Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive251

Compromise Regina Neighbourhoods

I have posted a compromise to the issues in the Talk:Regina Neighbourhoods. It is my hope that this will lead to a solution over the disputed figures and edits. I also hope that this will eliminate future accusations as to my identity and/or relation to other banned users. I would appreciate that you read over the compromise and comment on it. I just want to find a solution, that will satisfy all parties.--207.81.56.49 07:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• This is the administrators' noticeboard. Wikipedia:Requests for comment is along the corridor, fifth door on the left. Uncle G 12:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversial redirects

I believe it is time for an admin to take some form of action in order to stop TTN's disruptive behaviour. This user has repeatedly been 'enforcing' his (mis)interpretation of the WP:EPISODE guideline, removing the content of a large number of articles on episodes in the process. The user never took the initiative of discussing his actions before performing the redirects, and, despite having been repeatedly asked to desist (refer to various discussions on his talk page), still persists in his activities. The amount of work required for a non-admin to revert all his changes is prohibitive; thus, I would like to request immediate administrator intervention on the matter. CounterFX 10:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, I have realised that the user did point out his intentions in advance (e.g. here), but I still hold that the edits were too controversial to be performed after just three days' notice. And I still maintain that they should be reverted, and the user stopped, as per the several discussions on the user's talk page. CounterFX 10:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Dispute resolution is second on the left down the hall. You won't get this fixed here, because it's a content dispute, and he's given reasonable justification for his actions. So: stop edit warring and start talking. Guy (Help!) 11:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Heavens! A user removing unencyclopedic articles that violate WP:WAF! And I without my barnstars! Phil Sandifer 13:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Cyrillic references

User:Eiorgiomugini, whose behaviour is currently discussed on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eiorgiomugini, set out to remove all Cyrillic references wherever he can spot them, unless they are somehow "translated". Do you think this behaviour is reasonable? I spent an hour writing the article but it took me three days to deal with this sort of helpful edits. After I announced to him that I quit editing it, he proceeded to aggressive deletions of referenced text, without contributing anything of value. I feel that a warning might be in order. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Um. Looks like he is making at least some uncontroversial edits (e.g. reducing the use of peacock terms), and the use of multiple non-English references in the English Wikipedia might justly be viewed as an issue; perhaps the best course would be to post a translation of the paragraphs in the references on a subpage or something? Or maybe show references for the sources being considered neutral and authoritative in the relevant academic community? It's not really vandalism, just a somewhat peculiar content dispute. Guy (Help!) 11:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I have never accused him of vandalism. It is a severe case of WP:OWNing which needs to be urgently addressed, as it compromises the integrity of the article. Unmotivated deletion of scores of references is not exactly a content dispute. There are no adequate English-language references on the subject. I quote publications by the most notable Kyrgyz archaeologists, and Russian is a state language in Kyrgyzstan. Neither do I feel obliged to search for an English translation of Wilhelm Barthold's work when I have the Russian original. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • By the way, which peacock term did Eiorgiomugini remove? Since its creation in October, I was the only wikipedian to have used Template:Peacockterm. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Claiming something that I had WP:OWN the article is flaw, I might had claimed that myself on you as well, since both of us are the only editors there. I just can't imagine how that accusations even make senses for an idiot. There does have English publications on the suject itself, and here is what I found. There is also reference from Pulleyblank work, as well as Barthold. Eiorgiomugini 15:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Inuse

I started transliterating Cyrillic titles for those who can't read Russian and placed Template:Inuse on the page. The template failed to abate the guy's destructive vigor. Fifteen minutes later, Eiorgiomugini was back again removing references, proclaiming that only English translations of the titles are good enough for him. I've been previously told that English translations of Russian titles should be qualified as original research. Now I am being bullied into just that. Sort of confused, Ghirla^-трёп- 13:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Ghirla. Providing just the Russian title is fine. Providing the Russian title as well as a translation of it by you is also okay. Providing only your translation is absurd. How is anyone going to find the book? There's nothing wrong with using Russian references. I'll look into this. Haukur 13:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I am glad to see you editing today's Main Page article, which was originally started by me in a similar acrimonious conflict with an editor. But that conflict eventually evolved into a very productive collaboration. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

USER:Dnyarri

• User:Dnyarri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

New editor has repeatedly added what has been traditionally considered inappropriate information (spammy EL's, unencyclopedic tone, strategy guide information, etc.) to TradeWars 2002 and has resisted or ignored seasoned editors' explainations to the contrary. Of some of the most egregious violations:

• "I'm not a wikinerd, I don't really care about the customs of the people around here:

• diff - Calling people "wikinerds" and showing no respect for the rules.

• "We will continue to re-add these links as neccessary, and given the number of people involved you will be hard pressed to stop us."

• diff - Outright threats of coordinated efforts to add content.

• "Perhaps wikinerd wasn't the right term, perhaps (Godwin reference warning) Wikinazi would be better."

• diff - We've moved from being nerds to being Nazis.

• "There are perhaps 3 people in the game that can outmatch my knowledge, K3, Traitor and JP himself. Are you any of those 3? If not, then you are not an expert on the subject. What was the last tournament game you won?"

• diff - Claiming to be the de facto expert, and attempting to bully other editors into not editing articles (based on one's standing in an online tournament or some such). Making claims that there are only three people on earth who have more knoweldge on a particular subject than he does.

There are several other gross violations (including the beginnings of an edit war, which I stopped as soon as I realized said editor cares nothing for our rules/policies/guidelines/norms)... I just figure these quotes/diffs are enough to make my point. Assistance would be appreciated. /Blaxthos 14:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added the article to my watchlist and will help if I notice the inappropriate link being replaced. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ashina mediation

Now, I had asked this guy named Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) earlier up for a mediation, but he refused even though our disputes carried on. Is there other way could be done about this? I need several opinions from you guys. Eiorgiomugini 14:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ask for a third opinion? Or try a requests for comment on the article(s) in question? Moreschi ^Talk 14:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Its been requested by this user on me, and its full of false accusations and so on. Is there any other suggestions? I really needs to get this mediation to work on with this user, it would be a great thanks if you you guys could asked him agreed to the mediation. Eiorgiomugini 14:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I told you that I'm not interested in Ashina any more. I'm concerned about your systematic removal of references from Suyab now. You are an experienced editor and probably know the difference between this board and Village Pump. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Any helps would be great if any of you guys could moved this guy to come over for a mediation, or otherwise I believe our dispute would still carried on. To Ghirlandajo, leaving aside Suyab, I believe there's more disputes over others articles in future, if you continued with your huge cut-and-paste reverting. Eiorgiomugini 14:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I meant request comment on the article(s), not the people involved. An article RfC as oppposed to a user conduct one. Moreschi ^Talk 14:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Its been requested before earlier, and I don't think it work pretty well, the disputes continued after that in several articles. Eiorgiomugini 14:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I am asking for help right here, anyone that could help over the dispute would be great. Regards Eiorgiomugini 14:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Bluefire princess (talk · contribs)

This user vandalized another userpage.[1] Shereceived a warning to which she replied "whatever".[2] She is making bizarrely off-the-cuff threats.[3] Her edits have been limited to userspace. It just seemed like it was worth bringing to the attention of others. Vassyana 14:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look.--Isotope23 14:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I left a message on their userpage. It appears this is an alternate account for B.Snorlax (talk · contribs). It would appear they know the editor who's page they changed. Not much in the way of worthwhile edits here... but they have not done anything really wrong either. The "kill" stuff looks like just a kid talking smack not a serious threat.--Isotope23 15:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Or not. I'll keep an eye on the editor.--Isotope23 15:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Bluefire princess (talk · contribs) for 24 hours. From the looks of it, all this individual is doing is trolling Anubiz (talk · contribs).--Isotope23 17:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation between me and User:Ghirlandajo

I need a mediation between me with another guy, but the user here refused to sign his agreement on the mediation I had requested. What should I needed to do? Eiorgiomugini 15:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Frankly from reading the (two identical) mediation requests, I am unable to figure out what exactly the dispute is. Perhaps that would help. I should note that if there is already an RFC on the matter, mediation tends not to help. I should also note that demanding sanctions on the other party (e.g. your recent thread on the 3RR board, and your removal of other people's comments in that thread) is not conductive to mediation. >Radiant< 16:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: Eiorgiomugini is currently blocked for 96 hours for violating the three-revert rule at Suyab, and also for disruption at WP:AN/3RR, disruption which included reporting Ghirla for no good reason and then reverting his (Ghirla's) comments, also for no good reason. Moreschi ^Talk 17:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand tagging images for speedy deletion

User:Betacommand used a bot to tag hundreds of fair use images for speedy deletion last night, because they didn't have fair use rationales. While it would be preferable for all fair use images to have rationales, this heavyhanded approach caught many images which clearly qualify for fair use. In these cases it would be far less stressful and uncivil for a human to simply add the rationale, rather than pasting hundreds of threatening messages on talk pages. In addition, the bot's edits broke several articles including here and here. If Betacommand does this for another round, a discussion of blocking him and rolling back the contributions seems to be appropriate. Rhobite 12:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this has been discussed to death already. All fair use images require a specific justification in addition to the boilerplate templates, its not just "preferable." It is neither the duty nor obligation of any user to write these justifications; presumably the people most interested in the articles will be in the best position to do so. Feel free to add specific rationales to the images you want kept, according to Wiipedia and Foundation policy. Thatcher131 12:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Pray tell, what is the point of adding more text to the description page of images like Image:DickMorris RewritingHistory Cover.jpg? Johnleemk | Talk 13:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It does not have a specific fair use rational for each page it is being used on. See WP:FUC. ^(H) 14:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, this badly-written bot is breaking links when it tries to leave a template inside infoboxes, potentially leaving disputed images as orphaned and liable to being deleted by Orphanbot. This is completely unacceptable, which is why I have hit the bot shutoff button. -- Arwel (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

hay stupid unblock the bot. I made those edits. I dont want to screem ADMIN abuse but that is what your doing. CHECK THE FACTS BEFORE YOU DO ANYTHING. look at who made the edits, It was me and not a bot. /me sighs yet another person who doesnt know policy, and doesnt check their facts before acting and is an admin Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked your bot. Please remember to be civil, even in difficult circumstances. Thank you. --BigDT 17:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So you actually saw that your edits were damaging the articles, and yet continued editing? Words fail me - we can understand a bot messing things up, but human beings are supposed to have the ability to use common sense. If you saw the articles were being damaged, there is nothing so pressing that articles and images have to be tagged now -- the world will not end if you wait a few days and found a non-damaging way to mark disputed images. -- Arwel (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rhobite; tagging valid images that can be used under fair use only because now they need a rationale is really disruptive. You can't expect to have all the fair-use images uploaded since Wikipedia's creation to get a rationale in one week. Many users that uploaded those images don't contribute to the Wikipedia anymore, and can't place the rationale to those images. I think a bot-tagging for such images is necessary, but not marking them for deletion. A team of volunteers should try to place a rationale on the reationale-needing tagged images whenever possible, or place a deletion tag otherwise.

Anyhow, Betacommand's edits are far from the ideal way of handling this, and the user has proved not to be open to contructive critic. My 2 cents. --Mariano(t/c) 18:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

we have let these images slide for over 3 years, that is way too long. we need to take action and fast. its not my responsibility for FUR. its the uploader. tagging for deletion gets people off their butts and gets them going. All im doing is enforcing policy. the tagging and letting others come back later is a bad idea. we do the same for pages lacking source with {{nosource}} we have pages tagged that date back to 2005. for copyright violations such backlogs cannot be created. they need to be dealt with quickly. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

you still don't get it. Nobody is arguing with you about policy. It's you method at addressing the problem that irks people. Blueshirts 19:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there anybody with the technical knowledge to actually write a good, functioning bot to automatically add rationale to established fair use images like album covers and sports team logos? Where should I ask for this bot? Blueshirts 19:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I could write it if were possible but per policy a bot cannot fill in the details needed for a valid FUR. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not talking about a bot that automatically fills rationale for every image without a fair use rationale. The person who runs the bot should be discriminate. I don't know how to run a bot, but the bot user obviously only runs the bot for images that share the same, yet specific, rationale. Like album covers or sports team logos. Blueshirts 19:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Even then a bot cannot do that. bots are not smart enough to write a valid FUR as EACH must be unique and specific to the image. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Which policy is this? Also, yes, bots are smart enough to write a valid FUR for certain kinds of acceptable fair use. --badlydrawnjeff

talk 19:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff bots cannot be that smart. Trust me Ive been trying to make a smart bot for a very long time. see WP:FURG we need a detailed explanation of why me must use the image every time we do use it. A bot cannot be programmed to be human. Also read WP:NONFREE Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I can think of several types of images that could have a highly generic fair use rationale (chiefly: album and book covers). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Betacommand. I've been working on images for the last few months, as have others. The best things that have happened to the image situation in that time have been BJBot and Betacommand's tool. And the reason why is that they wake people up by moving large quantities of non-conforming images into deletion categories so that they are noticed.

I would oppose any attempt at creating a bot to automatically fill in fair use rationales. If a bot were going to do that, what's the point in requiring a fair use rationale for each use? Just put it in the template. Corvus cornix 20:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that he has chosen to improve his tool so that it notifies the uploaders when he tags the images, since technically that is not required. There seem to be some users working hard at WP:NR to address this issue, but it isn't clear to me that they were doing much before Betacommand got his tool working.

It's not like these images are gone forever. If 6 weeks from now, you come across an album page and you think 'This used to have an image on it': check the history, find the deleted image, prepare a rationale for it, and take it to Deletion review.

I expect and hope that the volume of image tagging that Betacommand is doing will drop off in the next couple of weeks because the backlog of images get fixed or removed. After that hopefully the folks working on rationales now continue to monitor new images to help less experienced users bring their images into compliance with our guidelines when they are uploaded. ~ BigrTex 19:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you can provide a valid rationale for an image, I don't see why you'd need to send it to DRV. Just restore and add the rationale. We're not a bureaucracy. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with that, in fact please don't take them to deletion review. (Deletion review requires you attempt to resolve it with the deleting admin first...) --pgk 19:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This has been something that has annoyed me for a while. Orginally, WP:CSD said that an image could be speedied for having no rationale only if it had a generic tag {{fairuse}} or {{fairusein}}. That statement was removed without discussion and for the stated intention that {{fairusein2}}, {{fairusein3}}, etc, should also apply. It was never intended to apply to all fair use images, only to those with a generic tag.

The rationale for using a Microsoft or Virginia Tech logo in their respective articles is obvious and anything you would want to say about them could be stuck on a template. There is nothing whatsoever that you can say about the Virginia Tech logo that you couldn't also say about the logo for Michigan State University or Notre Dame. When you want to repeat text, you put it on a template, so there's no reason that any rationale we would want for a logo couldn't be put on a template and shared for all of them.

If the image obviously qualifies for fair use and is only missing a pro forma rationale, please, just FIX IT rather than having it deleted. Creating extra busy work serves no purpose. By all means, if it is a promo photo or so-called historic photo or something like that, kill it dead and if lack of a rationale is the excuse, that's fine. But we don't need to go around killing logos, screenshots, or other things where there is nothing meaningful to say beyond what is on the tag. --BigDT 19:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

BigDT, the issue is we cant just have the images because it makes the page look better. the images are copyright and we need to explain why me must inculude the image. Does the article HAVE to have that image? if not remove it. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no Wikipedia policy, standard, or guideline which states that all articles need an image. Free images? Sure. But if the article has a non-free image just so it can be there, or just to show a picture of the thing which is already obviously the subject of the article (and yes, I'm looking at you too, album and book covers) is outside of current policy. The fair-use rationale explicitly requires critical commentary about the image in the article in every case excepting logos. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, every case excepting logos. If any logo can be found to be fair use for the article on the organization that the logo is representation of, then all logos are fair use. It's pretty simple, really: a logo is fair use because it's a logo; a logo is an important visual representation of an organization that serves to immediately identify that organization in the real world and it serves exactly the same purpose on Wikipedia. If we can write up a fair use rationale for one logo, then the exact same rationale will apply to all other logos as well. Betacommand, however, is indiscriminately tagging logos along with all the other things he's tagging (actually, he said he decided to start with logos, which plenty of people have explained are the least troublesome fair use images we have). Lexicon (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but for right now, the standard is that in basically every article about a company or school, we have the logo of the institution in the upper right corner of the article. Do we have to do it that way? No, not really. But still, that's the standard. As long as it remains the standard, removing logos piecemeal is silly. For anything uploaded prior to the last six months, at the time they were uploaded, WP:CSD said that only {{fairusein}} had to have a rationale. So deleting these things instead of fixing them is bad. If we want to change our policy and use NO logos unless the logo itself is a source of controversy and we are offering commentary on it, I'm all for that. I think infoboxes would look nicer with photographs anyway. But that isn't how we do things right now, and tagging these things is just creating busy work.--BigDT 22:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems as though the only place where we really, truly differ is on the amount of time it takes to "fix" an image. I believe, and I think Betacommand does as well, that the current system of tagging an image and notifying the uploader is most likely to see results within the first seven days; if it does not, then it is better to delete the image so that someone can start over. We all seem to agree that non-free images need a fair-use rationale, and that we should do something about making sure that happens. This isn't as big a dispute as it would appear, on the whole. (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

There's something you are not considering. Take for instance image Image:Cybersix.jpg; from {{comicpanel}}, Cydebot changed it into {{Non-free comic}}, and then Betacommand into {{non-free use disputed}}. The problem here is that we lost the info that this is a comics image without proper fair use rationale. Wasn't it a lot easier and useful to chenge the {{Non-free comic}} template to reflect the new policies, instead of replacing the tag for god-knows how many low-res comic images?

This makes life harder for anyone trying to add rationales to a kind of images of a topic he knows best. --Mariano(t/c) 13:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:NONFREE no template can be a fair use rationale. you cant create a template that is a valid Fair use rationale. /me feels like a parrot repeating himself 10 times a day</rant>. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You didn't get my message. I'm not saying we should be using templates for automatic rationales; I'm sayin we should use different templates for different topics, so specialized people can try reationalize the image of their field. Such tags already existed but you chenged them for one single rationale-less tag, losing valuable information in the process. It seams you are more interested in deleting all imgaes that don't have a rationale instead of obtaining a valid rationale for the images we have; that is the attitude that pisses of so many users, and you seam not to understand. --Mariano(t/c) 22:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Just in passing, I have added a fair use rationale for one of the tagged images, and would be interested in whether it is considered sufficient. [[4]]. It is not a template, but a similar rationale could easily be developed for a great many images. Euryalus 01:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It is. Lexicon (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in debating Betacommand's effort to require fair use rationale for images. I do want to point out, again, that the bot is leaving garbled posts on talk pages which do not adequately inform editors that images have been tagged for deletion. When Arwel_Parry mentioned that fact above, the only response from the bot's author was name calling. The author of a bot bears the responsibility for ensuring that the bot works before running it, and certainly to respond more appropriately when users point out the problems that the bot has caused. For example, see this talk page for an article which I wrote, on author Hy Turkin. The bot attempted to paste two templates, notifying the editors that an image linked in the article was missing source information and a fair use rationale. The code was malformed, so neither template was rendered correctly. Additionally, the name of the linked image was malformed (the underscore in the file name was transmuted to a space). People who are watching this page see what looks like garbage text, and unless they take the time to deconstruct what this code is supposed to say, they have no idea that an image within the article has been tagged for speedy deletion. The end result is that a change will be potenentially made to this page without adequately informing the editors. The bot puts the burden on them to figure out what Betacommand meant. That's a huge disservice, not just to the editors of affected pages but to the entire wikipedia community. I'm assuming good faith here, that Betacommand wanted to take action to address the rampant problem of images without proper attribution. The burden should rightly be on the people who uploaded them to address the issue. However, by running a poorly written bot, what will happen is that tens of thousands of images will be speedily deleted without the authors of affected pages knowing what's going on. Anson2995 14:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, it's really disappointing that nobody is willing to respond to the issue of the bot screwing up pages. Debate the Fair Use policies all you want, but I'd still like to see somebody take responsibility for the problems the bot caused by writing malformed code all over wikipedia. Anson2995 18:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand's approach is both extremely burdensome and unfair to all Wikipedia users. I spent about 3 hours providing a fair use rationale for every La Toya Jackson album and single cover after Betacommand nominated several of them for speedy deletion. It's ridiculous that it requires a fair use rationale anyway, since album and single covers are already fair use under U.S. Copyright law, but to expect every album or single cover to get a fair use rationale in a matter of days is simply ridiculous. If Betacommand wasn't using a bot, and truly was posting these tags by himself, he could have easily provided a FUR instead. It took only a few seconds to write one that could apply to every album or single cover that I worked on this morning. All I had to do was copy and paste the same FUR into each image's page, changing the names of the pages on which it appears and the album or single for which it represents. This seems like an abuse of admin power and a good way to annoy people to the point where they will stop contributing to Wikipedia. Rhythmnation2004 21:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you please point in where in the Copyright Act "album and single covers are already fair use?" I seem to have missed it. Thanks! --ElKevbo 21:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not try reading the album cover template? Rhythmnation2004 21:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

(I assume you were replying to me). I read it - it's not there. Again: Can you please tell me what in the laws (statutes or even case law) of the United States makes our use of "album and single covers" automatically fall under fair use? --ElKevbo 22:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is automatically fair use, every fair use image needs to meet all the requirements at WP:FUC, the template does not supply essential custom information such as copyright holder. ^(H) 22:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

ElKevbo, since it appears you can't read the album template, here is the direct quote: It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of such covers solely to illustrate the audio recording in question, on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Rhythmnation2004 14:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you read WP:FUC?? The template covers only some of the criteria. ^(H) 14:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This is totally wrong. The reason EN wikipedia is many times bigger than the rest is the fair use images it has. Ever browse JA wikipedia? It's just pages and pages of text. Bleh. Rather than just nuking everything why not set up a campaign to fix all the the pages. It isn't like WP has been sued. -Ravedave 15:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:IAR -- never thought I'd quote that page for what to do. I hope I'm not the only Admin who has been typing out the word "obviously" many times over the last few days. -- llywrch 06:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This is just out of control. User:Betacommand's bot seems to have bugs in it, as it deletes any copyright/fair use tags on images, and replaces them with tags that either say for it to be deleted immediately, or that it is not fair-use. I think the bot should be blocked, as it is also flooding my talk page with notices of un-tagging and deleting images.

My second statement is that i've noticed EN Wikipedia's policy on images has changed. Apparently it's no longer good enough to show corporate/highway/television/radio station logos/computer and video game screenshots anymore? I use those appropriate tags, but i end up seeing that they've been altered by admins to say "non-free non-fair use". Now, this is fine and all, but this type of thing should be left to the users to do on their own. Let it be a gradual change, instead of this huge, sudden avalanche of changing/deleting images. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 02:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm still shocked as to how we have not banned this corrupt bot by a controversal user. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Or you could stop trolling - David Gerard 21:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

David, that comment was uncalled for. If you disagree with him, simply say so. A glance at Speicer's user page proves he is not a troll, & there is no need to call anyone a troll who expresses an opinion you disagree with. And I believe is wouild be disingenuous not to admit that Betacommand is, at best a controversial editor. -- llywrch 01:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

1. If the bot is broken, fix the bot.
2. We don't lose anything by losing fair use images when we err on the side of caution. Every fair use image without a detailed rationale should be deleted. If people want to re-add them with a rationale fine.
3. Why do we have fair use anyway? This is supposed to be a free encyclopaedia. The German Wikipedia manages to get by fine without it.

- Francis Tyers · 16:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

To answer your last point: the German Wikipedia is often ugly and its hard to understand who they are talking about when you don't get a visual clue (for e.g. comics). Furthermore, it is easier to ban fair use when you declare logo's to be public domain of course... [5], [6], [7], ... Furthermore, why do they use the Wikipedia logo (in articles) when it isn't free?[8]. Anyway, it is possible to have an encyclopedia without any fair use images, but you lose a lot of information (reading a discussion of a work of modern art without showing it is very hard to understand if you don't have an idea of what the work looks like beforehand). Fram 19:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Wikipedia may endorse the use of free material over non-free at all times, but the need to use logos, book & album covers, & other non-free images to help the reader identify the subject would be more than ample justification to ignore all rules, had we not the fair use guidelines. Keeping the material Betacommand has been tagging in a mechanical & simplistic manner would improve Wikipedia as a reference. -- llywrch 01:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If the bot is broken, fix the bot.

Again and again? How many times has this been brought up? When a bot is broken, it is usually canned quite fast -- and seeing the bot's previous mishaps -- very speedy mishaps, it is often very hard to correct. Had this been a regular user making the same edits (a bit slower, though), what would have the punishment been?

We don't lose anything by losing fair use images when we err on the side of caution. Every fair use image without a detailed rationale should be deleted. If people want to re-add them with a rationale fine.

Sure we do. Some articles are better stated with a fair-use image (per stated elsewhere), and can also be critical to understanding an article's purpose.

Why do we have fair use anyway? This is supposed to be a free encyclopaedia. The German Wikipedia manages to get by fine without it.

Fair use is permitted and its usage should not be questioned -- that is better left up to another discussion. But the fact of the matter is, fair use statements have a purpose. For instance, there are several articles I have created that I have uploaded "fair use" images to -- renderings of buildings, for instance. Without the renderings, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to give an adequate representation of the said proposed or under construction structure. Upon completion, the image would be deleted and replaced with a photo of the completed building.

Furthermore, we should not be comparing the English Wikipedia to the German version. There are many notable differences that many here simply do not agree with. There are certain items here in the English version that would simply not be acceptable there, and vice versa. Furthermore, the laws in Germany might not be the same here, specifically regarding some fair use rationale.

There, I have successfully trolled :-) Cheers, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand tagging images for speedy deletion (section Break)

Is it standard practice to comment out an image [9] and later declare it an orphan [10]? It seems like you would have to be paying very close attention to notice this. I would think that using {{speedy-image-c}} gives better fair warning, particularly in cases where the uploader is long gone from Wikipedia. --GentlemanGhost 13:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really. That defeats the purpose of going through the process of open debate on whether or not an image is fair use, a copyright violation, etc. Some have done it to circumvent the process because of a dispute with the uploader. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As for trying to bypass process, Im not doing that. I am running a Orphan Fair Use tagging bot regularly and if it catches something that I orphaned oh well either way it has at least seven days to be fixed before deleted. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 21:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack block and not even a warning first

Resolved

People have been known to suggest that I have no regard for WP:CIV and that I make a point of defending incivil users. I don't think that's true (but then I wouldn't). Anyway, I've blocked Major Bonkers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours for this disgusting attack, aimed at One Night In Hackney. Anybody got an opinion, please comment here. Bishonen | talk 19:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC).

Urrrggghhh. How unpleasant. It's this sort of thing that makes Wikipedia such a misery some days, the nasty sniping. We need to be much more proactive in troutslapping people who create an unpleasant atmosphere. Moreschi ^Talk 19:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Block endorsed: blatant violations of NPA deserve no less, and I doubt anyone can see this as anything but exactly that. Phaedriel - 19:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

He does seem to be less than thrilled about it though [11], perhaps someone should explain the appeal process. I don't think he would welcome it from me. Giano 20:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of NPA blocks, but I have recently come down in believing in blocking for fighting words, and I think a comment like that was designed to be a blow landed in a fight (or a sucker punch). Geogre 00:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Per Geogre; I normally do not block for NPA, but this is beyond the pale. Support. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia seems awash with some pretty forthright comment on Talk Pages, a great deal of it, it appears to me, offensive rudeness by the style of remarks. However I am not sure this incident (whether seen as humorous or otherwise) falls into this category and I think instead of editors jumping on the "personal attack" bandwagon, there should be a commonsense assessment as to what is actually a fair comment or remark and an actual personal attack. I think he could at least have had the courtesey of a warning. David Lauder 08:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you have any association with anyone involved, but I can't see how you fail to recognize it as both disgustingly incivil and a peronal attack. And viewing it as "fair comment"? This is worrying and puzzling. DrumCarton 12:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel that any comments made on any talk page that is classified as a verbal attack should be taken very seriously by the Wikipedia administrators. For a comment that poses a concern to the safety of the user that the attack is intended to shall be kept and, depending on the severity of the comment (e.g. threats), law enforcement shall be notified of this incident. I think that certain precautions need to be made to end these kind of attacks. More strict punishments need to be made in regards to verbal attacks such as doing away with the warnings and such for attacking and just, immediately, block the user. I, in my own opinion, find the attacks to be the worst violation at Wikipedia! Redsox04 22:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Soxrock

Soxrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has violated WP:NOT#PUBLISHER (number 6) after several warnings have been left at his talk page. He continues to do it to other articles. He's done this to the following articles/templates:

1. 2007 Indianapolis 500, which he made [at least] 108 edits to today
   
2. 2007 NCAA Division I Men's Lacrosse Championship
   
3. 2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs, 2007 NBA Playoffs
   
4. 2006-07 Anaheim Ducks season
   
5. 2006-07 Detroit Red Wings season
   
6. 2007 New York Yankees season
   
7. Around the Horn
   
8. 2007 UEFA Champions League Final
   
9. {{2007 New York Yankees season game log}}
   

And others. He's been warned every time, yet he ignores these warnings and continues to do these edits. --Ksy92003 (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll let him know about what he's doing in a civil manner. Screaming at someone about the rules doesn't help matters. Editing what's going on during a match is going overboard though.--Wizardman 20:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep an eye on all those pages. If he continues doing those kind of updates, I'll protect said pages for a short time. Technically that's not allowed based on the protection policy, but I think that's a case where I could invoke WP:IAR.--Wizardman 20:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If he continues, why would page protection be a better avenue than a block? IrishGuy ^talk 21:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking, also. Page protection wouldn't be that great of a path, as it would also prohibit me from editing those same pages. I'm not asking for a block, but some action should be taken if Soxrock continues this. And then perhaps a block would be necessary.

Do you HAVE to be an admin to block another user? If not, could somebody tell me how in case I need to know? I'm not gonna block this user, I'm just wondering for knowledge's sake. --Ksy92003 (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, only admins can block editors. You can report vandals at WP:AIV to request blocks. IrishGuy ^talk 23:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay... thanks. I thought so. --Ksy92003 (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are some quotes from Soxrock on other people's talk pages regarding the instant updating which might be helpful to resolving this: Game 6 of the Western Conference Finals (NHL)

“ I only do it because it provides an additional purpose for me to watch a game ”

User talk:Mikebrand

Game 6 of the Western Conference Finals (NHL)

“ I know it may be crystal balling, but it looked pretty clear that Anaheim would win. So I did that on presumptions. ”

User talk:V-train

2007 Indianapolis 500, updating driver positions every lap

“ Sorry, but it has to be updated since so much changes ”

User talk:Garavello

2007 Indianapolis 500 and the race being delayed, Soxrock added stuff "ASSUMING" the race would be declared over before any announcement was made.

“ Wait...wait. This race could very well be over. Taking the precaution. So I will update it completely because this race could be over. ”

User talk:68.250.96.49

Hopefully this well help resolve this. --Ksy92003 (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. Yeah, that's going too far. Why update it "because it keeps changing" when you can just wait until it's over to update it? I'll see if he responds to me, if not I'll keep an eye on him and take admin action if necessary.--Wizardman 21:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what I, and other users, have been wondering for a while now. I'll leave it to you, Wizardman (that's such an awesome name). Thanks. --Ksy92003 (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I want to add, for the last quote, that the 2007 Indianapolis 500 continued after the rain delay. It's currently going on right now. --Ksy92003 (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the issue revolves around sporting events, why not block this person for the rough length of time remaining in the game/race/whatever? I don't know how long they really go with commercials and time outs, but Ice hockey for example plays three 20 minute periods. If the game really were that long I'd recommend a block of an hour. If he/she was reporting the Tour de France the block could be first a day and if more reporting occurs then the block could become two days etc. Anynobody 09:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't sound reasonable. While I agree that would prevent the user from updating the scores, I'm not so sure that would solve the problem. First of all, sporting events don't have a set time frame; they may be 2 hours long or 4 hours long. Soccer is the only sport that comes close, as they play 2 45-minute halves of running clock. But there's still overtime and golden goal penalty kicks and other reasons the game might run longer. And besides, a running block like that isn't reasonable. If the user would get blocked, the block would have to be for a set time; we can't adjust the length of the block simply because of what sporting event's article they are editing. Do you get my point? For example, if they are editing a baseball game, that might be 3 hours long. However, a soccer game is less than 2 hours long. Despite the different lengths of games, it is, afterall, the same infraction, the same violation. Therefore, the punishment should be the same no matter how they do it. Do you understand, Anynobody? --Ksy92003 (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's another quote:

2007 Indianapolis 500

“ I'M TELLING YOU. THIS RACE COULD BE OVER. IT IS IN A RAIN DELAY. IT COULD BE OVER IF IT LASTS ABOUT 2 OR MORE HOURS, THIS COULD BE OVER. SO I'M NOT VIOLATING [expletive]. ”

User talk:Ksy92003

Soxrock appears to be a user who thinks that they can overrule an official Wikipedia policy. He refuses to abide by those rules, despite numerous warnings. --Ksy92003 (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point Ksy92003 (talk), and indeed setting a block for events which don't have a set end time could be tricky (which is why I mentioned I don't know how long they really go with commercials and time outs....)

What other options are there though? If he/she keeps ignoring warnings sooner or later they will be blocked. Instead of adding a 24 or 48 hour block right away, a four or six hour block might get the message across without being unduly harsh. I realize this editor is doing something they aren't supposed to, but it's not quite as bad as making legal threats, blanking pages, or edit warring. If they go right back to these types of updates then the longer block becomes more appropriate. Anynobody 22:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Soxrock hasn’t performed any actions like that since the last time he was warned. He did, however, once update a basketball score before the game ended. Wizardman was alerted by me and he promptly warned him. Since then, however, he hasn’t done anything else wrong. But I have been monitoring all his edits… he hasn’t done anything yet. If this discussion is removed before he makes another edit like that, I will not hesitate to bring it back up to discussion if he does, indeed, update another sporting event’s score before the game ends. But in the past 24 hours, he hasn’t been a problem. --Ksy92003 (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like the editor got the message. You would be right to bring this up again if they do go back to updating, at the very least this does count as a warning. Anynobody 22:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm not gonna worry about it anymore for the time being. But should he do it again, then I'll bring it up to Wizardman. But for now, everything is all good. --Ksy92003 (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

why?

I just see my block log [12] and found that some weeks ago I was blocked permanently (without giving any reason!) and then was unblocked in the same minute, without any note on my talk page. why?--Pejman47 18:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

An admin's account was compromised and used to block several people. See User talk:Marine 69-71/Archive 13#Desysopped and blocked. Phony Saint 18:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

oh!, thanks for your clarification. --Pejman47 19:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Public service announcement: To avoid this happening to you, make sure you have a strong, long password. —Crazytales ^o.o 02:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Incivility at Talk:Goguryeo

Currently, Goguryeo is under intense dispute and discussion. Several editors on both sides have been being extremely incivil to others.

However, I feel that User:JakeLM and User:Naus have been the most discourteous to others and I am requesting a final warning or a block. I have already warned them, but they do not seem to heed.

• JakeLM has called the talk page "a giant circle jerk for Korean ethnocentrists" [13]

• JakeLM has grouped editors of his opposing party and accused them of preventing good faith edits and has also called Good friend100 and Cydevil38 as "trolls", something that I find to be very rude. [14]

• Naus has called the article "ultranationalist Korean crap" [15]

I feel that these editors have not made the situation any better at the discussion page of Goguryeo and I think they should calm down a bit before edit warring or more incivility from both sides erupt. Good friend100 20:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Good friend100 describes the most recent developments at the Goguryeo article, but I wonder why the user posted this notice since mediation is pending? The situation there is very tense indeed. However, with respect Good friend100 describes only several of the troublemakers. There are many more miscreants and highly disruptive trolls lurking about. Ultra-nationalism is a crippling problem on both sides. Nevertheless, I concur with Good friend100 that User:JakeLM's behaviour has been trollish, to say the least. Respectfully, the User:JakeLM has deposited a taboo curse-word on the talk page of an Anonymous IP which has not been reverted [16] and has recently left a scary, vicious, and completely over-the-top 'message' at Talk:Goguryeo that cannot possibly be viewed as helpful in the slightest. Mumun 無文 20:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree Jake seems to have gone too far, especially with that comment on the IP. On the other hand, tensions are indeed high and Good friend100, you yourself should be careful of civility. Responding to the message you mentioned here with [17] is not the best way to encourage anyone to calm editing. Getting too worked up about it is probably what made you get blocked for four days out of the last seven. I'm not sure the best way to do it, but somehow everyone needs to calm down. —LactoseTI^T 22:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Johnsome and incivility

Hi, I've tried to explain to Johnsome that this edit isn't helpful, both in my edit summaries reverting it, and at his talk page [18]. His reply was far less than civil. I don't want to get into a 3RR with him, but his edit really does make a long, run-on sentence. He's got no interest in discussion. Can someone else go help him learn about Wikipedia? thanks. ThuranX 20:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Start a discussion on the talk page, and get some input. That's the correct place to discuss. You can bring him around. --Haemo 22:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I can't, actually. And further, after this, I'm not interested in trying any further. ThuranX 23:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

per this, I think any further efforts by myself are pointless. Admin please? ThuranX 02:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

User was blocked for 24 hours for 3RR vio. Migh still need to hear why he was blocked. ThuranX 23:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

extreme abuse and personal attacks by previously blocked User:Platanogenius [19] and block evasion using User:70.177.181.129

User:Platanogenius [20], as well as his IP address User:70.177.181.129 has been warned on many occasions and placed on notice that he will be blocked for vandalism and extreme POV.[21]. User:Platanogenius has already been blocked in the past and continues to express and use extreme POV and abusive statements. [22] User:Platanogenius and his IP address, User:70.177.181.129, has taken a personal interest in the article with statements like:

• I don't know who you are or what your agenda is, but I do find the demographic article to be offensive to Cibaeño(Northern) Dominicans. We know who we are, we know our country." [23]

He has also gone about with multiple personal attacks with:

• "YOUR CONCEPT OR RACE IS LUDRICOUS..To ip 64.131, you are trying to impose " one-drop rule myth", hyperdecent and other racist thrash from the legacy of Jim Crow into a country like DR. Ernesto Sagas is a Dominican professor at CUNY,and not even him accepts that thrash...I'm not here to discuss the " screwed up concept of race" in other countries, but the reality of DR." [24]
• "DON'T ARGUE WITH THAT FARRAKHANISTIC MORON Why do you argue with that Farrakhan?? Ignore that moron, he doesn't know any better....This idiot doesn't know jack about our history...I'm Dominican, nobody has ever called me Black, even in the redneck deep south, ..Anyways, ignore these idiots,look how he is bad-mouthing white people. white people have done lots of evil, true, but this idiot wouldn't even be talking garbage thru this computer if it wasn't for this invention from the white man in the first place. That's just to tell you about his pea-sized brain. Some people's intellectual levels, in any race or ethnicity, is just Jurassic, just stay away from debating things like politics, religion or race with Neantherthals. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Platanogenius (talk • contribs) 01:55, May 25, 2007 (UTC)" [25]
• YOUR INTELLECTUAL LEVEL NEEDS TO GROW. Hey Einstein, when did I say anything anti-africanist here?? ... blaha blah and all the non-sense So I am the anti-black, racist,denier??? ...You think that you where going to deal with an ignoramus, but when it comes to history, you are kindergarten compared to me. You say " society" says that such words are offensive? wow, impresive answer. ..The article will be changed.Platanogenius 02:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)platanogenius [26]
• UNBELIEVABLE, TALKING TO A CHILD... Anyways,the hijack of Wikipedia's English language Dominican Republic Article by radical afrocentric-onedroppist will be over soon.Platanogenius 04:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)platanogenius. [27]
• WHY THE HAITIAN IS GETTING AWAY WITH THIS? Fellow Dominicans, this biased, prejudiced and reactionary Haitian has hijacked this article. Any edit that we put, whether it has sources that are better than the sources that he presents, he deletes. Is this guy a moderator here that is abusing authority here?The word is spreading thru out the prominent Dominican websites on the internet, " a tomar cartas en el asunto".70.177.181.129 04:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)platanogenius. [28],
• "or make DR look like Haiti or Ghana,Congo, etc....70.177.181.129 17:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)platanogenius." [29],
• "ABUSE I'm tired and irritared of your abuses and narrow-mindness. Besides, I've said that " mixed European and African people" can be a suitable replacement for " Mulatto". So what the hell is your problem?? You are very disrespecful, this is clearly a bias. - written by 70.177.181.129 (Talk) [65]",[30].

It is at this point that a request for a possible permenant block be implemented, the smallest being a weeklong block, possible RFC, and checkuser for User:Platanogenius and User:70.177.181.129 be implemented. YoSoyGuapo 23:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You can do the Checkuser part yourself, there are instructions there. Bringing that back here would give Admins more info to use in making a judgement about his actions. ThuranX 23:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, considering the IP in question signs its posts as "platanogenius", I think this would be a foregone conclusion. --Haemo 00:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser filed: [31] YoSoyGuapo 00:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC) checkuser was declined YoSoyGuapo 07:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You should probably note that it was declined because it was "obvious" that the user was the same as the IP - as we both said. --Haemo 07:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Just had to make sure. What can be done about this user? YoSoyGuapo 07:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an admin, and since none of them appears to want to take any interest in your case, I would just start adding "No Personal Attacks" templates to his board when he makes attacks, try to get him to stop (which, I imagine, will fail rather quickly), and then take it to either a the Admin intervention, Request for comment or the Community Sanction Noticeboard. You've put up with a lot, but I think you're just going to have to stick it out until the process runs its course. --Haemo 21:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

User:70.177.181.129 has gone forth with calling others derogatory and slang terms including the word "cocola" which is feminine for "cocolo" which can equate to nigger. [32]. YoSoyGuapo 02:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Geni blocked for edit warring-- please review

Good evening, earlier tonight I placed a 24-hour block on Geni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for edit-warring on the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not page (see [33], [34], and [35], history). While Geni did not go over 3, I felt that a block would be necessary in order to hinder further edit warring. Supposedly the story is that s/he is reverting something Jimbo put in, and while discussion is taking place, edit warring is as well. Needless to say she's probably not the only one involved, but perhaps the most chronic. I've no problem dropping the block, but I thought I'd drop a note here (as I should have done earlier) to see what you guys think. What do you guys think? -Pilotguy hold short 01:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Good block, you can still be blocked even without 3RR - it certainly doesn't help his cause reverting Jimbo. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverting Jimbo is fairly stupid, regardless of reasons. Block fully warranted here. Phil Sandifer 01:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Why in the world should it matter whom one reverts? It is well settled (see, e.g., the What is Jimbo's role? mailing list thread) that Jimbo, whatever may be his considerable merits, is to be accorded no special reverence when he acts qua editor (or, really, in any capacity except to the extent he acts at the direction of the Board), and that, whilst he may be better situated than some to adjudge where a consensus lies (he has been here, of course, as long as anyone and surely devotes more time to the Foundation than do most), he should not be understood as enjoying some special community-conferred capability in the latter regard. It may well be that Geni's behavior was untoward and that a block was necessary here to prevent further disruption (I can't say that I've a firm opinion on that issue, although Brad appears to have things quite right), but any decisions should surely be made irrespective of the identities of those with whom Geni may have revert-warred (we are, after all, a collaborative project upon the success of which depends in part our concentrating on contributions rather than on contributors). Joe 03:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Personally I think Geni's editing here was a little more stubborn than necessary, but I believe that an admonition and 3RR warning would probably have been sufficient in this case, reserving a block in case there were further problems. I also suggest that if you were going to block, a little more detailed explanation at the time of the block would have helped, as you cited a 3RR violation as the block reason rather than a more generalized reason of edit-warring or disruption. I would commute this block to time served with a reminder that the editor is at the revert limit and should stick to the talkpage for awhile. Newyorkbrad 01:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I would support that if it was a user that didn't know what they were doing, but Geni quite clearly does, and quite clearly understands what a revert war is. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I support the block. When I first saw Jimbo's edit, I had the thought "I bet Geni will turn up and start reverting," and sure enough. His wading in with this kind of POINTy behavior is too predictable. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually disagree with the block and would implore Pilotguy to unblock Geni. I don't believe the issue is with removing content added by Mr. Wales, but with the lack of a warning or a direct appeal to Geni by Pilotguy before blocking him (especially as the citation of 3RR was a bit off, as Geni didn't actually violate it). Had Pilotguy approached Geni, I feel that this situation would have been resolved much easier, as both fellows are trusted, devoted Wikipedians who, in my experience, are easy to talk to and engage in discussion. I believe Pilotguy simply made a small error in neglecting to approach Geni first, and this can easily be rectified by an unblock and a discussion. Also, it should be noted that Geni wasn't edit warring with Mr. Wales or anything (history clearly shows this of course, but it's worth mentioning I think). gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 01:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a block may have been a little too far. It's true that his unilateral reversion of Jimbo's text was pretty obstinate, but nevertheless they were simply being bold, and it probably should've been handled like any other edit war instead of escalating it right to a block. Krimpet (talk) 01:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• On looking at the issues again, although I still fully support the block, I agree that commuting it to tie served would be a less punitive measure now. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this block. Geni was attempting to discuss the issue on the talk page (the right thing to do). If someone tries to game the system, by all means, block them, but blocking an established user who has three and only three reverts to this page and no other edits in months just doesn't make sense. If blocks are to be preventative, I don't see how this qualifies. I seriously doubt Geni would break 3RR by reverting a 4th time, so there is nothing to prevent. --BigDT 01:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• three reversions in a matter of minutes? No, this was edit warring, and certainly violates 3RR. Geni knows 3RR isn't a license to game the system. Support the block. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What other rational responce is there to blunt force reverting that ignores talk page comments?Geni 02:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Your talk page comments weren't helpful; they are rarely helpful, to be honest. You seem to thrive on acting like someone's annoying little brother. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

can you show them to be internaly inconsitant, based on a logical fallacy or conflicting with what we can discover about the world (assumeing an objective shared reality)?Geni 02:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Geni, that comment is virtually meaningless. Please don't make me regret that I supported unblocking. I suggest we archive this thread and that you go edit an unrelated page. Newyorkbrad 02:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a short recap of the principles of logical debate. Hardly meaningless if that is what we are meant to be doing.Geni 03:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It was meaningless in context in the sense of having little continuity with or relationship to the discussion that preceded it. Newyorkbrad 03:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Based on this discussion, there is, at any rate, no consensus for a block, and I've removed it. Which is not to say that the conduct was necessarily justified. --Michael Snow 02:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a pity, because the behavior clearly isn't regretted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

We generally block based on conduct, not motivation, and for very good reason. --Michael Snow 02:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's understood that "not bad enough to warrant a block based upon input from a closely divided group of administrators" is very different from "endorsement of the editor's behavior." Geni, I was the first to question the block—but please don't do this again. Newyorkbrad 02:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"three reversions in a matter of minutes? No, this was edit warring, and certainly violates 3RR" - No, it doesn't. Have you even read the 3RR page? There needs to be a whole lot less blocks by admins making up stuff off the top of their heads and a lot more trying to act like reasonable adults. DreamGuy 02:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the bit which states "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period", as I stated on Geni's talk page. I assure you I am quite familiar with 3RR. This was gaming the system. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I just cleaned up Jimbo's wording in what should be an uncontroversial manner, for clarity and to match the style of the other sections. I think the principle is a good one (though Jeff might not), though we obviously have disagreements over its application. I haven't read through the recent discussion at talk so I don't know what to make of Geni's reverts. The way, the truth, and the light 02:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure I would have blocked Geni... blocking long time contributors doesn't often give exactly the desired results, but I don't see Geni's contributions in the WP:NOT discussion at the time as particularly helpful. In fact I'd go so far as to characterise them as obstructionist with a dash of ruleslawyerishness. (that's perhaps trying to say what Slim said but perhaps in a slightly(?) nicer way) Jimbo's change is one that I think the vast majority of the community (as well as the wider world out there) really wants. I'd advise Geni and others opposed to this change to step back, think about things deeply, and then come back with a more constructive approach than reverting first and then discussing in a way that isn't really open to taking the consensus view on board. Better to accept that WP needs to be ethical first and sensationalist not at all, and then work to craft policy statements to reflect that thinking, than to be obstructionist. ++Lar: t/c 11:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Such blocks give the impression that disagreeing with Jimbo gets you blocked. Some editors already have the idea that disagreeing with an admin gets you blocked, and we shouldn't be reinforcing that misconception. In other words, while revert warring is clearly a bad thing, we shouldn't treat the case differently just because the text being warred over was written by Jimbo. >Radiant< 12:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If I wanted to take the rule lawyery approach I would just try to claim that the same standards as were required for Wikipedia:Attribution should be followed in this case. But given that policy does need to be changed from time to time that is not a good idea. No there are flaws in the policy. You can try and fix them now or when they start causeing problems which experence suggests is generaly way to late.Geni 13:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I'll be sure to warn/conference beforehand from now on. -Pilotguy hold short 20:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Charlie Keever.jpg

Hi, will an uninvolved administrator please look at the history of Image:Charlie Keever.jpg. I am unsure what to do at this point, am tired of personal attacks and incivility, and am open to suggestions. (Note: I am leaving my computer for the next several hours as I would like to disengage, so I will be unable to answer questions.) Thank you, Iamunknown 06:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem here - the copyright holder is the San Diego Union-Tribune, which is also the source for the image, as licensed. --Haemo 07:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think that the newspaper is the copyright holder of the photograph of the child? Did the newspaper create the photograph of the child? I don't think so. --Iamunknown 15:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Because when newspapers run unattributed photographs, they claim they have the copyright to that image. --Haemo 00:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Vendetta

A vendetta has taken place against Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet aka User:Kittybrewster by a handful (one hand) of detractors. They have systematically attacked articles he wrote or commenced in stub form; they then flagged up the article page on him for deletion. This failed. They then returned to the scene and regardless of the AfD's failure messed about with the article and have now deleted it under another heading, i.e: via the back door. Administrators need to reach a concensus on this type of appalling self-satisfied self-opinionated behaviour. David Lauder 07:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Alternative hypothesis: Kittybrewster has been somewhat over-enthusiastic in documenting his family on Wikipedia, some editors have cast a more critical eye over these articles and decided that in some cases merger or removal may be appropriate. Since we had more articles on Arbuthnots than on Kenedys that may be a defensible position... Guy (Help!) 08:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel there is more to it than that. You just have to asess the endless diatribes made by his detractors. (The Kennedys? Are you serious?) David Lauder 09:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• • So what, there are plenty of notable Arbuthnotts. This is just a major case of "I don't like it". Catchpole 09:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a serious complaint. Please do not accuse me of being childish. David Lauder 09:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't. I was commenting on JzG. Catchpole 09:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

David: Yes, I am serious. Category:Arbuthnot family, Category:Kennedy family if you don't believe me. Actually since Kittybrewster's autobiography was merged there are now the same number of articles in both categories, 64. It does seem a bit rum, doesn't it, that we should have so many articles on a minor Scottish noble family one of whom just happens to be a Wikipedia editor? Guy (Help!) 11:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Kittybrewster's edits should not lead to an assault on his article by those who continually treat the British ascendency with disdain. There are many wider issues here. These editors, numerous are openly pro-Irish republicanism, cannot accept that the holding of a significant honour from the British Crown (a baronetcy) can make one inherently notable, they believe that becuase it is hereditary is is somehow irrelevant. This is obviously not the opinion of society as a whole. This anti-hereditary bias is clearly POV, which has no place on Wikipedia. --Counter-revolutionary 09:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I believe they permit their very personal and political views to spew into Wikipedia. That is not what encyclopaedias should be about. David Lauder 09:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• • ...[S]elf-satisfied self-opinionated behaviour...
  • Yes, that behaviour may be a problem but we're still trying to figure out which editors are to blame. There'ss a conflict between editors who have differing ethnic/nationalist prejudices. And there's a totally separate matter of the genealogical work of user:Kittybrewster. While the first issue is complex the second issue is straightforward. Kittybrewster's edit history is concerned mostly with his family members and other people in his genealogical database. That's a problem with WP:COI and with WP:V. Citing one's own website to write articles about oneself and one's relatives violates several core concepts of Wikiepdia. While we shouldn't foster an "anti-hereditary bias" nor should we foster a pro-hereditary bias either. If we want to address the serisous and complex dispute between editors who support Irish Republicans vs those who support English/Scottish nobility then I'd support mediation. But the Arbuthnot-cruft is unrelated to that dispute. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 09:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Where efforts have been made to improve source materiéls in accordance with WP:V these are simply ridiculed and even sometimes deleted. Also it is not a battle between supporters of British nobility and republicans (although I agree that is how his detractors see it). I would say it is simply a question of recording the British status quo correctly and properly. There are those who oppose this for personal and political reasons. But they should leave all these hang-ups outside an encyclopaedia. They cannot alter the status quo by machinations and hand-wringing on Wikipedia. herein lies the real problem, I fear. David Lauder 10:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation would be a good idea at this point, considering the massive edit war about the topic. All I see is a serious COI situation with Kittybrewster, and a dispute over the notability of the articles in question. --DarkFalls ^talk 09:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it time we just had a Kittybrewster and friends page? where they could conduct their daily wikidrama at full-length? --Fredrick day 10:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Kittybrewster's edit history is irrelevant here. Is there a CoI for these republican editors who edit articles relating to Irish republican organisations, I wonder? --Counter-revolutionary 10:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Counter-revolutionary, please either back up these insinuations or stop making them (no interest in the actual issue one way or the other, but that is out of line). They are disruptive. Neil (►) 10:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

David Lauder, wouldn't best practice have been to name the editors accused, which include such luminaries as User:Mackensen and User:Giano, and notify them that they are (vaguely, hintingly, yet acrimoniously) being discussed here? Bishonen | talk 10:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC).

I see you have done that. You too I note have been a recent participant in all this. What I really wanted Admins to do was to go to the umpteen Talk pages and consider the comments by such people who I, at least, do not regard as luminaries, regardless of how many medals they have collected. Their arguments wouldn't stand a chance in a university. David Lauder 10:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. Yes, I've notified Mackensen, Giano, BrownHairedGirl and Doc glasgow now. Perhaps you'd pitch in with a few more yourself. Bishonen | talk 10:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC).

First of all, thanks to Bishonen for the heads-up. Well, that's the first time I've been accused of an anti-hereditary bias. My edit history suggests otherwise and I'll thank you to stop making that accusation. My point has been throughout that baronets have no automatic presumption of notability, and that peers do not have any automatic presumption in themselves, but rather as members of a national legislature. I have repeated these arguments at Talk:Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet, at some length, without much luck. I'm an original participant in the peerage project. I created Category:Baronets. I started List of Baronetcies. I wrote the guideline in the Manual of Style that determines how articles on baronets are named. I crafted the original formatting for articles on baronetcies. I hashed out the theory of presumptive notability for peers that I've alluded to. When I tell you that baronets have no automatic notability under WP's policies, and that individual notability must be asserted per WP:BIO you might try engaging the argument instead of making repeated personal attacks and gross insinuations of character. Mackensen (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Two separate, but related, issues are at stake here.

One is the large number of biographical articles which Kittybrewster has created on his own family, many of whom are of questionable notability: some have been deleted at AfD, while others have survived, and some appear to have survived in the hope that they may be improved.

The other issue is the conduct of the editors involved, and sadly there have been far too many incidents of incivility or other inappropriate behaviour from different sides of this dispute. It has become very partisan, and I have repeatedly found that any intervention is rapidly characterised as evidence of being one or the other warring camps.

Having been initially very concerned about the incivility of some of those objecting to the proliferation of Arbuthnot articles, I have over the last month or two seen a fair bit of incivility from the other side, but having spent a lot of time looking at it all I have come come to the view that it is too easy to let the incivility cloud the problem that there is a big COI problem here, and that there are serious notability problems.

Both sides to this dispute appear to have engaged in some degree of block voting, and there have been plausible allegations of the use of sockpuppets and/or meatpuppets by both sides.

I'm afraid that in the end, I have to conclude that the main reason it has all become so personalised is that Kittybrewster constructed a situation where he was personally identified with so many of these contested articles; that had the effect of making it hard for both sides to separate the articles from the person who created them and who defends them as part of his family. (I'm not suggesting that this was done with a malicious intent, just observing hat the effect is).

The conclusion I draw from all of this is that WP:COI should be strengthened, and that there should be a much clearer warning to avoid creating (or editing) articles on ones own family. I don't think that when he started this Kittybrewster fully understood the extent of the problems which would be caused by the conflict of interest, and the sad thing is that he now seems to be so upset by the bitterness of the resulting dispute that he does not seem to be in a frame of mind to step back and consider how closer attention to the spirit of WP:COI could provide a route out of the conflictual situation in which he sounds himself.

It may be that David Lauder is right to suggest that some editors are mounting a vendetta, but if there is such a vendetta that should not cause us to overlook the substantive COI and notability problems with these articles.

I think that we now need to take some steps to defuse the situation, which comes to WP:ANI far too often. I would suggest that it would be best to start by seeking a block on Kittybrewster editing any articles about members of the Arbuthnot family, and for other editors to be more pro-active in insisting on civility by all parties. There are many good editors on both sides whose passions have become unhelpfully inflamed by the messy history of this dispute, and I suggest that it might be appropriate or many of them to also withdraw from this area. Is there any way that we can create some sort of task force to review all these articles more calmly and make some recommendations? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Kittybrewster should steer clear of his family articles, per WP:COI. And others should stop flinging mud. The assertion that personal bias is the only motivation for wanting to prune the Arbuthnot walled garden is factually inaccurate, I have nothing against the aristocracy and counted at least one baron among my friends, although he is now deceased. Guy (Help!) 11:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, Guy, for saying a lot of what I wanted to say, but much more concisely. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Ditto. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 12:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there has been some nasty to-and-fro between supporters on either side on the Irish Question for some time (from both sides, it has to be said). Some of that nastiness seems to have fed through into discussions of Kittybrewster's other contributions. Both of these things are to be regretted.

However, the fact remains that Kittybrewster has been creating lots of poorly-sourced articles on members of his family, many of whom have but the barest hint of notability (several senior officers in the British Army, an RAF pilot in the Second World War, and so it goes on). This is a problem - we are an encyclopedia, not a genealogical website - and the worst of them have to go. But the best of them should remain and will hopefully be improved in time: thanks to Giano - one of the people who seems to be being accused of some sort of vendetta - Harriet Arbuthnot is a featured article!. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I rather resent this. I judge articles on their merits not on their surname or who wrote them. Many of the Arbuthnot articles are encyclopedic - others need massive improvement and real sourcing - some IMO don't belong here. I take each on its merits. Indeed I even created an article on a notable Arbuthnot spouse that Kittybrewster had omitted. I note that Giano has also put his considerable writing talents into improving various related articles. General assertions of 'vendetta' and 'incivility' by those wishing to defend some of the poorer articles are unhelpful. Please provide real evidence of misconduct or avoid ad hominem arguments altogether. David Lauder, please refrain from generalised personal attacks - unless you are willing to name names and cite evidence. Dispute resolution is open to you. Coming here with innuendos and vague assertion, and not even bothering to name, let alone notify, those you feel are acting improperly is downright cowardly.--Doc^g 11:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• I can't say that I really have any considered opinion on the inherent notability of baronets or the lack thereof. But I do know that scrutiny and examination of these articles is warranted. I honestly don't fault Kittybrewster at all. There are a lot of very interesting and historically significant people in the Arbuthnot family, and he obviously cares deeply about his heritage and position in the British social order. These aren't bad things, although they are a conflict of interest. However, these articles need help. Most are stubs sourced primarily to private geneology resources and titles listings. Many are very stubby. Look at Sir Robert Arbuthnot, 4th Baronet. There is quoted text, attributed to the 4th Baronet, without citation. That's a problem. These articles have a lot of problems like that. Alexander Arbuthnot (paddle steamer)? I don't even know who this ship is named after; the attribution of the name is to an external link to www.kittybrewster.com. That's a problem. These articles have their share of problems like that, too. With the volume of material involved, the best course of action is probably to initially condense topics to pages like Arbuthnot Baronets and Viscount of Arbuthnott, and get the referencing right from the start. When appropriately cited content for individuals reaches the point where it can stand alone as an article, the redirects can be split back off into stand-alone pages. I wouldn't expect (but somehow fear...) that this would be objectionable to Kittybrewster or the other editors supporting him. The net result is pages that are consistently better-documented and more engaging than an endless series of stubby rote biographies. The encyclopedia wins. The Arbuthnot family wins. This sort of process won't be quick, of course, but for a family history dating back into the 1600s, surely the result would be worth the wait? Serpent's Choice 11:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That sounds like a very useful approach. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't mind doing some of the heavy lifting, but it may be a little while. Obviously, a lot of this is going to need references to dead tree material that I don't have immediately available. 17th-19th century British baronets are practically the embodiment of "stuff you shouldn't just Google and declare done." Serpent's Choice 13:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• What we are discussing here is the incivility, which speaks for itself; not Kittybrewster's edits. --Counter-revolutionary 11:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  Please stop obfuscating some glaring vanity issues with vague accusations of incivility. For some people it's a favourite club to beat their opponents. I don't expect seasoned wikipedians to buy into this. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  • It was my initial understanding, from a cursory reading of events, that this was about the articles. Or, rather, about the redirection of Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet. However, if you feel there have been civility issues that cannot be handled through polite discussion on article or user talk pages, then might I suggest the third party options in the dispute process. AN/I, on the other hand, is "not part of our Dispute Resolution process" and this does not appear to relate to "misuse of administrative powers." As an editorial aside, presenting diffs that indicate behavior of concern will be more persuasive than broad, uncited allegations of Irish republican bias. Serpent's Choice 11:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• I just realised - half of un in this dispute are supposed to be part of the Wikipedia hivemind. Ironic, really. Guy (Help!) 11:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What does that mean? --Counter-revolutionary 18:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

............splosh! Giano 21:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

...I just wonder what "half of un" means?--Counter-revolutionary 22:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

All I have to say is that, as 95% author of John Arbuthnot and strong anti-kittybrewster's family album approach who has had his own acerbic comments on the value of writing about the illustrious progenitors (to wit: I want articles about my ancestors to be fair not glorious, and that's why I would never rely upon family memoirs for such a thing and why I would vastly prefer never, ever to write one), and as a person who believes that writing about one's own family is a breaking of WP:AUTO, that it is not a step up from school children writing about their friends and their gaming clans, is that I'm very disappointed that I'm not one of the people David Louder considers villainous. Geogre 22:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Rogue admin blocks me for 2RR

Resolved

 – To quote WP:3RR: "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period." Please read the policy before reporting that someone else has violated it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This admin is already involved in a ArbCom case and was recently desysopped.

He blocked me:

• without warning
• for 2RR in this article
• with fake charges in log
• only without blocking other parties
• while the discussion was ongoing

Is he ignorant of Wikipedia policies? Or does he own the article? I suspect him to be a teenage fundamentalist.

What action would be taken, if any? Anwar 14:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing. Edit warring is bad. 3RR isn't a licence to make 3 edits in 24 hours, stop, and start the next day. 1 or 2 disruptive reverts will see you blocked, not just 3. Do you want to be treated like a child and given a little wrap over the knuckles everytime you make 2 reverts, or do we treat you like mature, experienced editor who knows they're edit warring ? Nick 14:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Nick. What is disturbing is that it appears there are multiple editors there reverting between 2 POV versions, using weasel words and tagging their summaries "rvv". Sorry kids, but vacillating between POV versions is not reverting vandals.--Isotope23 14:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A few corrections - (a) I was "recently desysopped" based on my own request and re-sysopped on my own request. (b) I'm not a teenager, nor a fundamentalist and (c) the only reason I didn't block the other edit-warring parties is because they are party to the ArbCom case as I am.

And Anwar, spare us the shit, ok? One look at your block log should tell anybody about the nature of your activities and of what you don't need to be warned about. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 16:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Also note that Anwar was adding a POV that was previously discussed and disapproved on the article's talk page. In spite of his repeated reverting, editors were removing his addition with polite comments to discuss it on the talk page. There is a civil discussion going on there now, Talk:Hinduism, while the article is protected from further edit warring. This dispute was handled just as it should have been. ॐ Priyanath talk 16:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As action to be taken, I would recommend that if Anwar calls people "teenage fundamentalists" again, he should be blocked for personal attacks. >Radiant< 16:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

We do block people for tendious editing and we do indeed block people who can't learn from past lessons (i.e personal attacks). Please behave. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What is a tendious edit? Bus stop 17:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A wikt:tendentious edit is one that wastes a lot of time for no good reason. Moreschi ^Talk 17:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Or, more locally: Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing. Many moons ago, I remember that essay being cited as a reason for a block. Wasn't technically a problem, of course, since the essay pretty much just sums up how to abide by civility and 3RR anyways. Bladestorm 17:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That still doesn't answer Bus stop's "tendious" question  :) --Isotope23 17:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

tendious edits - Two edits less than a dozen that are really boring. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

(good one, CBW) Tvoz |talk 17:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if Bus stop knows that i meant tendentious ;) The bottom line is summarized by Moreschi and more precisely by CambridgeBayWeather. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see the relevant archived ANI report. I started the discussion at Talk:Hinduism#idolatry.3F, after Dmcdevit (talk · contribs) and Askari Mark (talk · contribs) questioned my reverts. I willingly question Anwar's motives, esp. after he vandalized my userpage. Discussion was ongoing? That's rich. Anwar never took the opportunity to discuss, further suggesting this was an ideological endeavor bent on turning wikipedia into a soapbox for anti-Hindu rhetoric.Bakaman 01:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Vote fraud at Talk:Dokdo

Lions3639 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) appears to have engaged in massive vote fraud at an WP:RM poll, now archived at Talk:Dokdo/Archive 10#Requested Move May 2007. He did this in 2 ways: as follows:

1. Lions3639 appears to have written a newspaper article about this poll in The Chosun Ilbo, a major Korean newspaper. This resulted in over 50 WP:SPA's disrupting the poll. This is the article in question (in Korean) written by "lions3639@chosun.com", which is his identical User ID.
2. Lions3639 has engaged in sockpuppetry of his own, as confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lions3639.

Can somebody please go ahead and block these socks? (FYI: Davidpdx has the most edits).

If there's any Checkuser reading this, can you do a more comprehensive RFCU on the poll participants? The RFCU done was only a partial check, and I suspect there are more sockpuppets among the voters.

Also, as the outcome was clearly affected, please re-evaluate the closing of this poll, now archived at Talk:Dokdo/Archive 10#Requested Move May 2007? The closing admin, Husond, has already promised to review this case again.--Endroit 15:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Husond has just reviewed and overturned the RM decision. Thank you Husond! We're still waiting for someone to review the RFCU results and block the sockpuppets.--Endroit 16:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The RFCU Case has been overturned as well by Voice of All. With this, I'd like this case to be closed.--Endroit 05:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Image on La Toya Jackson

I have placed a free-license image on the La Toya Jackson article and administrators continue to remove it without any justification. please investigate. [36] Rhythmnation2004 17:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Are you referring to Image:Latoyatile.jpg? How is that encyclopedic? It does not identify the person at all. --Iamunknown 17:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Um... is it possible that they removed the image because it doesn't, in any way shape or form, resemble her? I mean, even slightly? If an image doesn't illustrate the subject of an article, how can it have any use there? Free or not, an image that doesn't improve the article really doesn't belong there. What's more, that's really a content issue. What do you expect the admins to do? Block someone for taking out a squiggly blob? Bladestorm 17:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you people for being the voices of reason here :) I've posted similar comments to the talk page of the article which is probably the best place to discuss this since it's a content dispute and no admin action is required. Metros 17:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It is La Toya Jackson. I made the tile myself based on the cover of her No Relations album. Rhythmnation2004 17:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

em.. what? as a piece of photoshop art it could be interesting to someone but as a photo to identify a figure? nope. --Fredrick day 17:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubt that you made it yourself, and that the subject of the image is La Toya Jackson. It still doesn't add anything to the article, and I have removed it again. --OnoremDil 17:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• You derived it from Image:A no-relations.jpeg? If so, it is a derivative work of a non-free image and cannot be freely licensed. --Iamunknown 17:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Saying that it adds nothing is both your opinion and insulting to me. Since there is currently no image, ANY image is better than none. Therefore, the image should stay.

TO ALL ADMINS: if this image is removed, please delete my account from Wikipedia as I am tired of being bullied by opinionated and prejudiced administrators. It is quite obvious that regardless of my extensive contributions to Wikipedia, my presence is not wanted. Rhythmnation2004 17:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• How have you made the conclusion that your presence is not wanted? The only thing that is not wanted is that image, is has nothing to do with your presence. --Iamunknown 17:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe that Rhytmnation2004 has a belief that there is a crusade against him and his edits. See specifically this discussion regarding an image that we deleted that he felt should stay Image talk:LaToyaJackson.jpg. Metros 17:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • See also Let's Rock the House where the user insisted on adding information about a supposed re-release of the single. Who was the owner of the "record label" who was re-releasing the single? You can probably guess. Metros 17:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Then please explain why for the last several weeks, every edit I have made has been challened or reverted by unruly administrators. Particularly Metros, who should be stripped of his adminship for harassing a user, along with User:Coelacan. Both of them have tracked my edits and complained about most of them. Succeeded in having an image deleted regardless of the fact that a legitimate and valid fair use rationale was provided per Wikipedia's requirements on writing fair use rationales for non-free licensed images and that it was extensively proven that the image was irreplaceable, and have basically made my experience on Wikipedia a living hell. Rhythmnation2004 17:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Rhythmnation, I'm sorry that the actions of others have been burdensome. I would like to point out, however, that though you may disagree with their actions and they with your edits, you and they are all acting in good faith to improve the encyclopedia. I hope that you will keep that in mind when interactions with other users become burdensome. Why not try to understand the issues from their point of view and then consider their suggestions? It might make your experience on Wikipedia more enjoyable. --Iamunknown 17:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's the admins who are out to get you - why are regular editors like me saying "that image should not be used?" and why did you come to AN/I if you were going to throw your toys out of the pram if people didn't agree with you? --Fredrick day 17:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Iamunknown, You seem to think that all of these admins are trying to help Wikipedia. it isn't. They're out to team up with eachother and terrorize the "peasant" users to the point where we will no longer contribute. And these admins have succeeded in their goals. This is why I want my account deleted.

Fredrick day, you don't agree with me. You said it isn't suitable to identify a figure, therefore you disagree. Rhythmnation2004 17:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• I do think that these admins are trying to help Wikipedia. And I continue to believe so. Accounts on Wikipedia cannot be deleted, but you do have a right to vanish; or you could simply abandon your account. I, however, hope that you do not. Try believing that the admins are acting in good faith, then try to understand their concerns. I know copyright- and image-related issues can be confusing, so maybe do some reading at Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Non-free content. Hope this helps. --Iamunknown 17:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I did read those policies, and followed the EXACT PROCEDURES to ensure that any removal of File:LaToyaJackson.jpg was unjustifiable. Of course, these terrible admins found their ways around it pretty quick. They shove their own personal beliefs onto Wikipedia instead of remaining neutral as they should. Because THEY don't like La Toya Jackson, they have to make her article boring by removing all pictures. That's TYPICAL of most admins! I do plan on abandoning my account. I wish there was a way to take back ever edit I made too, because I would. It would of course, ruin all the La Toya Jackson articles since I created EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM (one for every album, single, the book, the discography, etc.) and received not so much as a pat on the back. Rhythmnation2004 17:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What specifically did you do to attempt to obtain a free image besides trying to contact her management? --OnoremDil 17:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

there is no polite way to put this - the main reason your image should not be used is that it's crap - it looks like some vaguely humanoid figure that has some form of facial disfigurement and has a third eye in the centre of their forehead. I'm sorry if that sound uncivil but we seem to dancing around the key issue why that image should not be used - the removal of it on those grounds is entirely justifiable. --Fredrick day 17:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Third eye? I was thinking it was a bullet hole... Metros 18:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

So the fact that five different admins agreed that it was replacable at the discussion page and then 5 more users (1 non-admin and 4 admins) agreed at the deletion review means nothing? We're just all out to get you in some mass conspiracy I guess? Then with this image, there are about 7 people that I can see who disagree with you and several of them are not administrators. Do you think I secretly controlled all of these other users to post here? Metros 18:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

To Onerem: What else can I do besides contact her management? Stalk her to try and get a photograph I suppose? To Fredrick day: Those comments are insulting and had it been me who had left a similar comment on your talk page, I would have been reprimanded by administration. To Metros: What I think is that all admins team up together regardless of how idiotic the topic is, and do everything they can to chase away contributers. This is exactly what you have done to me. Rhythmnation2004 18:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I would not suggest stalking her. An image is not needed that badly for the article. On the previous deletion discussion, the suggestion was made several times that you try to contact a Flickr user who had images. Each time you replied something along the lines of, "I already tried to contact her management." Pictures are out there. It was potentially replaceable. You decided not to put forth the effort, and apparently nobody else thought it was that important. That doesn't make the deletion of the image unjustified. --OnoremDil 18:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Onorem, an image is not an absolute necessity here and potentially a free image of the individual exists somewhere out there. That said, it isn't really necessary to attack Rhythmnation2004's artistic ability. Suffice to say that the image doesn't really illustrate the person in question and leave it at that.--Isotope23 18:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now speedily deleted File:Latoyatile.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) per WP:CSD#G12. Sometimes a {{db}} tag is all that is needed. Sandstein 18:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

User:68.39.34.44 promises to have me blocked

This user has promised to have an admin block (or "delete") me if I ever post another warning message on their talk page. (diff) There was a misunderstanding here, but this user seems bent on making a big deal out of it. Look at the history of their talk page (they've deleted it twice) and you'll see they've been warned for incivility before. Thoughts?--Sable232 17:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Let someone else warn them in future. Neil (►) 17:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Sysops don't block without good reason. x42bn6 Talk Mess 17:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not worried about that, it's just that I want to let an outside party look at it before something gets out of hand. --Sable232 02:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've followed through what happened here and left a polite message on their talk page - Alison ☺ 19:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation RequestRegina Neighbourhoods

I have made a proposal for compromise over disputed text for this article, please see Talk: Regina Neighbourhoods. However, 3 users have dismissed the compromise and I do not want to start an edit war, as this ends up with me being blocked. Could someone , please, visit , mediate and comment. Thanks in advance.--207.81.56.49 18:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Once again, as above: This is the administrators' noticeboard. Wikipedia:Requests for comment is along the corridor, fifth door on the left. Uncle G 19:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Bad RfA

Resolved

 – Whee. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

RyanRocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is trying to nominate a blocked user (joke? sockpuppet?) (RfA Page). I wasn't sure if I should've posted this in (WP:BN), but AN/I seemed suitable. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 20:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Page deleted, and RyanRocks blocked as a sock of the indefblocked user he was trying to nominate. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Another half dozen socks fell out the washing machine too. Nick 21:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Block User:Jugamagaraga

Resolved

 – Sock was blocked.

It seems very obvious that this user is a sockpuppet of the banned user User:Danny Daniel. See the edits made by this user on Secret Squirrel. He/she provides two links to deleted hoaxes created by previous Danny Daniel socks. Also see User:Squirepants101/Danny Daniel. Pants^(T) 21:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, this sockpuppet was created less than ten minutes ago. Pants^(T) 21:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Taken to WP:AIV. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 21:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Request to semi-protect John Barrymore

Resolved

There's an IP vandal who continually links appendicitis to abortion, changes the date of Barrymore's birth, adds nonsense links, and removes the "see also" tag pointing to John Barrymore Jr. at the top. Could an admin please semi-protect the page? It's been going on for a long time, and now it's at four or five reverts today. --David Shankbone 21:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You're looking for Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, but it doesn't look that bad so it probably won't get protected. -- John Reaves (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Belazzur

Can someone investigate Belazzur (talk · contribs) for me please?? - his contributions appear to be a bit worrying - he's done cut-and-paste moves, and inappropriately used {{article probation}} as well. Thanks, --SunStar Net ^talk 22:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Well, he's come in on a couple of open proxies, which I've blocked. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Rv talk:Liancourt Rocks

User:Philip Baird Shearer is reverting my edits - data analysis (personal & statistical) on Dokdo supporters, whom the opposing parties have accused of meat puppetry based on an outside Korean portal that encouraged their fellow netizens to participate in the new move from Dokdo to Liancourt Rocks. Especially when all voters that were deemed as invalid were categorized as invalid voters, I see this accusation as groundless & especially racist as it is aimed at a nationality, not an individual. Therefore, at the closing admin User:Husond's recommendation, ("I doubt that the article will be moved back, but feel free to present information about meat/sockpuppeting on the Liancourt Rocks side.") I proceeded to gather both personal and statistical data analysis on the Dokdo supporters to disprove the accusation of organized meat puppetry. However User:Philip Baird Shearer reverted them, threatening and thus declaring revert war, "If you copy large chunks of the old debate onto the current talk page I will delete it again." I decided not to escalate the sitaution into 3RR's but decided to come to you fellow admins for help. (Wikimachine 00:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

I'm sorry I don't understand the "racist" accusation? By the way, I didn't realize you were an admin, are you? —LactoseTI^T 00:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not. Is this only for admins? (Wikimachine 00:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

No, it isn't, it's for anyone to post something related to an incident, for admins to see and respond to. Admins and non-admins are welcome to open incidents. Georgewilliamherbert 00:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I just wondered, too, when you said you decided to "come to you fellow admins." --Cheers, Komdori 01:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack

Darylxu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just made this rather offensive attack on another editor. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Indefblocked. Nothing but vanity pages / vandalism and now particularly nasty personal attacks. - Alison ☺ 00:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The Times (band)

Can some admin please move Times, The back to The Times (band) - User:Edwardball has moved it with the comment "easier to find". If you have suspicious minds, you might also want to take a close look at User:Edwardball, User:Emily Boythorn and User:Poppy Lydon, which were all registered simultaneously and have been carrying out tag-team editing on Ed Ball (musician) and the two bands Ball played in, The Times and O' Level (and nothing else). Obviously I always WP:AGF so won't use the "S" word. Yet. — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Done. Note: no talk page :/ - Alison ☺ 00:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oops! (hangs head in shame) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Tchoukball

Resolved

 – Rollback by Titoxd

May I please request a rollback on Tchoukball? I'll start by hand, but I doubt I'll finish in time. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 00:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It had to be done by hand... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Disrupting editing and personal attacks by Rert2

Rert2 is a single purpose account (See: contributions) he disrupts any discussions at the Talk:Audio_mastering by attacking me personally. He continues to place an external link to an Amazon.com book, written by a mastering engineer on the subject of mastering. (See: [37][38][39][40] disregarding the fact that there is a template at the talk page that urges all editors to discuss any proposed external links or additions to the present article. In the past, such type of links have been dismissed as inappropriate, per WP Links normally to be avoided. First of all, his personal attacks have been unwarranted (See: [41][42][43] Here, he claims that I call myself a "spammer" [44][45] [46] and he had been warned 4 times to stop (See: [47][48][49][50]) In addition, another user who goes under "VinylJoe" seems to be in connection or in agreement with rert2 and without further discussions. (See [contributions]. This raises the possibility that Rert2 maybe using sock puppetry to get a greater consensus for the inclusion of said inappropriate external link. I hope you can help stop this disrupting and bad faith user. Thank you. Jrod2 00:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

First, I have looked through all the links that you provided shows that disruptive editing by Rert2. but I think that he might have made numerous sockpuppets to disrupt the wikipedia. Daniel 5127 03:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user Martonte evading block as User:T-Kellz; has resumed vandalism

T-Kellz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Martonte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An editor who was blocked as the result of this ANI report appears to have created a new account, User:T-Kellz. The editing pattern of the user remains the same: he attempts to insert the name "Travis Kellman" (and variations)[51] into various articles on boy bands and rap groups, presumably with the aim of self-promotion, and to create hoax articles about himself (see also High School Musical Cast). In this diff he has again inserted the name "Travis Kellman" and accompanied it with a nickname, "Martonte," which is the username of his blocked account. --Rrburke^(talk) 02:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson

[moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#BJAODN Deleted] —Kurykh 03:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Just a note that I started this thread here first, but I won't object to going there. Corvus cornix 04:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Harassment

Man I have no idea what's going on. Over the past half hour I've been trying to make totally constructive eedits to pro wrestling articles and I'm being bombarded by nasty messages from various people. This is so crazy. They're accusing me of vandalism and stuff. Please someone be of assistance, this is insane. - Radarman1

Please block this self admitted JB196 sockpuppet, thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why everyone is calling you a banned JB196 sockpuppet. I truly can not find any reason. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup. He's gearing up for tommorrow when his favorite target articles are unprotected (Hopefully if he starts, they can be quickly reprotected) we have a RfCU in to block the open proxy undernetath. SirFozzie 04:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see he's finally blocked, been reverting his edits like crazy, hehe. well, I hope he don't come back Momusufan 04:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Xcv47x

User:Xcv47x is making questionable edits to celebrity and pop culture articles such as Kelly Clarkson, including inserting images of dubious copyright status (which he's uploading to Commons without a license statement, and seem to come from websites). *Dan T.* 04:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, he's also blanking his talk page to remove warnings. *Dan T.* 04:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cool Cat

Page has been deleted three times so far and recreated three times by User:Ned Scott.

User reverted the MfD closure by an admin and went ahead and recreated the page.

I find this to be disruptive.

-- Cat ^chi? 05:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The MFD was incorrectly closed, that is all. -- Ned Scott 05:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Doc glasgow's closure was based on a misunderstanding of policy. —David Levy 05:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If you've a problem with how the MfD was closed, please make a request for review at WP:DRV. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 05:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Why? Doesn't it make more sense to just keep it open, rather than opening a DRV, which will naturally result in "inappropriate early closure" and another MfD? What does that accomplish? —Centrx→talk • 05:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What misunderstanding was that? User pages can be speedied on demand. Put a note in the deletion log with the user's new name if it's that big of a deal. --BigDT 05:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:CSD#U1 points to Wikipedia:User page#How do I delete my user and user talk pages? for details on how to handle such situations. There it says "...If there has been no disruptive behavior meriting the retention of that personal information, then the sysop can delete the page straight away in order to eliminate general public distribution of the history containing the information. If the deletion occurs immediately, others may request undeletion if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page. In such a case, the page should be undeleted and listed on Miscellany for deletion for a period of five days following the deletion of the user page...." -- Ned Scott 05:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What "disruptive behavior" do you want to retain? It's a redirect. If it's that big of a deal to everyone, what about using protected titles? We can make User:White Cat/New identity, protect it, and transclude the old page. That way, it will be a redlink, but anyone going there will get a message telling them where to find his new identity. --BigDT 05:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

We could do that, but a redirect is much simpler—this is the purpose of redirects, and presumably for whatever unknown reason Cool Cat doesn't want a redirect, he wouldn't want the message. —Centrx→talk • 05:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ned Scott has overridden the deletion of the page by 4 admins (2 speedy 2 MfD close) so far. -- Cat ^chi? 05:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It does not make sense to include days-old actions prior to the MfD that were already disposed. —Centrx→talk • 05:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is very relevant. It shows the fascination of Ned Scott with my former userpage I want to get deleted. -- Cat ^chi? 07:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to break it to you, Cat, but I've done nothing wrong. -- Ned Scott 05:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ned Scott, I count 4 reverts on the user page itself and 3 on the MFD. I strongly suggest you not revert either again. --BigDT 05:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I am probably one of the least "process wonky" people you'll see on Wikipedia, and I can understand the desire to be bold, however I do think that we should extend respect to our colleagues by not arbitrarily reverting *fD decisions simply because we don't like the outcome. Mr. Scott has been edit warring on this matter and is close to violating our three-revert policy, and while I tried to re-instate the original decision, I don't feel as though my further participation in this matter will help resolve things. Cheers all gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 05:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I really feel he has already violated 3rr by repetitively restoring the page 3 times and also revert waring over the speedy deletion tag. -- Cat ^chi? 07:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I generally don't condone unilateral reversals of other sysops' closures, but it's difficult to fault Ned for undoing one that was based entirely on a verifiably incorrect premise. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. —David Levy 05:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to hear why it was an incorrect premise. Unless that redirect somehow is evidence of bad behavior, I don't see any reason in policy to deny the request. --BigDT 05:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Except the part where other editors might express a reason to keep the redirect? I did just quote that to you.. Even without that, we have lots of bad behavior if you think that is the only reason for keeping the redirect. -- Ned Scott 05:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You appear to have misread the quoted text, BigDT. A history of disruptive behavior is a reason for the speedy deletion request to be denied. If it's fulfilled, "others may request undeletion if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page. In such a case, the page should be undeleted and listed on Miscellany for deletion for a period of five days following the deletion of the user page." (emphasis mine)

I don't, however, know what gave you the idea that Cool Cat has no history of bad behavior. Perhaps you were misled by the fact that his block log wasn't transferred to his new username (another reason why it's important to inform users of the connection). —David Levy 06:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If I am a disruptive user, I should be blocked indefinitely. I request that I be blocked indefinitely if I am a threat to wikipedia. Take it to arbcom or community sanctionboard.

That policy was intended for pages with {{Sockpuppet}} and etc on them. My block log is available with or without the redirect on my userpage which I provide as a courtesy and I am neither expected or required to do so. The redirect neither generates a link to my block log nor is it in any way informative. The speedy deletion request was granted but was overturned by Ned Scott contradicting two administrators via "recreating" the page and two other administrators by reverting the MfD 3 times and recreating the page once.

-- Cat ^chi? 07:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted you twice, and you've reverted me twice. -- Ned Scott 05:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You have reverted 4 admin actions so far by recreating the deleted page three times. You also revert warred on the speedy deletion template. In a 24 hour period how many times have you restored the redirect? -- Cat ^chi? 07:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Once this is over I'm certain this will warrant an inclusion on a certain BJAODN page *sigh* CharonX/talk 13:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson & User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Finally I am able to keep my userpage from being edited AND keep it a red link, too. Thank you, cascading protection! Delete per User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson and User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Finally I am able to keep my userpage from being edited AND keep it a red link, too. Thank you, cascading protection!. Wikiewok 13:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Doc glasgow And User:Doc glasgow. Will you pursue him as well, Ned? Wikiewok 13:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you bother to read the MfD debate, or did you simply insert your comments (similar to the above)?

Those are the editors' current usernames. Anyone who sees such a red link is fully capable of identifying the individual in question, viewing his contribution history, and contacting him with any concerns.

User:Cool Cat was not a user page, and no one has argued that Cool/White Cat is required to have one. It could be a redirect to his talk page or contribution history, or it could be a page explaining the name change. The point is that Cool/White Cat has provided no rationale (apart from "I want so") why some sort of connecting page shouldn't exist at that title. He's acknowledged that this inconveniences others and plainly stated that he doesn't care because it isn't his problem. —David Levy 18:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have speedy-deleted User:Cool Cat and closed the MfD. This has become a ridiculous and disruptive waste of time. Newyorkbrad 14:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, ironically, if ever the intent was to hide the connection between the old and the new username, that effort has now massively backfired. >Radiant< 16:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Support Brad's actions. -- nae'blis 17:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested to read your explanation of how an MfD debate conducted in precise accordance with the user page guideline was "ridiculous and disruptive." Personally, that's how I would describe the two out-of-process closures. —David Levy 18:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, that was not the intention. There is a very easy way to clear all my block logs and past history as people might already know. It is as easy as 4 mouse clicks and few keyboard buttons. To clear all block log/user history: first click on "sign out" (1) link, then click on "sign in/register" (2) link, then click "register username" (3) link. On the new menu type in your new identity and password. Then click "submit" (4) button. I feel the paranoia is unnecessary.

Users are neither expected nor required to provide any information on their past accounts or past blocks on their userpages. All that is available in the form of logs. Users should however be encouraged to provide such courtesy to create an environment of transparency. It's completely optional.

Unless you are willing to take it to the arbitration committee or any other form of dispute resolution do not complain about my past contribution as a pretense of your argument. I am not a criminal requiring special tagging. Do not treat me like one.

I am more than open about my history, more than anybody else if I may boldly claim. How many of the users have a link to the blocks they received on their userpage?

Many of the contributors in this very history has a block log although none have links on their userpage (I haven't actualy checked everybody). User:David Levy, your block log indicates you had been blocked twice. You were once blocked for 24hrs for trolling on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Werdna 2 (although later pardoned as it was a "Totally unjustified block" (according to the block log)) and secondly you were blocked indefinitely for what I believe is the deletion of the main page (the log isn't perfectly clear). Your account was probably among the admin accounts compromised which you have recovered from (since you were unblocked). All this is "artificial/nominal controversy" irrelevant to your worth as an editor to the project. You (David Levy) are far too valuable to the project to be dismissed just over your block log. I'd like to point out that the logs are available for public view even if you do not put them on your userpage. I'd like to make it clear that this wasn't intended to be an attack to you, just a mean to self expression. I am sure practically everyone in this discussion had made at least one mistake or several others in the past some even leading to blocks.

-- Cat ^chi? 19:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I happen to be in disagreement with David Levy at the moment about the inane MfD under discussion here, but neither of the blocks in his block log had any substance. The first was reversed by general consensus almost instantaneously (and led in part to the blocking admin resigning his adminship), and the second was borne of confusion and also had nothing to do with David having done anything wrong. Let's not bring that up again, okay? Newyorkbrad 19:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the second block was performed by the hijacker of a sysop account (as part of a rampage) in response to my undeletion of the main page. (My account was not compromised.)

Thank you, Brad, for noting the irrelevance of these blocks.  :-) —David Levy 19:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright. I did try to say the same thing. -- Cat ^chi? 22:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted brad's closure of the MFD. Brad and Doc might have their own views about this, but that's what the MFD itself is for. Policy does not back up a speedy closure/delete, and in fact says the opposite. It is completely inappropriate for these admins to have closed the MFD and deleted the redirect. -- Ned Scott 22:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Get some perspective. Trebor 22:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

And now User:BigDT has re-closed it and protected the MFD page. How the fuck is this acceptable? -- Ned Scott

Because it's an unimportant no-brainer. Take it to DRV if you want to prove a point, or else take a step back and think about what you're arguing over. Trebor 22:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

How is reverting 5 admins closing a deletion discussion acceptable Ned Scott? This kind of persistence is unheard of... Ned Scott please be civil. -- Cat ^chi? 22:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't close the MFD. I reverted your un-closing of it. There is a message at the top of that page in big red letters asking you not to modify it. When that message is ignored repeatedly, protection is used to enforce the closing. This isn't anything novel. You may want to read Wikipedia:Don't edit war over the colour of templates. If the guy wants his user page deleted, who gives a frick? I'm the fifth admin to delete the page and you're the only person to re-create it ... take the hint and move on with life. --BigDT 22:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I should take the hint and allow myself to be bullied off the issue? If five vandals vandalized an article, and I was the only one to restore it, should I take a hint then? Get off your high horse, because you are not in a position to force such a discussion closed. -- Ned Scott 22:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Or ... take the hint and stop recreating the page. The appropriate way to contest a deletion is at WP:DRV, not by recreating the page or reopening the deletion discussion. --BigDT 22:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As two other admins have also pointed out, taking it to DRV just wastes time and causes more disruption. If we see something was done wrong, we can simply FIX IT and move on. But no, you think it's better that we make a bigger deal out of this and waste more of our time. Thanks, BigDT, you really helped. -- Ned Scott 23:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

How can you be bullied Ned Scott? It is my userpage. You are the one revert waring 5 admins + me. How is this NOT disruptive? -- Cat ^chi? 23:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Slow news day, I see. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • ROFL. Thanks, I needed that. ;) --BigDT 23:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• It's now on DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 30#User:Cool Cat -- Ned Scott 05:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  So... who's going to add this to WP:LAME? DrumCarton 11:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  I nominate/volunteer you for the job. :) -- Cat ^chi? 12:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Rash of reverts in Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka

After a controversial AFD closure a number editors including an admin are indulging in reverting and counter reverting without a single intent to discuss these changes without ever reaching consensus. Please look into it. Thanks Taprobanus 12:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Issues related to Srilanka and Tamil have to be sorted out once and for all via the dispute resolution process. Many admins tried to help but in vain. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to say that WP:RS is pretty clear on this one. Since when was Tamilnet not a partisan source and a random tripod site, random videos posted on google, info from websites of openly activist organisations acceptable. Blnguyen (cranky admin anniversary) 03:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I was being bold and simply removing sources which are clearly not RS, and I noted this as such in my edit summary. The problem is some singletopic people on either side of the fence randomly adding whatever suits them. Blnguyen (cranky admin anniversary) 03:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There another thread below discussing this as well. I'd suggest discussions to be held at one place. So i'll be commenting below. Thanks Blnguyen. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Matthew (talk · contribs) edit warring

Matthew has repeatedly changed the {{Memoryalpha}} {{Memory Alpha}} {{HarryPotterWiki}} and {{hpw}} templates citing WP:CONSENSUS for doing so. This has resulted in 6 or so edits to the Memory Alpha templates over the past 72 hours, sufficiently spaced out to avoid any blatant 3RR blocks. When asked where a discussion took place regarding the Memory Alpha templates and where consensus could be found, Matthew responded on my talk page with the reason "Silence equals consent". It's quite clear that there is not silence, nor a consensus for the changes Matthew has made.

Something needs to be done regarding Matthew's behaviour here and I'm open to suggestions on whether a strong reprimand would the preferred option, or whether there is a need for a block and perhaps further editing sanctions. Nick 19:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

To set things straight: I'm enforcing policy > Phil's POV pushing. I intend to file an arbitration case in due course, principally due to the misuse of administrative abilities. Matthew 19:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You've accused Phil of POV pushing, you've also accused me of conflict of interest. I assume you can substantiate both of these - David Gerard 19:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What POV am I pushing, exactly? Also, which administrative abilities have I misused? Phil Sandifer 20:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted, Matthew first nominated Template:FreeContentMeta for deletion. When this was obviously failing to generate consensus, he nominated Template:HarryPotterWiki, a child template of the first. When this started going badly he decided to just bugger the failure to get support on TfD and revert away. It is... an unfortunate style of edit war. Phil Sandifer 20:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that an arbitration case would be both unwise and ridiculously premature. This looks like a completely ordinary edit war to me. Crotalus horridus 20:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A rather ill-advised one, don't you think? --Tony Sidaway 20:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't any edit war. bit of a pointless argument if you ask me.. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's just stop the edit warring, and see what comes out of the discussion about these prettified external links/ads for free-content wiki's. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Just popping this down for the record. This is a case of, as far as I can tell, a single edit warrior warring up to what he considers the limit of his "entitlement" to edit war against multiple opposition [52] [53] [54], then waiting a couple of days and starting again [55] (note disingenuous edit summary) ignoring warning messages about disruption [56] and continuing [57] .

In addition it seems that Matthew engaged in a brief but very broad edit war with User:TTN on the following articles:

• The Shadow Duelist, Part 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Boss Luffy Returns! A Dream or Reality Lottery Trouble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• A Man's Promise, Luffy and the Whale Vow to Meet Again (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Shadow Duelist, Part 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Completely Infuriated! Kuro vs. Luffy, Final Battle! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• An Unexpected Guest! Sanji's Food and Gin's Grace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Battle! The Black Cat Pirate Crew, Battle on the Slope! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Desperate Situation! Beast Tamer Mohji vs. Luffy! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of The A-Team episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Honorable Liar? Captain Usopp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Even if I Die, I Won't Kick You! Sanji's Manly Chivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Fukurou's Miscalculation - My Cola is the Water of Life! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Grand Duel! Zoro the Swordsman vs. Cabaji the Acrobat! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Famous Cook! Sanji of the Floating Restaurant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Fear, Mysterious Power! Pirate Clown Captain Buggy! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Detective Memoirs of Chief Straw Hat Luffy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The First Obstacle? Giant Whale Laboon Appears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Blueprints Aren't Passed! Franky's Decision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Criminal is Boss Luffy? Chase the Vanished Great Sakura Tree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Luffy's Revival! Kaya's Life and Death Confrontation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Revealing The Conspiracy! The Pirate Caretaker, Captain Kuro! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Retrieve the 5 Keys! The Straw Hat Crew vs CP9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Protect Kaya! Usopp Pirate Gang Takes Action! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Power of the Devil Fruit! Kaku and Jyabura Transform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• I'm Luffy! The Man Who Will Become Pirate King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Morgan vs. Luffy! Who is This Beautiful Young Girl? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Luffy's Past! The Red-Haired Shanks Appears! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bubble User Kalifa! Nami Draws Near to the Soap's Trap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Zoro's New Technique Explodes! The Katana's Name is Sogeking? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• You are a Special Animal! Gaimon and his Wonderful Friends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Who Will Win? Showdown Between the True Powers of the Devil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Coupled with singular unwillingness to engage in meaningful discussion, this is problem behavior. --Tony Sidaway 21:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As well as the article Juice Plus. I agree with Tony. T_{Talk to me} 21:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As unpolitical the behaviour of Matthew is, when it comes to the reverting of the redirecting of the external link templates to the interwiki boxes, Matthew was right. There was no proper consensus on the replacement of this link template with the linkbox. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It the behavior which is the problem. There are more sensible ways of disputing bold actions than massive reverts. --Tony Sidaway 23:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Twist

This case needs some further review. Yes matthew TfD'ed {{FreeContentMeta}}. He did this at 18:15, May 26, 2007 [58]. He had every right to dispute this new style of external link. However it was considered to be WP:POINT behaviour because of the relative small edit war here: [59]. However that was not to say that the TfD was totally out of line. There was a little bit of discussion for less than one day [60], which was going nowhere, because the same people of the previous edit war were involved.

From here on, I'm sticking to the Memoryalpha case, but almost the same applies to the HP case... Until recently all pages used {{Memoryalpha}} in this revision: [61] On May 27, 2007 00:57 User:Phil Sandifer created a new version of this external link template [62]. On 16:24, May 27, 2007, Phil redirected the textual version of the templated to the "pimped out" version of the template. [63]. This is where Matthew protested against and he reverted. He did not like this "pimped out" style and did not see why it became necessary all of a sudden to force this upon everyone. A lot of reverts were the result and that was some bad judgement of several people. Matthew had every right to question wether this was at all needed, although not trough an editwar.

Phil then on the 28th requested [64] User:^demon to run his bot to replace all occurences of the old {{Memoryalpha}} to the newly styled {{Memory Alpha}} This bot started running at 01:37, May 28, 2007 [65] and made most of the replacements. This has made this entire TfD of FreeContentMeta explode of course. Now this new style was being forced upon people, while the TfD of the "parent"-template wasn't even finished, and also made this whole thing terribly hard to revert.

To summarize:

1. Matthew behaved bad for edit warring
2. Phil behaved bad for pushing his pretty boxes out there, while some people were objecting to it, and he didn't give a lot of warning to other users.. He could have easily waited with his MA changes to see the result of the TfD. Why the hell couldn't the two templates have co-existed for a while ?
3. David took Phil's side without looking further then to revert Matthew and not considering the fact that others might object to this as well.

Personnally i'd like to see the textual version back on all the pages. If people want a pretty box they can add it to each and every article they want, but this is not something you should force upon every article by redirecting the old version and having a bot rename all the old inclusions to the new inclusions. Yes Matthew was out of line, but it wasn't a baseless issue as some are trying to argue. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I also took Phil's side. He did not make these changes without support. To state that Phil was wrong to edit the wiki is simply incorrect. He handled it very well. --Tony Sidaway 00:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are also involved yes. And i do think he was wrong. These were a lot of inclusions, and the edits have been of such a type that it was made difficult to revert and didn't leave people much choice as to what kind of link they want. At least not for the ordinary uninitiated editor. This was a major change to these external link templates and it could have been dealt with a lot better. There is BOLD, and there is pushing your box trough peoples throat without telling them. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

To clarify a tad more. Any call upon WP:BOLD is limited by scope and the ease with which bold changes can be reverted. Trough the forced redirects and template transclusion replacement this BOLD box became an action that surpassed the limits of WP:BOLD. If this needs to be reverted, then we need to do merges of edit histories or other stupid stuff to keep this proper.--TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. It's easy to fix. You just have to undo the redirect and change the template to include its own bullet point and you should be back to normal. Phil Sandifer 00:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This badly misrepresents what happened. First of all, I asked on several pages about converting the Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia templates to the box versions. There were no objections, and so I acted, which was reasonable and in line with WP:BOLD. The bot was not used to change templates - that would be silly, since the templates were at that point equivalent. The bot was used to clean up a relic of the old version of the template - a stray bullet point that appeared in the external links section with no item after it. I removed this only after being asked by people to. Other than that, there was no objection on the talk page of the Memory Alpha templates or on the Star Trek WikiProject for my changes. The only objections came from Matthew, who did not even bother until today to come to the talk pages of the templates and then only contributed two comments before going off to run an unapproved bot. Phil Sandifer 00:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It might misrepresent your intentions, but for most of the editors of the pages this will be how it is perceived. It's cool that you asked and that no one responded. Fact is that just not that many people actively follow most of those talk pages (believe me i know). I'm quite sure that most people only became aware after you started your changes, and many people still won't have noticed (well perhaps after the rename of the template, because that triggers a lot of watchlists). However badly Matthew handled it, he had an actual concern and was the first to respond in any way whatsoever. I'm just saying that regardless of Matthew, the case could have been handled better. For instance by simply having both versions of the template co-exist for a while. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

And by putting the original template up for TfD. That's usually also a great way to get some actual people involved in these cases. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

So I posted on the talk pages of the templates and the relevant WikiProjects, got no opposition, went through with the change, got requests for some clean-up but still no opposition, and somehow I'm the bad guy anyway? Phil Sandifer 00:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't take the "bad" comment too seriously. It was ironic mostly. But I do think that you excercised haste during your WP:BOLD action, and that's when haste should be avoided more then anything. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed a solution to deal with this edit conflict here: User talk:Phil Sandifer#Proposed_solution_to_Memory_Alpha --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request by Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey has posted a request that he be unblocked. Please see User talk:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. I am referring the request here for discussion and consensus. All good-faith contributors are welcome to present an opinion here; any trolling or SPA accounts interfering with the discussion will be blocked. Newyorkbrad 19:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I would support an unblocking. He'll be being closely watched anyway and is clearly interested in editing the Cherokee and connected articles, in which he unquestionably has expertise, and states he doesnt want to get involved in wikipedia: type pages, SqueakBox 19:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you actually read what he wrote? All that about Citizendium and Conservapedia? This is editing Merkey-style: do what I say or your rivals get the cash instead. This cannot be permitted. Quite apart from all the stuff about trolls, which he seems to define rather loosely. Moreschi ^Talk 19:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

He has actually said the cash isnt available any more and our rivals are irrelevant, SqueakBox 19:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No. He does not recognise that he has done anything wrong, quite apart from the rest of the message, which can be briefly summarised as "Let me do whatever I want or you lose out on the money". We can't allow this. It's patent intimidation. Moreschi ^Talk 19:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Concur. It's just a varient of a legal threat, and you turn your noses up a them as well. HalfShadow 19:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Also concur. I've been off the wiki for a bit so I'm still not sure I have a clue as to what the hell is going on, but there's nothing in that unblock request. There's a threat and some complaining, but not really anything pertaining to the block or why he should be unblocked. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw no relevant information in his unblock request. (Hint: relevant information would involve him recognizing where he went wrong and saying he won't do it again.) Friday (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, he continues to argue that the Golden Rule is not "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", but "He who has the Gold, Rules". While that probably works elsewhere, it fails miserably when applied to a community based site like WP. He is still angling for special, preferential treatment based on him being a "major donor". Until that changes, there is nothing to discuss SirFozzie 19:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should be debating why exactly he should be blocked not why he should be unbl;ocked, SqueakBox 20:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought that was pretty much settled, Squeak. For disruption, breaches of CIVIL and AGF. SirFozzie 20:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

To me, it appears as though he's being a dick. HalfShadow 20:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say no at this time. If Jeff had left his point 1 off, I might be more inclined to agree to an unblock, but as Moreschi succinctly summarized, this would appear to me to be a a thinly veiled attempt by Merkey to buy his way back in and I don't necessarily see a reason to condone that sort of attitude. If he had honestly restricted himself to Cherokee related articles on his return, this would be a different story (the only contact I've ever had with Merkey was well over a year ago on a Cherokee related article and it was not an unpleasant experience despite his reputation). Given his attempts to redefine Wikipedia policy I don't see much value in having him edit right now. IMO, the Foundation can unblock him if they are so inclined. All that said, I don't think the continuation of a block right now should preclude him ever being unblocked. He's been the subject of a fair bit of trolling that appears to be intended to cause just this outcome (i.e. a Merkey block) and I'm not especially happy about the trolls being rewarded as it were.--Isotope23 20:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Per the clarification he gave on his talkpage, I'm striking my comment. If Jeff voluntarily stayed away from policy/guideline discussions and stuck to article/talkpage edits, I'd have no issue with him being unblocked.--Isotope23 00:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Concur with all those above. Merkey's answer to wanting to be treated as "a normal editor" is that he'll stop his donations. This shows that he doesn't yet understand that what he donates is completely unrelated to how he's treated. Whether he donates $10M or nothing, if he acts like "a normal editor" he'll be treated as one, and if he acts in ways that require a ban, he'll be banned (and has been). The money is completely unrelated, and the only person who seems to think it's not is Merkey himself. When he recognizes how his actions here crossed the line so many times, and attempts to change that about himself, he'll be allowed back in whether he's still donating money or not. --Maelwys 20:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see how such a relentlessly arrogant and litigious individual could be a net positive to the project, no matter what he actually brings to it in terms of positive contributions. He clearly does not understand the fundamental mission of Wikipedia or the Wikimedia foundation, and appears to have the sort of sense of entitlement that would get his coffee spat in at the local Starbucks. Haikupoet 20:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• There is no consensus for the controversial block in the first place. He has knowledge and insight that would benefit the project. It is time to unblock and hopefully the editors who like hounding him will stop or they will find themselves on the wrong end of a block. This block has rewarded the trolls as well as jerks. I say no to the trolls and yes to the unblock. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 20:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• To be clear, did you just pull out the whole "if you're not with us, you're a [terrorist/jerk/troll]" thingie? That's not particularly conducive to a civilized discussion. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• I wonder if I should be mildly insulted...? HalfShadow 20:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I say no to the trolls, but I also say no to the unblock. SirFozzie 20:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like an 'if you're not with me, you're against us all' to me. Are we really going to let 'I've got the money, so you all better like me or I won't buy the ice cream' be the new rule for Wikipedia? Would that go under WP:WHOWANTSICECREAM? Leave him blocked. Legal threats (Indians will shut down WP if yu don't like me), dick moves (I'll take my money elsewhere) and general incivility. Take your money, there's the door, don't let it hit you in the ass, bye bye. ThuranX 20:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Money for ice cream. What a naive statement as if wikipedia doesnt need continuous money to survive, let alone grow in a fiercely competitive market, SqueakBox 20:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs money to survive. That doesn't mean that Wikipedia should grant special privileges to editors that donate. I'd like to see advertisements covering a quarter of each page before that happens. --OnoremDil 21:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever Merkey's faults are, your comment is unproductive and needlessly inflammatory. —freak(talk) 20:53, May. 29, 2007 (UTC)

• Why are we still discussing this? I thought it was old news that Merkey was a troll. Can't we get back to doing something more productive than wiki-jerking over this? EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• I completely agree. Merkey has caused way more than his share of problems and drama. Our integrity is not for sale. --ElKevbo 21:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm totally behind the block, probably more than the blocker. If he's all lovey-dovey with the Foundation, they can always intervene and unblock him. Until that happens, his outright ridiculous attitude of entitlement is enough justification for me to want to see him stay blocked. Lexicon (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Please understand that it is almost certain that Merkey has never contributed anything to the Foundation. Ben-w 20:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• • The same cant be said for him and wikipedia, which is where our remit begins and ends, SqueakBox 20:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Indeed, let's focus on editorial contributions rather than financial ones. —freak(talk) 21:00, May. 29, 2007 (UTC)

• Leave Merkey blocked. He obviously doesn't care to follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies. In addition, the threat of cutting off donations if he doesn't get his way also strikes me as a form of legal threat. That said, I'd also block the editors who have been harassing Merkey. --Alabamaboy 21:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• He's had his second chance, he blew it. I see no reason to give him a third chance. Even if he's only editing the Cherokee articles he's still more than likely to be disruptive in the process. --Tango 21:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support blocking as stated above. Also protecting his talk page to avoid future disruptions. Its clear this user won't changed and has already caused problems with one user. T_{Talk to me} 21:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be a really nice thing if somebody from the Foundation would either verify or deny his claims of $10M in contributions. Corvus cornix 21:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Why? Would we unblock him if he donated that much? Can someone buy unblocks now? --Golbez 21:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No, not at all, and sorry if I didn't make that clear. It would be nice to get a final yea or nay on his claim. If it's a nay, then it's been a lie all the time, if it's a yea, it's still just a "so what?" Corvus cornix 21:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought there was a donations listing page... I know I found my name on there when I made my donation (back during the last donation drive). I agree that it's a moot point, though. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is Jeffrey's response to this thread [66], SqueakBox 22:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I like how the first additional response is "leaving aside the fact that I am a MAJOR contributor" and then the next is basically "Now let me tell you as a contributor.." - he's still trying a hold-up. --Fredrick day 22:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah. He's an anonymous contributor. Corvus cornix 23:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be some confusion in his response. From my observations, which I admit are limited compared to most others, the problem wasn't that he was a good editor who received bad feedback after making claims about his donations. The problem was that he tried to justify disruptive edits with the fact that he made donations. Taking away his donations doesn't solve everything, because he still doesn't seem to be admitting that any of his edits were disruptive. Yes, there are trolls here that should be banned as soon as we can find them because their only purpose on Wikipedia is to harass him. No, their harassing behavior does not justify much of his behavior. alanyst's request may seem somewhat extreme, but other than the point about being banned immediately, they are all standards which should be met by every editor. --OnoremDil 00:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The argument for blocking is the likelihood, based on past experience, of continuing disruption. I see two arguments for unblocking: first, organized harassment should not be allowed to be a factor in driving anyone from the project; second, if his work is likely to improve the encyclopedia, then it's better to have him editing than not. Ignoring all the stuff that has little to do with the project, he says he wants to edit articles in an area I know nothing about, and that he will follow policy while he does it. If others who do know about native American history support unblocking him, I would not object. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

But he also says he refuses to be limited as to what and how he edits. Corvus cornix 23:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Please leave this alone for now. I am talking to Mr. Merkey and to others. These debates add fuel to the flames, I'm afraid. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Any editors who want to know about donations should go to foundation:Benefactors and read for themselves, rather than speculating. Uncle G 00:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• The advice to avoid speculation is sound. It is not that simple. And while we're on the subject, let's not follow ED down the "we need more IRL moneys NOW!" route, get those PayPal accounts buzzing :-) Guy (Help!) 11:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Lions3639

Above Endroit mentioned the recent RFCU which confirmed User:Davidpdx as a puppetmaster and was discussing additional possibilities for checkuser at the vote. I presume that the puppets will be blocked, but wonder if there should also be some action against the puppetmaster in this case. In additional to vote fraud (with his socks) he attempted a disruption of the RM poll by canvassing literally millions of people by writing an article for a major Korean newspaper which concluded with a sentence about how to vote in the poll, picked up later by major Korean portals and Yahoo news Korea. The talk page itself required semi-protection, required a great deal of clean-up effort, and turned the already controversial proposal into a downright mess.

We know this user is the one who made the article because he created a sock with the name of the article author before the news went to print and voted again in the poll. There are few worse examples typifying disruption on Wikipedia.

If someone feels this is too similar to Endroit's post on the subject delete or merge it; it seems Endroit is asking for discussion on checking the users in the poll (as well as blocking Davidpdx's socks). My question is about Davidpdx himself, and is specifically about not only the violation of sockpuppetry but advertising to/canvassing a nation of people. --Cheers, Komdori 20:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Komdori describes a very serious incident and I humbly ask that administrators take strong action here. If this is true, it is clearly a serious situation when a professional journalist posing as a Wikipedia editor engages in such malfeasance. Mumun 無文 20:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Here is the checkuser. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 21:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Since Davidpdx is now unlikely instead of confirmed, this problem largely goes away (although that is some extreme incivility when you tell editors "you will pay for this" and "I you to hang", I guess having been found guilty by checkuser when you're not might prompt some to being upset). It might be worth permanently blocking Lions3639 since they obviously are solely a bad faith editor (one edit, that was to kick off the disruption). --Cheers, Komdori 09:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Matthew (talk · contribs) blocked for running an unapproved bot

Just a quick note, I've been asked by Phil to leave a note here about Matthew who in addition to the above concerns, has now been found to be using an unapproved bot on his main account, editing at speeds in excess of 10 edits per minute. The block is for 24 hours. Hope this is acceptable to all. I must point out I've not looked into why/what Matthew was actually editing, I'm simply reporting the block. Nick 00:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I was wondering about that. I had meant to ask why his edits were coming in so fast in those long runs. Perhaps it will scale the problem back a bit if he has to go on foot. --Tony Sidaway 01:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

He told me about the bot beforehand on MSN, but only that it was a regex bot, written in Perl. He did explain the edits (User:Matthew/tv.com), though, but I think it was foolish running an unapproved bot. Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 02:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It was an unapproved bot, and it was running on his main account instead of a bot account. The edit summaries didn't even note it was a bot. It was very, very bad bot usage, and something that required immediate action as the bot was still running. Phil Sandifer 03:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually to be accurate, it seems the bot finished about 9 minutes before Matthew was blocked, not that it really matters. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• I note he has been unblocked already, and he has told me he will not be botting again soon and will seek BAG approval first. >Radiant< 11:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism only account

Resolved

Please block Notsharon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This account hasn't had a full set of warnings so there's no point posting it on AIV, but it's an account user by a vandal who has targeted the Craig Charles article since July 2006 using IPs registered to Flinders University or 58.84 prefixed IPs and repeatedly inserted libellous allegations. The latest vandalism was to move the article to Famous Rapists. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. While not a vandalism-only account, [67] and [68] make this user's intent clear. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot delinking dates

User:Lightmouse is running a bot an automated process, that is systematically removing all links to dates from articles. In doing so, he is destroying thousands of hours of work by other editors. There seems to be an agreement that dates should not be overlinked. The links removed by Lightmouse and his bot are in no way overlinking. They are carefully selected by the editors to highlight the important dates in the article. Even if they are not, Lightmouse does not know it, as he is not reading the articles. He is selecting years, and attacking every page in "What links here". I have asked him to stop, but this has had no effect. -- Petri Krohn 12:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick yes, is this really running bot speed? He's not just running AWB or a variant or something? Moreschi ^Talk 12:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Beat me to it. I was just about to ask what makes you think this is a bot. The speed doesn't appear to be excessive, and the user has communicated their reasons for deleting. Disagreeing with him, and asking for comments is fine, but don't make unsubstantiated accusations. --OnoremDil 13:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like he is editing up to six articles a minute, which is amazingly fast for someone not using AWB. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not 15 edits a minute, and some minutes have no edits at all. This looks like a script or AWB (or some variant thereof). It looks to me like a thinking person is making each call here (no comment on the dispute itself). Moreschi ^Talk 13:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The thinking only seems to go as far as to check the desired effect, delinking of dates. There is absolutely no thinking on whether the date should or should not be linked. This thinking has been done by hundereds of other editors before. Effectively, what he is dooing is making year articles delinkable. -- Petri Krohn 13:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

He actually says here he's using a script. Moreschi ^Talk 13:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever he is running, it is an automated process. He does not have time to read the article and evaluate the effect of the changes. He was earlier reported for vandalism [69], but the report was dismissed by User:Fire Star based on an assamption of good fait. Later I see that Fire Star has reverted a large number of his edits. -- Petri Krohn 13:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, this user only started editing a week ago. With this skill level, I find it unlikely that he is a new user. More likely he is or has been editing under an other username. The user is not revealing his main account, so I am not sure this falls under WP:SOCK#LEGIT. -- Petri Krohn 13:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Removing critical comments and pleas to stop from his talk page, as he did here does not give an impression of good faith. -- Petri Krohn 13:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well if that edit summary is correct, he's moving those comments to the relevant editors pages - that's seem a pretty normal thing to do. His explanation of his acts seem reasonable to me. I don't see (at the moment) any problem here - I actually agree with his reasoning for removing. --Fredrick day 13:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me rephrase my argument and let it rest: Automated processes should only be used for edits everyone can agree on. They should not be used in cases where there is a content dispute. What he is doing is analogous of having a bot changing every occurance of Ukraine to the Ukraine or vise versa. -- Petri Krohn 14:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no comment on Lightmouse's behaviour, but I feel a need to point out that Petri Krohn (talk · contribs) has a history of imprudency in recent past regarding at least three of the issues raised:

• He baselessly called a human "bot" on May 22.
• He has repeatedly made assorted accusations towards other editors ([70], [71], [72] etc.) based on nothing other than edit disputes.
• He has made a formal accusation of sockpuppetry knowing full well it was baseless, and consequently deliberately causing a lot of trouble to five editors for harassment purposes: [73].

These reasons, and others, are a basis to put any accusations made by this editor under heavy suspicion. I would suggest dropping the matter unless somebody else -- somebody without a history of wantonly throwing heavy but baseless charges around -- will back it.

(Disclosure: I happen to be among the ones targetted by this editor.) Digwuren 13:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In his edit summary, Lightmouse is citing WP:CONTEXT as his rationale for date delinking. BTW, SmackBot does year delinking. --Jtir 14:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

OK I've had a further look into User:Lightmouse work and would add the following - 1) his actions seem in line with policy 2) when asked to consider his action and make improvements (such as a more informative edit summary), he has responsed to the questions, cited policy, engaged in debate and made improvements. I honestly don't see any here beyond an editor trying to improve the readability of the encyclopedia. --Fredrick day 14:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

this use of a vandal tag is NOT helpful and should not be applied when editors are acting in good faith. --Fredrick day 14:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Raisestoodbn

Resolved

 – Both users have been blocked for 31 hours due to their edit warring and cautioned not to resume after their blocks expire Nick 13:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Raisestoodbn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
has been accused of sockpuppetry and wiki stalking [74], recently he has been blanking the pages of his user page and removing the sock puppet tags from his main page and those of his sock puppets [75], [76], , as well reverting my edits (mostly picture additions which no other editor has had a problem with [77], [78],)

also he just made a 3RR violation on SKS [79]

he has also made personal attacks by claiming I am a nazi and racist without any proof [80] --Bleh999 13:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Defamatory personal attack by User:RodentofDeath

Latest homepage revision[81] by RodentofDeath (talk · contribs) is a defamatory personal attack on [I guess I should delete this]. This one could plausibly cause trouble for her where she lives.

This is going pretty far — I really hope it isn't dismissed as another chapter in their ongoing POV conflict on articles relating to the Philippines sex industry.

Only three NPA warnings on Rodent's talk page (including this one) since last block, but there have been a few uncivil comments in article talk pages. And I feel like this particular offense is special. / edgarde 14:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The homepage revision you linked to above does not name who he is talking about. No person, not already intimately connected to the situation, could possibly figure it out. Making the case that it's a personal attack against the specific person you named here, is impossible in that situation. Wjhonson 14:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is at least harassment. We're given an approximate street address and identifying personal characteristics. I can also see easy ways a reader could identify the accused editor if they felt sufficiently concerned by the accusation to investigate. From what I understand, a possible associate of the accused editor was framed on rape or pedophilia charges under (what were eventually decided to be) false pretenses. / edgarde 14:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the page as attack, as I can't see any useful purpose for it remaining, whether or not the subject is identifiable. I'll leave it to someone else to decide if a block is needed (partly as I don't have time to investigate, partly to allow at least another set of eyes to take a look). Petros471 14:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Two accounts apparently working in concert to get articles deleted

I've just come across two relatively new accounts that appear to be working in concert to get articles deleted. Betterone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) went through a bunch of articles on April 29th and deleted substantial content from them. Today Notsomuch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) went around most of those same articles adding speedy and prod tags - in some cases adding implausible claims about being unable to find mention of the subject with Google. I have removed the tags and reverted the deletions. I'm not sure if there is much more useful to be done, but thought it couldn't hurt to make others aware. -- Siobhan Hansa 18:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Wow... good catch. I blocked both accounts indefinitely. There is no way that one individual came along and edited out content and then a month later another individual came along and speedy delete nominated the exact same articles. This is disruption pure and simple... and they would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for you meddling kids!--Isotope23 18:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a very specific set of articles and there is a common link between then - a highly distruptive editor who ran a very impressive sounding but minor and NN agency and in the course of the AFD around the agency ran one of the most distruptive sockshows I've ever seen - I'll not mention the name because it's nothing more than a hunch of mine at this stage and because she got the foundation to remove all mention of her. However, I'd suggest that a few editors add those pages to their watchlists, if it's the person i'm thinking of - this could run and run. --Fredrick day 18:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I know what you are talking about. I'll add them to my watchlist.--Isotope23 18:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks and other misconduct of User:Cleo123

There has recently been a rather heated conversation at Talk:List of notable converts to Christianity regarding inclusion of a particular subject. I unfortunately was one such party. I full well volunteer to take any penalty any of you may seek to impose for my own actions. However, there is one other party involved who I believe well crossed the line, and seems to be hiding as a result. I am speaking of User:Cleo123. I am specifically speaking of that user's statement that his/her own actions were prompted by a wish to prevent a libel lawsuit arising, based on assumptions which are nowhere put forward in any policy or guideline. I am also speaking most directly about the thread at Talk:List of notable converts to Christianity#Hypocrisy, which I believe is clearly and explicitly a violation of the rules regarding no personal attacks. The fact that this user has since on his/her own talk page stated that s/he saw no reason for admin involvement in this matter, and actually seemed to oppose involving any oversight here after making the accusations in the Hypocrisy thread makes it clear to me that this user may well have been engaged in the conversation from the beginning for, as another user has stated here and here, the purposes of intimidation and harrasment. I also note that since I first gave this party notice that I would be filing a complaint, partially to see if that party displayed any real interest in validly raising the complaints they made regarding me on the "Hypocrisy" charges above, that party has completely disappeared and had not a single edit. Frankly, that surprised me rather a lot, but it does seem to me to be possibly a tacit acknowledgement of wrongdoing. I would like to see this user receive some sort of penalty for the clear and I think egregious attempts at intimidation and harrasment, but also would like to see the editor be allowed to contribute productively elsewhere as well. Is there anyway to level a block as it were "pro-rated" to include the time the editor has voluntarily removed him/herself? If such is possible, I would think that such would be the most appropriate penalty. Also, I have no objections to keeping the "Hypocrisy" thread intact, as its presence, and the subsequent ability to point toward it, I think helps insure that such actions not happen again. Thank you for your attention in this rather odd matter. John Carter 00:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Given that the last post to that thread was about 10 days ago and you are still here, I'd say if there was an intent to intimidate you, it didn't really work too well did it? While noting that there is clear incivility from multiple parties on that talkpage, I don't see much reason for admin action against specific editors at this time. Blocks are preventative, not punitive and it appears the behavior you are objecting to has ended at this point. On a side note, I protected the article because it appears the underlying edit war is still happening. Perhaps it is time for the parties who have taken an interest in this article to look into dispute resolution.--Isotope23 14:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please review the blocking policy, particularly the bit where it says that 'The purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment'. Cleo123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has not edited Wikipedia for just over a week. In various places, by various editors, it has been sugggested to all of you involved in your little teapot tempest at Talk:List of notable converts to Christianity to calm down, have a cup of tea, and relax. Cleo123 has apparently been willing to disengage for a while, despite you trying to goad her into filing some sort of complaint about you. Please follow her lead. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(moving comment to chronological position, having been caught in apparent edit conflict) Mediation was actually tried before. Cleo actually told the major proponent for the non-inclusion of Bob Dylan, User:Bus stop, on his talk page, to not accept mediation when I and others had filed for mediation, and it was thus rejected. Whether that party would be any more willing to accept mediation since he has directly asked elsewhere what the "tendious" editing is he has been accused of is here, that party's actions seem to have been more limited. And my apologies for my earlier comments regarding your recent protection of the page. I hadn't looked at the page's recent activity to see the current dispute. I hope that the newly created discussion on where to include people who have converted to Christianity and subsequently to something else will resolve the existing dispute, but think that protection might be a good idea again in any event. My apologies again. John Carter 14:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

John Carter did not link to the entirety of that exchange, which was largely a joke, and unrelated to the subject at hand. Here is the link to the exchange in its entirety:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Rogue_admin_blocks_me_for_2RR

It was just a joke. The joke is that no such word as "tendious" exists in the English language. Bus stop 21:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oliver Dulić

I'm fighting a sterile (and lame) edit war with 24.151.129.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) over the lead section of Oliver Dulić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I kindly tried to explain him [82] why his persistent addition that the man is "of Yugoslav descent" is both nonsensical (in American terms, it would be comparable to "a man of Christian descent" for someone from mixed-religion marriage) and inappropriate for the lead section, and already in the appropriate place in the article, but he just keeps on re-adding it. Since I don't want to break 3RR, and I'm in an edit dispute with him, can someone explain it to him in more stern terms or semi-protect the article? Thanks. Duja►

Well, while I don't understand the specifics, I do understand that claiming a Serb is of Yugoslav descent is nonsense - it's like saying a Ukranian or Russian is of USSR descent. I've reverted, and will leave a clear message on the talk page to start communicating better on the talk page... or else. The Evil Spartan 19:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem with unregistered user in the Any Dream Will Do article

An unregistered user persistently ignores reasoning and keeps reintroducing his changes to the criticism section, supposedly to remove bias but actually to add his own opinion. As the user won't register and the IP keeps changing (at least three different IP numbers are listed in the history) it's impossible to talk to this person and resolve the dispute. Constantly editing around won't do any good. I don't know how to solve this but I do feel that the edits that are being made aren't a merit to the article. How can this be resolved? A third opinion would also be appreciated on whether the edits made are actually useful. Little-quiqueg 16:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The page could be semi protected which will keep unregistered and newly register accounts at bay. Nick 16:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This would be good. But who can do that? I already feel accomplished just getting a semi-decent article format (I'm actually copying what you did to get the indent...). It would be preferable if this other person finally got an account so we could discuss this properly. Little-quiqueg 16:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The unregistered user keeps ignoring my attempt to open a discussion and keeps deleting information even though other editors have already said it's relevant and his comments arents.

• I've warned the IP editor about removing sourced material from the article.--Isotope23 20:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but now the user added completely biased information to the section to make it absurd. Little-quiqueg 22:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Returned Labrador Retriever vandal

7raptor7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / Silverlabrador (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has come back once again to add incorrect information to article Labrador Retriever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). On May 22, they sent me an e-mail via Wikipedia containing fluff on how I am ruining Wikipedia and threatening to "monitor" me and then report me to some unnamed authority.

I had filed a complaint on the COI board in March, which can be found here. "Silverlabrador" was blocked indefinitely, as was I believe one or more of his IP addresses 65.73.71.*. For a time, the article itself was protected to keep them from editting. Sarrandúin ^{[ Talk + Contribs ]} 16:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you reverted the article and that is the end of it for now. My suggestion is to monitor the article and if these sorts of edits continue from IPs post here again if it is 1 IP or request semi-protection if it is multiple IPs. Since that IP only made the change once and you reverted it, I think a block is premature at this point. If it continues and becomes disruptive, I'd be happy to revisit the issue.--Isotope23 17:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have just reverted again- their IP address changes, but like I said, it's almost always a 65.73.71.*. I did add a mis-info warning template this time to their latest address. I've gone through the history and made note of the various addresses they've used on the Lab article (there were also edits to the talk page that I didn't bother with). I made this section between the last two May 30 edits. Sarrandúin ^{[ Talk + Contribs ]} 20:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• May 30- 65.73.71.124
• May 30- 65.73.71.113
• Feb 2-3- 65.73.71.87
• Dec 3, Jan 6- 65.73.71.41
• Jan 6- 65.73.71.19
• Jan 5- 65.73.70.182
• Jan 5- 65.73.71.116
• Jan 5- 65.73.71.33
• Jan 4- 65.73.71.47
• Jan 4- 65.73.71.49
• Jan 4- 65.73.71.123
• Jan 1- 65.73.71.97
• Dec 30- 65.73.70.146
• Dec 29- 65.73.71.95
• Dec 3- 65.73.71.118
• Dec 3- 65.73.71.107

• I semi-protected the page from IP edits.--Isotope23 20:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Long-term problematic IP

Resolved

 – Blocked for a month.

67.87.69.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): I wasn't aware it was possible to have this long a contribution list which consists almost entirely of vandalism (mostly falsely listing games for Virtual Console, in one case five different times) and not be indef-blocked. Nifboy 18:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Er, WP:AIV might be the place to go to here? For a nice, long block in case of more vandalism. Sandstein 18:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievably, I think nifboy may have a point. This user has been categorically been adding false information to Wikipedia for at least 5 or 6 months now. this type of vandalism is far worse than the "johnny is gay" vandalism because it makes Wikipedia untrue and brings it into disrepute. I suggest a very long block from any admin. Granted, IP's can change, but this is clearly a preventative block. The Evil Spartan 18:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Are all the edits false? I wouldn't know, as I'm not playing video games. Sandstein 19:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It would appear, from my quick research, that at least most are. At very best, they're based on WP:CRYSTAL information, but more likely, it's fraudulent. For example, in my quick perusal, I found this user add Bloodstorm to the list of Wii games [83] [84], but there is no mention of this on the list standard list: [85]. This is just one of many examples. This is very destructive. The Evil Spartan 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, blocked for a month as a vandalism-only IP. Sandstein 19:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Curiously, I did report it on AIV but it was removed without action because it had been more than a day since his last edit. So I came here instead. Nifboy 23:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

User:200.198.98.67

Resolved

Would it be possible to get some sort of longer term block on this address? It appears to be the home addrss of a puppet master who has continually added hoax/nonsense about himself to WP. Please see warnings at User talk:200.198.98.67, User talk:Lauroroger, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauro Roger. Help blocking the usernames and/or protecting the AFD article would be appreciated. Thanks. The Evil Spartan 18:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

And now User:Heighallen has done it again, removing the AFD warnings. Would somebody please take a look at this? The Evil Spartan 20:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I blocked Heighallen (talk · contribs) for AFD disruption... On further reflection I closed the AFD and speedy deleted the article as page creation vandalism. We don't need to coddle self-promoters that fabricate sources.--Isotope23 21:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Bill Tegner and Millbanks

In initally came upon Bill Tegner when I found him altering other people's comments on talk pages [86], [87]. After a series of warning, he eventually stopped.

From that point, he started adding his own POV to articles such as:

Adding "Plastic Paddy" to the Ancient Order of Hibernians [88]

Pushing his personal POV in the Peter O'Toole article [89]

Adding "Plastic Paddy" to the Daniel Day-Lewis article [90]

Starting a thread on the talk page of "Plastic Paddy" about people he personally deems non-plastic and goes on to call me a plastic paddy [91]. This, after he had already made a rude remark about my being Irish [92]

After creating a new account, Millbanks (which he admitted to me), he continued to troll. On May 10, he stated: "Look, it's easy. Call the English English, the Welsh Welsh, and the Scots Scots. OK?" but then 10 days later he says: "Even the word British causes problems there, with ill-educated people writing to the press objecting to Scots and Welsh being called "British"." Those two sentences so directly contradict each other that it is obvious he is doing nothing but trolling.

A look through his edits under both names will show that the majority of his edits are article talk pages. His only article edits are minor grammatical changes or introducing his own POV (like calling Daniel Day-Lewis a "plastic paddy"). When I first confronted him, he simply abandoned the original account and started anew under a new name. If someone else could explain to him that Wikipedia article talk pages aren't message forums it might get through to him...but frankly I am a little short of good faith for this user and I think he is intentially screwing around. IrishGuy ^talk 18:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have also witnessed this guys edits - in my opinion he is a pure troll, he does all his work on talk pages and drags up old arguments for the sake of an argument.--Vintagekits 19:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. It is easier to call the English, English, etc., and that's my preference, and in most cases theirs too. But technically they, the Scots and Welsh are British, and that is a matter of FACT. Millbanks 22:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not fair. I think my problem is that I make points that you are uncomfortable with. Look, if you use the phrase "any scolar" about being Irish, do you really expect me to take that seriously?

My recent article edits include the Anglican viewpoint on the Blessed Virgin; the relationship of Pope Pius VI with the Anglican Church; and the religion of Modern Celts. None of those are at all frivolous. Millbanks 22:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Ben-w

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

---

This matter is already as heated as it can be. With Ben unblocked and warned, let's all just try and remain cool - like Isotope wisely pointed out, we have several rough days ahead of us... Phaedriel - 20:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Ben-w (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for a month per this [93] on my talk page after this warning. If Phaedriel or someone wants to unblock him then fine, right now we don't need angry people with insufficient self-control. Guy (Help!) 19:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(comments refactored by me) Methinks one month is excessive, and comes across as a temper block. This is not good. Besides, I'm not sure his self-control is any worse than Guy's (i.e., telling him to "fuck off"). He did nothing but question a bad unblock (albeit uncivilly, but so did Guy). It's a very bad idea to block a user for NPA after just engaging in one yourself against the same user. The Evil Spartan 19:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ben-w was being a dick and stirring up trouble, but I can't agree with this block. It should be reduced or removed. JzG I think you were fine, up until blocking him. It doesn't look good to block someone for being rude to you, when it looks like a two-way street. Friday (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Incivility countered by incivility does nothing good for this project. Blocking somebody with your only warning involved giving them the option to "fuck off" does not seem appropriate. I am not condoning anybodys behavior here however, I have seen people do much much more in the way of acting uncivil with no consequences. Even if a block was warranted, it was perhaps an 8 hours cool down block but not a month. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of upping the ante, I'm not sure Guy couldn't use his own block in this situation. The judgement you give, ought to be held back onto you. The Evil Spartan 19:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The "stirring up trouble" Friday was referring to was likely stuff like this, and I believe the length of the ban was to reflect the fact that it might take a while for the dispute Mr. Merkey was talking about on Phaedriel talk to be resolved. My instinct is that 8 hours would be a little short to prevent disruption of that reason, but I could be wrong. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Guy, a month seems pretty harsh, too harsh IMO. 74 Hours would have been more than enough to be honest.--Vintagekits 19:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As Guy said "If Phaedriel or someone wants to unblock him then fine..." I've unblocked him. Time for everyone to remember WP:COOL.--Isotope23 20:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Monster Pig

Would an administrator please semi-protect this page for 30-days to stop vandalism of the current event article. PianoKeys 20:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This page is now on afd, SqueakBox 20:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Big deal, anybody can stick a +tag on an article, it is the vandalism that is the problem, not the afd +tag. PianoKeys 01:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

December 20 under attack (vandalism)

December 20 is under attack by two IP vandals. Is the page referenced somewhere or otherwise suddenly increased in notability? Requesting an sprot on the article for an hour; I'll go hand out warnings for repeated vandalism to the two IP's, and we'll see how it shakes out. Jouster  (whisper) 00:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• It's just two IP vandals, tag-teaming. Blocked both (they've had way too much fun). Sprot'd for an hour, just in case ... - Alison ☺ 01:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

o7, thank you. Jouster  (whisper) 01:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Would this be considered retaliation?

Resolved

 – FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My watchlist notified me of a talk discussion on an article I created called Bippu. However, upon seeing another link, i'm getting the feeling that the proposed redirect is nothing more than a retaliation over a vadalism tag I gave to User:Willirennen a while back (He "Updated" someone elses edits which didn't match the article title]). While I just decided to wash myself of the spat and move on, it seems Willirennen wants to punish me for tagging him a vandal. Before I accuse him of adopting retaliation tactics, can anyone advise if it seems like it or not? I have much better things to do than argue over a past wound. --293.xx.xxx.xx 01:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No sign of a retaliation. His action is totally legit though he missed the point that when proposing a merger there should be 2 articles. He just meant a redirect! "VIP style" hasn't existed before. You just remove the merge tag as VIP style is a redirect page and forget about the retaliation allegation. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, just wanted a clarification. Thanks. --293.xx.xxx.xx 02:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Requesting user block

Resolved

 – FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Requesting a block on Nikolai vulinovich (talk · contribs) as, while username is not unacceptable per se, users contributions suggest it is actually someone else making personal attacks against Mr. Vulinovich (including the deleted page Youse a bitch and the hopefully soon to be deleted Nikolai vulinovich). Confusing Manifestation 02:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Indef as a vandalism-only account. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrestler pages vandalism

Several new Users have been hitting various professional wrestler articles making ill-advised edits, then leaving, coming back as new users and doing the same thing. For example, see Booker Huffman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), just one of many. In the last day, it's been hit by User:216.20.76.217, User:Toryugate, User:Moneyindabankkk, User:Yougotthefling, User:Ruckus Tower, User:Ferryut and User:Hi Fi Dorado. And now Hi Fi Dorado is using the edit summary Sorry, the reason I took so long in between the last set was I was busy calling in sick to work tomorrow so I can have some more fun with these articles tomorrow.. Corvus cornix 02:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That's the latest JB196 sockfarm, already mentioned above. Admins are playing whack a mole on each account. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet infested AFD discussion

I was reading the past couple days of AFD discussions and came across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GameTZ.com(3rd nom). It's been nominated before by single-purpose accounts and this was apparently another SPA nomination. And the process itself was filled with sockpuppetry, including a great many editors editing from open proxies that have since been blocked. Since the discussion itself was unproductive and filled with bad-faith sockpuppets, I have boldly closed it. If a good-faith user wants to reopen the discussion, I strongly suggest careful attention from administrators and perhaps even a requirement that any contributor to the AFD have a certain minimum number of edits. For what it's worth, I have no involvement at all with the article itself and have never edited it. *** Crotalus *** 05:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Good call, it's pretty clear that some bad-faith sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry was going on there. Krimpet (talk)

Gregory Kohs' co-conspirator

Looks like someone else is also looking to make a buck off of Wikipedia. See here and my response here. His response was, shall we say, less than mature.

This earlier edit to his User Page is also, shall we say, telling. If he's so unhappy with not making any money here, perhaps someone can assist him in moving on to where he'd be happier? --Calton | Talk 00:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What a weirdo. Is there any reason to have that link around? Could we blacklist it? Grandmasterka 01:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I like how you refuted his points one by one, as he apparently asked you to, and then he couldn't respond with more than arm-flailing and childish attacks. Good work. Grandmasterka 01:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe a note at the spam blacklist page -- which I'll have to hunt around for, first -- is in order. --Calton | Talk 02:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think either Centiare or Gregory Kohs should have an article, given the notability afforded by the Washington Post and others. --A. B. ^(talk) 03:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The very slender reed of a single -- or even more than one -- newspaper mention is nothing to hang an actual article on, whatever grasping at straws Kohs or his helpers engage in. --Calton | Talk 04:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, A.B., I personally know someone (& who has attended all of the Wikimanias so far) who has been doing exactly what Kohs wants to make a killing from -- but the Wikipedia article on his company was placed on WP:AfD. His Wiki is also one of the ten top Wiki sites according to this person, too. So I'd be surprised if Kohs is the subject of an article in Wikipedia soon. -- llywrch 02:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think this is just another sucker taken in by Kohs, who is very charming and persuasive when he wants to be. Kohs' project looks to be dead in the water, despite his undoubted SEO skills, so I can see why he is desperate for links from Wikipedia. He can get lost. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

<sarcasm>I know several people who have been mentioned in newspapers and been on TV, can I make articles about them?</sarcasm> This guy's just trolling; I think a short block would be good, and if he keeps on going, indefblock. (Revert, block, ignore trolls.) · AndonicO ^Talk 13:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I went to Meta, but Kohs has popped up to dispute my nomination and the admin there doesn't seem to really understand the history or be convinced by the evidence of linkspamming. Some more opinions there would be helpful. --Calton | Talk 04:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, despite yet another warning, User:Andman8 still figures spamming is OK. I'm sensing a slow-motion limits-testing. --Calton | Talk 20:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

is anyone monitoring his recent changes? because he could be blocked if he spams again. it's getting a little annoying.--Camelcast 10:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Marioemily101 Chronic Edit Warring

User has an extensive history of vandalism and edit warring, first in List of best-selling video games and most recently in Insane Clown Posse. User has made a habit of "correcting" already well-sourced material, and has displayed hostility when edits are restored to their sourced versions. User has been warned against 3RR violation and edit warring. Though user is not currently in violation of 3RR (edits are more than 24hrs apart) the user has persisted in altering data that has been accurately sourced in the database of RIAA album certifications even after having been warned.[94][95][96]--Rosicrucian 00:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur; this user is being disruptive on Insane Clown Posse. - Merzbow 23:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

User now been issued level 2 and level 3 warnings for introducing incorrect information into the article, with the edit pattern continuing.--Rosicrucian 15:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, admittedly belatedly, I've restarted discussion on the article's talkpage in hopes of keeping this civil. We've discussed this on the talkpage before, but that was prior to this user actively editing on the article. We'll see if that works out, I guess.--Rosicrucian 15:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

He continues to edit war, ignoring all attempts at discussion. Can an admin drop him a note? - Merzbow 17:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Apostrophe disruption

I'm involved in this content dispute, so I shouldn't use any admin tools myself, but...

Apostrophe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who is a long-term editor in apparent good standing has decided for no apparent good reason to ignore discussion or consensus building after I objected to and reverted pending discussion some merges he BOLDly made. He has now reverted the merges back in 3 times on each of two pages: [97] on Endeavour (Pirates of the Caribbean), [98] on Dauntless (Pirates of the Caribbean), and twice [99] on Interceptor (Pirates of the Caribbean). I believe that multiply reverting to an un-discussed merge and refusing to discuss it in favor of just redoing it is disruption, and it's clearly in violation of WP:MERGE ("Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merge, as described below. If the merger is controversial, however, you may find your merger reverted, and as with all other edits, edit wars should be avoided. If you are uncertain of the merger's appropriateness, are not sure where or how to merge, or believe it might be controversial, you should propose it on the affected pages.").

I would violate 3RR to revert anymore and I shouldn't make admin decisions regarding someone I'm in a disagreement with. I would like to request uninvolved admin attention... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 21:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I'm perfectly happy for there to be a merge proposal and discussion, and if I wasn't at 3RR I'd put the articles back with mergeto tags as appropriate, etc. (I probably should have earlier) But that's a grey area when treading on the edge of 3RR, so I would rather someone else review and do so if you feel it's appropriate. Georgewilliamherbert 21:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• I've notified Mr. Apostrophe of his involvement in this incident board. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 21:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah, good. I should'a done that. My bad. Georgewilliamherbert 21:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Are the pages being reverted because there was no discussion or because people disagree with the information being merged? If it's the latter, that seems fine; a discussion should happen. But if you're just reverting just "because there was no discussion", that makes little sense. It's doing no more than forcing unneeded discussion. TTN 21:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, I don't get it - the only reason for opposing the merge is due to it being an "undiscussed merge". That's not exactly compelling. --Haemo 21:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I've made it clear to Apostrophe that I object to the merge; I'm happy for a discussion to conclude to merge anyways, but I'm not ok with him just merging over my objections and requests to discuss it. I'm not wonking this insisting that he just discuss it to check some boxes on a form somewhere that procedure was followed; if there was no objection, WP:BOLD would be fine here as elsewhere, but that has to give way to process when there are objections. Georgewilliamherbert 21:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • It really doesn't look that way. It just seems that the whole thing is based upon if discussions always are required on "controversial" mergers or not. I see no comments like "the information is important" or "it can be brought up to standards." The merger isn't automatically controversial with just "discussion is required" messages because they're often just used to stall or wikilawyer. I'm sorry if I missed a comment that did express actual desire to keep them. TTN 21:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
      • This got somewhat legalistic sort of quickly because he initially didn't even believe we had a merge process documented anywhere. If in that discussion I didn't clearly enough communicate that yes, I object to the actual changes, then let me do so here and now. No, I don't want articles redirected; I believe the merges are bad for the Encyclopedia. Georgewilliamherbert 22:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You received uninvolved administrator attention at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages BOLDly guidelined. However, it isn't an answer that you liked. The issue got legalistic because you were wikilawyering, not Apostrophe. You've abused the vandalism rollback tool several times in an edit war; you have threatened to abuse more administrator tools; and your logic here is entirely circular. This is explained in detail at the aforementioned noticeboard section. Uncle G 22:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• There appears to be a pattern of people focusing on the wikilawyer issues, which the argument with Apostrophe clearly degenerated into. However, as I have said, and will say again: Yes, I do have a content dispute with doing the merges. Policy says not to merge against opposition without process; I oppose, he won't follow process. If I have not effectively communicated all of this then that's my fault, but the situation remains that he's trying to bulldoze merges through against opposition without discussion. Even if there wasn't a policy document on the subject, that's against other general policy.

  I have not intended to abusively rollback, and wasn't aware that I'd used it more than the one goof I knew of last night. If anyone wants to pursue the issue feel free to; the record is whatever it is. I don't think rollback versus undo makes any difference to the end result on those edits.

  It's apparent that there have been communications breakdowns in this, in addition to the root problem. Georgewilliamherbert 23:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Policy says not to merge against opposition without process; I oppose, he won't follow process. — You opposed solely on the grounds that he didn't follow process (same diffs as before) and created a wholly Kafkaesque set of hoops for an editor to jump through for no real reason.

    Apostrophe performs a bold merger. You state that you are reverting because xe hasn't followed procedure, and revert. Xe asks that you do not revert simply because some process hasn't been followed and reverts. You point to WP:MERGE and revert again. Xe points out that you weren't actually supported by what you are pointing to, and reverts.

    Characterizing this as Apostrophe trying to bulldoze things through without discussion, when xe plainly has discussed this with you, on your talk page, is wrong. The problem here is not xem. You've been beating Apostrophe over the head with rules, yet you have still to articulate any concrete objection to the merger, in the several places that you've now discussed this, apart from the fact that it didn't follow a process that it isn't required to follow. Your circular logic continues to be that the merger must be discussed because it was objected to, it was objected to solely because it didn't follow a process, and it didn't follow a process because it wasn't discussed. Uncle G 01:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

    • I did not oppose soley on the grounds that s/he isn't following process. I oppose because the merges are bad, taking large contentful referenced pages on a topic of high interest and turning them into small unreferenced uninteresting sections in a collection page. The articles were not stubs, were not bad articles, and should not be merged. The whole policy thing has become a red herring. It's important because Apostrophe is disruptively refusing to follow the policy, put Merge tags on the articles and discuss on the talk pages as they are required to do if they want to push a merge against opposition. But I am not opposing because the policy was not being followed. I understand that I may not have communicated that effectively last night. I do not understand why you are disregarding my clear statements today (4 hours ago now) that stated that yes, I do have a content objection to the merge. If it was unclear previously it should have been clear since then. Please knock it off. Georgewilliamherbert 01:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • It's important because Apostrophe is disruptively refusing to follow the policy — Once again: Apostrophe was not disruptive, and was not "refusing to follow the policy". Your continued mis-characterization of the other editor in your dispute, over and over again here, is part of the problem. And yes, you were objecting solely because the process was not followed. You said exactly that, several times over.

        And I see that you are still, despite what we've told you here, mis-characterizing this as Apostrophe not discussing this, when (see diffs above) xe did discuss this with you, on your talk page, explaining why you are wrong — the very same explanation that you've had here from me and others. If the "policy thing" is a red herring, it is one that is entirely of your own making, when you resorted to wikilawyering. Yet, despite your assertion that it is a red herring, you are still beating the editor over the head with assertions of "improper process" and failure to follow policy. You don't get to have your cake and eat it here. You don't get to claim that it's a red herring that is irrelevant to the discussion, whilst you are still using it as a club to beat the editor with. Please stop beating the editor over the head. Xe isn't the one who is in the wrong here. The person who needs to knock things off is you.

        I do not understand why you are disregarding my clear statements today (4 hours ago now) that stated that yes, I do have a content objection to the merge. — Because they aren't clear statements of a concrete objection. You simply said that you objected to the merger, because it was "bad", as if that were enough. We already knew that you objected, and that the reason that you thought that it was "bad" was because xe, in your own words, "merged a bunch of POTC ship articles in to a single "minor characters" article without any discussion on the article talk pages". Saying "I object because the merges are bad" does not magically turn your prior objection into a concrete one. It doesn't clarify a thing. What you have just written is the first time in any discussion, on your talk page, on Apostrophe's talk page, on either of the places on the Administrators' noticeboard that you've brought this up, and on the talk page of WP:MERGE, that you have actually articulated anything like a concrete objection.

        As for your objection, quite what makes you think that Endeavour (Pirates of the Caribbean), an article with zero citations and that had been marked as lacking cited sources since April 2007, is "referenced", or that the "large" articles were turned into "small" sections, when List of minor characters in Pirates of the Caribbean#Endeavour is word-for-word identical with the prior content of the merged article and contains everything that the article did (and even a few things extra), is mystifying. Uncle G 09:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

        • Endeavour is the weakest of the articles, arguably. The strongest that s/he zapped was Interceptor (Pirates of the Caribbean), which is a much bigger and better article, and is also the one that another editor has undone the last redirect on. If you think that the weaker ones should get merged, then argue it on the talk pages. When Apostrophe merged the Interceptor article, less than half the content ended up on the merged article [100]. This is the strongest case for not merging. I objected to the whole series of merges, but perhaps some will stand up on community review. Cherry-picking the weakest of the merges objected to, as opposed to reviewing all of them and noting which one someone else had also reverted and restored, is not being helpful.
        • In circular logic, what goes around comes around. Your own arguments turned circular a while ago. I've been attempting to clarify that I have content objections to the merges, and separate policy objections to the procedure followed in response to those objections. Whether I communicated well last night / this morning or not, I think that the cards have all been on the table for some time. It is factually true that I object to the content of the merges - the Interceptor article at least should be separate, and probably the others, from a content point of view. It is factually true that WP:MERGE says that if a merge is opposed, the merge proposer is to place the tags and talk about it on the talk pages. It is factually true that Apostrophe refused to believe that there was a WP:MERGE policy when initially confronted, re-merged several times after objectiosn and reverts, and has not placed merge proposal tags on articles or started discussions on article talk pages.
        • Regardless of earlier communications difficulties, which may well be my fault, Apostrophe has not followed policies s/he is now aware of, regarding objections s/he is now aware of. Assuming good faith, the communications failure earlier can explain their initial actions. They have not fixed what they did, however. Per policy, the burden of initiating merge discussions was theirs, and they didn't do that to date.
        • Another editor has un-merged the Interceptor article. Tomorrow midday, I am going to unmerge the other two if Apostrophe or someone else doesn't first, apply the MERGETO / MERGEFROM tags as appropriate, and initiate talk page discussions. I have no objection to anyone else going first; I'm going to wait well past 24 hrs from the start of all this to avoid 3RR technical objections if I have to be the one to do it. The community can consensus on whatever result it ends up with on the article talk pages. Georgewilliamherbert 10:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Uncle G has it right. There is no such thing as a "merge out of process". I would suggest you take a step down from this bureaucratic approach. >Radiant< 11:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Uncle G is correct in every count, and articulates it better than I did. If you had simply provided reasoning beyond "this is out of process" (which is nonexistent), as you finally did today, I would have left the matter alone. I'm male, by the way. =) ' 07:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)