Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive380

Anyone up for some WP:CSD deletions?
Special:Newpages was just flooded with a number of redirects created by linking to Mother insult (see recent article contributions). Some of these are useful, but a lot of them can be speedied under WP:CSD as implausible typos. So rather than go through them all trying to separate the wheat from the chaff, I thought it'd be best to post the whole bunch here in case anyone wants to get some speedy deletion practice in. I mean, redirects are cheap, but this is kind of going overboard.

I've already notified the user, and he seems to have given it a rest. I'll stop by and let them know about this thread as well. Thanks! -- jonny - m t  21:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, wow, look at his contribs. I'm on the case! *Cop show music plays* Jus tin  (Gmail?)(u) 21:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Go get 'em, sarge! -- jonny - m t  21:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Cleaned, bar one or two that might be just about possible as valid redirects. Pedro : Chat  21:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoo, I need a donut. Jus tin  (Gmail?)(u) 22:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What about the 91 (if I counted correctly) redirects to Italian profanity he also created? — Travis talk  22:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they should be nuked as well. This is the English Wikipedia after all. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 23:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirects are cheap - I'd keep them. Neıl ☎  11:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheap, but not free. These inflate article count unnecessarely, and are just not needed. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 20:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * All cleaned up... incidentally, along with all spelling variations of "yo mamma" (yu momma, yoo mama... too many to list) redirecting to Mother insult. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 22:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of arbcom in content dispute
It appears to me that User:Fennessy is using the fact an issue has been disputed in an arbcom Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, namely use of the Ulster Banner, to justify reverting me on Template:Bus transport in the United Kingdom, which arbcom decisions are not used for. In fact it appears that is all he is logging in for at the moment, in an apparent attempt to go slow to avoid 3RR. MickMacNee (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest you explain clearly and fully the arguments for the version you support at Template talk:Bus transport in the United Kingdom, and discuss the matter with anyone who replies there. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Welcome to 'The Troubles'. You can try engaging on the talk page, though I am doubtful about your chances of success.  The cynic in me also says that by posting what was previously a quite obscure page on ANI, you might have ensured that the problem never gets sorted out (though the pragmatist in me asks if the flags are really necessary at all on that template). Black Kite 07:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

E.O. Green School shooting again, help please
is a tragic in-school shooting incident involving 1 or 1 year old victims and suspects. An editor or possibly more than one keeps adding the suspects name, which is covered in RS. However, from the Corey Delaney (that Aussie party teen) deletions I was under the impression that minors' names are left out, generally, in presumption in favor of privacy. Editors have sought help on both the help and BLP boards but the article still seems to include the teen suspects name. Even if that teen is responsible for murder shouldn't we at least wait for the trial? And then come to a consensus on this? Benji boi 00:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting problem, but what administrator action do you seek in this issue? --Jayron32. talk . contribs  00:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP is rather clear to me; until such time as a minor suspect is convicted, it's not appropriate to name them in an article. I've removed the name, according to the Privacy of Names section, I'll note so on the talk page, and will keep an eye on the article.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've also left a note on the editor's page explaining my reasoning, and I notice the page has been protected by other admins in the interval. &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, usual routes of dialog and BLP noticeboard didn't seem to be getting a minor's name removed. As a involved editor I didn't feel I was going to get much traction and I felt wikipedia was in a gray area in a current high-profile murder case involving minors. Benji boi 01:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It admittedly is a gray area, and my move may not have been uncontroversial. I prefer to err on the side of caution, however, and it would appear I am not the only one who had that concern.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A brief review of the sources, and of the wider internet sources shows this news article which states the arrested suspect has been charged as an adult, which frees up legitimate journalistic avenues to reveal the name of the suspect. Suspect's name is widely available on the internet, on blogs, activist sites and news articles. As such, I think there's nothing to stop us. The horse left the barn ,the genie's out the cork's not going back in, etc., etc. on the aphorisms. I don't think it's as gray as suggested. Example: when they thought he DC Sniper was a kid, they didn't say name, when they got more info, they released. Were this the day of the event, I'd back BLP, but there are sources from days and weeks later still publishing the identity. Why wouldn't we be able to, so long as we cite it all and examine sources carefully? BLP doesn't preclude negative information. ThuranX (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum Re:BLP section 'privacy of names'. Section states if the name is NOT widely disseminated. There are a number of papers on the net from all over the nation covering the story, so while there is one event, this is a widely notable event, combining hate crimes and school shootings, a veritable bonanza for our tragedy driven, opportunistic, and atavistic Mainstream media. In other words, the person's name is just about every place people might seek out for information BUT us, and while 'everyone else is doing it' is not always an excuse for an action, in this case, it does make us simply look lax. ThuranX (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll again point out we deleted Corey Delaney, wrongly, IMHO, because he was a minor associated with one news event and we didn't want to saddle that poor kid with a wikipedia article for one event that would likely haunt him and he would regret the whole affair. Nevermind that Coery has since gone on to turn that scarring event into a career and his name has gotten more coverage than many of our BLPs. As this article has a minor as a suspect pending trial seems like we shouldn't convict him in the worldwide encyclopedia quite yet. Benji boi 01:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * His name is obviously public domain. It's in the USAToday article. Given the Florida Wendy's shooting  it's probably already yesterday's news. :( Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Benji, no one is convicting the suspect here, simply reporting using verifiable sources, none of which can report he's convicted in a trial yet to be held. ThuranX (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As others have said, the name is widely disseminated and obviously relevant to the article. WP:BLP mentions nothing about minors or waiting until a conviction. I recommend that the page be unprotected (as far as BLP is concerned) and the name be allowed to stay. Evil saltine (talk) 03:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also like to point out that the sources already referenced in the article contain the name. Evil saltine (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, they do. It's not trying to suppress anything, but to avoid bringing undue prominence to the name.  Seriously, what does the article gain by mentioning the name of a suspect?  &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The name of the suspect is a relevant piece of information, just as it would be for any other crime. The name is already prominent; what Wikipedia does won't change that. Besides, it's not as if this person is getting his own article. Evil saltine (talk) 05:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) This minor is involved in a murder trial, even if ultimately tried as an adult. Once the trial and appeals are over I would support a discussion to whether or not to include the information but an encyclopedic article can be written fully with the absence of the alleged shooter's name and those reading will fully be able to understand the content. Wikipedia is not a tabloid and we are also not to be used to sway legal outcomes and processes. We are here to write encyclopedic articles not to hang crimes on a young person on the world's encyclopedia for whatever reason. "Cover the event, not the person." Benji boi 07:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Like it or not, he is a part of the event. I don't understand your assertion that publishing his name would be tabloid-like, given the many reputable organizations that have already done so. We are not "hanging a crime" on anyone, just reporting the facts, namely that he is a suspect. Evil saltine (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, it's very clear that those who support censoring the name aren't citing BLP anymore, just their own idea of what is moral or encyclopedic. Since BLP is no longer involved, I don't see how page protection is justified. Evil saltine (talk) 08:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Because there was edit-warring.--Docg 09:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit warring is not the reason the template says it was protected - it says it was due to BLP. The response to edit warring is to lock the page on a preferred version (misquoting BLP) for a week?  Sorry, but no.  The page needs unprotecting. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#060">Neıl  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#060">☎  12:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no reason not to name the arrested 14-year-old, as it's public domain knowledge. The statement that wikipedia is "not to be used to sway legal outcomes and processes" is not a rules-based argument, it's a feeling-based argument. It also makes no logical sense. Wikpedia isn't swaying anything. It's reporting public information. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User Avineshjose on a personal war with me
No admin action required. Raising party encouraged to review advice given by admins/others below. Orderinchaos 05:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I am a constructive Wikipedian as evident from my contributions and dont believe in any kind of edit war. But another wikipedian's acts are pushing me to the wall.

It all began when he put AFD tags on 2 of my articles - Pakalomattom and Pakalomattom Ayrookuzhiyil and that lead to the AFD discussion Articles for deletion/Pakalomattom Ayrookuzhiyil. Inspite of all the evidences and references given, he made sure the articles were deleted by fighting with nails and tooth.

I requested him not the treat other wikipedians this way and play big brother. He feels only he is right. But he misunderstood ( Misinterpreted ) it was a personal attack and complained here accusing me of threatening him. ''All I was saying that Not to kill other's articles while being build. Anyways I did apologized unconditionally, to not leave any misunderstandings.''

Ofcourse I nominated some of his not so worthy articles for AFD Skyline Builders ,Radio Mango 91.9 ,Radio Joy Alukkas, Joy Alukkas which escaped only due to me being accused of nomination on Bad faith. I leave to the admins to decide, where those and many of his other articles Kannur Rajan, American Schools and Hospitals Abroad , Bluefield International Academy ,American Seniors Housing Association are of any encylopeadic in nature.

''There was several instances his fights of many people because he started killing others articles one by one, one way or other. The evidiences were there in Archive page'' but he convienantly deleted after it came in some disucssion.


 * See Dont bring back deleted pages with the same content
 * User_talk:Avineshjose/Archive_3
 * User_talk:Avineshjose/Archive_5


 * User_talk:Avineshjose/Archive_2

All his actions are now fit enough for scaring away the wikipedian newbies... Ex: User_talk:Avineshjose/Archive_4

I did complained to his mentor User:Richardshusr This was what he said about him User_talk:Richardshusr :-  "The reason that I took on Avineshjose as a mentee is because he was a pain in the ass with an excess of enthusiasm and a paucity of technical expertise with Wikipedia processes. My hope is that he will grow wiser and more knowledgeable in the Ways of Wiki. For the record, his comments about Kottayam medical college were on the money. Many of his concerns about articles are valid although these can sometimes be fixed by editing and or deleting sections of text rather than deleting the entire article. --Richard (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC) " 

User:Avineshjose was habitul person on putting lots of articles to AFD, Articles_for_deletion/Kaimal

He then a merger proposal on one of my articles Coonen_Cross_Oath to Coonan_Cross_Oath. User:Avineshjose added

With just one proposal by a user, See , User:Avineshjose just deleted the article Coonen_Cross_Oath and redirected to [[Coonan_Cross_Oath and didnt even allow a fair discussion.

I can give another 100 references, where it is also referred to as Coonen cross. Besides mergeing doesnt mean, deleting one and redirecting to another. The data of both should be merged to the retaining artcile. What he was trying is just destruction /loss of data in Wiki''.

He used to upload all copyrighted material to the Wiki. Finally an admin noticed this and deleted most of his images and warned him, not to make any more uploads.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAvineshjose%2Fimage&diff=192236047&oldid=192229080

User_talk:Avineshjose/image

 "Please do not upload any more images until you have cleared with an admin that you understand WP:IUP, WP:COPYRIGHTS, and how to specify an accurate source and license. Thank you. --Yamla (talk) 05:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)" 

There was silence from him for a few days and I prayfully hoped he is happy that many of my articles got deleted and wont nagg me again.

BUt it was not. Having probably put my usertalk page in watchlist, he started to continued to fight on areas where I am also interested.

There was a AFD discussion on another article Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath and I participated in it. Articles for deletion/Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath  He swiftly came in oppose there and fought with more vengence. Same with many other discussions I participated. Aparrently He was the only one who fought to delete the article and the administrator's decision was to Keep.

Having being unsuccessful here, He now shifted his whip to an article on the book Daivajanam by Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath and proposed to merge it. Talk:Fr._Thomas_Kuzhinapurath. Having faced stiff opposition here also from all others, I guess his next attempt will be to push it to AFD.

I am feeling cornered by this 'Big brother of wikipedia' and making my life in Wikipedia stressfull and unpeaceful. He suffers from an attitude problem and feels he is the only person right in Wikipedia.

Admins, Please tell me what I should do ? - Tinucherian (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Summarize this in three sentences without any bold text, please.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 04:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree - that hurt my eyes. Per WP:IAR I changed all bold above to italics. Orderinchaos 07:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So let me get this straight... He tagged some articles for AFD... consensus got them deleted, and so as a revenge you specifically hunted through his contribution history and tagged several of HIS articles for deletion, you know, just to make a point. I fell asleep after that.  Now, what exactly do you want us to do?  Cuz other than outing yourself for being disruptive, I can find no purpose for this message.... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  04:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your evidence does not support the claim that he is the "big brother" of Wikipedia. He nominates many articles for deletion - nothing necessarily wrong with that. He made a mistake in formatting an AfD - nothing wrong with that either. Mergers/redirects do not have to be discussed (and he didn't "delete" the article concerned). And you haven't shown that he sought any contact with you after the first AfD. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 07:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Stone put to sky continues to make personal attacks
User:Stone put to sky was recently blocked for 3RR violations, using multiple sockpuppets, personal attacks against me, and violating WP:Username by making attack accounts on my name. Unfortunately, this seems to have little effect and he now continues to make personal attacks: "You really need to get out more.", "you are either lying or just phonetically-challenged".Ultramarine (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've left a note asking to calm down a little, but neither of the above diffs are especially terrible, so I don't think it needs any more than that at the moment. If he carries on, please leave another note on this board, however. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#060">Neıl  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#060">☎  13:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User: PunjabiConviction
User:AjayKumarMehta User:99.238.149.188 User:Spy89 Looks like sock puppet. constantly reverting my edits.. Was banned asUser:Spy89, but now is operating under User: PunjabiConviction. Harrasing me on my talk page.. What should i do? Leave wiki! Can't administrators help me!Ajjay (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked indef as a block-avoiding sock. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 12:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:168.170.197.10
Could some admin have a closer look at this IP-address? It looks like a continuous flow of disruption and vandalism.

Cheers and thanks, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">pedro gonnet  - <font color="#000">talk  - 04.03.2008 13:57
 * That IP originates at a school (see the talk page) and, to me, the vandalism doesn’t look persistent enough to warrant a block at this time. — Travis talk  14:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:213.97.51.67
This user's edits and comments are much too often pure racism and personal attacks. The user seems to have hold the Macedonians in low regard, and has repeatedly made highly insulting comments on pages like the talk page of Republic of Macedonia. Moreover, he attacks all users that are non-Greek, calling us trolls, calling for us to be banned and arguing that we have no right to take part in Wikipedia. The only "offense" users like us have committed is pointing out the established Wikipedia policy WP:MOSMAC to this extreme nationalist. I find it highly insulting to be called a troll for that, and I find it offensive that the user calls for people to be "indefinitely banned", from Wikipedia for not sharing his opinion. JdeJ (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Warned . Sorry for a bit of troll-feeding, couldn't resist. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

JdeJ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JdeJ

Please, have a look at the latest edits of this person. He has been trolling and insulting Greek people because of his biased and impartial point of view. Additionally, he has removed a complaint from his profile, referring to his attitude, as if he was trying to hide something. He does not seem to understand that the articles have to be impartial and satisfy all parties and keeps attacking editors and explicitly calling them trolls and accusing them of nationalist POV. I am pretty sure that if wikipedia followed the United Nations convention, both parties would be satisfied and these kind of situations and kindergarten fights would not happen again in the future. I dislike seeing fellow Greeks being attacked like that.

87.221.5.113 (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Um...You realise the terms 'biased' and 'impartial' are mutually exclusive, right? HalfShadow (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing any of that. I'm seeing calm, rational discussion from him and nasty attacks from you, that were rightly removed (WP:CAIN) and restored by you. You're trying to paint him with a particular viewpoint that his recent edits don't appear to support. Therefore, I would conclude that the problem is at your end. Perhaps you should try discussing calmly and rationally what you are seeking, rather than attacking and telling tales to get what you want? Just a suggestion. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 19:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Recreation of Category:Rouge admins by Hu12
The category Category:Rouge admins was deleted by UCfD, and restored today (complete with history and other content) by Hu12. VegaDark posted to Hu12's talkpage, noting the CSD criteria of recreation of material substantially identical to that previously deleted. There is no assertion that the closure was outside of process or an incorrect interpretation of consensus, and no DRV as far as I remember. The category should probably be redeleted, no? It looks like its being passed over by the CSD patrol folks. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 19:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, Hu12 just cleared out the content except the names. User:MaxSem is the one that restored the cat. - <font size="+1" color="red">&#10032; <strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">ALLSTAR <font size="+1" color="red">&#10032; echo 19:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hu12 undeleted it, per the page log. MaxSem reverted the category to a prior revision and removed a tag. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 19:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, should have looked at the log first. - <font size="+1" color="red">&#10032; <strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">ALLSTAR <font size="+1" color="red">&#10032; echo 19:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is being ignored, at least by me, being a nice refreshing glass of poison. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 19:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hu12 is often brusque, but rarely acts without good reason. I see that you engaged with him, but he often needs a little extra prodding to fully explain what he's up to. Ronnotel (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Redeleted as G4 here <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper  |  <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76   |  <font color="#ff0000"> Disclaimer  19:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Will exciting wheel warring ensue? <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 19:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL..No wheel war. I'll cleanup the 17 pages populating it. --Hu12 (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That didn't work last time. Good luck! ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 19:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)I'm just worried that this will lead to an edit war. A sampling of pages still in the category shows that many of them were removed and the bot was since reverted. —Random832 19:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Of all the admins I know, Hu12 is by far the most likely to be successful in this particular task. Make of that what you will. ;) Ronnotel (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That may be, but he's already been reverted at least twice since starting to remove the cat... --Onorem♠Dil 20:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing how there was already a discussion on this page, that concluded remaining in the deleted category was perfectly acceptable, he'll likely be reverted. - <font color="#0000cd">auburn <font color="#EF6521">pilot  talk  20:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL. I guess someone should probably tell him. Ronnotel (talk)
 * 5 pages reverted back, oh well..what does one expect from Rouge admins..I'd revert it to. Guess I'll get my share of hate mail for trying..--Hu12 (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This just goes to show that there really needs to be a policy about users re-adding deleted categories to their userpage. Hu12 acted in good faith creating the category, thinking that it should be created due to members still being in it. This isn't the first time this type of thing has happened, and such re-adding disrupts the function of Special:Wantedcategories. Personally I think re-adding should be disallowed, unless there is some way to make the pages not show up in Special:Wantedcategories. VegaDark (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Users have been blocked for re-adding deleted categories to their userpage. It's not clear why it being an admin category, and the users being admins, should mean they get special treatment. —Random832 20:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This certainly isn't the only category that users are re-adding themselves to after deletion. See Category:Gayass Wikipedians, Category:Queer Wikipedians, Category:Gay Wikipedians, and Category:Irreligious Wikipedians just to name a few. VegaDark (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And see the discussion had about the issue at Village pump (policy)/Archive 19. And additionally, it doesn't "disrupts the function of Special:Wantedcategories" because, well, they are wanted categories. - <font size="+1" color="red">&#10032; <strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">ALLSTAR <font size="+1" color="red">&#10032; echo 20:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive370. - <font color="#0000cd">auburn <font color="#EF6521">pilot  talk  20:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Random832 has started Deletion_review/Log/2008_March_4. --Hu12 (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I was looking for this thread to let people know about it, but yeah. My basic argument is - if people are allowed to categorize themselves in deleted categories, what's the point of ever deleting any user category? (next up: MFD/UCFD) —Random832 20:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It would have to be done on the delevopers level, to restrict automatic additions to those cats...probably complicated (I assume)--Hu12 (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Or we could actually get rid of Category:Rouge admins as well as Category:Gayass Wikipedians, Category:Queer Wikipedians, Category:Gay Wikipedians, and Category:Irreligious Wikipedians these are obviously wikilawyering there way around the deletion. The Categories must Cease to Be. <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  21:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

<-And this would be achieved how? Other than by edit warring over them, there is nothing to be done. Since there is nothing to be done, there is less stress all round by ignoring redlinked user categories. Mainly because we have no choice. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 21:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Simple, make policy explicit that once a category has been deleted it must be removed from user pages and not re-added, our policy abiding editors will do that. Those that don't, well thats a job for an admin, edit warring should never be an option. <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  22:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's evaluate that for a second: once the category has been deleted, does leaving the text on the user page do any harm?  Is it different from any other text on a user page?  - Philippe &#124; Talk 02:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * YES, and it all depends on why the category in question was deleted, in the case of Category:Rouge admins which was in large part due to the category fostering of negative attitudes on wikipedia, the harm is still being done because the category is still there because i can still tell who is a "rouge admin". <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  03:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? It seems to me that a category is a category (a list of similar subjects or people) only if it's...well, a category.  Otherwise it's text on the page.  For instance, what if AdminXYZ123 typed on their userpage that they're a "rouge admin" without the trailing and leading brackets?  At what point have we crossed a line?  It seems to me that the community has spoken about the existence of the category, but I'm loathe to take action on someone for just having the words on their userpage.  - Philippe &#124; Talk 03:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The difference, once you start moving from just plain text to wikimarkup such as templates, links and category tags (whether the category page exists or not) is that inbuilt tools exist to see the members of the network. For templates (ie. userboxes) lots of fancy stuff can be done, but essentially, like links, you can use "what links here" to see a list of pages with that link or template on the page. Category tags can similarly be used to view a list by clicking on the category tag - this takes you to a listing even if the category tag is a redlink. The only differences, I think, between a pseudo-category (redlinked) and one where the category page has been created, is that the created category has an editable page that can be annotated with an introduction and explanation. Also, if the category has more than 200 members, I think you can only see the category members on subsequent pages (using the "next 200" link) if the category page has been created. There may be other differences as well. Carcharoth (talk) 04:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I gotta tell you, I'm starting to believe this is all a bit WP:LAME. I came into it prepared to have my mind made up, and... well, it sure was.  I'm about to invoke a penance.  For every post about red-linked cats that's made, I think we should also have to do something that... well, builds the encyclopedia.  I'll go start now by dealing with a few things at CAT:CSD.  - Philippe &#124; Talk 06:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Will BetacommandBot get blocked again if it removes this category from userpages? After all, it was deleted through UCFD and endorsed through DRV, but that doesn't seem to make much of a difference to the admins involved here.  Horologium  (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Being in Category:Rouge Admins is funnier if it's red, anyway. --Masamage ♫ 03:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be nice if you could HIDE a deleted (and hence redlinked) category (Using the HIDDENCAT magic word). Imagine the fun vandals would have with that! :-) In any case, people who want to identify as "Rouge admins" or "Gayass Wikipedians" or "Irreligious Wikipedians" can still do so without categories. Just remove the categories from the userboxes, and ask people without userboxes to add self-identifying text, rather than a catgegory tag. It's all a bit WP:LAME really, but unless people stop climbing the Reichstag, it will end up in arbitration like the userbox wars did. Carcharoth (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * More helpfully, a clear distinction should be drawn between "identifying as" categories and "collaboration" categories. For example Category:Wikipedians with an interest in collaborative editing of LGBT articles (actually, there is a WikiProject category for that) would be the collaborative category, while Category:Queer Wikipedians would be the self-identification category. But I'm sure this has all been said before. Carcharoth (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It has all been said before. Unfortunately, that apparently makes too much sense for the dramah club. Please stop acting in an understandable manner. (For clarification, the "dramah club" includes everyone making a big deal about insignificant sh stuff like this from both sides of the silly dispute.) --Onorem♠Dil 04:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC) - updated at 28
 * Where is the most coherent of the previous discussion? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 04:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Long term low grade BLP attacks
has been performing long term low grade attack vandalism against particular named individuals. Note today and several edits targeting a different individual including this from Feb. 11. The individual has returned every few months since summer 2006 to target the same people. Could be the same individual who started this deleted attack article, based upon the name of the target, the interest in Parma, Ohio, and word choice. Has never been blocked and received only 2 warnings.

Wikipedia has been weak at identifying and responding to persistent low grade BLP attackers. An unrelated example is this IP address, which remained unblocked for a long term series of misogynist attacks even though the user made statewide news in South Dakota for Wikipedia edits that attempted to derail the reelection campaign of congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin. We need to keep our eyes open for this kind of problem. Durova Charge! 21:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

WIKISTALK case with UWMSports
I believe I have a case of WP:WIKISTALK with User:UWMSports. Please see the above link for evidence. --Josh (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Without going through the whole editing history, I note that the main contention is that the other editor is (quite correctly) replacing merge tags that you are removing on an article that is a quite clear merge/redirect candidate. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 22:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No one is stalking User:SportsMaster. I don't think I'm doing anything out of the ordinary adding stub, source, or merger tags for articles that surely need it. Look at his contribs and you'll see pages such as Maxwell Show. Here Josh reverted my merge tag suggestion several times. I brought in User:Tony Fox to look at the page and he agreed with my assessment. I also nominated Yahoo! Fantasy Sports for deletion which was discussed and came to a no consensus decision. But obviously more than myself agreed that that page was in bad shape. I suggested to Josh that he expand his current articles before starting new ones. I just simply put tags in those appropriate spots. There would not be a problem here if Josh simply communicated with those who have interest in some of the pages he has similar interest in. Look at my talk history with him at User talk:SportsMasterESPN and User talk:SportsMaster, then look at his responses. You won't find any. SportsMaster clearly has conflict of interests with his creations and feels he can work alone and not take suggestions from other users. That is not how Wikipedia works! -UWMSports (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is an admin issue, really; the page I was pointed to definitely needs a merge. I'd suggest that SportsMaster use article talk pages to discuss issues brought up by other users (I didn't see any such talk discussions in his contribs), and that UWMSports maybe try to stay clear of articles SportsMaster works on, to avoid conflict. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Kent Hovind
There's a hell currently going on on this page... I've gotta go to bed and can't investigate claims of POV/vandalism/possible sockpuppetry, so heads up... Max S em(Han shot first!) 22:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * His teeth remind me of someone. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I filed a CU case in what appears to be a fairly clear cut case of socking (since the IP accounts gave different whois results). Case is listed here.  I also restored the page to the last good version.  Baegis (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

TiconderogaCCB
There is a vote going on based on the opinion of user TiconderogaCCB. Out of nowhere there seems to be a lot of Vote fraud  Since Ticon is obviously from Pennsylvania     and    and we have a number of new edits from accounts that are pennsylvania based   and,. I'm going to move to simply ignore these random ip "votes" any opinions? Uconnstud (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As noted on the talk page, many of these votes are coming from SJU Alumni Association members in Pennsylvania. These are individuals with a vested interest in the integrity of the article. However, even if you ignore these votes, you cannot ignore the input from users without an interest in the article, who have all indicated a preference for Option 1 (not UConnstud's article). This vote should remain open. If you want to ignore or combine the PA votes as one, do so, but we cannot fully ignore the preferences of all users and individuals with interest in the article. You cannot close a vote simply because its not going your way. --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as the vote goes, Wikipedia operates on consensus, not voting, and so you're both technically free to ignore whatever votes you wish. If you are concerned about sock/meat puppetry in violation of policy, you should either provide more information here if the puppetry is blatant and time-sensitive (e.g. specific diffs clearly indicating connections between the accounts) or open a case at Suspected sock puppets. I've left some additional comments on your individual talk pages. -- jonny - m t  04:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oop, check that last bit. User:Ultraexactzz beat me to it. -- jonny - m  t  04:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by Classic Tendentious Editor
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_investigation_of_chiropractic&diff=next&oldid=195763645 revert-happy vandalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_investigation_of_chiropractic&diff=next&oldid=195896428 revert-happy vandalism

Levine2112 vandalized an article twice in a row because he does not like what the text says. The information is heavily referenced and is in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Editor does not explain his reverts of massive content deletion of an article that is under homeopathy probation. Levine2112 attempted to remove the probation warning from the talk page. Involved editors should not remove the probation warning.



Here is a previous discussion above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive126#Question_about_Twinkle_use

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Levine2112

Here is some background information on Levine2112's behaviour above.

I recommend an WP:INDEF block per gaming the system by Levine2112's WP:SPA. Respectfully, QuackGuru (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking at your first two diffs (the "revert-happy vandalism"), I see you and Levine2112 edit-warring, and you labeling this obvious content dispute as "vandalism". Contrary to your third paragraph, Levine2112 did comment on the talk page regarding his revert, though this did occur after you came here demanding an indefinite block for what appears to be one of many content disputes the two of you have engaged in. Since the first 3 paragraphs are all based on erroneous or misleading assertions, I have to admit I didn't read further, but maybe someone else will. MastCell Talk 04:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, both and  have been blocked for 12 hours by Vsmith for edit-warring over the tag on the talk page. Which I fully support. MastCell Talk 05:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please review my block of
(Special:DeletedContributions/XNathanBurnsx) for recreating this attack page and as a likely sock of  (Special:DeletedContributions/NathanBurns), who was indef blocked for creating this attack page. Under the circumstances, I thought it best to not leave matters at a final notice.<font color="#009500"> Dloh <font color="#950095">cierekim'''  23:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly vandal only accounts, Its a good block as far as I can tell.--Hu12 (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me, an obvious sock with obvious malintentions and no interest in being a model wikipedian. Endorse.  <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper   |  <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76   |  <font color="#ff0000"> Disclaimer  23:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: NathanBurns was already blocked. <font color="#009500"> Dloh <font color="#950095">cierekim'''  23:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Single purpose campaign behaviour on WP
Following on from ANI, and before he comes here to set an admin on me (for what I don't know), it is now apparent that all this user is logging in for is to monitor his 'campaign', and pursuant to that, harass and threaten me. If what he says is true by the way, then I think it's quite sad that this status quo is apparently achieved with users going on organised campaigns, and the majority sitting back for a quiet life, rather then there being an official policy on the matter. It's clear he won't quit stalking me if I revert, and I've observed first hand the alarming retrospective punishment bans that apparently can be applied without warning for 3RR days after the event, so I am serving notice to replace the flags with the 'official' flag, not the contentious one, not being happy with the proposed solution of removing them all. If he has a problem with that, then someone can tell me where to find the 'no flags at all' policy. MickMacNee (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, he probably shouldn't have phrased it like that. Anyway, User:JzG solved the problem this morning, as I suggested yesterday. The "official" flag is the Union Flag, which seems a little pointless in that particular template.<b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 00:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what I was referring to, in this case solving the problem seems to be removing the problem on the presence of a campaign, as opposed to consensus or policy. This guy has a campaign strategy for forcing his version of articles, based on no policy I have seen yet, and it appears to work. I would rather see 4 flags than none, and if the NI one has to be the official one to satisfy this guy, no problem to me, it's just his method and the community response I have a problem with. MickMacNee (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You probably need to read the entire history of related talkpages on this issue (actually, no, don't bother, it'll take you years). No real consensus has ever been reached, but an uneasy truce seems to have settled on the fact that the Union Flag is generally used for NI (as, after all, it IS the official flag) except in sport-related articles, where the Ulster Banner flag is still used IRL to denote the country. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 00:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This guy has been a thorn in my side for some time now. He insists that the Manual of Style for anime and manga somehow does not apply to unaired episodes of the anime Zatch Bell!, even though an RfC I opened some time ago confirmed that this was the case.  And now he has resorted to leaving insults on my talk page and keeping them on even after I revert them.  I would like an admin to tell him in no uncertain terms to not leave any more messages on my talk page and that the matter regarding Zatch Bell! is settled.  I don't want to deal with him anymore. JuJube (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Krzyzowiec and extreme incivility / edit warring


Hello. I would like to request a block, or at least official warning. The case is following. I added to this completely unreferenced article: All-Polish Youth some sources and User:Krzyzowiec continues to whitewash it. I asked him on the talk page - - to stop removing valid references. He replied - - with harsh uncivil comments, calling me "socialist" and accusing me of "communistic propaganda", for instance. Moreover, he again blanked whole my constructive contributions, see, calling me "left-liberal kid" etc., in edit summaries. He also blanked references in similar article - - with mocking edit summary "NAnanNANa". If some anonymous IP would do this, it would be no problem to block it but this is other case, because it is registered user. Personally I think his uncivil behavior and removal of content is pure vandalism. He continues to vandalize both mentioned articles reverting various users, see and. Please, take some action. Thank you. - Darwinek (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Geez. He called you a socialist, a communist, and a Nazi all in one post. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 00:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Warning issued. A block might be appropriate anyway, but we'll see what happens. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 00:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

For recent edit summaries, see the following: <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 01:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Major move vandalism
I need some help here: A vandal (I indef blocked him) moved an extreme number of pages, and they need to be moved back. the vandalism. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is a ton! I have been moving pages back for 5 minutes now and there are still pages to go. This user really loves the number 41... hm... Tiptoety  talk 01:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's good he did not move the whole Wikipedia..:) First time I have seen a mover vandal. He must have read WP:BEANS. We should update WP:ABF this is notable for the article! "My user id has 41 so all Wikipedia articles should have 41 in them, because I own Wikipedia" A clear vilation of WP:OWN Igor Berger (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Too bad the user didn’t stop at 41 moves. :/ Good job cleaning up that massive mess. — Travis talk  03:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * He/she should start wiki41.org then they can have all articles end with 41. Igor Berger (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your warnings to the vandal should have read, "If we've asked you once (to stop vandalizing), we've asked you 41 times..." Jonneroo (talk) 03:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

User:JimmyjOHNS38
I've reverted two uncompleted AfD's done by which I considered to be done in bad faith (Hewlett-Packard was one article). Hope this was ok. If not, please let me know. Thanks. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk  ♦  contribs  03:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looks like you did the right thing. The articles simply had the AfD template added and were never properly submitted. It looks like the user was properly warned, but I’ll keep an eye on their activities for a while anyway. Thanks — Travis talk  03:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Long time abusing Wikipedia by Japanese editors from 2channel meat/sock puppets
I should've raised this issue as soon as I found out the above matter two weeks ago. I have reported several RFCU files on suspicious editors who vandalized Japanese-Korean related articles. Even before submitting RFCU files, I've been stalked by several Japanese editors such as, , since last December.,, ,

Recently, editors set up for a poll for naming title of Sea of Japan. As the poll was getting stale, a lot of new users suddenly came to to vote for oppose after Feb. 14th. So I googled my name and found out the 2channel's plot for the poll. It is not one time project, it has been going on since 2004. ウィキペディア (Wikipedia)英語版に挑む 04/05/28


 * Talk:Sea_of_Japan
 * Talk:Sea_of_Japan
 * User talk:LordAmeth

http://academy6.2ch.net/test/read.cgi/english/1085704624/

On 2channnel, Japanese editors who involve in Wikipeida have posted and discussed which Korean editors to stalk, which admins to watch, which articles the Japanese need to watch and revert, which Japanese editors to support.


 * Suspected sock puppets/Azukimonaka
 * Requests_for_checkuser/Case/KoreanShoriSenyou
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/Yuan.C.Lee
 * Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Saintjust
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/Opp2

These are the RFCU files on some of them and I have also a list of 2channel's threads. I think to resolve Japan-Korean related issues and to prevent misconducts from meat/sock puppetry, more admimi's watch is appreciated for for long time. Thanks.--Appletrees (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously, Endroit is trying to turn the issue from admins' attention with several blatant lies. That is sad. --Appletrees (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * How am I related to all of this? As I made it clear here, I do not condone canvassing by 2channel users, and I am not related to 2channel.  Please cease your personal attacks, Appletrees.--Endroit (talk) 05:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't make personal attack on me just like you have done so. Switching links and altering my comment is a big no no. Well, I saw your name mentioned at 2channel. And you're the one who makes series of bogus RFCUs per your history and accused me of being a socks of Appleby or others with just your assumption. --Appletrees (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Did not I ask you why you keep silence about the big meatpuppetry incidnet from Japanese 2channel unlike your past experience at ANI? I think I gave too many times to Japanese editors to stop disruptions.--Appletrees (talk) 06:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Challenge to English Wikipedia (2004-05-28)


 * Chosenjin's Wikipedia Fight against the fabrication 15translated by google


 * Chosenjin's Wikipedia Fight against the fabrication 16translated by google (Dokdo meditation)<--'s meatpuppetry.

translated by google
 * Chosenjin's Wikipedia Fight against the fabrication 17translated by google
 * Chosenjin's Wikipedia Fight against the fabrication 18translated by google
 * Chosenjin's Wikipedia Fight against the fabrication 19translated by google
 * Chosenjin's Wikipedia Fight against the fabrication 20translated by google
 * Chosenjin's Wikipedia Fight against the fabrication 21translated by google
 * Watch out on Chosenjin's fabrication part1translated by google

These links are achieved and stored at 2channel which are only partial and as you see, the number in the title says about it is series of discussion for meatpuppetry plots. The 18th is for naming change of Liancourt Rocks. They said about a lot of admins, some of which is against Japanese side such as User:Nihonjoe. --Appletrees (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow. This is the first time I've been called biased against both the Japanese "side" and the Korean "side" by the same person. I guess I must be doing my job if both sides think I'm against them. (^_^) ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That's it? Got it -_-;; --Appletrees (talk) 05:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia is a major topic in 2ch. Considering people talked about Wikipedia article as meat puppet is nonsense.--Mochi (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In your dictionary, stalking is a just fun and worthwhile job? You should change your book. At least have a shame on your misconduct.--Appletrees (talk) 05:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Nanshu's dubious behaviors
Although Nanshu and Endroit have strongly denied their relation with 2channel, famous Japanese bulletin board. However, Nanshu had not edit English or Japanese Wikipedia for 2 months, but suddenly came to warn User:LordAmeth of not listening to Korean's saying and ignoring 2channel meatpuppetry at Talk:Sea of Japan poll fraud which is very weird. He appears to be always on center of controversial disputes with questionable behaviors as well. To the contrary of Nanshu's argument, I identify Nanshu on the 2channel. His reports at the two place happened around 9 pm in Japanese time. See the green letters. (Japanese time is 9 hours faster than UTC) http://mobile.seisyun.net/cgi/read.cgi/society6/society6_korea_1198939173/

, a sock account, or friend of and / from 2channel visited to User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's talk page with this obvious sock account. The sock wrote ex post facto rationalization which is rarely used by non native English speaker unless they are related to the area. Hermenus/Saintjust are very knowledgeable of political philosophy according to talk page info. I googled it and the only result I got is not surprisingly, Nanshu also did get involved in the dispute with and Hermeneus.

If any checkuser looks into Engage31 and the possible "friends" at the same time, I think the possible relation of their meat or sockpuppetry can be confirmed. --Appletrees (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Chosenjin's Wikipedia : fight against the fabrication 20
I translated small part of one thread which has information about their blatant meatpuppetry and filled with personal attacks on any editors who are not pro-Japanese side. So look into the contents in the table.

This thread is likely going to the next archive page after a day per my ANI experience so far, but this is for the record and caution for Korean editors to prevent further abuses by 2channel and Japanese editors. Meat doll free Wikipedia. :D --Appletrees (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no doubt that there is an organized effort from 2chan to disrupt Wikipedia by canvassing. If they come in two's and four's, which they already have, this can result in a vote fraud for hot topics like East Sea, Tokdo etc. However, I'm not sure if external activities can result in some decisive action. Admins should at least be cautioned. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭  (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This off-wiki activity, apparently by at least some of our editors, seems to be highly disruptive. Can we please get some attention to this? Badagnani (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, this probably requires some action. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I am honored to be mentioned by another community.

What are the administrators going to do? If 2chan is going to bash on wikipedia, I could care less. But if they seriously were organizing everything about disrupting on Korea-related articles to project their bias, something should be done. Honestly, I think its pretty sad that you would organize a bashing project on Korea-related articles on Wikipedia. Really, its the internet, attempting to conspire about wikipedia is really a waste of time. As someone once said:

[Insulting comment removed]

I'm out, thats my two cents. Good friend100 (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Calling any/all RESPONSIBLE admins
Despite page protection, admins are continuing to edit the Jimmy Wales and Rachel Marsden page.

For the sake of decency and fairness would a few admins out there keep an eye on the pages and revert them to the version they were protected as? Sethie (talk) 02:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Then would that not just continue the revert/edit war? Tiptoety  talk 02:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyways, it appears to be one edit (to the Jimmy Wales page) ,made in good faith and was reverted. Tiptoety  talk 03:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Tiptoety, you are incorrect: the edit in question is to the Marsden page, by user Nyttend, and has not been reverted. See discussion above also. I request again (as done by several other editors) for an administrator to restore the protected version, as policy makes clear ought to be done. BCST2001 (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry. Thought we were also discussing the Jimmy Wales page as stated above. As for the situation with the other article, have you tried contacting the admin who's actions are in question? Tiptoety  talk 03:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I did. Here is his reply, on my talk page.  GRBerry 03:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yet another mis-application of WP:CENSOR. WP:CENSOR means we include images of Muhammad in Muhammad, images of a dick in penis, and don't remove articles on subjects Conservapedia considers we should not cover. It is not a license to include salacious gossip in WP:BLPs. Regardless of the merits of the content, it is an incorrect application of WP:CENSOR. Guy (Help!) 07:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Without any evaluation of the positives or negatives of the edit in question, it was a blatant breach of WP:PROT, so I reverted it. Orderinchaos 08:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, Guy, but no mention at all on the Rachel Marsden page isn't because we are not giving it undue weight, let's not kid ourselves. This is (or should be) a case such as is covered in the essay wp:recentism. But I think we all know that because it concerns Mr. Wales things will get get locked down rather tightly. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Cuts both ways. Some people will include anything even tangentially related to Jimbo in order to prove some point or other, some people will apply WP:BLP as strenuously as we should in every other WP:BLP article and more so. Guy (Help!) 14:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've put a HTML comment warning on the article and the section, since the big red text above the edit box doesn't seem to be enough. —Random832 18:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Philip Baird Shearer
For this user, any sports team like those of the Associação Académica de Coimbra, must be referred to by the English name. Since almost all the articles of sports teams articles in this Wiki use native language designations for the teams name, I (and other users) don't agree with this administrator actions. Besides that, this user/admin does the same errors and abuses over and over again. He has done a mess with the article Associação Académica de Coimbra (AAC), the AAC's sports teams, and related content. He broke all the rules in the survey on the same article and got a lot of complaints but he still thinks he is doing the good thing. For more info read the talk pages:, and here. He can't be serious. Yodaki (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * He is serious. He is also correct, per our policy. Leithp 16:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Which is the more common usage when the subject is written about in English? If its the English translation, then that should be the name of the article and the way it is mentioned within the article. As the convention says, include all other used forms of the name in the first paragraph. You can typically refer to the group acronym of the non-English name (Such as FARC, PKK, BJP, etc.). <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 16:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but neither Leithp or Avruch seem to know the case at hand (or naming conventions for sports teams). The problem with Philip Baird Shearer's moves is that he moved the pages at his own whim, against consensus. I suggest you look at the surveys that Yodaki referred to above. In the case of sports team they're usually not translated per WP:COMMON (e.g. Real Madrid, Internazionale, Atlético Mineiro, Monarcas Morelia). Only in some (rare) cases where the English translation is more common than the native name we use the translation (e.g. Red Star Belgrade and not Crvena zvezda). Sebisthlm (talk) 08:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: The issue is not the actual page moves per se, but rather how the moves were handled per my previous post on WP:ANI/Move request closing at WP:RM Sebisthlm (talk) 09:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yodaki, if you were going to post this here it would have been courteous to have informed me on my talk page. This specific WP:RM issue has been raised here before IncidentArchive376#Move request closing at WP:RM and at the same time IncidentArchive376#RM:Associação Académica de Coimbra. As I have pointed out under Talk:Coimbra Academic Association "[Naming] works the other way, the non translation into English in English reliable sources is necessary, to show that the rules about using English should not be followed."


 * You have not followed up on that comment to show me a policy or a guideline that says any thing to the contrary. It is no use bringing up well known teams like Real Madrid because there is a common usage in English (as I judged the professional team Associação Académica de Coimbra - O.A.F. when I looked at its WP:RM on the same day and did not move it). But student union sports teams are unlikely to have a common usage in English, so they should be translated. Quite frankly there is a good argument to argue that the daughter pages of Coimbra Academic Association  which we are debating here are stubs and as such should be deleted in favour of the information being in Coimbra Academic Association, as individual student union sports teams in Coimbra are probably not notable enough for an entry in an English Encyclopaedia (an AfD could consider that). But as I have said to you before I suggest that we continue the discussion on Talk:Coimbra Academic Association. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Philip Baird Shearer that this isn't the place to review the actual page moves; that is better done at Talk:Coimbra Academic Association. The reason I brought up the question of those RM's were that I wasn't satisfied with how they were closed. The way I see it WP:RM is a place to discuss potentially controversial page moves, where multiple users bring up different aspects of a move. The pages are either moved after a consensus (or at least a majority) is reached, or if no consensus is reached left where they are. In these cases the discussions were between two people (me and Yodaki, with a third participant on Associação Académica de Coimbra - O.A.F.) who didn't agree, but at least tried to shed some lights on the different aspects. Suddenly, the AAC page was moved without consensus by Baird Shearer who hadn't been part of the discussion and for reasons the admin himself admits is by his own interpretation of policies and without regard to the discussion. My question is still: What's the point in discussing page moves at WP:RM if the closing admins just disregard them and move (or not move) the pages by their own reasons? And if that's the procedure, I want know which policies it's based on. Sebisthlm (talk) 13:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

ForeverFreeSpeech
This user has been making insane accusations on Israel-Palestine conflict and the associated talk page, as well as Barack Obama and elsewhere.


 * (Undid revision 195817741 by Eleland (talk) undo hizbullshit)
 * (undo hamasshole)
 * ‎ (undo obama campaign staffer)
 * "I love how you're completely trying to mistranslate things to justify your racism. Grow up and get a clue, neither the SS, nor the KKK, nor any of the other groups you hang with are in vogue any more."
 * "Could it be you support terrorism and want to find a way to attack Israel using deliberate mistranslation and anti-semitic ramblings as a wedge? Accusations of Jews as "Nazis" seem like something you and your hezbollah friends do a lot of."

I'm not familiar with the whole CheckUser / SSP thing, but I get a strong, strong vibe of the indef-banned User:CltFn. The incivility alone is intolerable, but someone should look into that as well. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 16:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Having reminded the user several times to calm down, but watching the rhetoric going on in the associated pages, I wish all sides were able to calm down. Categorizing someone as "making insane accusations" isn't very helpful to anything, and the user's not had the best time with getting bitten either. M1rth (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * at this time, has been blocked; the talk page and block log messages seem slightly contradictory, and I don't think it falls into "harassment". I agree the 24-hour block is probably wise.
 * however, he's not the only one being incivil and I think that bears noting. Your rhetoric and behavior haven't been helpful either, Eleland. M1rth (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't an issue of "sides," m1rth. I have not done anything remotely comparable to FFF. It's interesting that you, a supposedly very new user, are here at ANI defending FFF, again. It's also interesting that you both edit on the same controversial topics. Tell me, M1rth, is this your only WP account? &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 17:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * sigh* It looks a heck of a lot like "sides" if you read the talk pages, Eleland. Then again, the poisonous nature of the Israeli/Palestinian debate almost ensures that's what it is. I've been trying my level best to get people to calm down on a number of pages, as well as having to work cleaning up the mess made by a nasty anti-Israel sockpuppetteer on FOOD articles of all things recently, not to mention well-meaning editors with faulty "anti-vandal" tools and/or judgement who kept thinking the cleanup itself was "vandalism"... I'm going to go lie down and get an advil for the migraine this is giving me. M1rth (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that this smacks of CltFn. A checkuser might be appropriate on both FFS and M1rth, in my view. Bellwether B  C  18:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Note for reference: is also currently blocked for using his IP address as a sockpuppet to edit war. More info on WP:SSP. M1rth (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect I'm out of line here but I'd have blocked indef, due to complete failure to engage or fix behaviour after multiple warnings, suspicion of sockpuppetry and so on. As it is, the block will expire in 24h and someone will likely have to come back and report them again. Guy (Help!) 18:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ForeverFreeSpeech has been warned numerous times and has made absolutely no concession to appropriate editing behavior. The 24 hours is extremely generous - the next block should be for 1 month to indefinite. WP:BITE is only half the story - a combative, pugnacious user who's unwilling to take any sort of step toward editing civilly or collaboratively is going to be shown the door in short order, as they should be. I'm absolutely sure that they are not the only editor behaving badly on the pages in question - for instance, I warned around the same time yesterday for edit-warring - and I'd be open to M1rth's assertions if they were backed by diffs. Alternately, it may be better to take this to WP:AE since the article falls under the Palestinian-Israeli ArbCom decision. MastCell Talk 19:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Meucci
Meucci has engaged in troll-like behaviour on the article, Alexander Graham Bell, including "following me home" and I really prefer WP:DNFT. Any suggestions would be appreciated. FWIW Bzuk (talk).
 * I've indef blocked. As Bzuk commented in the reverts to Alexander Graham Bell, Meucci's edits would be more appropriate in the Meucci article (with proper citations). However, the comment to User talk:Bzuk was so bizarre as to leave me little option. I welcome a review of my block, and have no problem with an unblock if the editor can provide a good reason for their latter comments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a couple of 'notes' in the references that make it clear that at least one of the Alexander Graham Bell editors is less concerned about the preservation of NPOV than he is about baiting pro-Meucci Italians, who would have learnt in school that Meucci invented the telephone (with a better claim, at least, than these disparaging remarks suggest.)
 * What part of the comment was 'so bizarre as to leave you little option'? I don't disagree with the block (and I'm not following you!  [see Locke Cole above]), but that remark seriously weakens the justification, because right away people are going to pop out of the woodwork wanting to discuss whether or not that was true, and how bizarre it really was, which is probably beside the point of whether or not the action merited a block. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 08:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring and BLP issues on Darko Trifunović
This has been a perpetual problem - we have both Bosnian and Serb extremists trying to edit war the article on a Bosnian Serb security expert who may or may not be a genocide denier (Darko Trifunović). BLP issues right and left. Edit warring. Possible attempts at whitewash by the article's subject and others.

I just blocked an IP and an editor on one side, and warned someone on the other (who may be trying to whitewash, but is behaving much better on the whole). If other previously uninvolved admins would like to come in and take a look more eyes and viewpoints would be helpful. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stepping in. I've tried to monitor the article and intervene in this dispute for quite a while, but to no avail. As George William Herbert rightly says, there are two sides in this dispute: one side tries to attack Trifunovic and the ethnic group to which he belongs, while the other side tries to attack those attacking Trifunovic. This article has been a magnet for BLP violations, legal threats, pov-pushing, soapboxing, fringe theories, unreliable sources, incivility and assumptions of bad faith. A  ecis Brievenbus 23:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * i have been wroking to improve the atmosphere of hts article by clearing up any ungrammatical and badly spelled mistakes in the article. it is my bleief that in order to reduce the negative enrgy in the article it must be beautified, so ir ecommend adding this article to either WP:Bosnia or WP:Serbia to increase an influx of wikifairies with good attitudes to coutneract the behavior shown on ocassion in contentious aritlces such as this. Smith Jones (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have a less-than-hopeful view that bringing in either side would have positive results, but not doing so hasn't worked either. Hopefully the project people are better behaved.  Perhaps the article should be deleted to make the controversy go away; as far as I can tell, Mr. Trifunovic is by our normal standards not hugely notable in the first place, though I didn't think that calling for article deletion earlier would be seen as positive.  Perhaps it should be, if bringing in a project doesn't help.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, look, another IP editor joins the fight.... Zzzzzap. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ...And another. I've semi-protected the article for now.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * thank you for you intervention but i see semi-rpotection as a temporary solution. a good one, but you cant have this article semi-protected for all eternity or until all the edit warriors die of old age. and it wont take long for them to be able to circumfent the protection either and figure out a way to cause more havoc than even before. perhaps it would be better to warn or ban the really egregious ofenders and really introduce editors from the WikiProjects. i find that editors dedicated to a particular segment are more likely to be more conscientous of wikipeida policies (altough i am not stereotyping editors who remain unafiliated) and it certainly couldnt hurt. I really cant recomend deleting the article over this, since there are lots of other controversial articles and if deleting them was seen as a solution to debate then prety soon we will only have a handufl of articles lying around anywhere in the world. Smith Jones (talk) 04:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * EDIT: apparnetly i aan "extremist Muslim propagandist". despite the fact that i have added no content to the articles of yet and hav eonly corrected a few formatting and spelling errors (it looks like the article was translated from some other language to English rather poorly). for an extremist Muslim propagandist i am surprisnygly tame. Smith Jones (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the problem with the editors on this article: if you don't allow them to use this article to expose The Truth™, you are The Enemy and you are misusing Wikipedia to promote your own pov. They see their own pov as NPOV. A classic case of WP:TIGER. A  ecis Brievenbus 12:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * the thing is i wantst even fighting any of them. all i did was fix a few tralslation errors and add a few hyperlinks. i never once questioend their NPOV on the arictle or its talk page, or even posted on the talk page. they just snaped at me and called me a Taliban member for nroea sreon. Smith Jones (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Angrymansr
First he attacks me very rudely: and. Then there is this:, where he messed with what I posted. He's had a grudge with me for a while, and I'm fed up with it. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You should probably see Dispute Resolution and maybe a little bit of this. --EoL talk 01:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * At any rate, incivility in that form is unacceptable. I left a note on their talk page. <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  02:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That is completely unacceptable behavior. Such offenses are subject to a block if they continue/escalate. Continue warning the user and report to WP:AIV, although you may want to start at WP:WQA. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 06:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

User:PunjabiConviction11
This is the fifth time i am reporting this sock puppet. And i think this is not going to be ther last. Isn't there a permanent solution Ajjay (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Your contributions don't reveal any reports to WP:SSP - Follow the instructions at the top of the page and provide links, diffs, and evidence so that the administrators may have a clear understanding of the history behind this user and the suspected socks. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 06:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Request removal of a history revision
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Pol64&oldid=189200916

I hate to do this, because in other instances I've known this user to be fair and rational, but User:VigilancePrime has been handling the deletion of Adult-child sex and its various reincarnations in a questionable manner. Other than recreating the material in his userspace, which in a similar instance was deleted, he also made a rather suspicious edit to User:Pol64, a now-banned user who was involved in the debate, where he placed the entire material of the deleted userspace article and then immediately reverted himself not a minute later. It seems to myself and some others users that he wanted to get the material into the revision history of the page. I can only guess as to the reason, perhaps it was meant as a taunt or as a way of keeping the material saved somewhere. But either way, this material and its history were deleted many times over, and I feel this particular revision should be deleted as well in accordance. Inquiries as to his motivation for the edit have thus far gone unanswered.

Thanks -- <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">Equazcion •✗/C • 05:24, 5 Mar 2008 (UTC)

✅. If necessary admins can still see it. -- Avi (talk) 05:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I note Eq's gracious mannerisms in this and appreciate that. I didn't even know that individual edits could be removed from an edit history! This one is gone and that's great! It was never meant as a taunt; it came up only recently though it happened a month ago. I didn't reply to the question on my page because I didn't even see his question, which was my mistake (and looking at my talk's edit history will confirm how busy a night it's been for me...). Anyway, I'm glad it's gone and I thank Avi and Eq for their good faith in dealing with it civilly and for getting rid of it, as I certainly don't want a questionable edit to remain. (Didn't know it was so easy to fix either.) <small style="font:10px Arial;display:inline;border:#690000 1px solid;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"> •   VigilancePrime    •    •    •  05:44 (UTC)  5 Mar '08


 * A pleasure [[image:face-smile.svg|25px]]. -- Avi (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course, you know that next time I screw something up and need ot rolled back with the history removed, I'm going to come crying to you, right? :-P Thanks again for your help. <small style="font:10px Arial;display:inline;border:#690000 1px solid;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"> •   VigilancePrime    •    •    •  05:54 (UTC)  5 Mar '08


 * That's what I'm here for, It would be a privilege :). -- Avi (talk) 05:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your attention to this, Avi. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">Equazcion •✗/C • 06:02, 5 Mar 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, a pleasure :) -- Avi (talk) 06:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

See the other ANI thread on this currently running. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 11:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

and rollback logo
Hey, not sure what the precedent is for this type of situation seeing is rollback is fairly new to non-admins and we have had few issues with it, but I notice that Pumpmeup has a rollback logo at the top right of his page (much like admins) but does not have rollbacker permission, actually it was just removed due to abuse. I contacted him, and tried to clear the situation up, but it appears he does not think he has to remove it. I personally don't know what to do in this situation, do i remove it like we do with users who display the admin logo and are not, or does it really confuse users/disrupt the project? Tiptoety talk 06:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised this got to AN/I. Just extra info regarding the removal itself to anyone who wants to know, the only discussion is located on AzaToth's talk page. <font color="Purple">Pump me  up  06:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * After looking over Pumpmeup's userpage again I noticed that the verify link on the rollback userbox links to the userrights log of another user, this can be and is very misleading... Tiptoety  talk 06:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't link to another user at all. That's just another name that pops up for some reason (Mediawiki isn't perfect). You seem to be intent on having a meaningless logo removed from a meaningless editor's userpage? Not that I mind the discussion, though. --<font color="Purple">Pump me  up  06:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that just means that "Pumpmeup" is not a rollbacker and as the search says, the first name that is a rollbacker AFTER Pumpmeup is Pundit. Try running the search with user groups set to all :) -- Avi (talk) 07:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I just figured that out. My opinion is that the userbox/logos should probably be removed from Pumpmeup's userpage, just to avoid confusion. Tiptoety  talk 07:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (multiple edit conflicts) My personal opinion would be that may have had made good contributions to the projects, and is continuing to do so, I will not characterize him as being of good standing right now.


 * Briefly, he had an episode, and he vandalized the featured article of the day. He was subsequently blocked, and unblocked on request. He thought being blocked was ridiculous (he's entitled to his opinion), and told him off . He made a very rude comment to Finell, which I deleted on his request.. He was subsequently warned for his incivility, and his rollback privileges were revoked.


 * I've no personal stake in the matter, but I do believe Pumpmeup is being evasive by suggesting that this rollback issue is not part of a larger problem in the recent past. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 07:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that is not what I said, but |AzaToth did never mention any reason for removing other than those stated. --<font color="Purple">Pump me  up  07:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever the merits of the case, you will do yourself a favour by removing the logo unless and until you get rollback privileges back. Guy (Help!) 09:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Gah, this is why admins giving rollback was always a terrible idea. This whole thread is about what, sorry? Logos and nonsense - what's it got to do with anything?--Docg 09:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you'd hope it's useless, but after all that drama with the admin recall cat, faking rollback could go a long way, unfortunately. Ben, Pumpmeup, just remove it, and save everyone the trouble. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 11:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Getting a bit bored with User:Lordvolton
Does anyone fancy boldly going where several admins have failed to make an impression? I first found LV him being incivil on an AfD, went to his user page to warn him and found him already blocked, which I endorsed. Since then he has been putting a number of factually incorrect remarks claiming cabal continuing in a generally incivil manner which doesn't seem a good thing  etc. . Could I invite someone with a little time and fairly thick skin (because you'll get bitten too) to look at the series of edits and various allegations done and talk to him about his general approach to things? There are strong cabal elements to his accusations. I don't really want to summarize more or make a selection, his edit history and mine would do for a start. --BozMo talk 10:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Lordvolton seems to have gone off the deep end after the deletion of a pet article, not uncommon. This may calm down when the dust has settled.  I will leave a note on his talk page. Guy (Help!) 11:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well the editor does have some grievance, Should those grievance not be addressed in a cunstructive matter by the community with a consensus. It would be nice if someone woulld notify of this ANI thread to him so he can come here and comment on the turn of events. Maybe Guy can invite him here. Igor Berger (talk) 11:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly suspect that inviting him to air his grievance will only entrench the parties and lead to an escalation. If anyone reading this sees any issue worth taking up with William then I am sure they will do so, but this was in the end a brief block aimed at preventing disruption for a while, and we should help Lordvolton to get over it rather than encourage him to further escalate a dispute which, from my reading of the situation, he really can't win, certainly at the content level. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Guy you might be right but I just do not want him to feel that two admins are gunning against him without community consensus. So having him harbor such beleives may create confrontation again. But you are right about, if he comes here it will probably escalate higher and that is not good. Let's give him time to relax, and I advice to the admins involved to give the editor a little WP:AGF and a little leeway. If we call someone a WP:DUCK it will quack even if it is a WP:HORSE Igor Berger (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know which the two were but I am obviously not personally gunning against him or anyone. I would just rather he calmed down and started normal discourse rather than firing off salvos and believing we are all out to get him. --BozMo talk 13:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! Sometimes there is some tension from both sides, so it is good to bridge together and to help each other. Thanks, Igor Berger (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Purging of user page
I call for intervention with regards to the blanking of user page: User:Lir. As I understand praxis and guidelines, action by User:Calton in this matter is inapproriate, and discussion on the user talk pages of me and him is not going to resolve this conflict. __meco (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What User:Lir has on his user page is disruptive here so I understand another editor blanking the page. Igor Berger (talk) 12:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That type of content is normally subject to deletion, as it violates the rule that user pages are supposed to be constructively connected with editing. Such content certainly is subject to delete in the case of blocked users, although the user in question is apparently not blocked. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, much of that screed isn't acceptable on a user page. He can protest his block without the name-calling and personal attacks.  Don't put it back in its present form, please. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 12:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That account was inactive for like a year, and once the block was lifted, he started in with his rant. Give the boy some points for patience. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well he does not seem to be blocked now, but have a look at his block history Lir block history Igor Berger (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Methinks I detect a trend. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, his block lasted nearly three years, if I read the block log correctly; that is, a one-year block that was reset frequently. --Calton | Talk 15:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * He put it back again, so I cleared and protected. Nothing else to see here, I think. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 14:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I like how its already resolved, without even talking to Meco, or discussing it further. Its amazing how your little kangaroo courts work. Face it kids, you are censoring critics, because... you are that kind of person. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What, exactly, would be the point of talking to Meco, here? What special authority does he have? --Calton | Talk 15:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's lucky that my assumption of good faith stretches to believing that an account that was created three days after Lir was blocked for a year is completely unrelated. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 18:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sock/meat puppetry extranvaganza at Articles for deletion/Jack Hobson-Dupont
accidentally by, well, me. <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper  |  <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76   |  <font color="#ff0000"> Disclaimer  16:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC) It appears that Jack Hobson-Dupont has enlisted a group of supporters to prevent the deletion of his article. IP blocking seems likely to be ineffective, but I would suggest that Articles for deletion/Jack Hobson-Dupont be protected from IP/new user editing. Mangoe (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You have a winner here..:) Nice debate, just give out popcorn! Maybe you can get the socks to write a new book for the author, being that they like him so much. Googled it and could not find any notability sources for the author, just book marketting on different online Websites. Igor Berger (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ooh! I just closed this early as it was going nowhere and in a hurry to get there.  Didn't know there was a thread on it!  I get a cookie!  <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper   |  <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76   |  <font color="#ff0000"> Disclaimer  16:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

92.12.65.8
Block needed for this IP address, who insists on posting obscene nonsense on talk pages. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not just take it to AIV They execute them on site. Igor Berger (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. That page requires filling out a template. I'm kind of template-challenged. :( Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 55h. I guess the "%$#@ off FAG" edit summaries and the repeated inclusions of very libelous material wasn't enough... <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  14:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

See. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is a lulu! He has a whole army of Evil Brothers..:) Igor Berger (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's good to have a hobby, though, ain't it? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My Page BMC Chat
Usually, using Wikipedia as a chat box is confined to user pages and talk pages. In this case, it is a mainspace article, almost two days old and with 5 different editors. Does anyone know what the best to handle this is (apart from deleting the page, obviously)? I think they are all students from Bishop McLaughlin Catholic High School (AKA BMC). Also have a look at the 12 hour old Codeak!! hes is completly awesome and the impersonation (?) of Jayron32 at User:Irishfan3124. Fram (talk) 14:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How about moving the page to one of the users sandbox? They will not even know they have been moved..:) Or you can CSD it. Igor Berger (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Moving it to a sandbox doesn't really help, as people are not supposed to use Wikipedia as a chatbox anywhere, not in the mainspace obviously but also not in user space. Fram (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well you CSD the page they will just create a new one. They are talking about that on the page already. So go block them all. Have fun! Igor Berger (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The page started at User:Wiltingflower and was moved to My Page BMC Chat. I'd say move it back, delete the redirect, and leave a message about Wikipedia not being a discussion forum, and that blocks would eventually follow if it continued. --Onorem♠Dil 14:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Bah...finished 1 and 2, but was too slow for 3. --Onorem♠Dil 15:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I had missed the page move, that explains why it survived for a few days. Fram (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh... You beat me to the move, so I beat you to the deletion. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 15:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I couldn't delete it myself, but I did get it tagged first. --Onorem♠Dil 15:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Florentino floro
This section has been blanked as a courtesy. —Random832 02:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

User:PaxEquilibrium
In my thinking this user has kidnapped articles Pagania and Tvrtko I of Bosnia and because of that I am asking that he is not allowed any more to edit this articles. On talk page of article Pagania there is consensus that population of that state are not Serbs. Users Marinko, 83.131.246.108 ,Afrika Paprika , 193.198.128.12  ,Marinko8 and Kubura , 24.80.118.62 and 193.198.128.12 , Linguae Latinae. All in all on talk page vote is around 10:1 (HolyRomanEmperor is second name of PaxEquilibrium) that Serbs nationality need to be deleted from article, but Pax is always reverting changes.

In talk page of article Tvrtko I of Bosnia vote is 4:1 that we need to have other version of name writen not only Serbian version and then comments he is sometime called... Users EmirA, ,Aradic-en   and Rjecina   are asking that Croatian version of name is added. User 78.3.33.176 has demanded that Ikavian version of name is added, but User:PaxEquilibrium are always reverting article to his version which speaks:Stephen Tvrtko I (Stefan, sometimes translated as Stjepan, Stevan,...) is only right version. In begining on talk page even he has recognized that all Bosnian rulers are called Stjepan but latter he has forget that.

He has writen best comment about his editorial style when I have declared on his talk page that I am only interested in legal arguments (about article Podgorica Assembly). His answer has been:"I am not interested just in legal argument I want to gladly inspect the situation as a whole." . Because his editorial style and working against consensus I am asking that he is not allowed anymore to edit articles Pagania and Tvrtko I of Bosnia --Rjecina (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't see anything about PaxEquilibrium's behavior offhand that warrants administrator intervention; there's no edit warring going on, just a lot of talk page discussion. If you need further help resolving the issues, you should review Wikipedia's dispute resolution. Shell babelfish 05:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Counting banned users and nationalist pov-warriors in your "vote" count of a discussion from 2006 does not help your case any. Argyriou (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

User:VartanM
This contributor is personally attacking me on the Wikipedia board here, calling me "You are immature, fooling around articles, with your childish adding". I never said the words that he is adding and never used "he-he" in my comments. I prefer not to respond to him, but the contributor is also Wikistalking my talk page edits and has been attempting to WP:HARASS before that. The contributor is a party to ArbCom case, and is currently under a parole and supervised editing. Atabek (talk) 05:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:AIV is appropriate after repeated violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASSMENT. Suggest warning the user a final time. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 08:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I dropped a message on the user's talk page directing him/her to this discussion just in case. They should be aware of it. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 08:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a repeated violation. Prior instance of warning for incivility for this contributor is available here, this is among numerous other warnings on revert warring, two ArbComs, and a parole. Repeated lenience only results in confidence of the offender and sophistication of attacks. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I overreacted, I should have only ignored Atabek's disruptions, as answering to them will usual lead me being reported here. Anyway, I'll do what MarshallBagramyan does and ignore Atabek and his disruptions.VartanM (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see how accusing me in return of "disruptions", is at all reconsideration for a repeated personal attack. If this leniency towards incivility is going to continue, it certainly may set a bad precedent for many others. I am personally tired of spending my time to contribute to articles with references and then listen to VartanM's insults for no reason. Atabek (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV of an arcticle
Hi, I couldn't find anywhere to place this, so I am going to enter the problem here: the arcticle about Kosovo's Independence that I came across "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reaction_to_the_2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence" is extremely biased. Three editors, GreenClawPristina, Mareklug, Ijanderson977 are doing whatever they want, no matter how other editors and viewers vote. After reading the discussion page, I believe that the neutrality of the article is severely flawed. For instance the article's title was "Diplomatic Reaction to Kosovo's Declaration of Independence" and the trio, with no support from anyone, changed it to "International Reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of Independence". In addition they re-did the whole map to their whims. We need a an NPOV and unbiased moderator there, FAST, because soon the whole article will turn into an edit war. On of the most neutral editors made this comment: "All right what is wrong with this article. Why is almost every editor here pro-Kosovo independence and against Serbia. Some of you even insulted Serbia talking about genocide. You have attacked again and again editors that are not of your opinion who want to add countries that are against the independence of Kosovo to the list. You remove those countries again and again from those lists and put them to the neutral list." Serbian "genocide" has yet to be proven, kinda like WMDs in that one place, so asserting it in the faces of the other editors is POV. So again, please send someone who has no stake in Kosovo's Politics one way or another to help us with this article, or delete the whole damn thing, but it's as much NPOV as the Communist Pravda used to be. 68.166.135.163 (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi 68. This problem seems to concern a content issue and does not need the attention of administrators, who have no powers to intervene other than in cases of abuse. There was a small revert war yesterday afternoon (UTC), but it seems over now with some signs of agreement between the parties. If you still feel there's a problem, you might find following the steps at dispute resolution useful. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 10:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And in any case, the accusations and finger-pointing are misplaced, partly groundless, not supported by evidence from revision history. For one, I did not participate in the article re-architecting, its actual renames (I made a proposition which was disregarded, "Recognition of the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence"), or instituting/editing the new map (or even, editing the old maps). Ironically, the new version was conceived of, discussed, and implemented by Avala/ljanderson, who if anything, represent the pro-Serb/pro-Kosovar viewpoints and are working together. :) Anyway... while I remain agnostic as to which version must be adopted, the new one, in a constructive reaction to edit warring that occurred earlier and caused page protection of both the page and its maps, avoids much POVing and ORing, by eliminating interpretation on the part of editors. The fact, that POV edits continue to be made (see: Uruguay) speaks for this version and its new map, as it is easier to correct POV in this version, apparently without engendering vicious revert cycles, or POV beyond hope of fixing. --Mareklug talk 14:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, a NPOV noticeboard was just set up to examine articles and determine whether or not there are NPOV violations. Unless you need specific administrative action, that might be the place to take it. -- jonny - m  t  14:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not take part in changing the name to "International Reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of Independence". Please check the page history in future before accusing me of thing I didn't do. I have never mention "genocide" in the article or in the talk page either. Yet again, please check the page history before accusing me of thing i haven't done. I am NPOV in all my editing, to prove this i have worked with User:Avala on many occasions on editing the page. He happens to be pro Serbian and I am pro Kosovar. So since I've been working with him, he is going to notice if i write anything Pro Kosovo, and i will notice if he writes something Pro Serbian. So we represent both view points and work together neutrally. So get your facts correct before blaming people. Also user:Mareklug has not done anything he has been accused of either, because i have checked the history on him and there is no sign of him editing of what you have accused him of doing. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior of Anon
An anon editor 205.156.188.254 is continuously adding non - notable content to the article Awan (Pakistan) even he was given enough warnings and a comprehensive explanation was given on the talk page of the article by User:Green Giant regarding that issue. Also I must mention here the editor also made a comment here about this issue. -- S M S  Talk 19:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a comment, seeing as though this is a content dispute and the user is more or less violating WP:3RR, you could report them there as well for a temp block. Looks like just robotic reversions without usage of an edit summary. I'll let an admin decide what's appropriate action to take here though. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 20:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * But that Anon editor wasn't violating 3RR, so i thought to report it here. -- S M S  Talk 20:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No no, it's cool. I was just giving you my opinion. Remember, a user doesn't have to revert three times in 24 hours to violate the policy. It's also the dynamics of the reversions. It was just a suggestion, moot now that the issue is resolved due to the blanking vandalism noted by Evil Saltine below. Cheers! <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 21:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Got it! I will surely report this type of report with diffs(which were missing here) at the WP:AN3RR in future. Thanks! -- S M S  Talk 21:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * These and the lack of other comments did it for me. Blocked. Evil saltine (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a herd of bored kids...
My watchlist is suddenly populated with vandalism edits from the 167.128.220.xxx range, and the reverts thereof. I count 4 IPs simultaneously originating from "Linn-Benton Education Service District" and I'm thinking some study-hall is having a Wiki-party. Anything we can do, other than warn, revert, block? Gladys J Cortez 19:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thankfully, study halls generally only last an hour. Warn, revert, block (and let us know, or AIV, if any damage is done that warrants a block....  <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper   |  <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76   |  <font color="#ff0000"> Disclaimer  20:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If it gets really bad, you can file a report at Abuse Reports.-- Yjgn33 (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, perma-blocking vandal IPs isn't done. Better have the vandalism than make users actually make a login. So goes the WikiCommonSense. <small style="font:10px Arial;display:inline;border:#690000 1px solid;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"> •   VigilancePrime    •    •    •  00:06 (UTC)  6 Mar '08
 * WP:WikiCommonSense now that is something that can be made notable. Igor Berger (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

216.186.63.137
Could somone block this nut for awhile? Thank you! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You should report him at WP:AIV. <font face="Futura Lt BT" size="3"> Diligent Terrier  and friends 20:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Or I could just let him keep doing it while I try to figure out the form on that page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Baseball Bugs - if you need some pointers on how to use the AIV page drop me a note on my talk - I understand it's a bit funny the first few times, and I'll be happy to help. Pedro : Chat  20:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll look at it this evening. Meanwhile, hopefully that guy has gone away. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You should just get Twinkle. It makes the whole job a lot easier!  <font face="Futura Lt BT" size="3"> Diligent Terrier  and friends 21:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I second that. Twinkle is a very efficient tool - but be careful using it in the beginning. It has a tendency to turn users into robots for certain applications (partly facetious). However, you'll definitely beat people to the punch without having to follow the cumbersome instructions for certain report procedures. To make sure it's appropriate. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 23:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous IP addresses 99.235.43.93 and 24.36.9.241 continuing to make personal attacks
After vandalizing Wikipedia pages and my userpage, User talk:99.235.43.93 is on his third block, this time for a week. Despite being warned about removing notices from talk pages, he continues to do so, and he also adds strange notices to his talk page like "Starbucks has bad coffee". Now he is resorting to personal attacks on his talk page, and after denying that he did any vandalism, now is saying that I deserved it when he vandalized my userpage. Because of the complex edits he makes to templates, it is obvious that he is actually an experienced user. Maybe we can file for Checkuser? Another IP address, User talk:24.36.9.241, which is also been associated with vandalism on the same pages at the same time, is now also making personal attacks on User talk:99.235.43.93. The IP address User talk:24.36.9.241 is most likely a friend that User talk:99.235.43.93 recruited to help him out with the vandalism, and make the personal attakcs. Please extend block for both users and protect talk pages. Thank you. (If you have to respond to me for anything, please do so on my talk page. Thanks!)   <font face="Futura Lt BT" size="3"> Diligent Terrier  and friends 19:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I answered the above on WP:AN - although I wish I'd seen it here first, 'cos over there I recommended you take vandalism to AIV and I see you recommending the same a couple of sections above... Anyhow, please don't multipost the same complaint as it may tie up more sysops than is needed. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Picture of Obama's house
first and only contribution is a picture of Obama's house in south-side Chicago. While this is arguably relevant as a current news issue, does anyone else have privacy and/or safety concerns with this? Ronnotel (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Barack obamas house.jpg is on Commons, and they will deal with t - the description page is complaining already wit issues about the image. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As a serious presidential candidate, Obama is already under the protection of the Secret Service. I think any additional threat to his security imposed by posting a picture of his house on the Internet will be negligible. There may of course still be relevancy concerns as to why the picture is in the article, but it does not logically rise to the level of an invasion of privacy. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Adding the image to the Tony Rezko article seems to be a violation of WP:WEIGHT, though, and seems to have been done for political purposes. <font face="Arial"> Corvus cornix  talk  21:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There's also no source listed for the image, and the PD:US Government tag is thus dubious. FCYTravis (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (e/c) To be fair though, there is an entire paragraph or two that addresses the (alleged) impropriety with property sales, and the image caption explains why it's there. I don't have a particular preference as to whether the picture stays or goes, but I don't think it's necessarily a weight issue.  <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper   |  <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76   |  <font color="#ff0000"> Disclaimer  21:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed the image pending its sourcing and proper licence tagging. FCYTravis (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with FCYTravis. Biographies of Living People should be written "conservatively". When in doubt take it out.Momento (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Image deleted as a copyright violation, see the Commons log. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Ssj5perfect cell
has blanked the RFCU for Kane584. <font face="Arial"> Corvus cornix talk  23:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

IP hopping vandal
and are performing the same acts of vandalism, but 220... resolves to Dhirubai Ambani Knowledge City in Mumbai, while 132... resolves to Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico. How does that happen? <font face="Arial"> Corvus cornix talk  00:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Open proxy, perhaps? — Travis talk  00:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll smack it on WP:OP and have them see. The first one doesn't have a reverse DNS, so, that's the one I suspect... --EoL talk 02:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Both proxies, both blocked.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 05:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

User Xiutwel has blanked page "The Money Masters"
A full wikipedia page describing the documentary has been blanked by user "Xiutwel"; I am not a Wikipedia expert, however I am a frequent user and look forward to contributing in the future when I feel I understand the policies well enough.

Having read the previous edit of this article, I am unaware of any political bias it has as it merely describes the documentary (which bases itself in verbose historical fact, and is presented in a professional manner).

I was tempted to merely undo the changes this user has made, however I have noticed that they are also involved in the editing of other potentially controversial articles on the site, and therefore feel obliged to ask that this user be investigated as a heavily biased contributer.

My apologies if this is an inappropriate post- as I said I am not an expert in the various interfaces and channels wikipedia uses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.179.136 (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you read Articles for deletion/The Money Masters? And why are you claiming that Xiutwel "blanked" the page?  There is no page at The Money Masters.  <font face="Arial"> Corvus cornix  talk  00:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I am a a novice user, so that may possibly explain why I have not seen the "articles for deletion" page. And as a novice user, I found my way to the page from google (try searching "money masters wiki") and as such found it to read "Blanked" with the previous history naming the user, whom having read their profile, I deem to have less than neutral views based on he fact that every article they involve themselves in is based loosely around the web of conspiracies that surround 9/11/01, i.e. free energy suppression, independant news and world government.

Also, following a link from the users personal page I was confronted with a link to "Save the Internet — http://www.dontregulate.org/" which gives a very one sided debate which amounts to no more than a slanderous assault on Net Neutrality.

Futhermore, having read the terms of removal (WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS) I submit that Bad Taste (the film) has not been removed because there are no verifiable space aliens in New Zealand, and niether has the article on the film "Jack Frost 2: Revenge of the Mutant Killer Snowman" due to lack of notability or reliable sources citing killer snowmen. Surely these terms of removal are in place to stop me from telling people that chickens are six foot tall lizards with twenty legs, rather than to enable someone to remove a documentary they disagree with.

I strongly urge reconsideration of this verdict, however I will not clutter this page anymore than I have, as I believe the above turn of events has left me "posting in the wrong forum". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.179.136 (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If you feel that the deletion of this article was unjustified or poorly motivated and feel that the consensus reached could be undone/changed/overturned etc..etc....then visit WP:DRV. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 02:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What happened here is the The Money Masters was deleted following the above discussion. However, Xiutwel wanted to work on it, and so had it userfied to User:Xiutwel/The Money Masters.  He since blanked this page, which is presumably what the IP user is talking about.  This userpage space is now the top hit for the search the user suggests, and it's understandable that it could be confusing.  I've had my conflicts with Xiutwel, but he's done nothing wrong here.  Perhaps all that needs to happen is a userpage notice be added.  --Haemo (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that the anon user is aware that the article can be read through the page's history. The last version is available here Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  03:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Makeoutclub
Why in the hell are we semiprotecting AfD pages??? AfD is supposed to be open to anyone who wants to participate, and alleged meatpuppets will be discounted naturally by the closing admin. I strongly object to preventing people from participating in AfD debates. -- RoninBK T C 03:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've had to make AfDs semi'd because of severe disruption of the AfD by sockpuppets. If there's such a concern here, then the semi is warranted. -  Jéské  ( v^_^v  :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife ) 03:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The protecting admin's notes say because of tenditios editing from IPs. It's only semi protecting, so only IPs and users with account under 4 days old can't edit. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 03:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll also note that, typically, IPs and new editors who wish to make a serious, good faith contribution to the discussion can post on the talk page of the debate. It's not the same, true - but they can still contribute. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 03:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * IPs were inserting libelous statements about a user who in turn complained to OTRS where I handled the ticket and in turn protected the page and purged it's history. Also, my talk page would have been the sensible place to start, not ANI. John Reaves 03:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ticket #2008030410017099 for those with access. John Reaves 03:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)My apologies, for acting out of process, John, and for jumping to conclusions. Not knowing the OTRS situation, I was led to believe that the protection was placed to prevent alleged meatpuppets from debating. I withdraw my assumption of bad faith -- RoninBK T C 03:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I checked the deleted edits and the ticket, and both the deletion and the semiprotection and justified. In fact, given the magnitude of the libel, I don't think oversight would be overkill either.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Locke Cole and fair use edit warring
Since February 20, User:Locke Cole has been engaged in a slow edit war with myself and BetacommandBot on Image:Buffy606.jpg. The image has repeatedly been tagged with dfu for having an insufficient fair use rationale per WP:NFCC #10c. LC has made five removals of the warning template without fixing the problem. LC has previously been sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee for edit warring, was placed on revert parole and knows not to do this. In an unrelated incident, he even warned another user about 3RR. He knows better. He seems to want to rant against our fair use policies (see ). Help, please. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked and I don't see the problem with the rationale. And as I said in my last revert, IF YOU SEE THE PROBLEM, WHY AREN'T YOU FIXING IT? Is Wikipedia getting collectively lazy or is it just me? BTW, nice poisoning the well there by dredging up my over a year old RFAR... —Locke Cole • t • c 22:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Burden of proof is on those wishing to include. Hammersoft has no obligation to add rationales. Will (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If he sees the problem and I do not, then he either needs to fix it (since apparently it's obvious to him) or he needs to stop reverting. End of story. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, not end of story. The person seeking to include the picture has the burden of making it compliant with all policies.  If that person chooses not to, it can be deleted.  Its that simple.  Locke Cole is in danger of violating 3RR over this issue. The issue all goes away the second Locke Cole adds a valid fair-use rationale to the article that is compliant with policy. Then, its not a revert, but an improvement. However, if he simply reverts even one more time, he is likely to be blocked for edit-warring. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  22:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As a point of information, what is the problem with he image's fair use rationale? I took a look and it's not obvious to me. The burden of proof may well be on the uploader to provide an appropriate rationale, but if someone tags it as insufficient, then they certainly must have grounds for making that assessment, and it would seem only right to share those grounds. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  22:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's that the image does not fulfil fair-use as it's not referred to in the text of the article where it's used and appears to be being used merely for decoration and is therefore not a fair use, and the rationale does not address this. That's my take on it, anyway. --<font color="7F007F">Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 22:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It wasn't obvious to me either what the problem was. And instead of helping resolve the issue as he should have (by taking it to the talk page, if he's so unwilling to fix it himself) he chose to revert war over it. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (after multi-ec) No, this was a "10c" tag. The image page needs to have the name of the article(s) where the image is used. This doesn't need to be a wikilink, but it needs to be the exact name or a redirect to the exact name. Any listing in "File links" is dynamic and doesn't count. Gimmetrow 22:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, though he was under no obligation to do so, User:Sceptre (Will) has fixed the problem. However, that Will fixed this one does not excuse Locke Cole from cleaning up his own mess (see below) or from future edit warring over the FUR tags. --Jayron32. talk . contribs 22:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

LC has a number of other fair use images missing rationales entirely: --Hammersoft (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Dolby-Digital-Plus.svg
 * Image:Dolby TrueHD.svg
 * Image:Silk.stalkings.logo.svg
 * Image:LaserDisc.svg
 * Image:D-VHS.svg
 * Image:S-VHS.svg
 * Image:LD-mark.svg


 * You'll notice that 90% of those images were uploaded before fair-use rationales were mandatory.. or maybe you won't notice. BTW, stop wikistalking me. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The oldest of those images is from 26 February 2006. The policy at the time did require a fair use rationale . All of those images were uploaded out of compliance with our then policies. Sorry. As to wiki-stalking; hardly. You have a contributions log for a reason. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My contribution log is not for you to go fishing looking for anything and everything you think I've ever done wrong. Whether or not it was policy back then, it certainly wasn't preached as being necessary like it is now. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you think reviewing your contributions log constitutes stalking you. It isn't. Noting additional problems with your uploads does not constitute harassment. Fair use rationales were certainly required back then, and you've continued to make uploads that do not comply with that policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is pleasant. Cough. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have issued a 48 block on the grounds of WP:HARASS per the diff provided above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That seems inappropriate here. Gimmetrow 22:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A 48 hour block for an act of incivility on one's own talk page? This looks to be out of proportion on both sides (though the incivility is more on one side than the other, obviously).  I spent a few minutes and added use rationales to the first two logos and ms. pac man.  Not much effort at all.  We all know that the method of deleting and tagging old images that were uploaded before we enforced a use rationale requirement is controversial and has raised anger and stress.  No need to get into a stand-off over it.  Actually, there is a directive to fix images rather than delete them.  That's a lot simpler than making a big deal of it.Wikidemo (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)In what way? The editor has a history of aggressively pursuing agenda's at odds with WP policy, targets individuals who apply said policy, had an ArbCom back in 2006 on similar grounds, is unrepentant over their conduct, and ironically provides other contributors with lots of work in trying to accommodate their POV. Please note that (AFAIAA) I have never encountered this editor previously, and only acquainted myself with their history from the links provided here. Naturally, I am content to be guided by consensus but I would like to know the grounds for differing opinions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The 2006 arbcom is old enough to be irrelevant. LC said he didn't see what the problem was, and Hammersoft failed to communicate it. Gimmetrow 23:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The warning tag, which I referred to twice, clearly stated why the image failed WP:NFCC. You can see for yourself . --Hammersoft (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And LC said he didn't understand. So one would naturally explain it to him, right? Gimmetrow 23:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec X 2)
 * I'm not questioning anybody's judgment, just commenting that it's easier to fix images than get into disputes over them. For (relatively) important articles like Ms. Pac Man, laserdisc, and Dolby Labs products, it's easiest to just add the rationales and be done with it.  Those articles are for the benefit of the encyclopedia, not the image uploader, so it's in everyone's best interest to get them fixed.  We have a finite number of noncompliant images left to go, and they'll all be either deleted or fixed within a month.    For stuff like a particular episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer where the image won't comply even with a use rationale, maybe easiest to nominate it for deletion or simply delete it if the uploader had their 2 days' notice (they proved they got the notice by deleting it).  Now, if the editor keeps uploading new images without rationales to make a point, or games/edit wars by removing valid image tags without fixing the images, that's an ongoing problem that has to be dealt with. Wikidemo (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (reply to Gimmetrow)I was not blocking on the basis of the 2006 ArbCom, I am noting that the issues under which I blocked are essentially the same as 2006. I find that the editor has not moved on from the stances or behaviours which led to that process and those findings. Not only is that unfortunate, but also an indication that opinion and discussion of itself is unlikely to alter their behaviour. To remove that point of disruption I felt I had no alternative but to issue a block. Will the block change the editors opinion? Unlikely. Will it persuade the editor to discuss their opinion in more civil terms? Possibly, at least in the short term. Will it persuade the editor to consider that others opinions have just as much right to be aired and considered? Well, that is the hope. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

So are we unblocking LC or not? Gimmetrow 23:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the block was a good call. It prevented further escalating disruption (what with the edit warring, the bad attitude and the increasing incivility). I have no history of this user before this event so as an outsider, it just looks like a culmination of mounting frustration at a process and behaviour that he disagrees with. It seems directed at specific editors as he engaged in very civil conversation with me. However, venting frustration in the manner he had been doing is unacceptable. <font color="FF69B4">Seraphim&hearts;  Whipp 23:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool-down blocks are not a good idea. Gimmetrow 00:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't suggest it was a cool down block. I said it prevented further escalating disruption and I think prevention is the #1 on the list of reasons to block. <font color="FF69B4">Seraphim&hearts;  Whipp 00:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen no evidence that stopping and explaining to LC would not have been successful. That's the #1 way to prevent problems. Gimmetrow 00:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Two points: 1) I endorse the block on civility and NPA grounds. He was getting quite ugly about it.  2) Yes, it is a noble act for any user who comes across an improperly used or labeled image to fix it so that the image page is compliant.  Such users should be commended.  However no one is under any obligation to do so and we should not hold anyone to that standard.  It is still the responsibility of the person who added the image to an article to make sure that the image is compliant to all Wikipedia policies; if they don't understand the policies, they shouldn't be uploading images or adding them to articles.  Its that simple.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  00:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're going to edit war to enforce policy, then you damn well better explain the policy to the person who doesn't understand it, or you're doing nothing to de-escalate the situation. I see Hammersoft has not notified LC of the disputed images, and in fact has never edited LC's talk page. Gimmetrow 00:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Locke Cole's talk page is filled with warnings and about mis-labeled images. He was given ample opportunity to responde to these warnings, and continued to act in willful ignorance of them.  That Hammersoft did not specifically leave any of the warnings does not mean that Locke Cole had not been informed that his actions were in violation of policy.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  00:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I fail to see where he has been informed about certain specific images. I disagree with this block. Hammersoft aggravated the situation by continuing to edit war himself, and did not stop to explain to LC exactly what the problem was. Gimmetrow 00:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking through his talk page now, I see that there are NINE notices about inappropriate uplaods or incomplete fair use rationales. That doesn't include any he may have archived or deleted.  Could Hammersoft have given him ANOTHER warning?  Yes, perhaps.  But given that he was warned NINE times already, what good would that have done?  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  00:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We'll never know, because it apparently wasn't tried. A human dialogue explaining the problem might have worked better than a bunch of bot messages, when it was becoming clear the bot messages weren't working. (BCB has 17 edits on LC's talk page.) Gimmetrow 00:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And it wouldn't matter because Locke Cole has indicated that this isn't about not understanding, its about someone not fixing it for him instead. Shell babelfish 00:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, if he doesn't know what to do, he can't do it. So you either explain it to him (as Saraphim has started doing), or fix it. Gimmetrow 00:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * All well and good, but if he doesn't know what he is doing, he shouldn't be encouraged to continue. Yes, good experienced editors should leave a nice, human written, explanation of what the problem is.  However, even in absense of that, that he received 17 warnings (as noted above) shows that he had no desire to stop UNTIL he understood.  I am not argueing, as you seem to imply, that people should have avoided or tried to NOT explain what the problem was.  Of COURSE the best situation involves an editor being nice and explaining the situation.  No editor should be forced to do so, however. He obviously knew he was doing something wrong in his image uploads, and yet he STILL continued to upload them.  He doesn't have to know how to fix them to know that he should stop UNTIL he knows how to fix them... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  01:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Has LC uploaded any FU images since the first disputed FU warning? If so, I don't see it. His first BCB warning was 29 June 2007 for an orphan FU, but his first disputed FU was 26 October 2007, which is vague and doesn't mention 10c. LC has not uploaded any FU images since 16 October 2007 that I see, except for reverting one FU image with an unrelated policy issue. Gimmetrow 01:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition to the points raised by Jayron32, the response LC took was inappropriate. Not understanding the problem with the image didn't give him the right to act in the way he did. He could have taken it to the talk page or contacted Hammersoft and asked why the image was tagged. <font color="FF69B4">Seraphim&hearts;  Whipp 00:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So block them both. Not one. Gimmetrow 00:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hammersoft did not engage in the same behaviour that LC did. <font color="FF69B4">Seraphim&hearts;  Whipp 00:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (EC) Lets make this clear here. Locke Cole was not blocked for the edit war or for the FU problem.  He was blocked for incivility and personal attacks.  Hammersoft has not once yet been incivil, and deserves no block.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  00:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hammersoft did not do exactly the same thing, but his actions certainly contributed. Normally, in such a simple dispute we would tell both parties to have a tea and discuss, and would forget about any minor incivility. Gimmetrow 00:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed - block seems unsound and disproportionate. Support unblock. Orderinchaos 08:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Having noticed Locke Cole's name as a subsection index - he once reverted an edit I made, if you were wondering, so I was curious - I have come across this discussion.  Would someone be willing to explain to me which part of WP:HARASS LessHeard vanU was referring to when he cited this 69.49.44.11 (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've asked LHvU whether he would consider an unblock if Locke Cole would a) remove the statement as his first edit after unblocking and b) pledge not to make such a statement again. I think that would be reasonable - IMO a 48 hour block was harsh (ask him to remove it, first!). <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#060">Neıl <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#060">☎  11:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly concerned about the block itself, I mean, he'll be okay, regardless of whether it was fair or unfair or rash or unrash. I'm curious about the citation of WP:HARASS with respect to what he said about  and  in the edit to his user page linked to above by .  It was initially opaque to me, not being familiar with WP:HARASS, and the connection is still unclear.  There's a reference to user space harassment, but the language indicates that editing of a user's own talk page was what was under consideration.
 * Just to be clear on motive, I'm not petitioning for his unblocking, and I'm not wanting to play gotchas with anyone. I'm saying that it isn't clear to me which aspect of the actual WP:HARASS document was being referred to (in providing a link to it as rationale for the block), and I was wondering if I had missed something, or if such references have become short form for "Okay, I see that  Locke Cole is harassing people.[.. and this is the Nth time that he has done that in the past two weeks and it's always the same thing.]" 69.49.44.11 (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I'm deleting the image. It blatantly fails NFCC 8, "significant contribution to the article". It's clearly not being used for critical commentary or analysis, it's not referenced in the text, it hasn't even a recognisable relation to any particular plot element mentioned in the text. Its information value is zero. It just serves as a spot of color decorating the infobox. There is a myth among the pop-culture crowd that there is some sort of blanket allowance of one non-free image per episode page. There is not. Write something that is of encyclopedic value about the image, then and only then do you get to use one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In general, NFCC#8 deletions are subjective and require discussion, and thus should be done through something like WP:IfD. Having said that, I agree with you in this case. The trouble is, if you allow things to be done this way, you will then get people deleting lots of stuff under "fails NFCC#8" claims that are more dubious. The thin end of the wedge in reverse. Carcharoth (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. I agree there is a margin of subjectiveness, which may make some such deletions problematic. Nevertheless, the formal policy is quite clear: Failure to pass any of the NFCC, (including #8) is a speedy deletion criterion (WP:CSD I7), not an IfD issue. The image was already being discussed, here and elsewhere, the uploader was notified – though, I admit, not of this specific concern – so I believe I'm well within proper process here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy deletion criteria have always had to be clear-cut, rather than subjective. How did the "any of the NFCC" wording get into the CSD page? Some of the NFCC are suitable for CSD, some aren't. Carcharoth (talk) 13:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Must have been in there for quite a while. Last time I6/I7 were slightly modified as in early September, when a sentence in I6 calling for the use of IfD (in some occasions, not all) was removed as self-contradictory. I7 itself seems to have kept the same wording for a good while longer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Bots edit-warring with humans
To throw a suggestion out here: Bots must not edit-war with humans. If a bot action is reverted by a human, there should be a presumption that the human was acting intentionally and in good faith. (The bot may be operated in good faith, but the bot itself is a dumb machine and does not itself have any intentions whatsoever, for good or for evil.)

If a bot and a human get into an edit war, the bot is at an unfair advantage: being a bot, it can neither become bored of the conflict, nor can it feel guilty for having gotten into an edit war. Edit warring is always bad, but unless there is a presumption that the human is right, the bot will always win. (Especially when a human who engages in edit-warring can be blocked, but there is so much agitation against blocking a bot that does the very same.)

So, here's a proposal: all bots should live under 0RR, or 1RR at most. A bot that repeatedly reverts against a human editor should be considered to be defective, and disabled until fixed. Instead, if a bot does something and a human reverts it, the bot must leave it alone, or possibly flag it for further human inspection.

Consider:


 * Bot tags an article.
 * Human A removes tag.
 * Bot re-tags it. (This is revert 1.)
 * Human A removes tag. (This is revert 1.)
 * Bot notices it's tagged article twice, and does not revert.
 * Human B looks at article and determines that tag is appropriate. Human B tags article.
 * Human A and Human B can now discuss instead of edit-warring.

Putting a second human into the mix makes discussion possible. Without this, there is only a bot edit-warring with a human, and that's a battle no human can win. --FOo (talk) 07:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice idea, and one that assumes good faith on behalf of the human the bot is reverting. However, most of the editors who war with our bots are not editing in good faith - they're trying to get copyright decorative images into articles without doing the paperwork, or they are blanking pages or doing obvious vandalism, all stuff the bots pick up on. If a bot stops after 1RR, it would need to report the issue to somewhere/one. This would create instant backlogs and would be a backdoor way of stopping our slave bots from doing the very boring jobs we have them for. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 08:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - BCB's doing a job. Reverting its edits is violating a legal (not ethical) policy. Besides, it took me literally three seconds to fix that rationale. It takes longer to undo edits. Will (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, no need for this, but can we please stop waving the legal red flag? The non-free content policy is, as its name says, a content policy, not a legal policy. Our copyright policy is an example of a legal policy. Invalid claims of fair use are not copyright violations, they are invalid claims of fair use. To quote: "The need to minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content under strictly defined circumstances that are deliberately more restrictive than United States fair use law." Some of BCB's edits will help minimise this legal exposure, others won't. All BCB's edits will, of course, help improve compliance with the "name the article it is used in" part of WP:NFCC (which is, remember, only a small part of the overall NFCC). Carcharoth (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree only in parts. Some of the non-free content issues, and particularly those that BCB is dealing with, indeed don't touch on real-world legal issues. Others do. Truly invalid claims of fair use indeed do constitute copyright violations (unlike failures to declare them properly according to NFCC10 etc.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As a general matter, it may be preferable to avoid referring to any policy not written by a lawyer and explicitly adopted as a 'legal policy' by the Wikimedia Foundation by such a name. Just to provide as stringent a divide in everyone's minds as possible, and avoid confusion.  69.49.44.11 (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed with this proposal. Orderinchaos 13:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we at least all agree that it's understandable when someone mistakenly thinks that "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, of logos for certain uses involving identification and critical commentary may qualify as fair use under United States copyright law." is a "fair use rationale" under a common-sense understanding of the term? Having a tag like logo alone was the accepted practice in 2006 and earlier, even if it wasn't in line with a written policy that nobody read at the time. —Random832 14:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Instead of limiting the amount of reverts that a bot can do, I'd suggest that if the bot could recognize if the same editor has reverted them more than once on an image, they leave a message pointing them towards the copyright help desk or the media copyright questions page. I'm a bot simply doing what I was programmed to do. I can’t be bargained with. I can’t be reasoned with. I don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And I absolutely will not stop, ever, until the image is compliant or deleted. While it is possible that I've made a mistake in this case, it is more likely that a simple formatting or spelling error is preventing me from correctly parsing the rationale. Please bring your concerns about this image to the copyright help desk to get more input from other humans regarding this image's fair use rationale. If we don't want to put it on the editor, maybe a subpage of WP:ICHD or WP:MCQ for the bot to report the disputed image to along with a message to the editor pointing to that report, and asking that the editor refrains from further reverts until another person has a chance to look into it.

OK...the terminator rip-off might be a little much...but could the rest be something to work with? I know BCB currently mentions Media copyright questions in his notification note, but I think a message that was tailored just to specifically point out that there is a forum for questions would be more noticeable. I just don't think we should be limiting the bots, who seem to usually be right even if they are a bit strict. --Onorem♠Dil 15:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's precisely because bots can't be reasoned with that they need to be limited in their ability to revert human users. Otherwise we might as well just say that Wikipedia policy is whatever the bot authors decide it is, and that there's no sense ever disagreeing with a bot. Insofar as policy is an expression of community consensus, it needs to remain a matter for human discussion, to be worked out by human beings when there is a dispute -- not for one side of that dispute to automatically triumph because it has a bot on its side.


 * Claiming that this is purely a legal issue, as Will did above, is simply erroneous. The law doesn't speak to the presence or absence of specific machine-readable tags on image pages It deals with fair use, not with "fair use rationales" ... and certainly not with tags. Tags on Wikipedia pages are markup for human consumption, for human editors to use in helping to decide whether something belongs here or not. A tag cannot make or break compliance with the fair-use provisions of copyright law. --FOo (talk) 08:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of pages tagged
discussiontop resolved -- Yes, this didn.t meet speedy criteria so shouldn't have been deleted out of hand but DS has tacitly acknowledged this by undeleting the articles and userfying them so the author can translate them in their userspace. I seriously doubt whether a DRV would have come up with a different solution. What more do we want here? Blood? This is not the wikipedia complaints department and this incident appears resolved. Spartaz Humbug! 13:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday, March 4th, three pages which were tagged were speedy deleted by admin DragonflySixtyseven with the message "wrong language." These pages were Traganje za rentom, Rawlsova teorija blagostanja, and Teorija drugog najboljeg rješenja. It was impossible to tell if these pages failed any of the criteria for speedy deletion since they were not in English. I was under the impression that pages tagged were not supposed to be deleted for two weeks after being tagged and then only if they had not been translated. Speedy deletion of pages in foreign languages, simply because they are in a foreign language, right away does not give page translators enough time to see if the subject is notable or not.

Kubek15 brought this up on DragonflySixtyseven's talk page here but DragonflySixtyseven's response was simply to move the pages into Kubek15's userspace, which, to me, is still unacceptable since this only gives one user the opportunity to translate pages and any other user who speaks the language is not aware they exist. I ask that the actions of this admin be reviewed and the pages restored and relisted at Pages needing translation into English for a period of two weeks in accordance with policy. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Redfarmer (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dragonfly undeleted and userfied all three yesterday when the user requested undeletion, and that is a perfectly reasonable response. They can be moved back to mainspace at their English titles once they've been translated.  There were no interwiki links, no references and nothing else to make them useful or intelligible to English readers, and as far as I know there's no bar to listing user space article workups at articles for translation.  Guy (Help!) 11:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The grievance is that the pages were arbitrarily speedy deleted to begin with. Once a page is tagged notenglish and listed at Pages needing translation into English, it is usually given two weeks to be translated by someone who knows the language before it is listed for deletion. No where in the criteria for speedy deletion does it say a page can be speedied merely for being in a foreign language. It just isn't a criteria for speedy deletion. It's great that Kubek15 is willing to work on these in his userspace, but he shouldn't have to do that. That's why we list pages at Pages needing translation into English. Incidentally, I realized after posting here I probably should have taken this to deletion review instead and am willing to do that if no one has any objections. Redfarmer (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Three unreferenced unlinked foreign-language articles were moved to userspace. I fail to see how that is bad for the encyclopaedia.  Guy (Help!) 12:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If this is the way we are going to handle foreign language articles, we might as well shut down Pages needing translation into English. If foreign language articles are speediable, then there is no sense in having a page to translate them. Redfarmer (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've got to line up behind Redfarmer here. Being in a foreign language isn't CSD material. That's why we have Pages needing translation into English.Kww (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing for a change in policy, and I don't see why these can't be added to the awaiting translation list, but neither do I see what the problem is with deleting or userfying context-free unlinked foreign language articles at foreign language titles (i.e. wrong content, wrong format, wrong title). We're not that desperate for content these days. Guy (Help!) 13:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

discussionbottom
 * If someone wants to translate a page, wouldn't it make more sense for them to post it in their own space ("userfy" it) until that user actually translates it? Or better yet, just keep it on their own PC until they've translated it? Otherwise it's basically clutter. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What more do we want here? Blood? - no, but getting everyone on the same page about policy would be nice. Do we have any assurance that it won't happen again? Userfication isn't an ideal solution because that puts all the burden of translating it on one user - like Redfarmer said, why not just shut down WP:PNT in that case? —Random832 14:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

So the solution to avoid an article being speedied for being patent nonsense, or an attack on others, is to put it in some semblance of a foreign language? If we can't speedy anything that doesn't appear to be English, that's really opening up the bean jar. --Golbez (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There are foreign language articles and foreign language articles. Articles copied form other language Wikipedias, with some references, links and often a link back to the native language project, and created at the right English language title, are completely unproblematic.  At the other end we have tirades in non-English languages which even monoglot Anglophones can recognise as twaddle using mechanical translation tools.  And somewhere in the middle we have these three articles, whihc have been userfied. The primary objections seem to be process (my views on which are probably well known, begin with "f" and end with "uck process"), and the fact that they are not listed at articles for translation.  What nobody has yet answered is: (a) why can't we list a userspace article at articles for translation and (b) why should we expect someone to eb able to create an article in a foreign language with a foreign language title, no links, no clue what it's about, and expect someone else to fix it.  At the very least it needs an English-language title and some hint of what we're looking at. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Gotta agree with Guy here. If his description isn't policy, we should change policy. --barneca (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree to a policy change only if it incorporates the term "twaddle" from above. <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper   |  <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76   |  <font color="#ff0000"> Disclaimer  17:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If not twaddle, I'd settle for "uck process". ROFL.  <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper   |  <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76   |  <font color="#ff0000"> Disclaimer  17:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Shortcut: WP:UCK --barneca (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Guy also. It makes no sense to me to post what looks like gibberish for no reason whatsoever and expect it to be kept, and translated by someone else. Why would I go to the Urdu Wikipedia, and post an article in Swedish with no incling of what it is about or why is it posted there to begin with, and expect it to be kept and translated? Makes no sense, does it? -- Alexf42 17:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems rather short-sighted to accuse a foreign language article of being "gibberish." With WP:AGF, it could have been a simple mistake on the part of the contributor. The least we can do is help transwiki it to the proper Wiki. If we can get it translated and see if there's anything we can use, though, all the better. Redfarmer (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Just want to note that this is also at DRV, here. I'm off to inform the admin of that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I should post this at the Village Pump, but here's an idea: What about moving such articles into project space, making them subpages (or whatever technical jargon may be more appropriate) of WP:PNT itself? That could be especially useful for the kind of articles Guy is talking about, with non-English titles, etc. The page would be out of article space (where it really shouldn't be if it isn't in English) but it would still be in a "public" space that is not in the domain of any particular user. Maybe there are technical issues with this, but if they can be overcome, it seems like a good idea to me. 6SJ7 (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If feasible, I like the idea. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I certainly wouldn't object. Guy (Help!) 18:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, If actual pages that need immediate deletion are written in a foreign language, we have enough people here -- even some admins -- who can read most anything & decide. We're not helpless. DGG (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I have no problem with foreign language articles being deleted if the admin speaks the language and determines they are gibberish. Redfarmer (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

User claims to have founded Wikipedia, on their userpage.
From User talk:Discombobulator:

Impersonating Jimbo? &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I know a user who has "I am an alien" on his userpage. So what?--Docg 01:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) I assume he means co-founder. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (EC)"Impersonating" would be copying his userpage or something, but just saying you are the founder? I think almost everyone knows who the founder is.... Tiptoety  talk 01:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this section a joke? Are we now needing WP:V on userpages? My apologies if this was merely for amusement; but it probably shouldn't go here. Tanthalas39 (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed. You could have just done it yourself though....  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  01:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, and without indignation, I oppose this removal. I might be missing a relevant policy, and if so, I would appreciate it if someone pointed it out to me. However, are we seriously to be policing userpages for untrue claims? Tanthalas39 (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Founder of Wikipedia" is a pretty lofty title around here, any user saying they are, other than Jimbo, needs to stop making these claims. — <font color="#191970"> Κ aiba 02:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Perhaps the user could have been advised that this was misleading, but in the same way that we deprecate usernames that imply some non-existent power or authority here, I think this might at least be confusing. You are correct in pointing out that "policing" claims on userpages is somewhat nugatory, but in this case, it might have been unhelpful. I much prefer the more verifiable  ... and goodnight. --<font color="7F007F">Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 02:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe he was just trying to be bold. Sometimes you founder on the bolders. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a throwaway account to me, or someone's sock...--MONGO 07:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, I consider myself the founder of an infinitessimal fraction of 1% of Wikipedia. --SSBohio 14:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, there is always the possibility that the user really is Al Gore. <font face="monospace" color="#004080"> FlowerpotmaN &middot;(t) 14:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Does it really matter if he says "I am the founder?" Does it hurt anyone? <b style="color:#c22">^</b><b style="color:#000">demon</b><sup style="color:#c22">[omg plz] <em style="font-size:10px;">15:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Wily D 15:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Special:Listusers/founder. Daniel (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, with no disrespect to opposing opinions, I think that this removal sets a dangerous precedent. This wasn't even the user page; it was the user TALK page. Not only should we not have to police user talk pages, but if we are going to start removing false material, where is the line? Do we remove userboxes that aren't quite accurate? Do we make users prove claims? As someone pointed out above - "founder of wikipedia" is a lofty claim - so what? People can claim to be the King of Siam - and should be allowed to. I understand that a user talk page still belongs to the Wikipedia community as a whole, but by tradition, this page is allowed to be "controlled" by the registered user... Tanthalas39 (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't founder be removed from user Jimbo Wales as well since he is the co-founder, not founder of Wikipedia? --70.109.223.188 (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Chewygum

 * 1.Hello, this user is yet again uploading copyrighted images, he has been repeatedly warned about this, and many of his images have been deleted, as well as copyvio text. Now he is uploading a bunch of images of ships, licensing them as PD-Self, when this is absolutely not the case, he is stealing them all from Hueybravo.net.  An example Image:PS35.jpg (stolen from http://www.hueybravo.net/images/Navy/ps35drydock.JPG) he even drew a box over the copyright notice written onto the image. 
 * This is illegal, against policy, detrimental to the encyclopedia, and instead of just deleting his images over and over again, and saying "now now, this is not nice", you should block him. This is deliberate bad faith licensing, it's not an accident or somebody who doesn't understand copyright, he is covering up the copyright notices with a white box drawn over part of the image!  The fact that he blanks the previous warnings from his page (as is his right) does not mean you should ignore them.   Deliberate copyvios from users who understand and have been warned before need to incur some kind of deterrent.  If you blocked users who do this, you would save much trouble in the future.


 * 2. He is creating articles about separate items that contain exactly the same text, apart from the first line which contains the name of the object. For example compare PG 116 BRP Nicolas Mahusay and PG 115 BRP Ramon Aguirre apart from the name of the article, everything is exactly identical.  Jackaranga (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Articles are identical and lack notability info. possible copyvios? ThuranX (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Many of the images were lifted either from Huey Bravo, The Unofficial Philippine Defense Page, GoldenCorps and other sources. As for images of the medals, I can't find where he lifted those from, but I highly doubt that he took the photograph based on prior contribution history. <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  04:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Check some of the captions. I ran across one that read, "Present Day Gala Uniform worn by Class '02 Corps Commander C/Col Mark Oliver Dela Cuesta 1CL and his Corps Sponsor C/Col Olive Francisco 1CL.(Courtesy of: Benjamin Joseph E. Velarde, Class 1992)." Yet the license stated that he was the author of the work. <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  04:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's an idea - how about making a fake user whose userpage is identical to Chewygum's except for perhaps a couple of his/her "contributions" or awards? Perhaps Chewygum might get the message then. As for the pictures, I suppose we should probably go to the admins on this, seeing as this page itself isn't a dispute resolution page (we all have a dispute with a user's conduct, don't we?), as it says waaaay at the top.Ecthelion83 (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Many of the images were deleted based on numerous copyright vios. from various web-sites. If you check the logs, you can see that he has uploaded hundreds of images, the majority of them copyright vios. This isn't an isolated case either; it dates back to 2005, and it makes any content that he does upload seem rather dubious. I also think I CSDed two pages based on copyright vios.; you may want to check his other contribs. to ensure that additional contribs. were not vios. <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  05:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems all the images are gone; cleaning out the articles now. Thanks. Evil saltine (talk) 06:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The images he uploaded recently, at least. Evil saltine (talk) 06:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this user should be given a final warning, and if he uploads one more copyright violation he should be banned. This was not an accidental mis-application of pd-self to a found-it-on-the-web-somewhere image, it was a deliberate attempt to obscure the rights ownership to get around copyright and fair use policy, and that really is not acceptable. Guy (Help!) 09:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Requesting permanent block on User:Kylesandell
uploaded a libelous image (which has since been speedy deleted) and added it to Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks, in the process making vandalistic and libelous edits to that article. When presented with a final vandalism warning, Kylesandell stopped editing, and started making the same vandalistic edits, and in the process, making death threats -  and. When 150.135.66.38 got blocked, started up with the vandalism. Both the 150 and 128 IP addresses resolve to the University of Arizona. Kylesandell has a Userbox indicating that he is or was a student at the University of Arizona. Obvious quacking here. I request that Kylesandell be permanently blocked. Kylesandell had not edited since November, and seemed to be a useful editor until today, so I'm thinking compromised account. <font face="Arial"> Corvus cornix talk  05:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked the account indef pending an explanation of those edits, semi-protected the article for 7 days. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 07:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

David Shankbone's secret admirer.
Banning hasn't worked, blocking singular IPs hasn't worked, and saying "fuck off" to them hasn't worked. In order to stop this rather annoying troll, we need to either: Thoughts? Will (talk) 09:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Semi-protect WP:AN (I asked Riana to do so last night, and she deferred it to #wikipedia-en-admins. Evidently not popular)
 * Block the IP ranges that he's editing from
 * 71.127.196.0/18
 * 72.68.114.0/21
 * 72.76.0.0/17


 * There's discussion on this at Administrators' noticeboard. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 09:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I semiprotected AN, we should leave it so until the Shankbone threads are archived. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good call. They are certainly relentless. Woody (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I also semiprotected AN a couple of days ago, but it was turned off after just a few hours. Oh well, at least we had a couple of hours of peace.  --Kralizec! (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Betacommandbot

 * Moved to Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand


 * What is up with BCB reverting all of its edits in the last hour? most of these seem in order with the task approved for the bot. Since /Betacommand is mostly used for complaints I prefer to post this here. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  04:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I discovered an issue with the API that caused some mis-tagging. I felt the best response was a full revert. βcommand 04:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've had API issues as well tonight (returning odd data, no data, garbled data, etc) SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  04:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)