Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive346

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Apology 2 Vulgar personal attacks from an obvious sockpuppet 3 User:GundamsRus and associated IPs wikistalking me 4 User Kirker slipped into personal attacks and incivilty 5 Bizarre {{copyvio}} linkspam on Guitar Hero (series) 6 User:Motegole 7 More Talk:Muhammad madeness. 8 Japanese titles and name removed from game articles 9 User:UzEE 10 User:Ninjalessons 11 Need admin help, trying to find a missing diff - Oversight? 12 User:QU109999 13 Hoaxing and changes to AfD template 14 User:Coolcat1234 15 Action Against User:Smsarmad 16 Blocking discussion and vandalizing AfD 17 User:Yeanold Viskersenn 18 Obvious Kirbytime sock (harrassment, edit warring), Checkuser not conclusive 19 IPs in 63.3.10.1 > 63.3.10.2 20 Scottish kings 21 User:BryanFromPalatine may be back 22 user: tqbf 23 User:Karmaisking 24 the GFDL and attribution 25 V-Dash quattro 26 Tag Team POV pushing 27 Betacommand 28 LackOvComprehension 29 someone editing my page constantly 30 Review of an editor requested 31 Request block. 31.1 Legal threats, WP:COI on Giovanni di Stefano 32 Legal threats on Assassination of Benazir Bhutto 33 Personal Attacks by Rosencomet (again) 34 Legal Threats by 75.8.80.211 35 ED O'LOUGHLIN 36 Apparent copyvio on the Main Page 37 Removal of RfC tag at Duchy of Oświęcim 38 User:Cyric the All - harassment 38.1 User:Cyric the One - harassment 38.2 User:Cyric the One and All - harassment 39 User:Jrdo kid 40 Mentorship of Andranikpasha by VartanM 41 Copyright problems with toy photos 42 MediaWiki:Sysop.js 43 Requesting review of User:Rosencomet block 44 Requesting block for edit warring 45 User:STBotI 46 BRD question 47 DYK late again 48 Review discussions regarding naming of buildings. 49 Threatening language by an Admin 50 Personal attack by User:Oltnilen 51 Legal threat? 52 Static IP - 100% link spam 53 User:Neutralhomer removing WP:CfR tags from categories 54 Suggest block of single-purpose account. 55 User:AL2TB 56 Need help with a persistant vandal 57 Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard 58 Reincarnated copyvio uploader? 59 Hijacking of my previous username 60 Image deletions and image rescue - good faith efforts to help being obstructed? 60.1 Update 60.2 Communication breakdown?

[edit] Apology

[edit] Vulgar personal attacks from an obvious sockpuppet

blocked 24 hours from just a moment ago.LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

59.91.253.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been posting personal attacks against Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington.[1][2] The second and more vulgar insult occurred after I blanked the first one and replied at IP's talk page.[3] I'm requesting a block, even if it's purely symbolic: this kind of sniping is poisonous to the project. Durova^Charge! 18:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yet another vulgarity directed at Nick, and still no block.[4] Please intervene. Durova^Charge! 19:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

IP was warned, which drew a distasteful response directed at the warner, and has since gone quiet. It is an hour and a half since the last post from this charmer, so it is best to assume that they have found something else to occupy their time. If there is a recurrence then there is enough warnings to take it to AIV. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC) nb. the second and last diffs were the same.

Like as not this one is Kuntan, you can revert and block him on sight. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

He still ain't blocked, though. Been silent for a couple of hours at least. Durova^Charge! 22:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Never much point blocking Kuntan once he goes quiet, and little point blocking him for long either. He's on an uber-dynamic IP. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:GundamsRus and associated IPs wikistalking me

I'll leave out the ongoing content dispute junk involving this user as I want to just deal with this specific behaviour for now-- it's obnoxiousness is significantly greater than anything else he/she does.

Please check my recent contribs-- either User:GundamsRus, or one of the IPs from the following list, has invariably shown up on most of the pages I have edited to stick his two cents in with regards to whatever I happen to be doing, always disagreeing with me in order to troll me.

Well, I will have none of it. I have had it up to here with this user and I would like something to be done so that he stops.

Here is a partial list of IPs this user has edited from (it's an Earthlink IP, so I can't get them all as it changes dynamically-- you will note most of them are from 207.69.137.x). You will no doubt see most of them on the pages I have been editing recently:

   * 207.69.137.39
   * 207.69.137.29
   * 207.69.137.42
   * 207.69.137.7
   * 207.69.137.10
   * 207.69.137.27
   * 207.69.137.28
   * 207.69.137.36 note: this IP has been blocked for one year
   * 4.158.222.133
   * 4.158.222.49
   * 144.15.255.227 
   * User:GundamsRus
   * 207.69.137.8
   * 207.69.137.9

I also urge administrators to check when the GundamsRus account was registered, what it has done as most of it's contribs, and the first revision of it's user talk page. Jtrainor (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Jtrainor and I have had a rocky relationship since the beginning. (A history of the beginning of my account that Jtrainor refers to can be provided on request, however that does not seem to relevant to these charges of wikistalking) During the time that Jtrainor and I have been interacting, s/he has leveled a number of accusations against me (links provided upon request) and failed to provide specific evidence to back those claims when requested (links provided upon request). At times I have (been provoked into) actively committing inappropriate conduct (as well as making mistakes in understanding WP policies and guidelines and 'WP general code of conduct'). While I have generally tried not to respond to Jtrainers personal attacks and accusations, I have come here because I would like to have this serious 'formal' charge settled as soon as possible.

In response to Jtrainors rather vague evidence of "Please check my recent contribs" I would like to suggest (based on [5] and [6]) the following encounters may be some of the interactions that Jtrainor is referring to as 'wikistalking'. [7] and [8]. I do not believe that my action of requesting that Jtrainor act in a more civil manner can by any stretch of the imagination be construed as 'disruption' of Wikipedia or as harassment. Therefore, I would like this charge against me closed.

If in review of Jtrainor's other contributions, the administrators feel that there is some type of other action that might be appropriate to help moderate Jtrainors history of bad behavior (other specific examples available upon request), I would recommend that action.

(As a side note, I have sometimes been using a new computer and I have not been able to figure out what settings on that computer been preventing me from logging into WP and need to be reset, and thus have been sometimes editing without logging into my account) GundamsRus (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User Kirker slipped into personal attacks and incivilty

See [9]. Please, enforce Wikipedia code of conduct in this discussion. --Standshown (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

When we are here can somebody block Standshown because of edit warring. He is again edit warring with different editors in Serbia related articles. Because of his edit warring article Ante Pavelić is protected. In article IMRO there is edit warring because of similar reason like Ante Pavelić (if IMRO is terrorist organization) and in articles Puppet state and Serbia (1941-1944) he is edit warring if Serbia has been Germany puppet state. This are his only wikipedia edits.--Rjecina (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the personal attack is nowhere near serious enough for admin action. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

After giving Standshown another chance, I have decided to second Rjecina here. Standshown who has already been blocked once for disruptive editing behavior keeps working against consensus by blanking sourced related facts and adding strange and not related commentaries to Puppet state. The guy has been there against 4 editors [10] [11] [12] including myself [13] and any reasoning with the guy has not produced any results. As I don't wish to go along with this unreasonable ping-pong any more, hope that somebody here can make a decision what if anything should be done about the situation. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bizarre {{copyvio}} linkspam on Guitar Hero (series)

An admin might want to check out Guitar Hero (series). A new user put the copyvio template on the top of the page and listed it on WP:CP as usual. However, the "copied from" link is to a *Youtube video*. There is no evidence of a copyvio; none of the screenshots appear to be from the video, and the video's description does not appear in the article. NF24^{(welcome, 2008!)} 17:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it and talked to the user. I think he just wanted to call attention to his own video. It's one way to get publicity, but a rather disruptive way to do it. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I had to block him to really get his attention, but have since unblocked after he promised to behave. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Motegole

See Talk:Peace#international_creed_for_peace_.2F_International_Peace_Institute. Motegole (talk · contribs) keeps re-inserting non-notable material despite community consensus via several AfDs. As I have edited the article, I am in no position to enforce admin actions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

it will be helpful that any one interested in this report study the history on the peace talk page to have a picture of the situationMotegole (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I read through the talk page and the relevant AfD's and removed content that clearly does not belong in the article. The content was not notable and was been deleted from Wikipedia on that basis. Also, the article is about peace, not peace organizations. Dreadstar † 05:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Talk:Muhammad madeness.

Would someone like to review Basem3wad (talk · contribs)? His comments to Talk:Muhammad are borderline trolling. Especially when all his contributions have been to argue for the complete removal of the images of Muhammad. --Farix (Talk) 19:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Look on the bright side, at least they're not an Islamofascist neo-Nazi like some of the recent trolls visiting that page. east.718 at 23:12, December 28, 2007

We should count our blessings, eh? I've left him a note, but if he persists I'd support a block. henrik•talk 00:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Basem3wad is still engaging in uncivil behavior.[14] Oh, and he is saying that the presents of the images will lead to violence. ::rolls eyes:: --Farix (Talk) 03:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure you gave us the correct link? —Kurykh 03:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That is what I get for having too many tabs open in Firefox. Here is the correct diff.[15] --Farix (Talk) 03:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese titles and name removed from game articles

Today, Kingdom Hearts II, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, Ganon and The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess has been recently vandalized by having the original Japanese game titles and name from the leads, which all of the games and Ganon originated from Japan have the nihongo templates, by User:Imlwjesusfreak. I revert it, and a couple of minutes later, Twilight Princess' original Japanese text has been removed, this time by User:69.39.133.210, but I reverted it once again. I might need some help on this, because this is becoming a big bother for me. Please see the most recent history on these pages for this urgent matter. Greg Jones II 20:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe you tried the first step: contact the user on his or her talk page to talk about it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to post here to warn you, but I have put a warning on User talk:69.39.133.210 before I posted it and I am now going to put a warning on User talk:Imlwjesusfreak. Greg Jones II 20:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh wait, he has already been warned. Greg Jones II 20:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:UzEE

Someone with different ip addresses is daily redirecting my User:Smsarmad to Motherfucker.And I believe that this person is user User:UzEE who is doing this for some other grievances. Plz Help me out!

Sarmad (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sarmad, I think the IPs and User:UzEE should be reported to Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets. Greg Jones II 21:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the ips for harassment and vandalism. Dreadstar † 21:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Would Smsarmad have any objection to having his User page move protected? Corvus cornix_talk 22:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ninjalessons

Ninjalesons has posted links multiple times to the website which matches the user name. It has been removed from multiple articles, but the user has re-posted it. The user does not appear to be very active about it, but an admin should probably review it just to make sure. See Special:Contributions/Ninjalessons for the listing of edits. Most appear to be just to add links to that site. Slavlin (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the clearly promotional username and left the standard template. — Coren ^(talk) 23:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need admin help, trying to find a missing diff - Oversight?

I'm totally perplexed by this. I was trying to find a diff to cite in a conversation. User:Randy2063 at 20:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC) on Talk:Waterboarding which is archived at this archive page. However when I look at the diff in question here from him, it's some random nonsense. The very next diff in the chain shows it picking up normally and you can see the tail end of his conversation there. What happened here? The page wasn't deleted, that I can see. Was something Oversighted for some reason? Software screw-up? Lawrence Cohen 22:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Only somebody with the oversight bit can tell you if it ever happened, but yes, one consequence of using it is that the page history will not make sense directly around the lost edit. east.718 at 23:09, December 28, 2007

But I don't think they will tell you, or they shouldn't IMO. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is the odd thing. I know for a fact there were no intervening edits. The edit before Randy's was just Hypnohadist responding to someone--factually, I recall that. It went right from Randy2063's comment, which is both archived on the Archive5 page, and also was part of a thread on the Reliable Sources noticeboard. I know for a fact I was the next to reply here. There was nothing in his comment to Oversight, if it was Oversight. It had been archived anyway, after the fact--so if it was Oversight, it was some time later, after it was archived. Could it have been a software mix up? Lawrence Cohen 23:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Those symptoms don't line up with what oversight actually does, either - oversight will omit a revision from the page history, and you will see, as a diff supposedly between adjacent edits, the same diff you would ordinarily see from selecting two [non-adjacent] edits in the history and selecting to compare a version. This looks like database corruption of some kind, or an error in generating the diff itself (clicking "edit" on the version of the right of your diff, to show the wikitext, doesn't show the multiple header weirdness the diff itself has.) —Random832 05:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:QU109999

QU109999 (talk · contribs) has only one edit to anything other than his/her Talk page. It was, indeed, a vandalism blanking of this page, and they got a warning about it. They blanked the warning from their Talk page, which is their perfect right to do. There then followed an edit war as several other users ganged up on QU109999 to keep re-adding the warnings and adding new ones warning QU109999 about blanking his/her own Talk page. In the process, QU109999 has now gotten blocked indefinitely, all for one vandalism and an edit war on their own Talk page. This is ridiculous, QU109999 should be unblocked and apologized to. Corvus cornix_talk 22:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

1. After understanding what happened, I completely agree.He should be unblocked, but be reminded not to call people names.22:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IslaamMaged126 (talk • contribs)

• Agreed, I apologize to the user for my action. I was just trying to reinforce to him that blanking articles and action pages were unacceptable, and will learn from this for the next time. Nate · (chatter) 22:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I blocked before the exit war occurred. I am going to unblock, but if there is any more vandalism, this will be treated as a vandalism only account and will be dealt with as such. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if I agree this was very possibly a troll, I wanted to draw your attention on the conclusion of this story: User talk:QU109999#I_have_decided_to_leave_Wikipedia. Indef blocking contributors that might just have screwed up is a stressful experience (for the blocked user, that is). Just give it some thoughts. -- lucasbfr ^{ho ho ho} 00:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Why would one blank this page over any other? It seems very suspicious. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that that edit was suspicious, but blocking on the basis of that one vandalism isn't within policy. Thanks for everybody's responses on this, by the way. Corvus cornix_talk 01:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hoaxing and changes to AfD template

I'm a fairly new admin who's just run across something very strange (at least, strange to me) and thought it would bear reporting here. I just nominated an article Kk (duo) at AfD because, although it LOOKS quite normal, none of the facts check out. I note from his talk page that the creator, User:Amer10, has done something like this before. The weird thing is, he's just made a small change to the AfD template itself in the article, apparently moving the date forward a week -- or, more precisely, back 51 weeks. I can't figure it out, but since the articles he creates are very, VERY much like the real thing, I suspect there's something going on here that is beyond my technical ability but might be important. Any comments would be welcome. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this too. I don't know if changing that date really does anything for AfD's. Does anybody else know? I reverted it anyways though. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

In the current template version, the date only matters when giving a link to "today's AfD log" so you can complete the nomination. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There's also hoaxes at Minlo Wonlin and Man In The Making. Corvus cornix_talk 23:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to say thanks for helping with this -- I'm at my office and couldn't give this the attention it deserved. Much obliged to all. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• All AFDs closed and articles deleted - no point in wasting any more time with these. BLACKKITE 01:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Coolcat1234

• Coolcat1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Please consider an indef block ({{usernameblock}}) on the vandal. -- Cat ^chi? 22:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV is the proper venue. I'll help out. Archtransit (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Too late. All taken care of by others. Archtransit (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks all. Especially User:Bigtop and User:Moreschi. :) -- Cat ^chi? 00:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention would have been the proper venue. Corvus cornix_talk 01:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well... I'll try to remember that! :) -- Cat ^chi? 01:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Action Against User:Smsarmad

I wanted to make a call for action against User:Smsarmad and a range of anon IPs with a Network ID of 202.83.161, (Even though not my decision to make, a permanent block) for being a confirmed Sock puppets (See case here). I was guided by the WP:RFCU to report the findings here to call for a ban against the perpetrator. I hope that after the resolution of the case, WP:ANI would take swift action against Smsarmad. Thank you for your cooperation. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 05:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Smsarmad for a week for abusive sockpuppetry. Keilana_(recall) 05:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking discussion and vandalizing AfD

I tagged the Uka Uka article as having some article issues[16] and also tagged for a suggested merge to the List of Crash Bandicoot characters article[17]][18] on the 24th under the assertion that it does not meet the notability requirements to be a standalone article and is almost entirely plot and game quites. User:CBFan reverted the tagging on the List article on early on the 26th proclaiming there was no discussion[19]. I retagged and started a discussion.[20]. He removed, again, saying my merge reasons made no sense[21]. On the Uka Uka article, he also removed all of the tags on the article, claiming I "hate" the character and he called the tagging vandalism[22]. Since this editor was blocking all attempts at a merge discussion, I gave up and AfDed the Uka Uka article. Less than two hours after I filed it, an anonymous IP vandalized the AfD and redirected it to the Uka Uka article[23]. From the edit summary and the IP tracing back to the UK where CBFan is also located, I strongly suspect this was CBFan acting while not logged in (edit summary again said I hate the character and am biased against the series). CBFan seems to have some serious ownership issues over these articles and I believe he is crossing the line by refusing to even allow th]]e articles to be tagged for legitimate problems. My attempts as discussing the merge proposal just resulted in his again claiming I hate the character and have never played the game.[24].

From his own user page, he is obviously a huge fan of the series and seems to be unable to look at the articles from the necessary neutral POV. I don't think further attempts to discuss the situation from me would be useful or have any positive results, so I am asking for admin intervention. Collectonian (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• You have not provided a single legimate reason as to why the article should be merged or removed. The "reasons" you have given are either blatant lies or make no sense. Furthermore, Uka Uka clearly meets the criteria in order to have an article. I seriously suggest you rethink your discussion before putting ANY article up for merging or deletion. And yes, I am a fan of the Crash series. And that is how I know that the reasons you gave are blatant lies. HOWEVER, your claim that I can't look at an article neutrally is not only a blatant lie but it gives Crash fans a bad name. Look in the List of Crash Bandicoot characters talk page, and you'll see that it was ME who suggested that the former article we had for Doctor Nitrus Brio be deleted because he didn't fulfill the criteria. Uka Uka does, so I don't see your problem. CBFan (talk) 11:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Furthermore, now I've read your comments more clearly, putting an article up for deletion purely because you didn't get your own way is, really, not what we want for Wikipedia. If you don't get your own way, you need to accept it. CBFan (talk) 11:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• He is also canvassing User talk:Freqrexy, User talk:Illustrious One‎, User talk:Cat's Tuxedo‎. Ridernyc (talk) 11:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• I am canvassing nobody. I am meerly getting the attention of people who actually KNOW what they're doing. CBFan (talk) 11:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Being obnoxious and messing with the process is not likely to help your case. If it is as notable as you say, there should be no problems, but your behavior is reflecting poorly on the case. JuJube (talk) 12:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Considering that Uka Uka fits the strict rules that we made for a Crash Bandicoot character to have an article (that he/she should have appeared in half or more of all the Crash games, half or more of the six games in the Main Series and that he has a lot of material to work with), I really never saw the problem. He is notable. N Brio, who previously had an article, did not, and that's why he was deleted. Then add the fact that Collectonian didn't help either by actually deleting any attempts to fix the article. Currently, the way I see it is that either Uka Uka is allowed to keep his article via the guidelines written out, or only Crash is. Certainly, there is no reason as to why Uka Uka's article, and by this I mean only his article, should be deleted, especially as Collectonian failed to post any legimate reasons as to why that should be the case. CBFan (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Despite your repeated claims, I gave you very clear, specific reasons for why the article is not notable and should not exist. I tagged the article appropriately given those reasons, which you reversed as vandalism rather than addressing. I attempted a merge discussion, which you wouldn't even allow a chance to happen by continually removing the tags. You blatantly disregarded the reasons the article is not notable and act as if you are some how the master of the Crash articles, which you aren't. Some rules "you" and three other fans may have made for the character have the article are pointless and highly inappropriate if they are blatantly disregarding Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You yourself agreed on the article talk page that he had no real-world notability, yet you refuse to allow the issues to be address and the articles improved.

To add to my report, as Ridernyc noted, he is indeed canvassing other users, referring to me as Mr Uka-Uka hater. [25], [26], [27]. He has made a blantantly false accusation that I deleted attempted improvements to the article when the only thing I removed from the article was shoving in even more game references[28] and removing the addition of a category currently up for deletion[29] which CBFan himself also did[30]. He also appears to be admitting to being the IP that vandalized the AfD[31] with his repeated claim that I've given no reason for the AfD. He is doing the same on the article talk page [32] happily backed up by Illustrious One (who should have been ANIed for his behavior in the Lord of Darkness AfD, but was given the benefit of the doubt, but considering his responses to CBFan, I see now he shouldn't have been given such a free pass).Collectonian (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You did not give ANY reasons whatsoever for why the article should not exist. All you did was post nonsense. You said, and I quote, "Uka Uka is a single character in the game series with no notability outside of the game". The half in italics is nonsense, as he has appeared in 10 games, so he can't be a "single" character, and the half in bold makes no sense, as that could go for absolutly EVERY single fictional character in existance, video game or otherwise. And I can't help but notice you've gone against the conduct of "being civil", because you're telling blatant lies about me...I obviously deleted the tag because your reasons didn't even warrant addressing, I never disregarded the reasons because there were no reasons to begin with, I never agreed on anything concerning "Real world notibility" and I never came up with any of those rules in the first place. If anyone is acting like they run the place, it is you, not me. I've already given you two options...either keep the Uka Uka article, or delete everyone's article but Crash's (because he certainly has had some of that "Real World notability" garbage you seem so insistant a Crash Bandicoot character should have yet no other fictional character needs). And yet you ignored both of those and continued on your "NO!! I DON'T WANT UKA UKA TO HAVE AN ARTICLE!!" rampage. Can't we at least act calm and sensibly about this rather than go on your rampant and extremely uncivil moans? And trust me, you ARE being very uncivil...and I should know. I've been there, done that, bought the flippin' T-Shirt. CBFan (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd be perfectly fine with deleting all of the other articles. None of them establish real world notability and they do not qualify for articles of their own. However, I attempt to merge before suggesting delete, which I politely tried to do in this case and you prevented from happening resulting in it going up for deletion. With your reaction to my tagging a single article, of course I'm not going to bother tagging the rest just so you can insult me some more and revert them all. And, FYI, you are right, most fictional characters do NOT meet the WP:FICTION requirements for having their own articles, and I (among many other editors) work to merge them into the appropriate lists or main articles or get them deleted. Uka Uka is a single character in a game series, he is NOT notable outside of the world of Crash Bandicoot. I haven't told any lies about you. You are the one accursing me of being a "Uka Uka hater," being on a rampage, etc. You were the one who blatantly refused to allow a merge discussion. You are one with a history of being blocked for being uncivil, and who continue to act uncivil here, in your talk page remarks, and in the AfD. Collectonian (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

As I told you, quite clearly, I removed the tags because you had not provided a single legimate reason for wanting the article merged. I've highlighted BOTH reasons why I ignored your reasons, and yet you still have not appeared to noted them. In fact, you fail to notice that even now. Uka Uka has appeared in 10 games, so he can't be a single character. Take, in comparison, Rusty Walrus. He is a single character, as he has only appeared in Twinsanity, but does he have an article? No. He just has a mention in the "List of Crash Bandicoot characters". Crash, of course, has to have his own article, because he does meet the requirements (and besides, he's the main character of his series. You remove him, you'd have to remove Mario, Sonic and Spyro's articles). Oh, and, once again, you're telling lies about me. Here with " With your reaction to my tagging a single article, of course I'm not going to bother tagging the rest just so you can insult me some more and revert them all.", here with "You were the one who blatantly refused to allow a merge discussion." (as I told you...if there is no discussion, there's no reason to merge) and here with "who continue to act uncivil here, in your talk page remarks, and in the AfD." as you are the only person who is blatantly telling lies about me. Also, all those times I've been blocked for being uncivil are the faults of sockpuppets I've lost patience with, so you have no right in saying that nonsense. CBFan (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

And, as I clearly stated, I canvassed nobody. I meerly alerted them to the problem. And, at the time, I had every reason to think you had something against Uka Uka and I still do, because you provide no reasons as to why he should not have an article, or even take suggestions into hand when I do suggest them. Once again, you are telling lies about me with those rediculous comments. Once again, just about EVERYTHING we know about EVERY single fictional character comes from in-game/movie/book references. Otherwise, obviously, it'd be fan-speculation. And believe me, there's no fan speculation in any of the Crash articles. If there were, it'd be deleted. Seriously, if anyone deserves an ANI, it's you, because not only are you trying to delete a reasonably good article that could easily be improved on for no apparant reason other than you don't want that article there, but you are also telling lies, being uncivil and generally refusing to listen to suggestions about alternative ways around this. And, once again, trust me, I've been down that way and it is not a path I wish to go down again. As I see, you have three options here...1: Provide some proper reasons as to why Uka Uka shouldn't have an article, 2: Keep Uka Uka's article and tell us what needs adjusting, or 3: Delete EVERY article in the "Crash Bandicoot character" section except Crash's (because, as I said, he certainly has that world notifiable nonsense you keep moaning about. Whatever you do, try to keep reasonable. CBFan (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Update User:Illustrious_One has now tried to close the debate as keep and remove the AFD template [33] he has been warned numerous times for disruption and uncivil behavior. See his coments in this AFD [34]. Ridernyc (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

'Sorry about that I wasn't trying to be disruptive, I just thought the deletion debate was closed based on strength of arguments and so decided to wrap it up. I jumped to conclusions. Maybe I overstepped the mark a little. I shall try and clean up my act. Furthermore perhaps myself and CBFan are something of a bad influence on one-another. --Illustrious One (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Yeanold Viskersenn

Not sure this is the right place or not, as this is a very strange situation. User:Yeanold Viskersenn posted a GNU Image:Stan Shebs above Berkeley.jpg (Self-portrait of User:Stan Shebs, taken April 2007 above Berkeley.) on his user page using it is such a what as to imply it was a picture of himself. User:Stan Shebs then deleted the image with the following edit summary: "you have got to be kidding, using my picture as if it were yours" User:Yeanold Viskersenn then reverted the deletion as vandalism. Is this type usage considered acceptable within Wikipedia? It is not a copyright issue due to the GNU license, but to imply that it is a picture of yourself on your user page, seems a bit overboard without some caption other than "Yours, truly".

dif link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Yeanold_Viskersenn&curid=4841735&diff=180519391&oldid=180320293

Since I am usually miss understood, I will restate the above differently for clarity: With the use of GNU license, User:Yeanold Viskersenn definately has a right to use the image, the only real question is related to a misleading representation on one's user page which implies that a picture of someone else is actually a picture of yourself. Dbiel ^(Talk) 01:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Also consider the following usage by User:Yeanold Viskersenn http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chase_me_ladies%2C_I%27m_the_Cavalry&diff=prev&oldid=177051967 Dbiel ^(Talk) 01:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding one more comment posted to User talk:Yeanold Viskersenn by Stan Shebs:

My picture

Look you, representing my picture as a picture of yourself is fraudulent, and no way am I going to tolerate it. So I suggest you volunteer to remove it yourself before you get in any more trouble. Stan (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Dbiel ^(Talk) 15:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Not an expert here, but I don't think that would qualify as acceptable use. We don't allow people to create accounts with names that are nearly identical to those of established users for the purpose of impersonation, and this seems to be in the same general category of actions. If Yeanold wanted to have the photo on his userpage while representing it as being Stan, that would be a different thing. Anyone disagree? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• If it was uploaded using a GFDL license, then it can be reused - but not in a deceptive or misleading manner as to its origins, and not to impersonate another user. If he posted it as 'Picture of Stan Shebs' and noted it that way, that would be strange but fine. Avruchtalk 18:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It is the deceptive use that is the issue. When the image is deleted from his user page, he reverts the deletion as vandalism. This seems to me to be something that an administrator needs to address. Dbiel ^(Talk) 19:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually it seems that User:Addhoc has deleted the image without comment, so let see what happens next. Dbiel ^(Talk) 19:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It's back: [35] Now, though, he kind of labels it as a picture of Stan Shebs... It still doesn't seem proper to me though. MookieZ (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Except now it looks like a trolling point of sorts is being made. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obvious Kirbytime sock (harrassment, edit warring), Checkuser not conclusive

Please note Atari400 has commented within my original post and split it into various sections. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Atari400 (talk · contribs · block log) is an obvious sock of Kirbytime (talk · contribs), but the check user came back inconclusive.

• Wrong. There was no evidence. You accusation and request for checkuser was deemed "fishing". Atari400 04:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Besides edit warring and editing similarities, here's some stuff I mentioned in the Checkuser report:

• Sarcastic admittal of sock puppeting [36]: "You got me. I am actually a sockpuppet of editor Sefringle."
  • You accuse me of sockpuppetry, and engage in stalking and harassment. I was accused of being a "closet Muslim" by you, during the the deletion discussion for the category:anti-Islam sentiments. The real question is, do you have multiple accounts? Atari400 04:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    • You've now admitted you're Kirbytime by saying above that you remember me accusing you of being a 'closet Muslim'. If I did that, that must have been in your old Kirbytime days because I've definitely not made these accusations to you with your current username. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Hoisted by his own petard. Hopefully some admin will do his job. Arrow740 (talk) 09:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• First edit was a long copyright warning to another user.
• Admin Daniel also suspects this is Kirbytime [37]
  • With no more evidence than you. Is Daniel a sockpuppet? Atari400 04:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• After the CU came back, he's harrassing me, asking me to help file a complaint against me.
  • You are harassing me. One need only check my talk page to see. I have every right to refute your accusations against when they are submitted. Atari400 04:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

All the editing similarities are mentioned in the check user including edit warring with Yahel Guhan (Sefringle), Islamophobia, Faith Freedom International etc. and reverting without discussion. Also see recent unprovoked veiled attacks. I suggest an indef sock block based on the editing similarities, attacks and edit warring. thanks, --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That means nothing. You editing pattern reflects that of Sefringle and Arrow740, as well. Are you Sefringle? Atari400 04:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Something must be done about your harassment, baseless accusations, and stalking. I can only hope an Admin will take some form or action to stop such behavior on your part. Atari400 04:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • You've now admitted you're Kirbytime by saying above that you remember me accusing you of being a 'closet Muslim'. If I did that, that must have been in your old Kirbytime days because I've definitely not made these accusations to you with your current username. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    • That is a lie. You made the accusation here[38] less than two months ago. You are so blinded by your hatred of all things Arab/Muslim, that when a person holds a different view from your own, they MUST be a Muslim! What you are doing is bigoted harassment. This must stop. What you are doing is a hateful attack against me, and truly ruins Wikipedia for everyone, editor and reader alike. Atari400 04:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I have hardly had any interaction with username Atari400, except for this recent sock puppet investigation. The only comment I made on the link you gave was "Delete: Recreated category which was deleted before.". --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I see:

1. Matt57 came up with reasonable evidence to get a Checkuser. The check was performed, and the result was "possible-inconclusive".
2. Behavioral evidence points to sockpuppetry.
3. In any case, the user has been a disruptive POV pusher who is willing to misrepresent sources [39]
4. Within this thread Atari400 is being rude and making unfounded accusations against Matt57. [40]

I am thinking about this and may add to the list before deciding what to do. Jehochman ^Talk 04:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no. I am the one being "accused" with no evidence, and I reserve the right to answer my accuser. An admin named Alsion stated that Matt57 was fishing requesting checkuser. So, he comes here, and continues the attack against me. I find that very rude. Atari400 04:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been no worse than Matt57, and there is no evidence of sockpuppetry. There were two checkuser investigations. Neither came up with evidence. One of the admins holds a known bias, and even he could find not evidence. If you allow this person to ban me on account of an unsubstantiated accusation, simply because we severely disagree on a topic, you will be doing a horrible disservice to Wikipeida, and as well as something very unfair to me. Atari400 04:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You do know that Checkuser is not the magic pixie dust that proves innocence, right? (no comment on validity of sock allegations) —Kurykh 04:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Without a evidence, there can be no conclusion. I do not have to prove my evidence. Rather, others have to prove my guilt. I am not "Kirbytime", and am amazed at how things actually are run here on Wikipedia. Matt57 made a baseless accusation, and was accused of "fishing". Now, he comes to AN/I, and to my amazment, needs no evidence to make accusations. Atari400 04:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Arrow740 made the initial report without any diffs and his report was refused on the basis of 'fishing'. I fixed the report providing the diffs and then checkuser was accepted and performed. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

And how do we know you are not Arrow740? Atari400 04:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Matt57 is correct. Atari400, whether or not you are the same person is almost immaterial because you are in fact being disruptive and display an editing style that would justify a block. Are you willing to change your ways? Jehochman ^Talk 05:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I see your point, and I'll cool down. For the record, I maintain that I have no sockpuppets. I did have another account which I had deleted for privacy purposes, as it was my original. I can email you the name, if you like. Atari400 16:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly the deletion of others' talk page messages with zero edit summary does not bode well [41]. When asked, Atari400 said the talk message in question was "pointless vandalism" [42], which is pretty shockingly disruptive behavior for someone who admits that they are neither a new editor nor that this is their first Wikipedia account. --Kralizec! (talk) 06:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Also here we see him reverting four other editors, while claiming there's no consensus for a page move to a more neutral title with each revert. Certainly intentional disruption at that point. ThuranX (talk) 07:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Atari400's editing styles should be discussed to see if the user is being disruptive or not. However, such discussion is not meaningful when on one hand baseless allegations (of sockpuppetry) are being made. In such a scenario its hard to tell legitimate criticism from illegitimate.Bless sins (talk) 07:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, you have the same editing biases as Kirbytime. Before defending him, please see the checkuser report which clearly illustrates the similarities. Also its not hard to see that Atari400 is a disruptive user. See the diffs people provided here. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Kirbytime should not be allowed to influence this project further. His reverts at Islam and slavery and Islam and domestic violence should be enough to take some action even if he were a new editor instead of a banned one. Arrow740 (talk) 09:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell, multiple established editors are reverting you not just Atari400 Nil Einne (talk) 11:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Please do not bring content disputes here. Use dispute resolution instead. I am concerned with the editing behavior of Atari400. I have asked the user if they understand the problems and are willing to change, or if external controls need to be employed. Jehochman ^Talk 15:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I see your point, and I'll cool down. For the record, I maintain that I have no sockpuppets. I did have another account which I had deleted for privacy purposes, as it was my original. I can email you the name, if you like. Atari400 16:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

One focus of this dispute seems to be Jewish slave trade. I have just nominated that article for deletion because it appears to be coatrack created by a single purpose account, Wordbywordbyword (talk · contribs) possibly a sockpuppet. Jehochman ^Talk 15:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have started Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kirbytime to receive additional comments and evidence. Jehochman ^Talk 15:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That is what I requested before. The more opinions on it, the better. Atari400 15:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, the evidence I gave is overwhelming. I'm surprised that someone hasn't blocked this sock yet. I understand you and others are waiting for more evidence which is ok. I estimate it will be blocked before this day is over. I will comment on the case page if I have additional evidence but actually, I thought the one I provided on the CU page which you copied to the case page was enough. This ID suggests its Kirbytime more than any other of his socks simply because it had been able to exist for a longer while. Every time he gets a new ID he's a little bit more careful and so he's able to use it a little longer than last time. Ultimately he comes back to his old ways, disruption and edit warring. You'll all see now he'll behave well today and not edit war in hopes of slipping by. If he does, you can be assured another report will be filed on ANI for disruption later or someone will block him then. Thanks for making the case page. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I compared their edits and am absolutely convinced of sockpuppetry. In my mind there's no doubt whatsoever, but others may want to do similar comparisons and give their opinions. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• I left a comment on the SSP page. Basically, I believe there are two possibilities here. Possibility 1: this is Kirbytime. Pretty strong, but not 100% conclusive. Possibility 2: This is someone else who is exactly like Kirbytime. I don't see any third alternative. In either case, it is someone we can do without, who is an active hindrance to the goal of building an encyclopaedia consistent with core policies such as WP:NPOV. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• If true, they will prove the need for blocking soon enough. All we need to do is sit and wait. If the editor refrains from blockable behavior, all the better. Jehochman ^Talk 15:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IPs in 63.3.10.1 > 63.3.10.2

• 63.3.10.1 (talk · contribs)
• 63.3.10.2 (talk · contribs)
• Cowboycaleb1 (talk · contribs)

I have a feeling the IP's in this range are being used by blocked sockpuppeter Cowboycaleb1. I therefore, a few weeks ago, tagged 63.3.10.1 and 63.3.10.2 with the {{suspectedsockpuppet|Cowboycaleb1}} template. I believe this, as 63.3.10.130 has been determined to of been used by Caleb as found out in the SSP case for Caleb. However, since then, those 2 IP's, along with IPs in the 209.247.5.57 to 209.247.5.59 range have blanked the tags I left and simply left the message "This is a shared ip address.", see [43] [44] [45] [46]. I have reverted the IP edits a number of times, as my concern still stands. The IP's trace back to Memphis, Tennesse, where Caleb is from, as proved in the SSP case. Can someone block these IPs for two - three months as sockpuppets of Caleb. Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 15:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Can an admin please do something about this instead of ignoring this topic, as IP 209.247.5.57 is YET AGAIN reverting my edits. D.M.N. (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish kings

Please urgently see Special:Contributions/81.129.30.212, where an editor is mass-changing the names of Scottish kings from English to Gaelic, against Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), and the common practise of using most-widely used name, which is not the Gaelic names. The user is ignoring 3RR as well. --UpDown (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No, this editor was changing them back to the status quo after User:Michaelsanders started edit warring to change the status quo. As for 3RR, I checked it out. It was hard to understand, but you when I saw you going over 3 reverts on David I of Scotland, I assumed it didn't mean anything. Or does it only apply if you don't have an account? Also, UpDown, see Talk:Constantine II of Scotland. 81.129.30.212 (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem as long as the Anglicised version (i.e. the title of the article) is given first (for instance Alexander I of Scotland). BLACKKITE 17:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have seen that, it changes nothing. A clear policy says to use English and to use most widely-known names. 3RR is quite simple, and my reverting your vandalism (which this clearly is) doesn't count. Any contraversial mass-changes, which these are, should be fully discussed before being changed.--UpDown (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Any contraversial mass-changes, which these are,' Tell that to User:Michaelsanders. He, not I, initiated controversial mass changes. You've got things, I'm afraid, the wrong way around. You'll find I was only restoring the established default. 81.129.30.212 (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

And Lol ... reverting an article to the way it has always been hardly counts as vandalism. Why do you preach but not practice? I've no idea who reads here, but I severely doubt anyone will buy your story. It's unbelievable how so many established wikipedia editors try to play the system to "win" edit wars. How about joining the discussion on Talk:Constantine II of Scotland instead of warring? 81.129.30.212 (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Because you are going against two big Wikipedia policies.--UpDown (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not what most established editors discussing on the Constantine page think. 81.129.30.212 (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note that this edit has just broken 3RR on Donald III of Scotland. All these are also 3RR breaches [47], [48], [49], [50]. I'm sure there are many others, but I don't think they all need to be listed...--UpDown (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is it ok for you to go over 3 reverts, and not me? You went over 3 reverts first. I couldn't find anything on the page to tell me the rule only applied to users without accounts. Am I missing something? 81.129.30.212 (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I was reverting vandalism, your vandalism, and 3RR does not apply in such circumstances. Besides, I have gone over once, you have gone over repeated times, and do not appear to be taking notice of warnins.--UpDown (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, having looked at it, I'm afraid your comprehension of wikipedia's definition of vandalism is quite awful. Although I suspect you know fine well my edits weren't vandalism, I suppose you've been demonstrating problems of understanding all through this page. 81.129.30.212 (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The edits appear to have been made in good faith. Just because you disagree with them, or feel them misguided, does not mean they are vandalism. As such, yes, 3RR applies to you as well, UpDown. Is there a need to block the both of you, or can you discuss this issue without edit warring? There seems to be some discussion ongoing, but at some point, you might want to take this to dispute resolution if you can't resolve your issue. Resolute 18:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea if I've been over the limit since UpDown did. There's so many pages, I can't keep track. To me it's blatantly unfair and unsporting to initiate mass controversial changes without discussion, pretend the person responding is actually making the changes while accusing him of vandalism at the same time, all the while (in Updown's case) not actually engaging in discussion beyond bad faith and lazy attempts to misinterpret wikipedia guidelines and policy. All the pages should be restored to the way they were at the start of the day (and for months and years before), while discussion takes place. It's hardly convincing to pretend your having a good faith discussion about "proposed" changes while trying to enforce them against the will of other editors. 81.129.30.212 (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I see four separate editors arguing for one form of the articles vs. just you and one other arguing for the other. I've read your arguments on some of the talk pages, and you do argue your side very well. However, at the moment, consensus appears to be against you. I would rather see everyone discuss what is a content issue without edit warring rather than have to go around throwing down a bunch of 3RR blocks or protecting articles at the wrong version. If you wish to build an argument for your side, you might want to try requests for comment. Resolute 18:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael Sanders is the only one forwarding arguments for the changes (atm!); Mike Christie is middle line, while myself, Angus McLellan and Haukur support the default. And it's not like this hasn't been discussed before. UpDown may well support Sanders, but he hasn't made any arguments ... or decent arguments at least. 81.129.30.212 (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I am looking at the revision history on several articles. If I end up having to protect the articles, I will do so at the version they are currently in - Gaelic or Anglicized. Again, I would recommend all parties take a step back, and continue to discuss. There has been too much warring over them already, and that is what I am concerned about. Resolute 19:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you've decided to take an interest in intervention here, it would probably be most effective if your recommendation was delivered to all parties involved, most especially the user who got it all started and who has continued to enforce his own wishes despite an awareness that it was controversial (as events and the advice of Mike Christie made him aware). I think it will calm down if this user's self-righteousness eases up a little while he gains an understanding that this issue, as with most heated issues in life, is actually complicated and two sided. As for me, I'm fine as long as a discussion is allowed to progress. 81.129.30.212 (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I should note, in fairness to UpDown, he didn't initiate the mass controversial changes. User:Michaelsanders did. Only after I reverted Michael did UpDown intervene on his behalf; if he was being truthful, UpDown believed at first that I was the one starting mass controversial changes. He must know by now that it's the other way around, so maybe he'll behave. As UpDown I see is a well established fan of edit warring, I hope it's not the case that he just couldn't resist. 81.129.30.212 (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The anon objects to links pointing to the established articles, as opposed to non-standard Gaelic forms. For that reason, he has been persistently reverting changes made by myself, UpDown, and several other editors. He is the only editor making reversions to these edits. Michael Sanders 20:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverting the reversions counts as well. That is the entire point of WP:3RR - to stop two or more people from repeatedly reverting back to their preferred version. He's not innocent in this, but really neither are any of you. Resolute 20:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I am avoiding reverts to avoid edit wars, not because I agree with Michael. Angus is doing the same. I will start a thread on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English) and notify some editors I know that edit these and similar articles. I hope that a consensus there will resolve this. If everyone agrees to discuss the issue at that location then I see no further need for this thread. Mike Christie (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have now created that discussion. It can be found here. Mike Christie (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• This appears to be a content dispute. I don't think it can be taken for granted that obscure style guidelines necessarily have consensus across Wikipedia. Too often they are decided by a small and unrepresentative group, and then presented to the actual editors of the articles in question as a fait accompli. This isn't how things are supposed to work. *** Crotalus *** 02:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting to stumble across this dispute. I have argued in the past, to no avail, against the Gaelic brigade who wish to have article pages etc., in some obscure format which no-one else knows or understands except them and a few other scholars. Put their Gaelic names into the article somewhere certainly, but don't attempt to rewrite every history book and encyclopaedia via Wikipedia. People wish to access WP for general knowledge and will do so by searching for the names they are generally known by. It is a tiresome business but we cannot turn the clock back 800 or more years just to satisfy either nationalists or Gaelic scholars (or both). Regards, David Lauder (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Rewriting history is part of what historians do and one of the reasons why new books and papers on history are published year in and year out. Here's an example of the effects of this continuous rewriting on Encarta. Illulb is one of those "obscure format[s] which no-one else knows or understands except ... a few other scholars". So too is Custantín I believe, and Cinaed, and Custantín again. Is Encarta in the thrall of Siol nan Gaidheal? Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

As those who have interacted with David Lauder to any significant extent know, "rewriting history" refers to any writings made since the Industrial Revolution, and "revisionism" refers to any scholarly view or practice post-dating the Great War. No offense intended there David ... you know it's true anyways. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my remarks which I feel are fair comment. It seems that this post-WWII generation feels it knows best and better than all those who went before it. I just do not agree. Thats all. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:BryanFromPalatine may be back

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/BryanFromPalatine. Please also refer to all recent IP edits by 209.221.240.193 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) to Talk:Waterboarding. Looking at this, and comparing what I've just read of the political POV-pushing from User:BryanFromPalatine and his sock account User:DeanHinnen, this appears to be extremely suspect. See here. This IP address is using language just like what I see from various edits on both users, and this IP was previously confirmed blocked on the IP talk page due to it being used by User:ClemsonTiger, a confirmed BryanFromPalatine sock. Lawrence Cohen 18:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

In looking more at this, this IP address is owned by Bosch Corporation, which the IP user has admitted to. It also from casual Googling appears that this banned user actually works there, at Bosch, and is based on the subject matter they're editing evading the ban. I'd rather not link to the news sources I found that confirms this, but it's trivial to find them. Does this pass the duck test? Lawrence Cohen 18:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall that this was a topic area Bryan was interested in or edited in. I agree that it could be him, but I believe that the IP is correct that there are a large number of users behind that IP address. A checkuser won't help - we have to apply the Duck test. I think that "similar philosophy / political inclinations" but "not editing same set of articles" out of a pool of tens of thousands of users at a specific company isn't enough to pass the duck test.

None of the current edits seem abusive (sampled a bunch but not all). Keep an eye on? Sure. But no QUACK yet. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the edits to talk:Waterboarding are very likely Bryan - pushing of right-wing POV, languange and tone also strongly suggestive. Other, older edits may not be; it is a corporate proxy of Bryan's employer, as noted above. I suggest a softblock. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] user: tqbf

[edit] User:Karmaisking

I'm tired of being attacked by this user on the debt-based monetary system talk page. It's not the first time, as can be seen in the history page. They have gone from the bizarre, to the snide, to the direct, as seen [[51]].--Gregalton (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have given this editor a stern warning to desist. — Coren ^(talk) 06:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was about to suggest the same as Coren. This comment is quite disturbing, comparing a fringe theory which is not in any modern textbook (I have taken monetary economics as part of my BA-MBA program and have yet to see any mention of this) to anal sex. At any rate, these comments border on incivil and are patent nonsense. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Note this isn't the first such warning Karmaisking has gotten: see here, less than a month ago. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to fork, but any admin seen this comment regarding suspected sock puppets regarding the fringe monetary economic pages? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It continues: [[52]]. As you can see from articles where he edits, personal attacks are standard operating procedure.--Gregalton (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the GFDL and attribution

I am trying to reconcile my understanding of {{gfdl}} with the current mechanism for renaming categories.

Currently, unlike articles, when someone proposes renaming a category, a brand new category is created, with the new name, but the text of the old category. Its revision history shows it having a single author -- the robot that created it, not the actual human authors.

Any different revisions the text of the category underwent are lost. And, if I am not mistaken, if that category had a talk page, it is silently erased.

We grant generous rights when we release our contributions under the {{gfdl}} But don't we retain an entitlement to have the history of our contributions retained?

It seems to me the current mechanism doesn't retain the attributions in our contributions to the text of categories. Geo Swan (talk) 20:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that the consensus is that the prose contents of categories are trivial, and mostly scenes a faire material which isn't subject to copyright in general; it's meta-information and not subject matter. I suppose there are cases where a category would bear enough originality and prose to be protectable, but then a simple acknowledgment in the edit log should do. — Coren ^(talk) 21:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

They are, or should be anyway. However, Cydebot does list the editors of the old category, so the information is retained in the history of the new page. If there's a talk page for a renamed category, it gets moved to the new name, e.g. here and here. About as good as can be done with the current system. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Not all the editors are shown in the edit summary if the edit history is too long. Some of the edits made to category pages are creative enough that they should be preserved per the GFDL. A solution would be to move the category page to the new name (along with its talk page). The way that could be implemented is, I believe, as easy as making category pages move-protected by default, rather than having the software completely prevent movement of category pages. Carcharoth (talk) 01:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that that's simply a great idea. Though I have a vague recollection that categories should be "empty" before "turning into" a page (which then can be moved). - jc37 02:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

In answer to Coren -- I have started categories where the text has been vandalized. I have started categories where the contents clearly were longer than too trivial to merit copyright protection. I don't see how the suggestion that a mention in the edit log could be sufficient for those instances where the category has been vandalized, or has been the subject of disagreement, or edit warring. It still seems to me that this does not fulfill the wikipedia's obligations to honor the rights contributor's retain under the {{gfdl}}.

I don't understand why category renaming should lose the edit history, when the edit history is not lost when articles are renamed. Geo Swan (talk) 14:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken the current mechanism erases the content of comments in Category talk:* space. I checked my edit history and came across a contribution to Category talk:Chadian rebels. Even if, for the sake of argument, the comments here were misplaced -- I dispute that this means they should be flushed without any warning or discussion. Geo Swan (talk) 15:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There are almost a dozen entries in the edit history of Category talk:Afghan politicians. If trashing the talk pages of categories is due to a programming design choice then, IMO, it was a poorly advised one. See also:

• Category talk:Saudi Arabian extrajudicial prisoners of the United States
• Category talk:Afghani anti-communists
• Category talk:Saudi Arabian terrorists
• Category:Guantanamo Bay detainment camp

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, administrators can see deleted edits. You have over 100 deleted edits that were made to various Guantanamo Bay categories (most were discussed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_27#Category:Guantanamo_Bay_detainees), and 6 that were made to category talk pages. I agree that category talk page discussion is sometimes very useful and should be kept if the editor wants to put the thoughts somewhere else. I have 17 deleted category talk edits and over 150 deleted category namespace edits. I'd be happy to retrieve your category talk edits if you want them. Carcharoth (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there a technical objection to using move rather than create when renaming a category? I certainly know of categories that have significant textual content that would very clearly not be scenes a faire ... if not for the categories, could we at least move the talk page? Again, I know of categories that have VERY extensive talk pages with dozens if not hundreds of contributions. Seems like policy and practice should favour moving. ++Lar: t/c 22:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I support Lar's proposal. Badagnani (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The technical problem is that you can't redirect categories. Well you can but all articles added to the category will still be listed under the redirect rater than the redirect target, resulting in some confution. Various proposale to fix this have been floating around for years but it's aparenlty not easy to achieve. Basicaly you either have to go though and automaticaly change the text of each article that's a member of the article when it's renamed (but how do that reliably and effectively?), or just make the target category list all the content of any category that's redirected to it, but then what if multiple categories redirect to the same target etc? --Sherool (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Forgot about that you can't easily just move the category... it doesn't have a move tab! (I agree that once moved, a bot would need to clean up all the pages that categorized to the old name). Well I still think category talk pages should be moved if possible.. there's a move tab visible on those so it's at least theoretically technically possible to move them. ++Lar: t/c 18:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] V-Dash quattro

After reviewing the contribs of SPD V (talk · contribs), I have blocked him indef and, as per JzG's warning to him here, blocked V-Dash (talk · contribs) for two weeks for abusive sockpuppetry. I would appreciate a review of my block. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 09:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a little difficult to determine the relationship between SPD V and V-Dash, since the former only edited article space and the latter seems to have recently confined themselves to the talkpage. Providing you are certain that the correctly indef blocked puppet was being used by V-Dash then I concur with that block also, per JzG's warning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

SPD V was edit-warring over the exact same things that earned V-Dash his last 3RR block from me - the genre section of Pokémon Diamond and Pearl. Also, his talkpage post there, written in French, is little more than a chastising towards those who do not fit his POV that D&P is a straight RPG (minus the J), i.e. most everyone. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw a lot of edits to the same articles, but wasn't able to establish a consistent pov (because most of V-Dash's edits were a revert war over the same couple of sentences on the talkpage). If you are happy that SPD V is not an impersonator sock account designed to get V-Dash into trouble then I am happy too. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comment made me consider the last post by SPD V, which was in French. I am not certain whether V-Dash knows French and so I amended the SPD V CU to ask if this is PolluxFrost. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 07:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

V-Dash unblocked as innocent; SPD V is Dash Jr (talk · contribs), who is indefinitely blocked for harassment of V-Dash. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Man, this guy just keeps dodging every accusation! He's a genius! :) J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 21:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tag Team POV pushing

In the article Bryges several users have been conspiring together, re-posting a paragraph that is purely POV[53]. The paragraph is full of inaccurate statements and is a one-sided criticism of a respected academic. It has no sources to back up the accusations because they are incorrect. That sort of NPOV does not belong in an encyclopedia. The main tag-team editors are user:Megistias, user:Kékrōps and user:3rdAlcove. Two of these editors have a history of violations and have been blocked for similar behavior. Recently there was an arbitration case opened due to this type of behavior. Any help solving this conflict will be appreciated. Ireland101 (talk) 04:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems like an edit war. I think blocking them as a vandal-only account or meats of each other would be recommended. —BoL 04:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this situation can only be described as an edit war, and those accounts are vandal-only. It is also reasonable to assume that those accounts may be sock/meat puppets as they only post in the same articles and make the same edits. Ireland101 (talk) 06:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

We'd need more proof than that to start blocking. I've asked for sources on the talk page let's keep an eye on ot for now. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This sort of Tag-team edit warring has been going on for a long time here are some more articles where the same editors have been pushing the same views and beating the 3RR by posting for each other [54], [55]. Ireland101 (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. If anyone needs to be blocked, it is User:Ireland101. He is insidiously trying to manipulate the administrators to block users who don't agree with his extreme nationalist views. Specifically, he seems obsessed with two things: Proving that the ancient Macedonians were not Greek, and proving that they are related to the modern day Slavic Macedonians. Pretty much every single one of his recent edits is towards pushing one of these two POVs, as his contribs log will attest, so if anyone is guilty of POV-pushing it is him. He makes his edits in a highly aggressive manner, without consulting the discussion page, and then accuses anyone who undoes his edits to be a "vandal". Because he is in the minority, he repeatedly runs to admins for help. He has repeatedly insulted me, accusing me of "vandalism", threatening me, and even going so far as to imply that I use a sock puppet [[56]]. He has a history of violent, aggressive confrontation and insidious appeals for "help" from the administrators, so far without result. It's all in his contribs log and talk page, which speak for themselves. The users he is denouncing are anything BUT vandals, and have a long track record of constructive contributions to wikipedia. All are upstanding members of the community, as their talk pages and contribs log attest. His attempt to get them blocked is as despicable as it is insidious. I would therefore like to use this opportunity to request that disciplinary action be taken against Ireland101. --Tsourkpk (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for calling me "despicable" and "insidious", this only lets people get a better picture of the personalty of your friends/meat puppets and your self. There was recently a arbitration request by administrator Future Perfect regarding this situation and this is an excerpt of his statment "Greek tendentious editing can generally get away with murder; Bulgarian tendentious editing will have its way as long as it's not against the Greeks; Albanian editors get their way because Greeks and Bulgarians come to their aid just to annoy the Macedonians; and most Macedonian editors are immobilized to such a degree they can hardly get an edit through without having it reverted immediately - leading to predictable outbreaks of sock attacks and other forms of retaliatory disruption from their side.[57]" What Tsourkpk is trying to say is that he is right because he has several meat/sock puppets that agree with him. This is really shovanistic as these meat puppets really think that they can get away with clear vandalism as pointed out in above posts just because there are a few of them. Ireland101 (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

So now you are accusing the users whom you tried to "eliminate" of being sock/meatpuppets of mine? LOL, that is too funny. I won't bother responding to that. However, I have noticed a pattern whereby Ireland101 tries to dispose of anyone who disagrees with him using baseless accusations of sockpuppetry and vandalism. He has already tried to eliminate me in a similar manner by ratting me out for supposed "vandalism" here [[58]] as well as insinuating that I use sockpuppets here [[59]]. From this, and his above postings, it seems that his definition of a vandal and a sock/meatpuppet is any user who disagrees with him. His accusations of sock/meatpuppetry are baseless and ridiculous. All three users Ireland101 is accusing are upstanding wikipedians with distinguished track records that speak for themselves. Notice how there is not a shred of evidence to support his accusations. They are not sockpuppets or meatpuppets or any such nonsense. Nor is there any evidence that they are tag-teaming. They simply disagree with him, and since it seems he cannot tolerate a dissenting opinion, he is trying to get rid of them any way he can. As for the above quote, what User:Future Perfect at Sunrise is trying to say is that it is users from the republic of Macedonia that are guilty of "predictable outbreaks of sock attacks and other forms of retaliatory disruption", no doubt due to the frustration they must be experiencing. While I sympathize with that, I think Ireland101's accusations are a perfect example of such behavior. I have been very patient with him, but I have had enough of his baseless and slanderous accusations and request that he be disciplined. --Tsourkpk (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Also not how he twists my words, just like he did those of User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. I did not say that he himself is despicable or insidious, just his attempts to eliminate users whose only "crime" is to disagree with him.

I have posted all the evidence that I need, you and your friends are posting a blatant POV paragraph in the article and there is not one source to back up your accusations. As for track record of your friends a majority of them have been blocked in the past. Ireland101 (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a source regarding the unrelatedness of ancient and modern Macedonian was provided (see? it's not just users disagreeing with you, scholars do it as well) on the talk page by user Megistias before you even started complaining here. It was just a matter of inserting it in the article text, which is done. The question, then, is: why are you still complaining and pushing a POV, even after a source has been provided? 3rdAlcove (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I just saw what you are talking about and even though it is not at the same academic level as Shea's thesis on the issue it is unrelated to the issue. All that source says is that Ancient Macedonian was in the Hellenic category. All though there are so sources that state where they came to this conclusion it does not state that modern Macedonian is unrelated to ancient Macedonian. Ireland101 (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Ireland101's persistent attempts to establish a genetic link between the ancient Macedonian language and the unrelated modern Slavic language, against all scholarly consensus, can only be described as a desperate POV push that will of course be reverted by the rest of the community. One only needs to read the relevant articles to establish that there is no such connection. The reasons for this user's behaviour are elaborated in the relevant article on the Macedonia naming dispute: Conversely, a minority of Slav Macedonian scholars have attempted to show that ancient Macedonians were Slavic-speaking, a theory rejected by virtually all mainstream scholars, including mainstream Slav scholars. In other words, User:Ireland101 is trying to impose a tiny-minority view, a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 12:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a little comment regarding the edit-pattern of User:Ireland101 - he's been engaged in the same edit-wars in a great number of articles and is obviously trying to promote his Point of View to a vast area. As a consequence he was reverted on a number of times in articles like Samuil of Bulgaria, United Macedonia, Greek Struggle for Macedonia, Vergina Sun, Justinian I, Macedon, Hellenization, Psychological warfare and so on and he was warned to stop edit-warring by at least a couple of other editors respectively (including me as obvious by his talkpage). So I think that suggesting the problem might be with him and not with the others does not sound far from the truth.--Laveol ^T 15:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The comments of Laveol and Kékrōps are nonsense, it is a real shame that they are making such outlandish accusations about myself when they are not true. I have never been in an edit war, my block log is evidence of this. On the other hand both users sounded as if they were describing their own edit patters. They have both started editwars and have a history of violations of wikipedia policy. The fact that these two users have been blocked repetadly in the past must be taken into consideration when reading their opinions. They are trying to make me look like some crazy editor yet they are the ones that have a documented history of edit warring. They have both been blocked repetadly for such behavior in the past and unfortunaly continue to do so. Ireland101 (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop inserting fringe views unsupported by mainstream scholarship, as well as your own, personal opinions and no one is going to oppose your edits. 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Here are some more recent examples of tag-team edit warring by the meat puppets [60],[61]Ireland101 (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Betacommand

Betacommand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is unilaterally removing the edit links from thousands of stub templates (see, for example, [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67]), despite significant objection on his talk page (see User_talk:Betacommand#Template:Paramilitary-org-stub and User_talk:Betacommand#AWB). As these edits are inappropriate, disruptive, and serve no useful purpose, I am requesting administrative assistance in stopping them. John254 03:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Betacommand is misinterpreting Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid#Community and website feature references which seems to explicitly acknowledge that stubs have and should have self-edit links and that this is a good thing.

I disagree that "administrative assistance in stopping them" is required. Beta usually responds appropriately to sufficient and polite feedback on his user talk page. He's not a rogue we need to block over this or something silly like that... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

there is a simple reason for doing this, we dont need 20,000 external links to wikipedia in templates. I am attempting to work with the major issue of people mis-using external links to wikipedia, links that should be wikilinks, or a major issue of people using wikipedia to reference itself. Both issues need fixed. But we have tens of thousands of internal links that are not needed. Users have an edit button for a reason. we dont need to add a second one. Try doing a search for links to en.wikipedia, that use URL's you get a crapload. If we are ever to address the issue of improper linking, we cannot include extra edit buttons on every template. β^_command 04:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing with you that the external link aspect of how those are implemented is perhaps suboptimal. However... It is clear from the policy and discussion here and elsewhere that the community has reviewed and accepted that those external links back to self-editing are a good thing to have, all things considered, including the negatives that come with the external search engine indexing and all.

You cannot stand up and say "This is bad therefore I am changing it" when it's explicitly covered in established policy and people object to WP:BOLD actions. BOLD doesn't go that far.

If you want to either argue to change the community consensus and policy, or try to come up with a superior technical solution to the problem somehow, or both, that's fine. I am marginally inclined to agree with the community on the useful annoyance tradeoff, but I think a lot of people will listen to your basic argument there. And a better technical solution should be pretty easy to get consensus on.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The presence of the edit links in the stub templates provides convenient access for new users, encouraging them to expand the stubs. Rather than disrupting thousands of stub templates, Betacommand should simply modify the script used to search for links to explicitly exclude the stub template edit links. Betacommand's argument that the utility of thousands of templates needs to be curtailed for mere convenience in searching for links is completely frivolous. I would assert, based on Betacommand's continued removal of these links despite objections on his talk page, and based on his comments above, that Betacommand has no intention of stopping these link removals. Note that Betacommand has a prior history of similar disruptive link removals, as described in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand. John254 04:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have retracted part of my comment above, as Betacommand appears to have stopped removing the links. If there are no objections from anyone other than Betacommand, I will begin to reverse the edits, though cleaning up completely may take several days. John254 04:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverting silly edits like these in masses may be more problematic than helpful. — Save_Us_229 05:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how. Not reversing them is definitely unhelpful, though some care should be taken when reverting the heavily-used ones, understandably. Grutness...wha? 05:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see further discussion of this issue on my talk page. John254 06:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that this actually points to a bigger problem with Betacommand which is his willingness to exploit the power given to his bot without following the rules relating the the use of bots. See Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#Bots that expand their scope without comment I must disagree with the statement that Betacommand is not a rouge. He is becomming a bigger one all of the time, applying the be bold policy to the use of his bot which is clearly against Wikipedia policy. Dbiel ^(Talk) 07:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

...and where is BC using his bot? east.718 at 11:27, December 29, 2007

While I agree that these links are suboptimal when they point directly to wikipedia.org, and that they should be replaced by something among the lines of {{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}, I appears not to be the case here. I know it clutters Special:Linksearch, but perhaps the solution would be to modify it not to include URL that are the result of one of these magic words? However, at first glance this does not seem feasible. At the moment I think that while the idea of removing needless external links in the main space is a good one, the problems the implementation create for the end user are much greater than the benefits. I know it will take much longer, but checking on every page that has an external link whether or not it is part of the page, or a template (something you will need to do anyway if you want to remove the said link), is much more sensible than altering dozens of highly visible templates. -- lucasbfr ^{ho ho ho} 12:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it was poor judgement not to have argued the point on why edit links should be removed from stub templates before doing so. Changing a long-standing method to encourage new editors appears radical and cavalier when not explained and discussed beforehand (or even an explanatory edit summary). However, I'm not sure that the loss of the "click here to edit" link is terribly bad. The article page already has an edit button on it and the stub template can simply encourage readers to push it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

While I'd prefer to see the links stay, my real concern is what makes BC think he can do this sort of thing without any prior discussion. Even if the community consensus ends up being to remove the links, doing so without discussion (and with the powerful tool of AWB) is not how we do things around here. With all due respect for the time and effort BC puts into Wikipedia, he should be warned that this kind of unilateralism is not acceptable, and that even titans of the wiki can lose their privileges to use tools like AWB and bots. — Swpb^talk.edits 23:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LackOvComprehension

Could someone please block this charming troll? His lovely edit summaries should be enough, but here's an example of the kind of "work" he is doing. AniMate 08:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The user would have received theire 'blatant vandal stop or be blocked' message after their last vandalism. I'm watching their contribtions, if they go any further the account will be indef blocked.--Alf ^melmac 08:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do people who indulge in racist vandalism get to have the regular litany of block warnings? Anybody who edits in such a manner as AniMate showed above, should be blocked immediately. Corvus cornix_talk 19:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Why limit to racism? assuming good faith is a two-way process and anyone who so blatantly fails that test should be shown the door with extreme prejudice. After all, it doesn't stop them starting another account if they decide they want to edit constructively. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Was abot to post similar to above. And the block now on that account is for just 31 hours - surely 12 months wouldn't be excessive? Whitstable (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] someone editing my page constantly

Removed linking of title of this section. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

guys I need some help here. There is someone who is editing constantly the article about Darko Trifunovic who is fighting against terrorism. I recieved the information that certain Afan Pasalic is a hacker who is behind all this and he has been already warned by the lawyers. he is leading online campaigns against Darko Trifunovic and in this way sabotaging him and other intelectuals to fight against terrorism. Please look at the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darko_Trifunovic and see history and talk page.I have warned him several times, with no success. I belive he is hiding behind several nicknames such as AlexandarNYC, AccountInquiry and Corvus cornix. I am not sure if this is all one person (could be), or several persons on the side of muslims trying to sabotage the correct information about our intelectuals.

Is it possible to protect the content of the page and prevent anyone from changing it further?

thanks. Sh3 (talk) 11:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You are having a content dispute. Other editors disagree with you about the degree to which this person was responsible for a controversial report. Dispute Resolution offers some suggestions for dealing with content disputes; you could try assuming that the other editors are adding information that they believe to be true and verified by the sources they are adding, and discussing it with them on the talk page- not accusing them of sabotage or threatening to call lawyers, but simply and politely discussing whether or not the available sources confirm that this information is accurate. You may want to familiarize yourself with the three-revert rule. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way- the article certainly does need cleanup, so you shouldn't insist upon removing the {cleanup} template. And you don't have the power to protect the article, so please stop adding the {pp} template. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks for fast response. I dont agree with you - person who is constantly editing the page is leading internet campaign against antiterrorist intelectuals. there is a much larger issue behind it, and I will give you all relevant links and information if you tell me how to contact you (mail or pm). I am tiered of monitoring the page and engaging into the edit wars - i really dont want that and i dont want to end up being banned because of it. Sh3 (talk) 11:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

if you are saying that article does not need cleanup, why is then a tag for cleanup always coming back? who is putting it? if it doesnt need it - it should not have the tag right? Sh3 (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No, please don't email large quantities of information to me. I'm not a referee in content disputes, just simply and clearly explain the important sources on the article's talk page to discuss it with other editors. Don't bother explaining the larger issue behind it or the campaign against antiterrorist intellectuals; the only things that matter are the verifiable facts that will go in the article. And I said that the article does need cleanup; in formatting and structure, it's a mess. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: I've filed Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Darko Trifunovic. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 12:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

this is nonsense. Snowolf please see the comment I left on your talk page. You have no rights to accuse me for usning multiple accounts just because I am editing one article. I use only this one username: Sh3 and none other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sh3 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sh3 is in violation of multiple policies here and clearly edit warring and trying to WP:OWN the article. There's a decent case for WP:DUCK and sockpuppetry. Article reverted to earlier version and protected, and warning left for Sh3. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with you on the violation of the policies, however I withdrawn the SSP report: it's irrelevant. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review of an editor requested

Is User:Besa Arvanon a new editor trying to add valid information to Wikipedia but unfamiliar with our conventions, who should be taught how to edit more clearly? Or is she a nationalist bias-pusher with a single agenda who is undeterred by reason or advice? Frankly, I'm not sure, and it would help if I knew more about Albanian politics. Would someone else like to review her contributions? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea either, but I have left her with a {{uw-balkans}} notification. This allows administrators to issue discretionary sanctions if her contributions turn out to be problematic. Sandstein (talk) 14:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Obvious sock of User:PIRRO BURRI. Has been bothering these articles for months. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Neat, thanks! I hadn't encountered that user before, but I'll bet I'll recognize her if I see her with a new name. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request block.

contributions needs a block to prevent the text removal without discussion. I think 8 hours might do it. Thanks, Mercury 18:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Warned user, no warnings on talk page or history. Rgoodermote  18:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You may have missed it then. Best regards, Mercury 18:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I did sorry about but it is state the user must have a full set or at least a clear understanding that their actions are going to result in a block. Adding warning 3 should be sufficient enough to stop the anon. Rgoodermote  18:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologize. I think CBM's warning was clear enough. We don't always have to wait for a full set of warnings. But if you want a full set, that would be fine also. Best regards, Mercury 18:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

As an addon, it appears he has stopped removing information and is now discussing. Mercury 18:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

He appears to be discussing legal matters. Rgoodermote  18:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legal threats, WP:COI on Giovanni di Stefano

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Giovanni_di_Stefano#sense_of_injustice

FYI, see also these contributions. If he is the subject, as claimed, he is also editing his own article and adding unsourced information. Lawrence Cohen 18:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• My best recommendation here is to proceed slowly and thoughtfully. Mercury 18:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The user is making legal threats a block is usually instantaneous and also after my warning the user received his 4th final warning for legal threats and as well blanked added some unsourced information about a living person info from the article. This means the user has gone over his final warning. Rgoodermote  18:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If they are threats, they are very borderline. I don't know if I could call them threats, but they may give the impression. Let us keep in mind we are dealing with the subject, something I did not know until the recent talk page message. Talking may get more done than blocking at this time, something to consider. Thoughtfully. Respectfully, Mercury 18:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I deleted your extras, I have already filed a report at WP:AIV. May have been hasty but I have my doubts the user will respond to talk. Rgoodermote  18:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Best of luck in the discussion with the user, I am stepping out of this before it becomes a huge discussion. Rgoodermote  18:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comments are helpful. And thank you for the luck wishing, we could all use some. :) Best, Mercury 18:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

He was not blocked by the way, I was about to remove the report anyways but it seems some one beat me to the chase. Rgoodermote  18:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• And round we go again... I encourage anyone thinking of being bold there to talk to Jimbo and Fred Bauder. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legal threats on Assassination of Benazir Bhutto

We have been having repeated threats of legal action on the talk page for Assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Following the first use of them, Snowolf promptly blocked the user, User:70.129.22.217. However, the user now seems to have returned and is making further threats. User:75.8.80.211 has made legal threats on the talk page and on users who are editing the article's talk pages. SorryGuy  Talk  21:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

These are not realistic legal threats. They are merely trolling and verbal abuse. Don't feed it. I've blocked the IP. Ping me, or report this on WP:AIV if it reoccurs. --Doc^g 21:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attacks by Rosencomet (again)

Could another admin look into this behaviour, specifically, "You are truly shameless, Pigman. You twist the rules all out of shape to get your way." [68] I have already warned the user today for Canvassing on AfDs. I am tempted to remove his statements as a personal attack on Pigman, but would appreciate more eyes on this. I've been working on some articles Rosencomet is very OWN-y about, and he's been yelling about me, too. BTW, this is nothing new from this user, as can be seen by looking at his talk page archive. He tends to call any enforcement of policy "harrassment" and "stalking". Those of us who've dealt with him before have tended to develop a thick skin about his tirades, and I think Pigman has been very kind in response, all things considered. However, I'm getting really tired of Rosencomet continually violating WP:CIVIL - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legal Threats by 75.8.80.211

User 75.8.80.211 has made legal threats against User WWGB [69]. Edward321 (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Doc Glasgow got 'em. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Already blocked. This is just silly attack trolling, not a real threat. He threatened to call Interpol earlier. - --Doc^g 00:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting it; 75.8.80.211 had also made legal threats against User JoshHuzzuh [70] [71]. Personally, I think legal threats (whether silly or not) should be grounds for indefinite block. Edward321 (talk) 00:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't indef IPs. And overreactions to trolling is just feeding it. Block it as common vandalism/abuse and ignore it. Legal threats are usually just silly trolling, or have some basis in a justified grievence which needs careful investigation (see WP:DOLT). Kneejerking or overreacting is seldom useful - take each on its merits.--Doc^g 00:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ED O'LOUGHLIN

The deleting editor assumed wrongly (in both cases) that the dissenters were sock-puppets or single-topic contributors.

There was no announcement of the time of deciding on deletion. It was arbitrary, like alot of what goes on at Wikipedia - arbitrary and unprofessional.

The timing co-incided with the forced exclusion of the chief dissenter, on a trumped-up accusation of vandalism - when he was merely attempting to reverse the relegation of those wishing to retain the Article onto a subpage. The extremely poor formatting tools provided by Wikipedia resulted in unpredicted distortions on the text formatting and placement.

The responses of the Administrative Editors were wholly and manifestly unsatisfactory. None of the concerns expressed by the complainant (myself) were addressed. This was obvious because I was blocked within minutes of submitting serious questions about the Wikipedia mechanism of deletion and the behaviour of the editor driving the whole process for deletion of the article: "Eleland" when a proper and dignified response would have taken some time and space to fully elucidate.

There is something very rotten in the procedures of Wikipedia if these matters are not addressed. Claims that this is truly an encyclopedia must be challenged if arbitrary actions of a clique or cabal go without any proper accountability.

The suggestion by Admin editor that this contributor is unable to accept an opinion that does not agree with his own is insulting as it is untrue. It has nothing what ever to do with the questions leveled at the deletion discussion. The editor Eleland has a long history which is indubitable of taking a partisan approach on middle-east issues. In such a case he must not exercise deletion and or blocking rights over his opponents. Moreover such an individual must be seen to be extremely scrupulous with his facts. Unfortunately that was not the case in the Ed O'Loughlin article. Eleland made several errors. (1) A claim that I wrote a section of the article that did misrepresented the source reference was false. The section was written by Admin editor Fluri, as an exemplar to me as to how the section should be written. (2) Eleland has no record of ever interceding on the side of a pro-Israel exponent to deflect criticism from them, until 26th of December 2007 when he deleted a criticism in the biography of Isabel Kershner, in a futile attempt to achieve balance against hundreds of anti-Israel posts by himself evidence of which is littered all over Wikipedia. (3) Repeated assertions that the critics of O'Loughlin were solely Jewish pressure groups or belonged to some nebulous "Pro-Israel lobby" (when they have not a scintilla of evidence of this lobby). This had to be removed from the article when Eleland was confronted with valid criticisms of O'Loughlin by Lebanese Christian groups. (4) False allegations of sock puppetry to manipulate a vote concensus.

If this Wikipedia publication does not wish to be brought into disrepute as supporting individuals who are exhibiting unfair, foul, and possible racist proclivities in their attempts to overturn a properly referenced submission to a scholarly article about widely acknowledged controversial journalist in the Australian scene - it had better restore the article until it can supply a justification of the apparent arbitrary actions of its agents. 124.191.88.235 (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologise if this is not the place for this complaint, but the formatting and directing system of Wikipedia is decidedly not user-friendly and highly confusing.

124.191.88.235 (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

On the AfD, instead of discussing the article, you attacked editors. Little wonder you're not getting the response you like. —Kurykh 01:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I made a perfectly reasonable request to have the article "Ed O'Loughlin" undeleted setting out the grounds of complaint clearly. I particularly specified that I believed the grounds for deletion were not satisfied in the method and conduct of achieving "consensus" in which there were errors in counting of the involved editors 124.191.88.235 (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"Perfectly reasonable"? In that DRV you were attacking editors. Please stop dressing your case up. —Kurykh 01:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The article was discussed plenty by me but the editors used coercive and unfair means to engineer the outome he desired. Check the now extensive record if you dont believe me.124.191.88.235 (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course I don't believe you, nor does anyone here. You started off your comments with personal attacks; how are we supposed to listen to you? —Kurykh 01:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Dont beieve me just look at the record and see that I entered into the discussion at the outset in good faith only to be treated with disdain by Eleland. Look at the facts please.124.191.88.235 (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh? You're attacking him right now! —BoL 01:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've no idea why you continue to attack me instead of looking into the claim. It is made with reason.124.191.88.235 (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it just my troll-radar that's going off, by the way? Will ^(talk) 01:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about me or the IP? —BoL 01:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The IP. Will ^(talk) 02:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The absurdity of it all. This Wikipedia is like Kafka's Trial. 124.191.88.235 (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Already there are moves to publicise this whole Ed Oloughlin Eleland issue and Wikipedia's handling of it in the conventional media. Thanks for your lack of consideration. The matter will not rest with absurd rules and editing protocols with absolutely no accountability. 124.191.88.235 (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Due to personal attacks, trolling on the ANI page and threats, I've blocked this IP for a week. If anyone disagrees, let me know. Dreadstar † 02:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Some off-Wikipedia stuff:

• http://theblankpagesoftheage.blogspot.com/2007/11/ed-oloughlin-resume.html
  • Note Special:DeletedContributions/Adon_emmet
• http://theblankpagesoftheage.blogspot.com/2007/12/aussie-link-in-dishonest-reporting.html
• http://theblankpagesoftheage.blogspot.com/2007/12/exposing-dirty-tricks-matters-to-us.html
• http://theblankpagesoftheage.blogspot.com/2007/10/tutus-inquisition-against-jews.html

--A. B. ^(talk) 04:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apparent copyvio on the Main Page

Image:Agnes VST.jpg, currently shown in the DYK section of the main page, is apparently a copyright violation from here. It appears the Commons uploader has repeatedly taken Philippine government images and claimed them as his own work. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it for now, I'll look for another DYK with a pic to use. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Damn that was fast. I barely had a chance to look for it. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm just too quick :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 01:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, I just deleted the image from Commons (and blocked the uploading editor for a week). EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

and...... replaced on DYK with a hook with a non copyvio pic. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of RfC tag at Duchy of Oświęcim

A user with an opposing viewpoint removed the RfC tag at this article. I feel I am being set up to violate the three-revert rule by what I see as gaming the system. Note the talk page for the article, where I am trying to engage discussion. Can an administrator please restore the tag? I do not want to engage a dispute nor do I want to be set up to be blocked. Charles 03:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Put the RfC tag on the talk page, not the article. Avruchtalk 03:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, done and done :-) Charles 04:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Cyric the All - harassment

Cyric the All (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

An obvious reincarnation of my impersonator; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive343#I'm being harassed by my old account. Thanks. --Jack Merridew 09:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Cyric the One - harassment

Cyric the One (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

yet another as above... --Jack Merridew 15:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Cyric the One and All - harassment

Cyric the One and All (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

the user page says blocked, but the block log does not... --Jack Merridew 10:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The user was blocked 24 hours ago unless he created a new account.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 11:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

In the future, use the proper link, like Cyric the One and All (talk · contribs).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 11:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I've fixed my copy-paste mistake in the template above. --Jack Merridew 11:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jrdo kid

Currently has been uploading like crazy and all licensed them as "GFDL" despite the copyright able nature (mostly logos) of his images. --Howard the Duck 11:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

He has several notices about this on his talk page and they appear to have been deleted. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Said user has a history of uploading copyvio images (see also upload log). Looks like at least 10 copyvio uploads are still live. MER-C 12:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The user is also the majority editor of Notre Dame Broadcasting Corporation. Perhaps this is a conflict of interest of some sort. x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've warned the user, let's hope it was just lack of understanding about copyright policy. — Coren ^(talk) 16:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy actions. Hope this will be resolved soon. Note that several uploaders actually use the {{GFDL}} tag to circumvent policy and to avoid their user talk pages from overflowing with copyright violation notices. --Howard the Duck 17:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mentorship of Andranikpasha by VartanM

• Andranikpasha (talk · contribs)
• VartanM (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

The full analysis of the edit history of Andranikpasha and VartanM involvement in that article is available here. Penwhale placed VartanM on A-A 2's restriction which he later explained as "this".

According to EconomicsGuy per this archived discussion the mentor of Andranikpasha is VartanM. This seems to be acknowledged here by VartanM. According to Andranikpasha's block log he was blocked indefinitely but this was later reversed to give mentorship a chance.

Normally when one is in dispute with a user under mentorship, one is supposed to consult the mentor. In this case I had problems with the mentor removing reliable and verifiable sources from an article. Now I have problems with the person he is supposed to be mentoring committing similar edits as the mentor. I think there is a serious conflict of interest here.

I am posting this here rather than at the Arbitration enforcement page because that page seems to be nothing more than a flame war after another. Nothing much seems to be done as a result (no offense to the people working there as it is not their fault).

-- Cat ^chi? 16:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've put Andranikpasha on the A-A 2 revert parole - not so much due to this as due to other incidents of edit-warring, usually with Vartan there reverting in tandem. I ran out of time to get this done yesterday but it's been coming for a while - Andranikpasha's disruption of this volatile area of the encyclopaedia needs to stop. See here and here. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm requesting that you act neutral and place White Cat on revert limitation. He edit warred as much as Andranik. VartanM (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Shrug. Relatively pointless now that I'm hoping the edit-war will end now, though I will if White Cat continues to edit-war here or on any other Armenia-Azeri-related articles. Andranikpasha has a history of edit-warring at enwiki and disruptive editing across multiple projects, and the revert parole was more for other business than for the edit-war on this particular article. I completely agree that White Cat's conduct was pretty poor, but revert limitation for one edit war is overly harsh. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Shrug? so you give him a green light to push his propaganda sites? Thats good way of mediating, keep up the great work and I might give you a barnstar. VartanM (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

More shrug. You'll notice I got him to remove one propaganda site - the Turkish government website is not a lot better but these specific facts are not in dispute, so at least it's giving correct information. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest that any future mentorships are logged together with any further restrictions? Also, I do not appreciate being referred to as a meatpuppet by VartanM. As an unrestricted editor in continuously good standing since I started editing here I'm allowed to voice my concern over the fact that half the AE page is about this dispute. I haven't edited any mainspace pages related to this, I became curious after an informal chat with White Cat and was appalled when I saw the level of debate going on there. The concerns over the mentorship were completely justified and VartanM could not be allowed to brush that off as a simple content dispute. I have the deepest respect for Moreschi's no nonsense approach to these disputes but surely it must be possible at any given time to tell who the mentor is when someone is unblocked on condition of mentorship. VartanM wanted community input - when he didn't like it he refers to me as a meatpuppet. Wikipedia isn't a game, it's an encyclopedia. EconomicsGuy (talk) 07:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a diff where I called you a meatpuppet? Don't even try, it doesn't exist. As far as I can tell you have knowledge about the region, history, or the users editing the articles. And you yourself confess that White Cat asked you to come and give your opinion. Feel free to learn the history of the Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iran and Turkey and then I'll be more then happy to discuss content with you in the talkpage of the articles not some offwiki chatroom. Good night and good luck studying the History of Armenia, its quite old. VartanM (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? Be honest, White Cat asked you to come here didn't he? That's the very definition of a meatpuppet. Can you refute that you did not inform White Cat that you were the mentor? Can you refute that you edit warred side by side with the person you should be mentoring? I hardly think so. As for the rest of your reply you still haven't showed that this was a content issue. You tried to brush it off as such eventhough you had threatened White Cat on the article talk page with a thread here on ANI if he reverted again. Like I said this isn't a game and if that's hard to understand then enough time has been wasted on this and the parties who are already subject to a long list of restrictions should be shown the door. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Several people are continuing to campaign to remove governmental sources over personal reasons. The are not even disputing the validity of the content on the articles. Some of these people are admins which is why this is more worrisome. -- Cat ^chi? 07:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

By governmental he means Turkish government. VartanM (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Why yes. Turkish government is not censored out now is it? I think your very statement demonstrates the problem. -- Cat ^chi? 08:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problems with toy photos

User:Mathewignash has uploaded hundreds of photographs of toys (primarily Transformers), most of them listed under the GFDL. Unfortunately, the use of that license here is invalid. The Wikimedia Commons page on derivative works makes it clear that photographs of copyrighted toys are derivative. Since the toys and characters are currently under restrictive copyright, we can use photos like this only under a claim of fair use. Mathewignash has previously been blocked for copyright violation, but he was recently unblocked by an administrator who was apparently unaware of this particular aspect of copyright policy. I am sure he is acting in good faith (like the users who inaccurately label a screenshot as GFDL-self) but the photos will almost all have to be deleted. Also, he needs to be advised of this. *** Crotalus *** 22:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Photos 3D toys are indeed considered to be derivative works. This is often a point of confusion. 1 != 2 22:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is much doubt of good faith, however, and indeed I think he has been previously advised otherwise (that promotional pictures are bad, but that self-taken pictures would be correct); he need to be set straight but not chided. — Coren ^(talk) 22:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have gently advised Matthew of the correct policy on his talk page. Someone is going to have to go through and clear the backlog; not being an administrator, I can't delete any of them. *** Crotalus *** 22:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, because 90% of 2D images of 3D things are fair game. Not sure what we can do to prevent other users making this mistake (I have a horrible feeling I've made it recently...) without over-complicated wording on the upload pages. The best result is to make sure that all people involved - uploaders, people-that-notice, admins-who-don't-delete, admins-who-do - all keep up the smiley-happy-anyone-can-do-this-in-error thing. Slapping down of anyone, in either direction, is poor form. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 22:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I probably have: Image:Modern Stylophone.JPG. Advice on what to actually tag it with, deletion of it, or "other" all accepted. But if anyone wants to give me a template warning for uploading it or call for my head... well, game on. And we'll see who's sorry first. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 22:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that one's almost certainly okay. The case where a copyright or trademark would trip a self-made photo are "distinctive appearance" and "visual branding" cases; toys which are characters, works of visual art, etc. It is possible that the Stylophone is covered by such, but it's not very likely. — Coren ^(talk) 22:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but I was advised - after having a photo of a toy deleted from Commons for a similar reason - that tagging {{tl|Non-free use rationale}}, plus {{tl|Non-free 3D art}} or {{tl|Non-free character}} (it was a doll) would be appropriate in that situation, on en.wp only, which seems to have been okay so far. (Of course, now I've drawn it to people's attention...)--Kateshortforbob 00:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(As the person who told Mathewignash that these were OK...) This has always been a grey area in policy, even I've known that. That said, images like, for example, Image:PlayStation 2.png contain copyrighted elements but happily sit with GFDL tags. I inferred from this that, although these toy images contain copyrighted works, a photo of them licenced as GFDL would be acceptable. If I have erred here, then I will accept that, though I'm not clear what the difference between the two cases is. After a conversation with someone who knows more on this than I, who confirmed that this is a contested issue, it seems these toy images could (apparently) be acceptable on en.wp (not commons) if tagged both with {{GFDL-self}} and {{trademark}}, and so long as they're used in a reasonable manner (say, Optimus Primal#Toys). The other suggestion was simply to make a claim of fair use on them. Either way, I defer judgement to others; I'm still trying to wikibreak and don't pretend to be an expert on this. – Steel 14:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem stems that, as sculptures and character art, toy figurines are afforded more protection tan an industrially designed device simply baring a trademark for instance; nobody here blames you for falling afoul of that grayish area of Copyright law which is byzantine at its best - It also has been stretch to strange forms by some corporations (Apple, for instance, has DMCA'ed sites bearing photographs of some of its devices claiming that the case design were creative works of art making the photographs derived works — something that is not entirely silly on its face). As a rule, however, consumer devices are okay if they do not include works of art or (protectable) character images. The case of a Mickey Mouse watch, for instance, would fall squarely in the gray area.

Copyright law is a monstrosity long past its prime, but we have to work with (around) it as best as we can — fair use does allow us some leeway, but we have to be very careful.

For the case at hand, a photograph of a Transformer toy would be quite covered by fair use in an article about the toy, less so for an article about the character, and not at all otherwise. — Coren ^(talk) 16:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MediaWiki:Sysop.js

I've chaged Sysop.js so that we have better auto-reasons when we're deleting pages (it's basically ^demons tool) and the text of the page isn't displayed in the deletion log (which can be especially problematic with attack pages). The problem is, if you have ^demons tool, or any similar version of it installed, you now get two boxes, so you need to remove ^demons tool from your monobook.js. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to be pedantic, but isn't this more appropriate at WP:AN? -- tariqabjotu 23:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

As this is going to affect every single admin, I wanted to get as wide an audience as possible, and as quickly as possible. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I like the new interface. Just my $0.02. Keilana_(recall) 23:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not wrap the csdDeleteForm variable and the relevant functions and function calls in an if statement to test if it already exists? I think something like

if( typeof(csdDeleteForm) == 'undefined' )

would work. Then admins with local copies of ^demon's script would not be inconvenienced and would not notice two interfaces. Note that the name "csdDeleteForm" has been in use almost since the beginning of the script.[72][73] --Iamunknown 00:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I slightly altered the original - we didn't quite want WP:NOT#MYSPACE as a deletion reason, would it still work? Ryan Postlethwaite 00:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I got rid of this new interface because, to be honest, I found it highly annoying, and I have my reasons on autocomplete if I ever need them, because I usually clear out the content anyways. Maxim_(talk) 01:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Just out of interest, how is it worse than the old one? Ryan Postlethwaite 01:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I dislike the MediaWiki: list, but I'm OK with the sysop.js list but I still don't like it. Just put Twinkle into sysop.js and you'd have a csd tab that should work for 85% of sysops, and saves you a few mousecliks and looks after what links here for you. Maxim_(talk) 14:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting review of User:Rosencomet block

I've just blocked User:Rosencomet for 24 hours for violating WP:CANVASS after being given a final warning. First warning (included diffs to canvassing posts and link to policies) [74]. Second warning, by a different admin Redvers: [75]. Rosencomet reverts admin (Redvers) removal of canvassing: [76] [77] [78]. Because of my history with Rosencomet, I would like a review of my block. Cheers, Pigman☿ 23:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• My fault: if I'd glanced up his talk page, I'd have seen the previous very clear warnings and would have done him for longer than your 24 hours (to the end of the AfDs in question, in fact). Support the 24hr block as protective of the the deletion discussion system. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 00:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Thanks, Redvers. Again, because of my history of conflict with Rosencomet, I felt the need to be cautious in my actions. What he did was clearly a blocking violation but I didn't think it wise to make the block too long. Extending the block to the length of the AfDs is warranted I believe but I'm too close to the situation to make a call like that. That's why I immediately brought my actions here to put other eyes on the situation. Pigman☿ 01:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support block and agree with Redvers that it would be best to extend the block till the AfDs Rosencomet was canvassing on (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WinterStar Symposium and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Rosenbaum (2nd nomination)) are completed. As Rosencomet has shown himself willing to continue canvassing despite warnings from two different admins, and revert uninvolved admin removal of his canvassing, I think there is a risk of him continuing to violate policy when the 24 hours are up. The AfDs are also being hit by SPAs now, and judging from their comments, it looks to me like he's continuing to canvass off-wiki. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• According to his comments on Fred Bauder's talk page, this editor has been in a conflict with Pigman, Kathryn NicDhana and Matisse for quite some time. Given that, wouldn't it have been more appropriate to request someone else make the block? Particularly since it is a WP:CANVASS block, not exactly a critical reason to block first and ask later since you can put the canvass template at the AfD? Additionally, just above you reported him for personal attacks. All in all, you are clearly involved in a dispute with this guy and blocking yourself was inappropriate. Avruchtalk 01:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: You're probably correct, Avruch. Please note the canvass template was already on the AfDs and that Rosencomet was actively engaged in reverting Redvers' removal of Rosencomet's canvassing at the time. Still, perhaps this could have been handled by requesting the block instead of doing it myself. However I'd also like to note that, despite massive amounts of evidence of COI spamming by Rosencomet, there seems to be some reluctance to take action against him because of the Starwood arbitration (closed March, 2007). If you'd like to get up to speed on Rosencomet's actions and community responses to his behaviour over the last 16 months, I'd be happy to point you to RfCs, mediations, his archived talk page, the closed arbitration, etc. (he said sweetly) Pigman☿ 02:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No thanks, I'm sure I could find it but I'm not terribly interested. I just happened to have Fred's talkpage watched, and then noticed that same editors name come up here attached to yours (twice). I understand there is a long history about this user, but I also understand that you have been involved in much or all of it (correct me if I'm wrong here). Given that, you absolutely should have asked someone else to evaluate the situation prior to a block. The template is to warn people who have been canvassed, not the canvasser, and anyone who has been notified by Rosencomet would see it and understand (ideally). A block is not a typical response to a WP:CANVASS violation that I'm aware of - can you provide diffs that demonstrate his canvassing was having a disruptive result? We allow notifications, and in fact its built in to project templates and etc and there is even a whole sorting WikiProject to make sure interested people have an opportunity to weigh in. Avruchtalk 02:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Avruch, the relevant policy is here: Wikipedia:CANVASS#Responding_to_disruptive_canvassing, specifically, "Users with a prior history of disruptive canvassing, which they have previously been asked to discontinue, may be blocked immediately without further warning, if such an action is deemed to be necessary." While it would have been preferable for another admin to set the block, I think that the fact that Pigman, by setting a short block to stop the violations in progress, then immediately coming here to ask for more eyes on it, has shown transparency and accountability in this. I believe Pigman was successful in preventing further disruptive editing. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of the policy, which is why I asked for examples showing how his canvassing is being disruptive (as opposed to just irritating). A short block would have been an hour, or two hours. You folks are talking about blocking him for the duration of these AfDs, which is something entirely other than a short block. Avruchtalk 03:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Though the comments of Rosencomet don't inspire confidence, I think Pigman should undo the block, per Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute, from WP:BLOCK. Though one might argue that the canvassing offence was independent of the various content disputes, it is better to avoid the appearance of a COI in the blocking itself. If the issue is important enough, another admin can re-impose the block. If Rosencomet's block is lifted and no-one reimposes it, and that gives rise to additional misbehavior in the various AfDs, that can be taken into account by the respective closing admins. EdJohnston (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Pigman should not have made the block. A request should have been made here for consideration. No comment on the block itself, I don't have time to review the situation. Thatcher 03:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Ed and Thatcher, I think both your points are well taken. This is precisely why I brought it here. Rosencomet's blatant canvassing after being quite specifically warned about it led me to act a little more rashly and impulsively than I probably should have in this kind of situation. I'm usually much more circumspect, deliberate, and mindful of these issues. I agree that even the appearance of COI in a block is not good. I'm lifting the block but I'm doing so with the expectation that others will keep an eye on the situation. Cheers, Pigman☿ 04:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Good choice. Personally, if someone uninvolved decides blocking him is appropriate that would be fine with me (posting here and on his talk page with the unblock template is not a disendorsement of the idea of blocking him). I'm a little put out that my points weren't well taken too, though :-P Avruchtalk 04:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

My sincere apologies, Avruch. An oversight, to be sure, and no slight to you intended. ;-) I did agree with most of your points further up. A little less than entirely gracious and wholehearted perhaps but I've also been dealing with this ongoing mess for quite a while and I hope you can excuse me if I'm a wee bit edgy on the subject on occasion. Cheers, Pigman☿ 07:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting block for edit warring

IP User 24.91.119.156, apparently on a vendetta against certain well-established (& rather dry) geographic and demographic facts, has removed the same paragraph from Brighton, Boston, Massachusetts#Geography seven times in the past five weeks. Has ignored repeated invitations to discussion & to seek consensus, e.g., 24 December message on talk page User talk:24.91.119.156. No response, and no explanation ever given in edit summary space. Anonymous "account" is used for no other purpose than repeatedly deleting this content. Behavior pattern continuing after last warning (regarding disruptive editing), given on 25 December. It is an ongoing nuisance for me and another editor to watch the article closely and restore the deleted material each time. Please block this user long term or permanently. Thank you for your help. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I just thought I'd drop in and comment. Good call in reporting the user here. However, for similar incidents consider using Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. This user isn't the best example (though they did have a streak on November 23rd [79] [80] [81]), but for edit wars you can usually use that page. Cheers, Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 01:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding: I do not think a short-term block would be effective, as there have been hiatusses of a few days to a few weeks between repetitions of the pattern. That is why I am requesting a long-term or indefinite block. Thanks again. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Given the infrequent nature of the edits, there isn't much that can be done. We don't block IP addresses indefinitely, because the person could come back with a different dynamic address or username if we blocked this one. All you can do is revert the edits if they are inappropriate. Sorry to be of little help, — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's really true. The fact that this IP appears static lends weight to the possibility of a long term (not indefinite, but far longer than 24 hours) block being effective. Indeed, another admin has blocked him for two weeks. Just as a registered user who intermitently vandalizes Wikipedia for several weeks with no constructive edits inbetween can be long-term blocked with no collateral damage, an apparently static vandalism-only-IP can be blocked for weeks at a time without inconveniencing anyone else. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Two weeks is reasonable, but the request was for something a lot longer than that. There really isn't much benefit to blocking an IP for months at a time just to stop one edit per month. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:STBotI

This bot is malfunctioning and tagging images that have completed FURs. Can someone block it please? Exxolon (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, I'm trying to find ST47 on IRC now to inform him. Mr.Z-man 04:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Now unblocked as ST47 has fixed the issue. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 13:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BRD question

If you're trying to work within WP:BRD guidelines, and another editor simply reverts but refuses to participate in discussion, what's the next step? BRD doesn't seem to work so well without the D. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You should seek help from others. There are several ways in which to do so: find a relevant Wikiproject and alert them, seek a third opinion, or raise a request for comment on the issue. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Good points. Do you have any additional suggestions if the other editors are IP editors? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If an IP is revert warring and not participating in discussion, request semi-protection (don't do it yourself). Avruchtalk 13:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK late again

...and none of the usual DYK admins seem to be around. It's almost six hours late and we have a very substantial backlog already, so could someone please post the update? I've thrown one together, but we need an admin to post it to the front page, I can do the rest. Gatoclass (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Did I do it right? I broke DYK the last two times I tried updating it. east.718 at 12:57, December 30, 2007

Did you remember to protect the image? Otherwise, it looks fine to me, thanks :) I'll do the notifications. Gatoclass (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not set this up to autorotate? It could easily be done with switch statements that will rotate per hour or every few hours. {{#expr: {{CURRENTHOUR}} / 6 round 0}}, for example, would give a number that would rotate every four hours. So {{#switch:{{#expr: ({{CURRENTHOUR}} - 3) / 6 round 0}} | 0 = did you know w | 1 = did you know x | 2 = did you know y | 3 = did you know z }} would give you a different did you know every four hours, eg, "did you know w" for this hour. Another switch could be made to include day mod 2 or mod 3 so that they can be setup several days in advance. That way someone doesn't have to just so happen to be available right at the right time. --B (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, please see User:B/DYK demo for a demo of this concept. If you transclude {{User:B/DYK demo}}, you will get only the current set, yet all four sets are stored in the same template. It's exactly like what is currently done - the only difference is you can set them up in advance. --B (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review discussions regarding naming of buildings.

There has been ongoing debate and an independent administrator need to review the arguments regarding the articles. As wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy the number of support and oppose "votes" are irrelevant. Also the discussions have not concluded and changes to the articles have been made before the articles the discussions have concluded. Please review 201 Bishopsgate, 110 Bishopsgate, 25-33 Canada Square, 301/3 Deansgate, and 1 Blackfriars. Some of the articles did not even have discussions regarding the name on the pages and were moved unilaterally. With the full knowledge that discussions on the names of other buildings were being conducted. I believe that the naming convention needs changing and a proposal has been made Here.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for every edit and every move of a page to be discussed beforehand - in fact, we try to encourage the opposite, see WP:BB. Only where the actions are contentious does a discussion need to take place and consensus be attained. I can't really see anything going on here that needs administrator attention at the moment, although I will register my opinion on the proposal you've mentioned. Waggers (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just replied to this in the AN. Please don't forum shop. One place is plenty enough. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure what forum shopping is but I believe that each article is individual and should be discussed individually.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Blatant forum shopping. Closing this one out. east.718 at 15:28, December 30, 2007

[edit] Threatening language by an Admin

User:Iridescent has recently posted on to my talk page and appears to be threatening me. In there any action I can take?--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that you've been edit warring a lot, and Iridescent has lost her patience — something she has every right to do. Edit warring is extremely discruptive and can result in a block, which is what she jsut warned you about.--Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 15:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

To save cross-posting, see discussion here. — iridescent 15:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, and I haven't read the back-history yet on this, an administrators job involves telling users if and when they are engaging in behavior that's a problem, and if and when something bad may happen if they continue. That's part of their job, and expected. To do that they will use judgement to issue warnings, and those are intended to inform and guide.

In some cases sadly there have been admin posts that are improper, but these are a great minority. Note also that perfection is not expected, and lapses may occur; admins may at times be blunt, abrupt, curt, or to the point (but should still do so civilly); but good (or above average) conduct is anticipated to be the desired norm. The post on your talk page is blunt and curt. I would expect that "not assuming AGF" does not necessarily mean "seeking to assume bad faith". The admin notes that you continue to create (or be involved in) behaviors and conflicts of the kind you were previously warned about. Because you were told not to (but you continue), and because there is also evidence of other edit war related behaviors that are not part of good collaborative intentions, the assumption that these behaviors are mere innocent errors done unwittingly may not be appropriate.

That's how I read it. It is blunt to the point of abrasiveness I will agree; to the point I'd say consider wording it slightly differently, but that's my understanding of what he/she is saying. Hope that helps :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This and this are the diffs in question. Although she deletes them as fast as they come in, a skim through her talkpage history shows she's had more than enough warnings to reach "final warning" stage. — iridescent 15:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have diffs to prove it myself, but I seem to recall this user (Lucy-marie) filing a lot of frivolous complaints against users in the past. JuJube (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any warnings since the block. I think it would have been better not to jump to a high level warning. --neonwhite user page talk 16:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(from Iridescent's talk page, the disussion seems to be continuing here) Having reviewed Special:Contributions/Lucy-marie I think a short block of the user in question might be warranted. She's constantly edit warring, wikilawyering and generally being disruptive. Any opinions on this?--Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 15:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide some evidence on this? I can see this user has also contributed alot of positive edits. --neonwhite user page talk 16:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think she means harm. I think she just doesn't understand collaborative editing. My impression is that for her, the rules as written down, are everything. She seems to see everything in black and white, no interpretations are needed, no working with others are required. I don't feel a short block would remedy that :-( Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the warning was out of order, if anything it was to lenient, AGF does have its limits. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the wording of that warning may be a bit more curt than even I would use, but Iridescent's impatience is quite understandable, and Good Faith has been more than assumed as demonstrated that this editor is not already blocked. — Coren ^(talk) 16:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I recall blocking User:Lucy-marie a little while back for abusive sockpuppetry; my take from the occasional skim of her talk page (which apparently remains on my watchlist) is that Lucy-marie is an editor with serious difficulties in her approach, which seems abrasive and uncollaborative. For what it's worth. MastCell ^Talk 20:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack by User:Oltnilen

This edit

It is in Turkish and says "This user is stupid". bu, kullanıcı, salak. --Ilhanli (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The user already had a warning, which I've further explained. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legal threat?

I've not encountered one of these beasts before. Does this qualify? Assistance/advice appreciated. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have assumed good faith, and assumed that the user was not aware of our position on legal threats. I have notified him/her of WP:NLT. If he/she continues to make such legal threats, blocking would be appropriate. Aecis^Brievenbus 17:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. As I said, this was a new one for me. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Account sent a similar but expanded legal threat to me in email after the NLT warnings. Pursuant to policy, persistently making repeated legal threats is grounds for indef blocking, and I have done so. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Static IP - 100% link spam

76.16.242.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) 100% link spam indicates static IP. Final warning. Non current. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 20:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a month Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ooops... I think we block-conflicted - I just blocked the IP for 31 hours. Though I have no problem with a month. MastCell ^Talk 20:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that it occurs each weekend, a block that covers, at the least, next weekend would be more effective, thanks -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 20:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've extended it to 1 month, as per Theresa's original inclination. MastCell ^Talk 20:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Neutralhomer removing WP:CfR tags from categories

User:Neutralhomer is in the process of removing WP:CfR tags from numerous radio station categories which are currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 29#Category:Radio stations in CITY. I have, for the last few weeks, refused any communication with NH on my talk page because he doesn't listen to what I tell him and has prohibited me from posting on his. He questioned my placing of these tags on the categories on my talk page, and I broke my silence to tell him to follow the links and join the discussion. I don't know if he did or not, but he has now removed all the notices using Twinkle, because I apparently can't respond in a timely enough fashion for him and walk him through what a CfD is.

His edit summaries using Twinkle imply that, in my belief, every time I make an edit he doesn't understand, I have to explain it to him or he will revert it. He's repeatedly ignored my edit summaries, and I refuse to be his tutor in these situations.

What is my best course of action in this circumstance? JPG-GR (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutralhomer appears to have been warned and blocked. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he has now been blocked by Moreschi for 24 hours for his edits. Metros (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for your quick response to this matter. JPG-GR (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that Neutralhomer's ban of JPG-GR from his talk page is very unfair. They are clearly interacting, Neutralhomer addressed JPG-GR on JPG-GR's talk page, etc. --Iamunknown 21:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutralhomer's TWINKLE was also removed for 264 hours by Maxim. A good move. Metros (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Such "bans" probably violate some policy, but at any rate, they are to my knowledge not enforced by administrators and may be ignored. Sandstein (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not enforced by administrators, however it is enforced by the users who make sure bans on their own talk pages by simply reverting without reading anything that gets posted there by the opposing side. Not exactly collaborative or civil if you ask me. Metros (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I know that they are not necessarily enforceable - in many cases, however, it seems best to abide by them if only in order to minimise drama. (I am speaking somewhat from my own experience being "banned".) That seems like JPG-GR's motive. But it seems inappropriate and uncollaborative for Neutralhomer to ban someone from his talk page with whom he is communicating and editing elsewhere. --Iamunknown 21:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, WP:OWN (I knew there was some relevant policy here...) probably does prohibit users from forbidding others from editing their talk pages. We have, though, no policy that forces someone to actually read or preserve comments posted on their talk page. Of course, some comments are ignored at one's own peril. Sandstein (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggest block of single-purpose account.

Hello. I would like to propose a block on Alykirk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). It appears to be an SPA, created only for self-promotion. The user has only created the article Alyson Kirk three times, then created Talk:Alyson Kirk twice. The user did not read over WP:N and WP:BIO, although it was cited several times. She now says she will become notable in a few days by creating YouTube videos about how she was mistreated by Wikipedia. Does anyone think this account should be blocked? Thanks. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 21:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have protected the article Alyson Kirk for six months, which should solve the problem. Sandstein (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

We can protect articles that haven't been created? Cool! Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's a new feature. WP:PT is now historical. Sandstein (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:AL2TB

This user's talk page is hard to read. When I went to make a post on the user's talk page (which I never posted because someone else beat me to it), I was completely distracted by the font. I noticed a section where another user commented on the font: User talk:AL2TB#Your Talk page. I, Son (talk · contribs), added an additional comment. The response the user gave was "Follow the advice above, or maybe check your eyesight." [82]

What should be done in this situation? --Son (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked and it wasn't that hard to read, just my 2 cents. — Save_Us_229 22:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, nothing needs to be done. He was nicely asked to change the font because it was hard to read. He would prefer not to change it. It's his talk page, and he's allowed, within reason, to format it as he chooses; most users know how to use their own browsers to enlarge and reduce type on their screen. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It instantly gave me a headache. But I don't think there is a policy for this type of thing. Bstone (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

How the font is rendered will depend on what browser you're using. I'm seeing two markedly different fonts (one bold and sans-serif and one non-bold and serifed) in Opera and Firefox, respectively. Neither is in the least unclear to me. I'd hate to see what it looks like in IE, though. --Dynaflow babble 22:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeing it the way it's probably intended to look, set in a curly decorative font that is illegible to me except at about a 500% zoom. This impedes proper communication, but I can't immediately find an applicable policy. Sandstein (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There isn't such policy, but there is common sense. I can read the text just fine (curly font, etc, etc.), but in order to ensure clear communication, a better font needs to be used, since the font set right now is illegible to some, and it overrides the normal font(s). 哦，是吗？(O-person) 22:28, 30 December 2007 (GMT)

?? I'm looking using Firefox, and I don't see a curly decorative font, just a fairly ordinary typeface if in a rather small size. I didn't realize that some people were actually seeing an illegible page; sorry. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That's probably because your system does not have that particular font installed. It seems to be invoked by passing the parameter «class="fn org"» to the table code containing the page's content. Sandstein (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

{{User:AL2TB/Userpage}} has font-family set to Curlz MT. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 22:37, 30 December 2007 (GMT)

What's worse; it's set to 10pt static, making scaling and enlarging impossible. I've changed it to 1.25em, so people can at least enlarge the letters. — Edokter • Talk • 22:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I don't have the relevant fonts installed on this computer (my backup laptop), but I see nothing odd about the font or its size on this user's page. It's perfectly legible to me in 1280X800 mode in Firefox 2.0.0.11. Horologium (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, since EDoktor changed the parameters, the font now appears to be unpleasantly large on my display. Horologium (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It comes with Microsoft Office on various platforms, according to its article, so those of us lucky enough not to have it installed are spared, by the sounds of things. Hmmm. Is this worth filing a MW bug request for? ("Ignore styles on other users' pages"?) Chris Cunningham (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It'll probably be a rare enough problem that it wouldn't be worth the trouble. Besides, you can always click "edit this page" and everything goes to the standard font. --Dynaflow babble 23:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There, I changed it to 8pt verdana. Are you all happy now? Also, regarding to the last post, that was exactly what I was trying to say on my talk page. AL2TB Gab or Tab 01:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Almost... Please use em as the size unit; pt is unscalable. — Edokter • Talk • 02:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to have a scalable font? I like to keep things in tact, so the page looks the same when viewed by multiple browswers. AL2TB Gab or Tab 02:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Because some people set their browsers as such that it scales the text accordingly. Some people don't like to squint. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 02:11, 31 December 2007 (GMT)

Can you give me some more time, like about one week from today? I'm going to congifure it in a way that I like it and at the same time it could be legible to others. AL2TB Gab or Tab 02:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need help with a persistant vandal

Since Late September/Early October, I have been a watchdog over all of the General Motors minivan articles, because they were all under attack by a vandal who used a series of IPs to push POV into all of the articles, to make it seem that these minivans are the greatest to ever be devised by man (Which is false, its the Dodge Caravan/Chrysler Town and Country/Plymouth Voyager, but then again, thats my POV) and some of his revisions would cross the line into blatantly advertising the minivans, with him constantly adding POV into the Pontiac Montana article, talking about how it is superior to the greatest minivans ever devised by man. Anyways, I managed to get all of the GM minivan articles semi protected for a month (which expired just before Thanksgiving), and his IP rangeblocked, and he threw in the towel. But, there is still another Ip lurking around the Pontiac Montana page.

This vandal, whose most current IP is 99.224.59.58, keeps adding misinformation to the Montana article. Mainly, he keeps claiming that the Montana, which was discontinued in 2006 here in the States, but put on the life preserver until 2008 in Canada in Mexico, will continue production in the ladder two countries. He has made it obvious that he is nothing more than a fan of the GM minivans in denial. Now, I want you guys to understand that the facts are against him. GM is exiting the minivan market, and a;though it is stated that GM isn't exiting the minivan business forever they have no plans to produce another minivan unless they see they they are being demanded which they aren't. And although I have solid facts from the articles I have just given to support my reasoning of reverting his edits and writing him off as no more than a fan in denial, he never states a source for his reasoning, and his facts keep changing. He has said that the Montana will be redesigned, then said that it would simply continue production. He has never provided a source for this, just cited this article. Now, since the articles I cited have contradicted his views and this article. Plus, the average car only takes one and a half to two years to develop. Only in special cases, such as the Edsel and first generation Ford Taurus has it taken longer. Plus, since that article was written in 2006, if GM were to produce this minivan, they would have announced more information about it or would be unveiling it soon, so, in a nutshell, it is safe to say that this GMC minivan has been canned. But besides that, he has never cited a cource for this outragous claim, and has just said to contact General Motors Canada as they have no plans to discontinue the Montana.

This user has used two IPs, and has registered accounts to add the false info as well. All of the accounts are currently inactive, they are User:Stevecurwin, User:Stevecurwin01 (which has been blocked), User:Dongzhang. Plus, he registered the account User:GMCANADA to "praise" his sockpuppets, for "correcting the false into" about the Montana being discontinued. However, I don't know who he is trying to fool, as a company representative wouldn't leave messages with blatant typographical and grammer errors. An example of a message that this account would leave is here.

Since I am pretty much the only person that has combated this idiot, he has attacked me numerous time on my talk page, even saying that my account will be suspended if I continue to "add false info". [83] He has also stated that he knows that the Montana will not be discontinued because he works for General Motors Canada [84], then said that he knows this because he has a friend who works for GM Canada [85], and this made me laugh, as he then said that GM Canada is watching me because I keep adding "false information" about their products.[86] (Do you think that I need to enter witness protection?) Again, he has never provided a source for his claim that the Montana will continue production, he is now just telling us to contact General Motors Canada.

We have been through page protections and blocks with this guy, but it has just been going around with circles, as nothing is making him stop. I am bringing this problem here so we can finally find a permanent solution, so this doesn't carry on forever. Karrmann (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• It looks like there is problematic editing here on both sides. Please note that blogs, like autoblog.com, are not reliable sources and should not be used to justify the inclusion of statements in articles. The easiest way to justify your statement is to find mainstream sources (say, something like Car & Driver) backing them up. *** Crotalus *** 01:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

Bunch of IPs keep blanking this page... odd. Very bad. Please protect it! futurebird (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

See above. Avruchtalk 04:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

oh. and seems like it stopped anyway. Sorry! futurebird (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reincarnated copyvio uploader?

I believe that Colomero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is a reincarnation of Evis Daison Marrero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), who was indef-blocked for violations of the copyright policy. Colmero is re-uploading the deleted files of Evis Daison Marrero - for examples, see this and this (there are many more). Sufficient evidence for a block, or should I take this to checkuser? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This passes the WP:DUCK test for me. Indefinitely blocked. Sandstein (talk) 07:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hijacking of my previous username

I don't know how it was done, but someone has usurped my previous username SolidPlaid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and is using it to vandalize articles and sundry other mischief. Yesterday, an IP address, 4.130.134.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was blocked for 48 hours for abuse directed at me and other users. That IP address claimed that it had been editing since 2005, and called me a n00b, but its edit history started on Dec 30, 2007. This suggests sockpuppetry. How could my previous username have been usurped so quickly? Please make this person stop, and find out who they really are. AnteaterZot (talk) 01:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That's your first stop. And as for sockpuppetry, I don't think it counts if you're using dynamic IPs, like one of our vandals do. —BoL 01:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have asked over at checkuser. AnteaterZot (talk) 02:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• 65.33.92.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has attacked my userpage. AnteaterZot (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

About five hours ago! Whitstable (talk) 02:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

But pretty puzzling vandalism, yes Whitstable (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Now he's showing off; he is cycling through IPs; the latest is 85.127.111.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log).

I've protected your userpage for a week. Could you elaborate on your username? did you put in a request at WP:CHU when you changed to this name? Ryan Postlethwaite 02:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I changed my username at WP:CHU because people at my job found out what it was, and I didn't really want themm to know how much time I spend on Wikipedia. AnteaterZot (talk) 02:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked it for you, and Ryan protected your page. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

How odd. I just had to have my user page and talk page protected for the same reason, a bunch of IPs were vandalizing them in the exact same way (replacing my user page with a link to my block log, and taking stuff from talk page archives and adding them back to the talk page). TJ Spyke 02:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I really don't care about the anon IP attacks, btw. It is who is behind the use of my old username to attack my own contribs that I would like to see solved. It is possible that they are not the same person as the nasty vandal. Alternately, this may provide a clue to who that prolific vandal really is. AnteaterZot (talk) 02:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This is probably a great place to apologize for my really sloppy reverts during that run - I started reverting the wrong IP, which only added to the confusion. Kuru ^talk 02:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

SolidPlaid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been renamed, so AnteaterZot, please recreate your old username ASAP to stop this happening again. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the latest rage; the bud guys read this page for ideas. This problem needs to be prevented as a standard part of username changes. --Jack Merridew 10:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image deletions and image rescue - good faith efforts to help being obstructed?

I'm asking for comments on an issue to do with image deletions (hence asking admins and others dealing with images). The background to this is that there is a backlog of tagged images to be assessed for deletion following two tagging runs by Betacommandbot. See Template:DailyDeletionCategories. There are (or were) 4032 images in Category:Disputed non-free images as of 2 January 2008 and there are 1699 images in Category:Disputed non-free images as of 15 January 2008. There are very few images in the date categories in between (ie. the image tagging is not being spread out over the dates). Since the first run of tagging, there have been efforts at Wikipedia:Task of the Day to get people involved in adding rationales to images that need them, and various specific lists (of book covers, album covers, logos, and so on) have been produced. I'm not sure how successful those have been, but one of the points made early on was to notify the admins who clear out backlogs like this at bot-like speed, so that they would hold off for a while to allow some work to be done.

Timeline

Selected quotes and comments organised into a timeline regarding the 2 January 2007 backlog (which was at one point over 11,000 images).

• 13:40, 5 January 2008 - "To be honest, I've been inspecting the categories daily, and removing some images. I'm ready to run TWINKLE on it. Just give me a timeline on how much to hold off, and I can do the deleting part very easily." - User:Maxim
• 16:04, 13 January 2008 - "Work on this category has kinda slowed down. Would there be objections if I cleared it out (ie delete)?" - User:Maxim
• 20:46, 13 January 2008"I would object to deletion of the images in this category. There are still images in there that are perfectly justifiable fair-use images. This indicates to me that the category has not yet been properly screened and cleaned out. This is hardly surprising give the volume. How about allowing people one more week before starting work on those images?" - User:Carcharoth
• Today (19 January 2007), I (Carcharoth) start work on grabbing lists from the categories, dumping them into my gallery page (with the gallery turned off) and then previewing them. There are about 5 subcategories to go through. See the page history at User:Carcharoth/Image clean-up galleries. Some of the images I fixed straight away (I was mainly looking through for the non-album covers and other images of interest to me or where I thought a reasonable rationale could be written). Some I added to a list. See User talk:Carcharoth/Image clean-up galleries. I missed the bits pointed out in the next two bullet points.
• Two people comment at the WP:Task of the Day thread, saying that they had finished with the category.[87] [88]
• 14:49, 19 January 2008"I'm probably going to do it at around midnight (00:00 20 January 2008). I'm probably starting to inspect the categories in maybe 10 minutes." - User:Maxim
• About half an hour ago (17:45 19 January 2007), I noticed that one of the images in my preview screen had been deleted since I hit the preview button (some hours ago). I then found that User:Maxim had already started his deletion run. Regardless of whether he thought 00:01 on Sunday morning, or 23:59 on Sunday night (I meant the latter, giving myself the whole weekend to help out), he appears to have started early and I'm left unable to complete the visual scanning of the categories.

I've asked Maxim on his talk page what is going on, and commented at Wikipedia talk:Task of the Day as well. What should be done? I accepted in good faith his statement that he would hold off until midnight on Sunday. If he can delete at bot-like speeds with TWINKLE (see Maxim's deletion log), surely he can undelete at the same speeds? I could visually scan the categories, and then the images could be re-deleted. My volume of image work is not immense (mainly because I don't use scripts), but I would appreciate it if the work I am trying to do is not obstructed in this way. Even if we can't sort out what happened this time, can we sort out something better for the 15 January backlog? Carcharoth (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

While I would personally hold off for more time, to be honest, the work on these categories has slowed down to almost nothing. There was an initial rush of images being fixed that tapered off, then one user - Blathnaid - was generous enough to fix all the images in many of my trackers. Since then, nothing's been happening. east.718 at 19:19, January 19, 2008

That will be because I'm selecting only 20 or so images from batches of 400. I've provided you with the evidence of the work I'm trying to do, and the 'agreement' that I'd have this weekend to do it in. Can you please not ignore that with "nothings' been happening". Carcharoth (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not being dismissive of your work - rather I'm commenting that 20 images a day is but a drop in the proverbial ocean. What we do need are more editors like you and Blathnaid who care enough to work on unglamorous backlogs like this. east.718 at 19:29, January 19, 2008

Thank you. Would you mind commenting on the specific statement Maxim said that he would wait until a certain time - the idea being to give me the weekend to do some work on this - and then him seemingly completely reneging on this? I will, of course, apologise in full if he can come up with a good explanation. Looking specifically at what you said about nothing being done - have a look at this list from your trackers. I fixed three of the blue links scattered among the redlinks. I'm now going to fix the other ones (where needed), and try and calm down. Carcharoth (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, Maxim should hold off. It's not like the backlog is running away. east.718 at 19:40, January 19, 2008

Do you think you could say that on his talk page? Carcharoth (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The depressing thing is cases like this. A perfectly good image. Lots of work done. Permissions obtained (though that wasn't strictly necessary). But the response was "rv - still has no use rationale". If someone hadn't removed that category, I'd be undeleting the image, instead of just adding the rationale. No, sorry, I forgot, Maxim would have taken that one off his deletion list in the six seconds he would have taken to check it. I appreciate the "you are doing good work here" stuff, but what I want to see is some admin action based on what I've reported here - or at least (until Maxim turns up) opinions on what should happen about the 1111 images already deleted? How can I review these images? My work depends on being able to visually scan the categories - a list of redlinks is next to useless. I was relying on being able to carry out my visual checks this weekend, and Maxim's deletions have pulled the rug from under my feet. What is wrong with undeleting at bot-like speed, allowing me the agreed time to do a visual spotcheck, and then redeleting? Carcharoth (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record 1111 images - TWINKLE deletion run took 53 minutes. From the timeline above, about 1 hour and 50 minutes spent checking those images before doing the TWINKLE run. That is around 20 images a minute during the TWINKLE run and about 10 images a minute during the pre-TWINKLE checking phase. My rate is a bit slower... :-) Over about 4 hours I scanned around 490 images in Category:Disputed non-free images as of 2 January 2008 2, and fixed around 15 images and noted another 6 for more detailed rescue work (ie. needing to write detailed rationales). 20 images fixed (or tried to fix), over 1000 deleted. Please can we arrange things so someone neutral organises the workflow rate, rather than spurts of thousands of images tagged whenever the bot-operators feel like it? Getting the balance between deletion and fixing rates shouldn't be that difficult, as long as both sides communicate and don't work sporadically and in large batches. Carcharoth (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been a long-standing problem and it's largely due to communication problems between the people who are willing to screen the category and the admin who deletes the images. I think that's fairly clear from this episode. Is it usually possible to sort through the categories before their time is due? I realize it's hard when Betacommand does a tagging spree, but his work is necessary due to the massive assload of copyrighted material here in violation of policy. I think the best solution is to propose a communication process for active categories screeners to use when a category is ready to be nuked. Maybe we can just place an "in-work" template at the top of the category when a screener is actively sorting through it and adding rationales? --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 20:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

An "in-work" tag sounds like a great idea! (Though sometimes image backlog clearers work from slightly out-of-date lists). But can we please not lose sight of the fact that Maxim was told that the category was "in-work" and still went ahead and deleted anyway? What can be done about the 1111 images that I was intending to screen this weekend? Normally, when someone makes a mistake like this, we just ask them to revert it. Is there a good reason why Maxim (or someone else) can't undelete them, allow me to screen them, and then (by a set time - preferably with some time added to make up for the 'confusion') redelete them? Carcharoth (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I would hate to comment on Maxim's action before we get a response from him. Unfortunately I can also say that I don't know of any way to undelete images as fast as they can be deleted with TWINKLE. The only thing I can offer is what I have done in the past. One time an admin deleted about 3000+ images from a category and many of them were in error. I and two other admins had to make a list on a subpage and just click through each one, look to see if the deletion was proper, and restore if necessary. Giant pain in the ass, took several days. Let's see if Maxim is willing to help resolve the situation. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 20:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'll wait until Maxim turns up. Hopefully he will be amenable to helping to fix things. Someone mentioned that the backlog is not going anywhere. Similarly, the deletion logs aren't going anywhere. Going through and previewing and then undeleting and fixing images may be a pain, but if that's what is needed, that is what's needed. In general though, it is a bad idea to carry out actions faster than they can be undone. Using automated tools is fine, but they should work both ways. Carcharoth (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Rettetast is also deleting images, faster than my bot can track and sort them. :O east.718 at 20:57, January 19, 2008

Well, I've changed the notice at the top of Category:Disputed non-free images as of 2 January 2008 to try and stop that happening again. I'll drop a note off to Rettetast. Carcharoth (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making it more prominent. Could you put that same warning on the large 15 January backlog, and put some suitable date, such as 23:59 Sunday 3rd February? Carcharoth (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Update

At the beginning of the day, there were 4032 images left in Category:Disputed non-free images as of 2 January 2008, from about 11,000 when the category was initially populated. There are now about 2400. I had been under the impression that I had the weekend to do a visual check of these images (Maxim definitely agreed to this). I was in the middle of doing this work when Maxim and Rettetast (and maybe others) starting clearing out the backlog. Hopefully the prominent notice will prevent this sort of breakdown in communications. Any ideas on what to do about the images that I could have checked? I know there are others I can check instead, but it doesn't feel like a collaborative working environment when this sort of thing happens. Carcharoth (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

And others are also asking for more time. See here. Carcharoth (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Communication breakdown?

Just noting here, for the record, that there has been no response from Maxim, despite me leaving several messages on his talk page. I've finished going through what was left of the image categories after the initial sets of deletions, and will be working on my list of images over the next few days. I may have to undelete some images and fix them and restore links that have been removed, but I don't mind doing that. I'm less happy about Maxim's response to this. I can't force him to talk to me, but he has been editing several times since I left those messages, including adding something to the blurb on the category in question. I'm not sure what to think now. Is it acceptable for Maxim to just stay silent like that? Would there be any reason to think he wasn't getting the talk page messages? Carcharoth (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

And Maxim has started clearing the backlog in that category, which was not unexpected and I'm happy to support now that the time he stated he would start at has passed. I'm still disappointed he chose not to respond to my posts and questions. I don't get that very often on Wikipedia, and it is very dispiriting. I'm always happy to discuss things, but when one side doesn't seem to want to talk, it gets very difficult. Can anyone advise on how to handle things like this in future? Carcharoth (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I will try pinging him to see if he responds. We'll have to assume for now that he agrees with this action since he didn't make any objection. Hopefully he will be a little more communicative so we can make sure everyone is on the same page. The situation could go in lots of different directions here. If someone doesn't want to discuss their actions, the advise I would give greatly depends on whether their actions are "normal", "against consensus", "against policy", etc. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)