff would come back soon enough and under the current relatively strict regime we can ensure that this time only properly sourced, justified material is permitted.

Elipongo, I think you're referring to tags like {{speedy-image-c|[[2007-06-01]]}} to be inserted into image captions. I believe there may be technical reasons why adding such tags using a bot is problematic. I think it would be useful if the bot could do that. I often do it manually when I tag an image for speedy. --Tony Sidaway 18:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not the expert here so i guess this is a question. It is not that difficult to contend fair use for album covers and movie posters correct? I have seen plenty of then and even above an example is given pointing to a movie poster with "Proper" fair use rationale. If that is the case, then would it not be difficult to use something like awb and review all the pictures in the movie poster category and appropriatly tag there fair use rationale? It would require manual review to check and make sure it was an appropraite size and that it was only used in the article it was for but that would seem like a much better solkution then tagging for deletion? I am all for feedback on this idea. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert either, but this is what I found for the similar discussion happening over at WP:FURG's talk page:

It is not clear to me that these examples are fair use in articles about the album/movie/book. Based on Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images,

• Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary)
• Other promotional material: Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary.

it appears that movie posters are specifically not fair use in the movie article, and album/book covers are only fair use if the article on the album/book provides 'critical commentary' about the cover.

It is clear to me that this is not how fair use is currently being enforced for these items. ~ BigrTex 18:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

As someone who tries to enforce fair-use for images, let me tell you that it is already hard enough even when applying a more liberal interpretation of "critical commentary" than is really required by our policy. I have been called a fair-use nazi and received threats of physical harm. But you are correct, we cannot use book covers and posters simply for illustrative purposes, only for critical commentary. --Yamla 18:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• I've been verbally assaulted for this as well. There's a great divide between those who want limited fair use, and those who prefer more liberal fair use. Both camps can not both be satisfied. Every time this comes up, it's contentious. Just today the user who started this thread reverted the removal of album cover images from a discography page. Later, he got quite upset and indicated being on the verge of leaving the project because he was reverted. Another user was upset that fair use images were removed from his userpage ("they are used elsewhere on the project"). And on and on it goes. The murkiness in the middle is finally ending. Result; one side is happy, the other side is mad. Before; both sides were mad and confused. --Durin 18:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't this supposed to be about Betacommand's actions? It seems that regardless of fair-use guidelines, using an automated or semi-automated process to effect controversial deletions of material is disruptive. There's nothing wrong with us having the material, and it seems that it's agreed that the majority is in fact fair use. The way, the truth, and the light 20:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• What is being contested isn't whether something is fair use. I think we're all in agreement the material is fair use. The problem is the material is being used improperly under terms of fair use, being marked as such and per policy (see Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Images.2Fmedia #6) being tagged for deletion for not having fair use rationale. Some do not like this policy, and are taking Betacommand to task for exercising that policy. There is in fact a problem with us having the material if we don't have justifications for having it. That's why the policy is in place. Betacommand is not being disruptive by supporting the policy. Rather, he's being *anti*-disruptive by enforcing it. --Durin 20:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• No, I don't like the policy. However, the way to enforce it is to add fair use rationales; to tag images faster than anyone can do that is not helpful. The way, the truth, and the light 22:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Once again: Neither Betacommand nor any other editor not already familiar with (a) the image in question and (b) the article in which it is being used can know if it qualifies for an attempt at a fair use defense. Again, I'm very sorry that this sucks and that it's creating a large volume of work for many editors. But them's the breaks when you want to follow the law, stay out of trouble, and make a free encyclopedia. if you're American, lobby your congresspersons to change the laws if they're that onerous. --ElKevbo 22:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Betacommand trying to remove all album covers? (section break)

All I have to say is Betacommand is doing an amazing job. It's about time we nuke all of the unfree images we have lying around without proper sourcing, licensing, etc. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would anyone advocate the "nuking" of images lacking proper fair use rationales instead of desiring them to be given fair use rationales instead? Lexicon (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

At least Betacommand is bringing such rationale-deficient images into the light of day and to the attention of other, potentially more knowledgeable editors. —Kurykh 00:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure Betacommand desires images which are proper fair use to be given fair use rationales. Not all unfree images are proper fair use. -Amarkov moo! 00:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I am neither a deletionist or a inclusionist, as I see fair use we have to enforce the policy, all it takes is one greedy lawyer to shut down wikimedia, (wikipedia,wikiquote,wikispecies,ect.) because if we get sued we are screwed. we have to follow the policy/law. On may 4, 2004 we started a policy requiring FUR and sourcing for all images. Why are you complaining that I am being disruptive? I tag the image I notify the uploader(s) and Im leaving a note on all the pages where the Images are being used. per policy all I have to do is tag the image and notify the original uploader. If an image doesnt meet policy we have 2 choices delete or bring into compliance with policy. I dont care which occurs.(I hope that someone would bring the images up to the standards) but as i have said the responsibility to ensure that the image meets policy, is that of the uploader and not any one else's. for someone not familiar with the image/where its used it takes a good 20 minutes per image to write a valid FUR. while someone familiar can write it in 2 minutes. hay is it my fault that the uploader ignored policy? no. get over it and help me improve wikipedia. Cheers Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It does not take 20 minutes. It takes a fraction of that, perhaps less for album covers and book covers. We're merely telling you, time and time again, that you could go about this a better way. You choose not to, for reasons that have yet to make any logical sense. Set your bot to put a valid fair use for any {{tl|non-free album cover))/{{non-free book cover}} in any image that is only used in one article, and you've solved 99% of the problems without pissing people off. Then tag the remaining 1% or so with what you're doing - you've improved the project twice instead of just bothering people. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If Beta doesn't want to do that he doesn't have to. On the other hand, uploaders have to provide this information. A better way would be people properly uploading images in the first place. -- Ned Scott 02:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think most of the images being tagged are not newly uploaded but have been there for some time. Issues with newly uploaded images are supposed to be resolved within 48 hours; doing it later than that may be within the letter of policy but is nonetheless disruptive. The way, the truth, and the light 02:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No, what's disruptive is the massive amount of improperly uploaded images. Keep in mind that I've done my fair share of the damage, and am trying to go through my past uploads and correct them. If someone wants to ignore the tons of warnings and messages when they go to the upload page, then they have no right to bitch at anyone. -- Ned Scott 02:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, myself included in that with my past uploads. But Betacommand could be helpful, yet he seems to simply be upset that people are complaining when he could do something to make everyone happy. Hell, if he can tweak the AWB script, I'll friggin' do it, it doesn't have to be him. But if he's going to continue with this line of action, he's gotta take the heat for it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand has a history of ignoring all criticism. The way, the truth, and the light 02:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I can see why. -- Ned Scott 02:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well you said it. It occurs to me that instead of moaning that Betacommand isn't doing the work correctly you could be doing the work yourself. --Tony Sidaway 02:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've put the offer out there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what response you're waiting for. If you can do this with AWB, do it. If you need bot approval, go to Wikipedia:Bots#Policy and follow the instructions. --Tony Sidaway 13:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I don't know AWB well enough to set it on my own. I'm willing to do the legwork on it if someone can explain the details on how to do so. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If any of the people who complained actually took the time to read the policy, they would see that they have zero grounds to complain. if I was taking complaints that actually were not BS whining about enforcing policy, i would take the queries responsibility. as it stands I file complaints from people how dont know what they are talking about to /dev/null Cheers Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 02:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This is why people say you don't listen - few are complaining about what you're doing, but instead how you're doing it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I dont listen to people who have no clue what they are talking about. having a bot write FUR? completely impossible and against policy. (you would know that if you read the policy). and noone has come up with a good way of handling this except for either ignore it, (out of the question), or write the FUR myself. For writing it myself it takes 15-30 minutes per image per use to write a valid well written FUR (since I dont know the subject of the article). instead of complaining why not do something? I have yet to see you do anything except complain and think of ways to violate and abuse the policy. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with everything you've said here. You're even exaggerating the amount of time, which is a really pathetic way to go about doing things. I guess people will keep complaining, and you'll keep ignoring, and hopefully it won't bite you in the ass later. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I dont listen to people who have no clue what they are talking about. - If you had stopped at "people", that would have been a true statement. Otherwise, not so much. --Calton | Talk 03:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Rough day, Calton? --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Reality check, Jeff. --Calton | Talk 13:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Im sorry that neither of you have any clue what the your talking about. BDJ you obviously havent read the fair use policy and calton I need to remind you about NPA?. this is the Fourth/fifth time ive had to hash this out on ANI/AN and every time I have been proven correct and no one has yet to come up with a valid alternative. i do listen to people when they dont basically scream "I HAVE NO CLUE WHAT FAIR USE IS, I LIKE THE IMAGE AND WANT TO KEEP IT". Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Beta, I've read WP:NONFREE. There's nothing there that would preclude you from doing what people are suggesting. It's your choice whether you want to, but, as I said, you can't keep complaining that people are upset when there are other options. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

calton I need to remind you about NPA? Since you seem to have demonstrated that you don't have a clue what it means, nope. And I shouldn't have said that your statement should have stopped at "people" to be accurate, it should have stopped at "listen" to be accurate. --Calton | Talk 13:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

But we don't want fair use images. We want as few as possible, we want them only when we absolutely need them, and the fair use rationales need to thoroughly explain why we need them. You can't do that by bot. You can, however, cleanup endemic fair use abuse by bot. Bravo Betacommand. Moreschi ^Talk 11:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No, in many cases, you can do that by bot. Not all, maybe not even most, but in many, you can. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Every album cover's FUR is going to be the same. I used the same FUR for all the La Toya Jackson album and single covers, only changing the names of the articles on which they appear. Here's what I've used:

1. This image illustrates the text next to which it appears, which describes the album or single in question.
2. It does not limit the copyright owner's rights to market or sell the album or single in any way.
3. The image is of lower resolution than the original cover (copies made from it will be of inferior quality).
4. The image is being used in an informative way and does not detract from the album or single.
5. No free or public domain images have been located for this album or single.

Now what is to stop a bot from adding that text into every album or single cover? Rhythmnation2004 15:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing, but the point is that the bot won't be eable to tell that the above is actualy true for each albumcover. It may often be the case, but I've seen plenty of albumcovers that are only used in discography lists or used to ilustrate the artist rater than the album and so on. --Sherool (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The bot could add those to every album cover and book cover used in one article, and be correct 99% of the time per policy and 100% correct legally. That's a better hit rate than we're getting the way betacommand is doing it right now, and it would quickly sift out the problem images and the ones that need further review (the ones used in discography galleries, in articles about the band, etc). And, best part? It'll be much more harmonious, because everyone wins - every non-problematic image gets tagged, and no one gets pissed about it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Question: Does the bot notify users using {{Missing rationale}}? If not, how hard would it be to code? A little notice would be nice. Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 20:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what it does. And until we have wikibots capable of recognizing album covers or movie posters (and where those are appropriate to include here) that's all we should be asking it to do. —ptk✰fgs 21:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, let me refresh yours and everyone else's memory since you guys seem to forget what WP:NONFREE says that every single non-free image requires a detailed fair-use rational. that cant be done by a bot, template, or AWB. so these crap rationales that you guys are cop/pasting to every image are not valid. I will sort through that mess and tag images that dont meet policy (ones that use templated rationales) and tag those too, after I finish this first part. so your pain about not following policy has just started. I suggest you save everyone some time and write valid FUR. Instead of supporting a template/bot method that is against policy. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, it says nothing about bots, templates, or anything about automated anything. You are wrong. A bot doing so for these would not be against policy that I've so far found. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

And by detailed, it means "meets the following criteria" which it then lists. So if your template does meet those listed criteria, then it qualifies as detailed. --tjstrf talk 05:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

But a bot can't tell whether the image/sound file meets the criteria or not. It can add a rationale, but has no way whatsoever of telling whether the rationale is valid. I spent most of yesterday deleting fair use audio galleries on pop music articles. No justifiable rationale for that at all, but how would a bot know? A bot can't compare the article content to the relevant image and how it's being used. The job of adding fair use rationales has to be done by hand. Moreschi ^Talk 09:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I was speaking of rationale templates, not bot editing. I agree that the bot rationale proposal is completely unworkable.

Though perhaps it's not any more absurd than the idea of bot tagging everything and the kitchen sink at a faster than human pace for a time-based deletion process that must be undone by humans. That's where most of the complaints here are stemming from: Beta is creating a cleanup task that absolutely cannot be completed within the given time limits, and then acting like this isn't a problem. It's very frustrating to those who want to keep policy, but simply aren't capable of spending 24 hours a day 7 days a week writing fair use rationales. I enjoy a challenge, but only a challenge that's actually within human limits to complete.

Imagine if our other equally important content policies like NPOV and V were dealt with the same way, with {{pov}} and {{fact}} becoming speedy deletion templates not removable until the article was balanced and cited. You'd have a much-deserved riot on your hands. --tjstrf talk 09:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I wouldn't worry about time limits. This is going to cause massive image backlogs, at least for a while. The deleting has to be done by hand as well, so I reckon people will have plenty of time to provide valid fair use rationales. Given my experiences yesterday, in many cases there's no valid case for fair use to be made out in the first place for many of these. I'm not sure that the bot will actually cause that many problems: it's probably going to cause more problems for admins than uploaders. Re {{NPOV}} and {{fact}} - well, yes, but those templates are often matters of opinion, no? Whereas here, an image either has a rationale, or it doesn't.

Quite apart from anything else, I'm sick of fair use, and you can check my logs to see why. Fair use abuse is endemic across Wikipedia, particularly, so it seems, in pop music articles. You get fair use sound galleries of maybe 15 clips in one article, fair use image galleries of albums in articles on the group, no rationales for any of this, and fair use images flung across maybe 4 or 5 articles, for no good reason other than for decorative purposes. This is supposed to be a free encyclopedia, for heaven's sake. We need to shape up. Anything that helps with that can't be a bad thing. Moreschi ^Talk 09:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could move this debate to the relevant user talk pages, for it's clearly not an issue on which any administrator might or feels moved to act, even if the original appellant thought it might be. --Tony Sidaway 05:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No one's saying that the bot should add a relevant rationale to every non-free file. We are saying that there are certain fair use files that a bot could add a rationale for. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

So, apparently some people here think that, every time you upload a fair-use image, you should have to write an original essay about why it's fair use. Is that correct? *Dan T.* 13:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Something like that. Of course, your rationale has to be accurate. Has to bear some relation to the reality and the way in which the image is actually being used. Plenty of fair use rationales are just lies. Moreschi ^Talk 14:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)