Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Current issues

User:Smatprt violations

I claim that this user is acting in the Shakespeare Authorship without consensus and for the past year has taken complete ownership of the article. He has already been blocked twice for 3RR violation [[1]][[2]] and he has a reputation for non-consensus in his editing on other forums. For example, on 13 May 2007 we find under the Shakespeare heading that "Smatprt is trying to delete all the arguments and information from Kathman's site while retaining all material published by non experts in non-scholarly, purely commercial presses" [[3]] and this one from a google search "You might like to take a quick look at the Shakespeare plays, where a certain Smatprt has taken it upon himself to perform mass restoration of the tags ..." [[4]]. It is his custom when confronted to file a report on the Administrator's noticeboard blaming his accuser. The following example resulted in no block.[[5]] You might like to obtain the testimony of the following users mandel, barryispuzzled, Paul_Barlow, alabamaboy. I should like to see a substantial block inforced. (Felsommerfeld 11:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

I think it important to note that this complaint was in retaliation for my listing a complaint about Felsommerfeld on this same page several days ago.[6]. In actuality - the accuser is far more guilty of this - See Feldsommerfeld's deletions here: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] - all properly referenced material apparently cut because they support the Oxfordian viewpoint or mentioned the word "Oxford".Smatprt 13:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried briefly to help at Shakespearean authorship earlier, basically with copyediting, but found the unreasonableness and stonewalling of Smatprt too disheartening to continue my efforts, even though they were appreciated by everybody else there. Smatprt also seems to be a tireless pest at William Shakespeare, where he edit wars to make the classic crank Shakespeare-wasn't-Shakespeare theory as large and as undue-weighty a part of the article as possible. His intentions are no doubt good, but his practice is destructive, and he makes the lives of the other Shakespeare editors wearisome. May I recommend the new Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard (mentioned below) to your attention, Felsommerfeld? I don't feel I'm knowledgeable enough about the Shakespeare articles to list the case on that noticeboard myself. (I gave up editing them in the face of Smatprt's obstructiveness.) Bishonen | talk 22:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC).

Smatprt is undoubtedly sincere in his beliefs but his one-sidedness is unrelenting and it is seriously skewing the page. He will push and push and push to get in Oxfordian arguments by any means and exclude "Statfordian" ones by any means. What I find mu=ost dismaying is his willinglness to delete statements he knows to be factually accurate if they contradict his POV. Paul B 23:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I also think it important that Paul B above provide a list of my supposed improper deletions and "exclusions". I try to only delete a statement if it is not properly referenced, or if the Stratfordian editors refuse to provide a reference. References to personal blogs and websites by non-experts have also been deleted on occasion, after discussion (David Kathman's website, for example, which has been declared non-reliable.) On the other hand - I do indeed add material as long as I can properly reference it. Felsommerfled left this complaint with dozens of administrators, and those who have responded have not shown any agreement with Felsommerfeld or the users above. It is also important to note that the above editors are clearly Stratfordians, and they are editors who themselves are guilty of mass deletions of properly referenced material. In face Felsommerfeld's contribution list consists of 55 talk page entries and 7 mass deletions.Smatprt 00:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"I try to only delete a statement if it is not properly referenced". That is precisely the point. It is dishonest, or at best disingenuous, editing because you delete information that you know to be true if it is mainstream/Stratfordian. The obvious example is your deletion of the references to the fact that an alleged portrait of Oxford actually depicts Hugh Hamersley. The whole caption was uncited, but you only chose to delete the mainstrean facts while keeping the - also completely uncited - non-mainstream claim that the portrait depicts Oxford. This is a claim that has been rejected even by many Oxfordians. Your comments clearly indicated that you knew full well about the evidence for the Hamersley attribution. You could have added the citation yourself if your editing had been truly honest: that is, aimed at improving the article. Instead you chose to delete facts in order deliberately to distort the presentation of evidence to the reader. Paul B 12:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul -this is where your premise fails - you claim that "I know" certain things "to be true". How on earth do you know what I believe? In fact, I do NOT believe that the portrait depicts Hugh Hamersley. From what I've read, it's unprovable at this point. I do know that I came up with a reference when requested. Considering there are at least 6 Stratdordian editors actively working (deleting) this page, why on earth should I do the Stratdordian referencing? I don't have ready access to the volumes of Stratdfordia that you do - and why should I spend time researching when you guys have that more than covered? I'm filing the need for referencing Oxfordian statements, since most of the Stratfordian editors on this page actively discourage Oxfordain information and delete anything with the word "Oxford" in itSmatprt 13:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Is that it? Out of some 1700 edits you've come up with one questionable deletion? The way you talk I expected a list of at least a dozen diffs to prove your point. In fact - anyone looking over my edit list will find "additions", "cites", "refs", a fair amount of vandal reversions, reformatting of all the SH plays (part of Wikiproject), but hardly any of the wholesale deletions that I have been falsely accused of above.

Yes, you do it all the time. But the sheer tediousness of listing such examples makes it not worth my effort unless this proceeds to a formal process, which at the moment it is not. Also, you misunderstand - or willfully misrepresent- what I said. I maent that you knew the information presented in the caption to be true - that the mainstream view was that it is a portrait of Hamersley. Obvious you don't like to believe that. Even the current caption contains no clear citation of Barrell and uses misleading language (Barrell "determined" that it was Oxford. Other researchers "suggest" that it is Hamersley). In fact no-one other than Oxfordians doubt that it is Hamersley. Paul B 14:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul - here is a list of some of your undiscussed deletions: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. While I would probably agree with several (of not most) of them, that's probably not the point. The point is you are on this "He makes massive deletions" rag and I have asked for a list. You provide one example based on an unprovable assuption (what I know to be true). What you know to be true is the following - I have spent far more time reinserting deleted material than deleting anything. You know this. Just like the unfounded accusations of SockPuppetry, you knew the truth there too. Smatprt 14:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Your list of some deletions I made is pure evasion. Everyone makes deletions. Yes, I knew the truth about the Sockpupptry allegation and I said so didn't I? I notice that you do not deny that you knew the mainstream opinion. You just say that I can't proove that you did. Innocent people do not say "you can't prove it". They say "It's not true". Paul B 16:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Also - a compromise is already in the works on the discussion page, based on the input of several administrators who are taking "no sides" at the present.Smatprt 00:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Finally - Felsommerfeld has just apologized for "doubting my integrity" and for leveling accusations of SockPuppetry, proven untrue, which he also left on about a dozen different administrators mailboxes after I complained about him. [18]. In spite of this, I am ready and willing to move on and I would hope that Felsommerfeld is too.Smatprt 00:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

In August-October 2006, I (a Baconian, who signed as QBrute) spent a lot of time in rigorous debate with The_Singing_Badger (a Stratfordian) balancing the Shakespeare Authorship article. [[19]] Smatprt appeared with the clear intention of promoting his views that the Earl of Oxford was Shakespeare. He was relentlessly one-sided in debate and to my mind had already decided that his changes were going in the article. I gave up and the article deteriorated. I now see (above in Felsommerfeld's report "The following example resulted in no block") that the person who Smatprt tried to block was me![[20]] No editor or administrator has managed to halt his crusade. I am confident that if Smatprt is not removed from these forums he will succeed in destroying the entire Shakespeare project. (Puzzle Master 14:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC))

Barry left this out - See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shakespearean_authorship_question/Archive_1&diff=prev&oldid=95091606 for his declaration of support for the article after most of my changes were implemented: ""Having left this article for some time and only recently read it again I think it now has a fair representation of all views.... So, well done to those who have worked on this page." (Puzzle Master 14:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC))

And here is the article on that date: [21]. Hyphen para, 1604, etc., - all in. You called it a "fair representation of all views". The only difference now is that the lead para has been slashed down to one of the smallest and most underdeveloped lead paragraphs I've ever seen. Aside from that, and given your earlier statement, I truly fail to understand why you are back in attack mode - unless this is just retaliatory, as your above para implies.Smatprt 15:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

What Barry also fails to mention is that I was part of that discussion (scroll down in that archived conversation and you will see plenty, including my official welcome - an unwarranted attack that was later deleted and apologized for. (This seems to be the mode with many of the editors on this page - attack and make accustions, raise a ruckus with false statements, than "apologize" after being proven wrong, then accuse again. The archive also seems to show Barry using at least 3 different account names. He has deleted critism of the Bacon argument and his discussions and issues have predominantly focussed on Bacon, just as mine have focussed on Oxford. Smatprt 15:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue is this, is the 1604 section which you have fought to keep in the article pro-Oxfordian? You evidently think so "anything pro-oxford (1604 question, hyhenation of name) is being regularly deleted?" [[22]]. mandel thinks so too. [[23]] And my more recent opinion is that I did too "Following a suggestion by Mandel ...".[[24]] I would be more sympathetic to you if you could admit your behaviour ... but I don't think that's possible for you. (Puzzle Master 15:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC))

I have indeed apologized for errors in judgement and other offenses. But I should also stand up for what I believe, and be consistant in doing so. To answer you directly, yes- of course they are pro-oxfordian. That in no way makes tham any less "anti-stratfordian" - as you should know better than most. I am sorry that some anti-strat arguments can also be anti-bacon arguments, but unfortunately that is the case. Regarding the hyphen - even you admit that it is not "only" oxfordian, but none-the-less, I have agreed to see that section censored from the article. I am much more interested in having you answer me directly - why did you issue that flowery declaration of support congratulating all the editors in Dec 06? And why now have you seemingly retracted every bit of it?Smatprt 16:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Felsommerfeld is justified in making this complaint against User:Smatprt and the suggestion that he is merely retaliating for Smatprt's similar action against him should not be taken into consideration.

Smatprt's history of disruptive editing on William Shakespeare goes back many months. An example here, and my reaction on the talk page here, of when a consensus has been reached, only to be swept away by Smatprt replacing the agreed version with his own contentious edit.

Without wishing to elevate my own editing of Shakespeare-related articles to additions of any value (the topic has now been taken up by editors of real knowledge and authority) I stopped contributing solely because of the impossibility of working on subjects upon which he had taken a stand. From the sidelines I noted that his editing greatly hampered the drive to make William Shakespeare a featured article, in the face of requests from assessors to stop. An example: "It is making the article unstable". He seems to have acknowledged this point ("...I do regret my part in any of the issues referred to") here. However, one day later he "completely skews" another agreed section, commented here. These are representative of an attitude of a seeming complete disregard for other editors' views and lack of concern for progress and improvement to articles. I strongly support User:Felsommerfeld's suggestion. Old_Moonraker 08:20 15 July 2007

Budapest's one and only real name

Someone is writing the 'name' Buda-Pesth at the beginning of the article Budapest citing a 100-year-old 'source'. It can be misleading, because some English language users may think it is still used. That's NOT true. I don't want an edit war. Has anyone of you seen that form in the real world in the past decades? Come on, it's the capital of Hungary! Squash Racket 18:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe that this 100 year-old source is misleading (the term is still used in English sometimes). Squash Racket is fueling an edit war but he/she doesn't provide reasons as to why the source is not good enough besides the fact that it is a century old. Historia Regum Britanniae and the Domesday Book are a millennium old, should we disregard them? Reginmund 21:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to spelling not in a historical context, certainly. Or are we going to change every The to Ye? Similarly, Korea used to be Corea - the article doesn't use it. MSJapan 22:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ye was you in the formal form, not the.

OT, but I'll correct this; see William Caxton. He used y instead of the letter thorn in printing the word the, hence ye. MSJapan 19:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

But is it still in use? That would depend on which toponym. Buda-Pesth is actually still used, surprisingly. Reginmund 22:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME. --Masamage ♫ 22:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I am Hungarian, Reginmund is not. I've never heard that in my life, but he clamis it is still used. Exactly where? In that 100-year-old book you are citing? Squash Racket 22:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Is that encyclopedic? Is that a RS? Yes or No. The article looks ugly w/ a protection tag. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

A quick Google search gives me less than 14,000 hits for "Buda-Pesth", and over 36 million for Budapest. Feel free to mention the alternate spelling, but its pretty clear which one is more common. --Masamage ♫ 23:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been over the source I have cited. Squash Racket still will not stubbornly accept a source because of its age. That is not an obstacle on Wikipedia. I never said that the archaic spelling was more common, I just said that it should be included as an English alternative. Reginmund 20:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought we'd reached a compromise where it was going to either be at the tail end of the paragraph, or in a separate section on the history of the name, correct? I've been off wiki for a day, I'm working on a proposed solution. If Reginmund and Squash Racket can agree not to edit war again over this until we can agree on a solution, I don't see why the page can't be un-protected. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 20:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

OK with me. Only consider main article history section (archaically also (?) spelled as...) or alternative names for European cities? Buda-Pesth is archaic and was just a variant even in these times. Squash Racket 08:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Edwin rose

Edwin rose (talk · contribs) - every one of this User's edits has been to his User or Talk pages. He seems to be keeping the pages for call scripts and call tracking. Corvus cornix 23:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

My. Um, there may not be a whole lot we can do, there; I've deleted the history of both, and left the guy a note asking him to contribute or move on. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh gosh, Luna, Geocities or Angelfire? Lycos is probably the single-worst webhost out there, period. Even Blogspot would be better than those two "webhosts". I personally like Sitesled. hbdragon88 00:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

But Blogspot didn't give me a giant sack of mone-- I mean, you're right. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

He just recreated it. How long has he been editing his userpage? hbdragon88 00:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Abuse of vandalism warnings?

User:Rob right, who appears to be a new user created just today, but whose behaviour today seems to indicate some more extensive experience, has today issued a vandalism warning against User:Jza84. A number of users have commented that this warning is absurd, given the nature of the ongoing discussion about Manchester, which is the article whose content prompted this action by Rob right. I and others consider this to be a misuse of the vandalism warbings in some attempt to stifle legitimate debate. Jza84 is a long-standing user who is well-respected amoungst UK-based editors for his work on UK geography articles. Can I ask for some action about this? I would have thought that a traceroute to determine if Rob right is a sockpuppet, and if so, whose, might be useful, followed by appropriate action iof required, but this is of course, not up to me to decide, but I gently suggest it. This kind of misuse of warnings seems to go completely against the spirit of wikipedia.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree it's not a valid warning -- content disputes aren't vandalism. Rob right, whoever they are, strongly appears to be a sockpuppet, and I've blocked them, for the time being, requesting an explanation of how they ran across the dispute. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The following anonymous talk page: User talk:195.212.52.6 might be relevant here if a checkuser has been carried out.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The anon (195.212.52.6) signs as User:Rob right here. Jza84 21:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

212.139.77.181 (talk · contribs) signs as "Prof Rob Right" here. Off-wiki comments at [25], [26], [27], and [28] may provide some background information. Mr Stephen 22:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The 195.212 IP is almost definitely the same person -- edited Rob right's userpage, as well. The other is pretty likely, as well. Some of those comments you've linked might lead me to keep an eye on this person, but if they've been involved in the dispute previously, on-wiki, then this may just be somebody who happened to register an account, today, in which case blocking them as a sockpuppet would probably be out of line; thoughts, anyone? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That's how I read it. Mr Stephen 22:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have just noticed that Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, section 47, also reports actions by this user, and contains some information which might add to the content here. I was unaware of this prior report until just now.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandal identified as Kevin1243

After reviewing many sources of history & discussion on the user with the screen name Kevin1243, other external links should be mentioned also. The use of free internet web sites is becoming very popular with teenagers, and many young individuals are also posting blogs, and creating profiles on dating services. Such seems to be the case with this user... what contributions to Wikipedia are not about. For one example only, visit http://www.faceparty.com/Kevin1243. I can't list another, becuase it's a porn site. A poll of other users that have accused Kevin1243 of SNEAKY VANDALISM: 39 AGAINST 5 Undecided 7 Users that no longer exist, with various explainations of growing weary of VANDALISM when trying to contribute. Having a short list only, user complaints on User_talk:Kevin1243 will grow. Administrators should consider appropriate action to deter future VANDALISM. StationNT5Bmedia 18:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I pointed out on Jimbo's talk page: Looks like this is a bit of a dispute surrounding Non-synchronous transmissions, where it appears Kevin1243 has placed a couple of maintenance tags, suggested a merge, and most recently removed a bunch of commercial links quite properly. Looking at his talk page, he's done a lot of new page patrol, from the looks of things, and gathered the usual complaints about articles that were either deleted or later properly developed. I certainly don't see any indication of vandalism there, and StationNT5Bmedia's attempted tagging of Kevin's page with block tags looks a bit odd. Recommending non-notable articles for deletion is not vandalism, nor is removing commercial links. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This is becoming ridiculous, and these accusations are now crossing the line and becoming a personal attack. Anyway, I'm off on vacation in a couple of hours, and so I'll have to let my contributions stand for themselves. Kevin 21:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I will watch your page. Enjoy your break. LessHeard vanU 21:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Having been contacted by StationNT5Bmedia I've responded to him with a rather lengthly observation of this conflict at his talk page. You may be interested in reading it. It is far too long to bring here. In essence I concur with Tony Fox above. Cheers! --EarthPerson 20:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

And an excellent summary it is, too. Basically, that's my observation too. Really, there's not much to see here. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

URGENT Billy Blyton, Baron Blyton URGENT

A few days ago I posted the below. Nothing happended, and he has started again. Will someone please do something. He has ignored everyone. He is also vandalising Norma Major's page by ignoring her legal title. Someone please do something! --UpDown 18:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"Urgent help needed at Billy Blyton, Baron Blyton. User:Lawsonrob insists on changing the article title to William Reid Blyton, giving no reason. He has ignored the clear MofS guidelines (at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other non-royal names point 2) regarding peers. He has also moved in 5 times since 0015 this morning, which I believe is a breach of 3RR. On another page, David Clark, Baron Clark of Windermere, he keeps trying to remove the "of Windermere", which is part of Clark's legal title. Please help quickly as he is not listening to anyone, and is very disruptive. --UpDown 18:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I might recommend a request for comment. There seems to be issues with his editing behaviour going back almost to his arrival.--Crossmr 05:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)"

From his talk page this guy ahs been disruptive and at best unresponsive since he started editing, I'm hard blocking now. Circeus 19:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been quiet for 2 days now.Rlevse 12:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Umm...

[29] needs a deletion. Zeratul ^{En Taro Adun!}_{So be it.} 23:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Why? Chick Bowen 23:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Other than that SysProtect is not an ideally formatted article, both by our standards our fair use policy. . . Chick Bowen 23:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, well... "This image or media is claimed to be used under Wikipedia's fair use policy but has no explanation as to why it is permitted under the policy. Non-free images need a fair use rationale each time they are used in an article. Consider adding one to this page if possible. Unless at least one rationale is provided, the image will be deleted after Monday, 9 July 2007. Please remove this template if a rationale is provided.

Note that the boilerplate copyright tags do not by themselves constitute a fair use rationale. " Zeratul ^{En Taro Adun!}_{So be it.} 02:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

The unprovoked and continuing attacks upon me at the bottom of Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Intelligent_design by User:Odd_nature and User:Orangemarlin make it very difficult for me to contribute there. I would appreciate some form of intervention. Diffs: here, here directed at someone else, here, here, here, among others. Thanks, Gnixon 23:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Update They seem to have followed me here, where they are reverting my edits, apparently with little understanding of the subject. Gnixon 00:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Update 2 Perhaps only Odd Nature is stalking me, but he's also followed me here and made a very uninformed revert of my edits. Gnixon 00:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I see all kinds of unpleasantness at the FAR, the worst of which is coming from neither of the people you mention. I don't see that handing out blocks would help anything, nor is it justified. All we can ask is that all participants please try to work toward consensus and not post inappropriate comments out of frustration. Chick Bowen 00:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you at least convey such a message to those parties, unless you think I've somehow invited their attacks? Is there any case in which Odd Nature's stalking me to unrelated articles is acceptable? Gnixon 00:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to anyone reading this ANI, Gnixon does this on a regular basis, like here and here. He's accused others of stalking (see both of the previoius ANI's), but the fact is many of us watch these articles. He has been the subject of discussions by several admins in the past, such as here and here. I think this is getting old and embarrassing to the project. If anyone stands up to this editor, he quickly runs to ANI to file a complaint, where he's 0 for 5 or so in getting any action. Everything I stated in the FAR was factual. He did refactor pages without consensus, he edited articles without consensus, and he continues to be a POV warrior. If anyone needs warnings or a block, it's Gnixon. Orangemarlin 07:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Those two links would be the two ANI's I've filed. If the community can't regulate behavior like this, I'm not sure I want to participate. Gnixon 23:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested block

Resolved

Hi, i have run into a slight situation. Will an admin please be so kind as to block my account for 36 hours? Thanks! —ptk✰fgs 03:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't ordinarily block on request. I left a query for the user. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

User: 209.150.54.112

This user keeps consistently removing his block notice from their talk page, and leaving abuse in it's place. Please can you do something about it. Jordanhatch 07:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

JUst leave them go, removing the block notice is not agaisnt policy, elthough many people don't like it. Reinserting it is just annoying them further. Viridae^Talk 07:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Calling it "vandalism" and trying to take ownership is a problem, though. hbdragon88 08:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Emberton238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Resolved

 – Viridae^Talk 12:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

His password's on his userpage. This is quite naughty, though I've not checked to see if the password's right or not.--Rambutan (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's his password. :P Looks like he could be a potential vandalism-only account, but let's give him the benefit of doubt... · AndonicO ^Talk 11:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Password scrambled. Viridae^Talk 12:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Anyone who gives out their password is blocked. This is long-standing Wikipedia policy. Giving out your password prevents Wikipedia from ensuring that the account is not used by multiple people. Multiple people may not use the same account. Corvus cornix 20:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Felsommerfeld

This user appears to be operating a "Disruptive throwaway account" used only for a few mass deletions and accusations. Out of a total 62 edits, 55 were used making false accusations against myself. The other 7 were making mass deletions of long-standing material to the Shakespeare Authorship Question article. As pointed out recently by an administrator [30]- is a minority viewpoint article. Unfortunately, Felsommerfeld refuses to see that. The reasons seem to be as follows:

1) User is a staunch Stratfordian who has stated that the article in question shouldn't even exist. He has made several mass deletions of well referenced material.[31], [32], [33], [34]

2) Because I restored this material, the user has made personal attacks, false accusations and went so far as to make erroneous reports to over a dozen administrators.[35], [36], [37]

For full disclosure I have allowed myself to be dragged into 2 edit wars/3Rs, for which I have great regret. In each case it was because staunch stratdordians were making mass deletions of properly referenced materials. I believe this user is again trying to draw me into a 3R revert. Instead, I am keeping my edits light and I am coming here for help.

I request this user be blocked or banned, whatever you feel is appropriate based on the behaviour and the pure mean-ness involved. Thanks for your consideration. Smatprt 15:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

re "Stratfordian"; Could you point me towards the relevant policy page or guideline? In the meanwhile, the rest appears to be content dispute with some pretty unlearned incivility and lack of good faith shown by various sides. As there is removal of referenced material I will request that User:Felsommerfeld refrains from doing so again. After that, it is up to all of you to find consensus of an article on who might really have written, "I have measured it from side to side, tis four feet long and two feet wide." LessHeard vanU 16:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find it was almost Wordsworth, but you've misquoted it. It was only three feet long. "Stratfordian" is a term used by Oxfordians to mean someone who believes Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. There is no policy regarding it. Paul B 16:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

:~) My response was a bit of a leg-pull (although I did mess up on the "Ode to a Puddle" bit) since it appeared that part of the complaint was that the editor held certain views (thanks for clarifying which, though) on who wrote Shakespeares' plays. I did comment at the editors talkpage. LessHeard vanU 19:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

75.211.145.215

This anon (as well as 70.212.198.46 in the past) is writing untrue statements on the Paleoclimatologist entry. Please monitor it and perhaps prohibit this user from commenting. Iceberg007 17:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This user's page is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.211.145.215

• Solved by redirecting the article. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks! Iceberg007 18:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion by Indef blocked editor using static IP

I believe that User:Neutralizer who has been indefinitely blocked for using a plethora of sockpuppets (see Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Neutralizer) is currently attempting to contentiously edit the article Michael Ignatieff. He was banned by community consensus ANI - see this discussion. This user was making extensive usage of his sockpuppets to edit war on this same article. In the discussion above he was defending himself using a series of rotating IP's and attempting to continue his edit war. Former admin and editor Sarah Ewertt protected the article in order to block him from being able to edit it. However, the article was recently unprotected and now he is back and trying to edit the article until I requested that protection be restored to the article. Protection was restored, but I believe it will only be temporary. Is there a way to deal with this situation in another manner? --Strothra 20:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Also see the discussion resulting from his request for unprotection of the article: [38] and this list of suspected sockpuppets which also gives IP ranges [39]. --Strothra 20:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Editor seems confused: "the article was recently unprotected". Article seems to have been unprotected 8 months ago[40] and I edited this article for the first time about a week ago. I have tried to communicate with him but his "retired" label and his deletions without comment annoyed me. I resent his false accusations but will not be spending any more time on that article as it seems to be a toxic article for some reasons. I am not and never have been a sockpuppet or had a sockpuppet but I value my right to edit anonymously whether Strothra approves or not. My ISP is Bell in Toronto which is the largest ISP here so it's not strange that many people here would be interested in Canadian politics. I also think the administrators should do something about combative editors who delete without comment and who have misleading labels like "retired" on their user space. I don't know if I'll bother here at all anymore but I certainly won't be editing any articles that Strothra is editing. 70.48.205.126 22:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested checkuser. If confirmed, this likely calls for another range-block. --Strothra 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That's good although I am surprised the standards for use of checkuser would have dropped so far. Assuming you're able to obtain an inappropriate breach of privacy, I look forward to your apology. No offense but maybe you are really confused; I see you are accusing this editor [41] as well even though he is in a completely different location. 70.48.205.78 02:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Both of those IPs are in the exact same range as the ranges that had to be blocked last time for similar contentious policy breeching edit wars coming from a single editor (70.48.0.0/16 block log and 65.95.0.0/16 block log). What I am saying is that both of you are the same person. If the standards have dropped? Interesting that for someone who has only supposedly recently begun editing that you know so much about Wiki. --Strothra 06:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked per checkuser.--Strothra 13:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Candidates for Speedy Deletion

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion is pretty backlogged. Just sayin'.  :) Corvus cornix 20:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Image deletions are driving good contributors away

I think everyone involved in running image tagging bot and deletions should read this [42]. While I understand the reasons for tagging and deletions, This user has made some very good points that they way we are going about it, by generally just saying "tough shit, it's gone in seven days", is pretty inhumane and is driving contributors away. I know I'll get flamed for this, but surely a project with this much brainpower could think of a way to handle this intelligently and personally, rather than just slapping automated bot crap all over the wiki. pschemp | talk 23:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think it's unfortunate that some people are having such a reaction to the copyright purge which has been going on, but we, as an encyclopedia, have been seriously remiss in the treatment of fair use images, and other types -- to the point of outright illegality in some cases. People tend to take fair use images too lightly, treating them as a kind of colloquial "well, this is a "fair" use" idea -- and not as the very serious legal-copyright principle they need to be. The same goes for public domain, or whatever else. However, the argument that most people level is that they don't like being forced to go back and fix things that should have been done originally because we have, rightly, gotten more strict about images. While is unfortunate in many cases, simply slapping a template on an image is not acceptable, and the fact that it once was is no defense. We need to get these images ship-shape, and quickly, because having them poorly or incorrectly licensed is a threat to the very foundation of the encyclopedia.

I am strongly in favor of some serious wording to the effect that uploading an image to Wikipedia under a specific license should be treated with the same seriousness that a court filing; anything less is unacceptable. --Haemo 23:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Haemo, this isn't about images being up loaded *now* but how older images and the people who worked hard to get them are being treated. Especially becasue in some cases, those editors have the rights or got the rights released, but the tags were different then. I think you didn't read the link I posted, because it's pretty clear there. pschemp | talk 00:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup, that was my understanding as commented in the second part of my response below. LessHeard vanU 00:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I suppose the debate of having bot parameters (not) adjusted so images uploaded under different criteria than that now existing being treated differently exists somewhere? The problem with GDFL, Fair Use, and other matters is that policy has to be applied retrospectively if it is to be of any use. Perhaps a link to that discussion should be included in the tag template so to assauge the ire of long time contributors who find their previously acceptable content now falls foul of policy? LessHeard vanU 23:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

To Haemo, as I understand it the complaint is that the images were compliant when originally uploaded but that the tagging may infer that it was the uploader that was lax rather than the limitations of the then procedure. I can understand why that impression may not go down well with long time contributors. LessHeard vanU 23:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be an inflexible rule, easily accomplished, that a bot announce a prospective image deletion on the talkpage of the User who has uploaded it, without exception, as a matter of course. The wording of the boilerplate needs to be carefully worded, to be as friendly as possible. This is what I should call the "bottom line." --Wetman 00:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Enforcement of policy should always be done in a way that doesn't unduly alienate good editors... we need to remain vigilant on this issue and warn people when their actions are doing more harm (driving away good editors) than good (rigid and instant enforcement policy that would have no legal ramifications if not enforced in such a way). Sorry if it sounds like I'm stating the obvious, but that so many people leave the project over image bureaucracy... apparently the problem isn't obvious. --W.marsh 03:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Pschemp is exactly right: good-faith editors are being driven off the encyclopedia by having their image contributions deleted. These images were compliant with policy when they were originally uploaded, but the tagging indicates it's the uploader's fault that the image "will be deleted in seven days". Firsfron of Ronchester 04:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

My two cents, Ive done what I can to try and make the image cleanup easier and it seems that the messages that my bot leaves may seem a bit harsh and input and/or changes are welcome. I use {{missing rationale}} and {{missing rationale2}} ^∆ 04:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You might try {{Missing rationale short}} for experienced users. Chick Bowen 05:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The solution? Take the time to review the cats before deleting. Don't just blindly clear. Often times the problem is the source not being in the summary though it is in the license. Use your head, be responsible, and don't think that deleting images requires less scrutiny than an article. A bot does not do the work for you- it just reports to you. If you can clear out a 200 image backlog in under 90 minutes the problem is on your end. Images take far more work than articles. Keegan^talk 05:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Um...

Resolved

I'm not exactly sure what to do with this!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asdfghjkl&redirect=no

Wow! You guys are fast! Zeratul ^{En Taro Adun!}_{So be it.} 02:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

BITE problem

Jamiepgs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been bitten quite badly. He's an enthusiastic newbie who has got a book of "interesting facts" which he has added to articles. He's then been accused of vandalism by editors not prepared to do a simple google search to find out that he is quite right even if some of them are marginal enough to not necessarily need adding. He's asking to be unblocked and is looking for help - I've checked all the "accusations" and left links showing he is quite right on his talk page. Could an admin unblock him asap please? I'll keep an eye on his contributions and help him get the hang of things. Thanks Sophia 11:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll trust your research, SOPHIA, but can you please check contribs after I unblock. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 11:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Elinor - I will keep an eye on him and flag up if he really does start causing trouble. Sophia 11:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I never disputed that most of his facts were true; however, his attitude and pedantry indicated that he will likely be a problem in the future. His facts were so marginal as to not merit inclusion (smell of the moon), or so pedantic as to confuse others (bangkok's name), and in one case (the U.S. state one) patently false, and he edit-warred to put it back. Just keep an eye on him. --Golbez 11:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I consider this closed now but am a little concerned that someone could interpret Jamie's contribution history as edit warring and boding ill for the future [43]. Unless he has used IP's that I don't know about he has only made a maximum of two edits to the articles he has visited and his edit summaries read to me as frustration rather than pedantry. He made one visit to a talk page where he was given a very curt reply - his only user interaction other than dealing with warnings on his talk page. [44] As to Bangkok - I personally find it very interesting that none of the locals call it by that name and consider the adding of facts such as this essential to ridding Wikipedia of its Eurocentric/North American bias. I will keep an eye on him as I'm concerned he may go off the rails due to his rough handling but he seems to be really understanding of why this all happened so I have hope. Sophia 12:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You're concerned that someone could interpret his edits on U.S. state as edit warring? Especially when he put a patently false bit of information then used the undo button to keep it there? And as for Bangkok, we already have the native name there - the full name can and does go in the article on Bangkok. This has nothing to do with bias. --Golbez 20:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic cliques ruling AfD?

May I point out that Ghirla has taken a copy of the thread and moved to the AfD-s talk.--Alexia Death 16:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I've removed it. Changing the venue doesn't make this flamewar any more helpful. Neil ╦ 16:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Overdue IfD request

Could someone close this IfD quickly (either way): Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 July 6#Image:JohnProfumo.jpg before the bad faith accusations escalate further.--Konstable 12:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Closed as delete. Garion96 (talk) 12:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Advise requested on User:BetacommandBot

I would like to get some advise on what to do about User:BetacommandBot. He has been tagging logos for some time as a fair use image that has no rationale. However, logos are the only area where a rationale is not really required. I'm strongly considering blocking the bot for disruption, as I've seen far too many logos being tagged incorrectly. However, I am putting this forward to the noticeboard for comment. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

My only opinion (as an uninvolved non-admin) is that part of what makes Betacommandbot disruptive is the sheer volume. Any bot that requires a human to clean up or deal with afterwards, and does over a certain number of these a day, should be autoblocked. Full stop. To provide an example: What if I were to run a bot that nominated 500 articles for AfD a day, based upon an otherwise valid criterion? ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 12:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)/

I'd say be bold and go for it... until we can get this logo thing cleared up at least. Sasquatch t|c 12:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Betacommandbot is now blocked until this is sorted out. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Im sorry you disagree with policy but it states per WP:NFCC10(c) that all fair use images need rationales, Logos are not exempt. ^Betacommand 12:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I just realised who said this: you signature is very confusing. I am blocking the bot. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

(Not Again!) This is why I have always been vocal about templated boilerplate rationales. Most of the times the reasons for usage is same and when an user feels the use matches the criteria covered by the template can use it. This does not mean I am proposing a template for blanket use of copyrighted logos. Anyway, I do not want to start WP:AN/FURG all over again.

I have another idea. Create a list of admins who want to help with wrong fair use images. Admins who wish to help should enlist themselves to the list. The bot, when tagging an image, should randomly pickup one admin and inform them that the image needs attention, taking care that no admin gets more than 20-25 images a day. That would help distribute the backlog, rather than creating a MASSIVE central pool, the appearance of which is more than enough to overwhelm anyone. --soum ^talk 12:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Not so fast on blocking this bot. Where does it state that logos are exempt from the policy requiring fair-use rationales or that the bot is not approved for performing this task. Here is the approved BRFA and no such qualification exists. If someone doesn't like what this bot is doing when it helps us enforce site policy, perhaps the issue is with the policy rather than with the bot. We can't keep blocking this bot for doing things for which it was approved just because we don't like the underlying policies. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Every single logo will get the same fair use rationale: they are there as the organisation's logo - which is a representative image of said organisation, they won't cause the company to lose money, they are there for education. There's not a single reason to tag a logo as needing a criteria. Can I also refer to you to Wikipedia:Logo, which explains this better? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Do not block the bot, it is generally helpful. The only problem is that I've seen it tag images as orphaned when they are used in article space. Logos are absolutely not exempt from rationales. GDonato (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, Ta bu shi da yu. I went to look at Wikipedia:Logo, per your request. The first thing that I noticed was the image tag which states: "This tag is meaningless without an accompanying fair use rationale which must be unique to the usage of THIS image in each article in which it is used. You must also give the source and copyright information for all fair-use images uploaded." What part of this situation do you think I am not understanding? It clearly states that a FUR is required. By the was it is incredibly bad for of you to block the bot as you have done while this discussion is on-going. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with After Midnight. Clear objections against the block had been raised here even before Ta bu made it, so he should have known there was no consensus behind it. And the policy requirements have really been discussed ad nauseam. (Disclaimer: I'm personally no big friend of the rationale requirements for logos either, but then again, I'm also not a big friend of having non-free logos included routinely and indiscriminately as eye-candy and without further special reasons on all sorts of articles in the first place.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Instructions in templates do not create policy. It is clear from policy that every image needs sourcing information, and that every inclusion of a non-fair-use image in an article requires an accompanying FUR. That means that images with no FUR whatsoever are policy violations. However, nowhere does policy insist that the rationale cannot be templated or that the FUR is to be phrased differently in each case. That requirement would be absurd and of absolutely no help to creating a free information source, the reason behind the FUR requirement. Also, nowhere does it say that the only thing to do about it is to run a robot as part of an image deletion effort without any corresponding effort to create compliance. There are two paths to an otherwise legitimate image (as most are) without an FUR. One is to add the FUR, which is clearly preferable. The other is the speedy deletion process. This bot makes the decision to go in all cases, project wide, with less desirable solution. I don't believe there was any consensus at the outset for launching the bot; if after-the-fact consensus is needed this is the wrong place to look. Go out to the projects, where hundreds of users per project are watching their project's articles being modified and images deleted systematically yet unpredictably. Ask for their consensus, not a talk forum designed for administrators to deal with administrative issues. Wikidemo 18:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu, are you asserting that the bot is malfunctioning or acting outside its approval? Or are you asserting that you don't agree with the policy from which the bot works? If it's the former, I suggest you make that clear and explain why you think so, or else I'm going to unblock the bot. (I'll post this to his talk page too.) --bainer (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Ta bu shi da yu is now done for the day, having not edited for over an hour. Can I simply unblock at this time without this being considered a wheel war? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, do. Several admins here have objected to the block and discussion has been sought. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no legitimate reason for this block. I do not see how the bot is doing anything but what it is supposed to do, and what it was approved to do. It should be unblocked to continue doing it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a bad block to me - we block Bots when they are malfunctioning not because we disagree with what they're doing. In my opion logos should have rationales to explain why their inclusion in an article sufficiently enhances the article that fair use is necessary. But that is beside the point present policy says that all fair use images needs rationales. If Ta bu shi da yu thinks that's wrong he should argue for a change in the policy. He could also I suppose approach WP:BAG for the Bot's approval to be withdrawn. But I see no basis in WP:BLOCK for this block and I strongly support unblocking the Bot so it can continue doing what is approved to do. WjBscribe 14:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The text from WP:LOGO above is pretty clear, and Ta bu shi da yii appears to be operating under a mistaken premise. An unblock is probably appropriate, but I'd strongly urge leaving a message on his talk page too. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I am now going to leave a message at Ta bu shi da yu's page and then I will unblock. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I note that nobody has answered my personal reason for believing the bot should be blocked: Sheer volume of edits requiring eventual human interference (either to decide to delete or to justify). Anybody care to attempt to disprove my rationale? ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 17:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

So because Wikipedia is a big mess nobody should fix it? (SEWilco 17:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC))

But is this helping or just creating a bigger mess? I don't think you can clearly say that tagging thousands of images a day and creating a huge list of image deletions that some deleting admin will probably not even look over is necessarily good... Sasquatch t|c 18:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

There are admins that are deleting images in a pretty high pace, though off course there is a pretty high backlog at the moment, but it means mostly that "you" have more than a week to write a rationale. Most of the images is images from years back, when they are done, ther flood will stop. _→AzaToth 18:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

On most days the bot tags approximately 500 images a day, not thousands. Further, while asking for the bot's permitted task to be changed may be open to discussion, blocking the bot while is it performing an authorized task is not. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it 1,000 tags per day? bot policy is that "Sysops should block bots, without hesitation, if they are unapproved, doing something the operator did not say they would do, messing up articles, editing too rapidly... I would argue this bot is operating outside the scope of its approval, was improperly approved without adequate disclosure, comment, or community consensus, is harmful, not useful, goes against guidelines and policies, messes up articles, runs too rapidly, and is disruptive. People are having significant problems with the bot, all across Wikipedia. It has been blocked seven times now in the last six weeks since this task was approved, many more times before, and it has persistent bugs in the way it gets applied. Maybe that is all some baby steps at the beginning. Clearly, some kind of bot is needed to help deal with images lacking FURs. If the bot owner addresses concerns responsibly and works with people who want to help fix rather than delete images, perhaps it can be as good as any bot at achieving the goal. Wikidemo 20:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but with a bot I would think the chances of committing an error increase with the edit count. I don't know how many edits this bot has, but it must be one of the accounts with the most on wikipedia. It is not surprising if it makes occasional mistakes. People should be told if they did something wrong, and there are so many images uploaded that humans can't be responsible for leaving messages to everyone who forgot or didn't know to put a rationale. In response to the person above me, you make many accusations without specific repeated examples. I find it can be considered to be working with people who want to fix the images. If an image is lacking a fair use rationale then it goes into a specific category, and anyone can look through and add one. If none is added then an admin, not the bot, may delete the image after 2 weeks. It is only fair if you are told about something bothersome and nobody acts within 2 weeks that it can be removed. I know the bot caused a huge backlog and people may not have time to look at all the images, but the administrators have had a huge deletion backlog as well, and as such users have had over a month in reality to look at the images. Jackaranga 21:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

We're not talking about fairness to the uploader; we're talking about management of the images on Wikipedia. The uploader is only one very small piece of that. The biggest constituents are the public who reads the articles, and the editors who contribute. The bot has been giving 2 and 7 day notices, not 14 day notices. There have been errors almost nightly running into the thousands since this bot task first started, including: (1) tagging a bunch of wikipedia screen captures;; (2) putting duplicate notices on images on different dates and with different expiration times; (3) tagging images that do have fair use rationales, only the rationales are deliberately ignored because they are in templates and/or the part ouside the template is shorter than 20 characters; (4) giving incorrect notices (notice on user pages gives deletion date different than on image itself); (5) hundreds of user page deletion notices for a public domain image that was used on a template; (6) administrators deleted thousands of images inappropropriately before notice date, refused to help restore. No doubt there are others. The reason I don't want to go into this in great detail is that I'm not advocating for blocking the bot right now, just saying that's not a position that comes from nowhere. I believe Betacommand is working with people. We'll see if it is enough. But applying a speedy deletion notice with a deletion date is not an example of working with people. It's simply following (sort of) the policy and guidelines. The category list helps some but it is not enough. It does not help me to see a list of 25,000 to 30,000 tagged images, sorted by date tagged. I may want to look through the images only for a given project, or a particular class of images. We need automated tools, logs, and templates so people like me and others who want to add rationales can do so quickly. We also need some kind of schedule and coordination between the image taggers / deleters and the rationale adders instead of the common "that's not my problem" attitude. If you told everyone in a given project that the images are all going to get tagged and removed unless they start adding rationales, they could get people started. As far as I can tell the tagging process is somewhere between alphabetical and random. There's no easy way to know in advance what's going to happen that night. I don't get the notices because in most cases I'm not the one who added the images without an FUR tag.

The one month backog is part of the problem, not a matter of fairness. It shows the task is big and even with lots of effort it's not happening timely. Just as an example of how things coudl be better, how about telling the people on say Project Film that you intend to tag all the images on their infobox within a month if they don't clean them up themselves beforehand. That's over 20,000 images, most of which are noncompliant. I'm sure they would be happy to do so. Say they fix the rationales on 15,000 of them, refer 3,000 for deletion themselves because they're clearly inappropriate images, and give up on the other 2,000 because they're too complicated for an easy rationale. Now Betacommand and the deletion crew have only 2,000 images to go through, not 20,000. Moreover, they can organize by type of image so anyone interested in a particular kind of image can get some knowledge about it instead of running into random images in chronological order. That's not meant as a concrete proposal, just an illustration of one way that people fixing images can work together with people deleting images, to a better and faster result. Wikidemo 21:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The object here is not just to delete the images, please keep that in mind. If admins are deleting these quickly without looking at each one, please drop those admins a note. As long as there is a backlog that means that the uploaders have a month to actually fix the images. This is turning out great for them. The bot already notifies the talk pages, as well as those who actually did the upload. If projects want to pop in and help out they are free to do so, I'm not really sure how many non-compliant images we have, but I'm pretty sure that the bot has tagged the vast majority of them by now. Perhaps someone can ask betacommand about it. Another note please remember that the bot, and deletions under the relevant polices was halted for 1 month (from some time ago I forgot (early June I think, to July 1) to allow people to fix the images. People did not fix them. I did not see any wikiprojects jump in and fix their images in the infoboxes. The only way to make the problem known is to tag them all, then the backlog can be worked down slowly. As long as the bot is only doing 500 to 1000 a day, the backlog won't grow at an alarming rate. Cheers! —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"Great for them" is not the issue. Again, the goal is a better Wikipedia for all and processes to get us there, not extra time due to slow enforcement for someone who uploaded a bad image two years ago and and may or may not still be here. If the object is truly to fix rather than delete, the methods and the outcome don't match the ojbect. That nobody has fixed images to date and the deleters can't keep up with the bot are arguemnts against the current approach, not for it. Some of the wikiproject participans are upset and beginning to take action, but the word isn't out and they don't know what to do. I'm working with one of them so far, and likely more, on rationales they can add. Who is there to drop a note to? I have to look over every administrator's shoulder and tell them when they're being too hasty? Second-guessing each deletion would take twice as long as the deletions themselves. I'm speaking from a policy persepctive, not as someone who thinks his particular image got deleted inappropriately. Most of the time they are deleting rather than fixing images, nobody disputes that. And there are robots and software tools to help the deletion, but none to help add rationales. Nobody disputes that either. If you read up on it, the bot tagged 25,000 images in the first go-around, and the current one is slated for another 5,000. There is another phase of 140,000 about to start. But that's a policy concern, and policy concerns like that are probably better discussed somewhere other than this notice board, no? Wikidemo 22:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec) The problem was that there was no easy breakdown of images by type; and no agreed model rationales for typical uses (in fact there was heavy disagreement on a number of policy talk pages about what was appropriate, and what was best practice). Some of that has changed. :Template:album cover fur now generates a variety of standard texts for standard album cover usages, in particular for album (or single) cover usage in the main infobox of an album page -- see eg Image:JeffBeckWired.jpg for an example of it in full use. Wikiproject albums has a list of tagged album images which need rationales. At least one user from Wikiproject novels is systematically going through book covers needing rationales - but so far has only done about one third. I went through all the at-risk album cover images starting with 'J' yesterday. But this takes time. It's hard to properly review and add rationales for more than 20-30 images an hour. And nobody is yet doing logos, film posters, DVD covers, comic book art, video screengrabs etc -- partly because there's not a similar agreed reviewed high quality rationale available to cover the most standard use-cases yet.

We've already lost everything BCbot tagged up to 20 June. Much of that will be readily replaceable. But some simply isn't - for instance scans of old, specially selected hard-to-find material. This mass tagging may be legal; but I don't believe it's the best way to get to compliance with minimal angst and minimal collateral damage. Jheald 22:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Jheald, nothing has been lost. we do have Special:Undelete that admins can use to restore images. Also Ive generated image/template list that you asked for. We have given users years now to fix these problems, we now have 260 days to fix ~155,000 images, if we want to be compliant with the board resolution. I have do what I can to help. If there are better ways of fixing the image problem (that actually work) I have no clue what that is, and no-one as ever said it to me. ^∆ 23:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

BC, I'm glad to hear nothing has been lost. Okay, so can you produce a list of the images tagged "no fair use rationale" between 1 June and 20 June, broken down by template type, and indicating the page that they were used on? Then we can see what should be put back. Jheald 23:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I cannot do that. I am not an administrator and do not have access to the deleted revisions of the images that are needed for doing that. If I had the ability to do it I would. ^∆ 23:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Section nine of the Non-free content criteria specifies:

“ Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following.

• (a) Proper attribution of the source of the material, and attribution of the copyright holder if different from the source.
• (b) An appropriate fair-use tag indicating which Wikipedia policy provision permitting the use is claimed. A list of image tags is at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content.
• (c) The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use.

”

It says "The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use.", and for me it means that the rationale must be in plain text, not a linked template. _→AzaToth 22:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how one reads "plain text" out of "relevant," but that would serve no purpose. The best explanation is that the policy means exactly what it says it means, that there is one rationale per use, and the rationale must be relevant to that use. No reason a template cannot be relevant, and if it happens not to be, typing out, cutting and pasting, or subst-ing the template doesn't make it any more so. Templates are already approved for rationales under the WP:FURG guidelines. But that's a different question that has nothing to do with the bot. The bot is approved to tag missing rationales, not to make judgment calls in about which rationales are compliant. Wikidemo 22:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

See eg Image:JeffBeckWired.jpg. You will indeed find a rationale that is presented in clear, plain language; and is relevant to the specific page using the image. Jheald 22:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The Jeff Beck rationale is indeed well done. However, that has nothing to do with the way in which the rationale is presented. It is long enough to show thought, consideration, and how the image is actually acceptable according to US law and site policy. Unfortunately, some template rationales are not this way, and tend to be one or two word answers. (Of course, this can also be true of plaintext rationales, I've seen stuff to the effect of "Album cover so it's fair use"). The template, however, seems to encourage such short rationales, or at least in my experience most template rationales say very little and are unacceptable, whereas most handwritten rationales are detailed and make a good case. (It would, however, never be appropriate to have a templated rationale which required no intervention from the person placing it at all, since the uploader must specify why this image is acceptable in that article, not just "It's a (logo/album cover/what have you), and those are generally allowed, so I need say no more". That's why the boilerplates aren't and can't be usable as fair use rationales, and replacing that with a different boilerplate wouldn't be acceptable either.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This is absolutely true; too many FURs tend to be "This is a logo, its from the company, it's used by them so it's here". This is inappropriate, since it's too general -- it should explain which page it's being used on, why the use on that page is necessary, why there is no free version fo the logo, who holds the copyright, where you GOT this version of the logo from, what changes (f any) you made to it to make it appropriate (reduced size, etc etc); and this is just for starters. Too many people treat fair use rationales too lightly; they need to be as complete as a regular person would go ahead and file as if they were going to civil court over this. --Haemo 23:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not true. People are making up policy here. One need not explain why a logo, or an album cover, are necessary on a page beyond that they are used to identify the subject of the article, an identical statement in each case. That is a complete and sufficient justification, and making people undertake extra busy-work helps nothing. It actually makes it a lot harder for downstream users to make sense of the images, and harder for us to track them internally, if you have a lot of free-form text where it is not needed. The reason there is no free version of a logo or record album is identical in each case. The sourcing and resizing information is once per image, not once per rationale. Those are standard as well. If a person were going to civil court to defend a claim of copyright infringement they would need a 20-30 page brief written by a copyright lawyer, plus 100-200 hours of legal advice at $300-500 per hour. Should we provide those too? When people try to play lawyer with fair use rationales they either cut and paste stuff, or say things that don't make a whole lot of sense, or both. Lawyers all use boilerplate as well, you know. They don't just sit in front of computers and impose arbitrary rules on each other that they can't cut and paste legal arguments. Wikidemo 01:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

But now, Seraphimblade, look at the source for that page. (Use the button at the top of the screen, not the template source at the side). Apart from the name of the artist, the name of the album, and the name of the record company, the only other handwritten thing on that page is the single word "Infobox". Just as it is for all but a handful of the 400 other album pages that template has been applied to - all equally IMO "indeed well done". (Kudos to the template writer). That's the point of appropriate boilerplate text. Jheald 23:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The key thing here is that a good template allows people to override or update the information if necessary, but facilitates them in producing the parts that are routine. The existing template encourages people to merely type "yes" in the low resolution field if the image is below .1 megapixel. Even I think that's too simplistic, but it's an easy matter with a logo to ask whether it is full size or not, and ask the user to verify the size is reasonable. It still requires human review to make sure they are using the right argument for the right image in the right article. Wikidemo 01:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

As long as they produce proper rationals. No rational is not an excuse. The rational needs to be more then just "Its fair use because it is". Heck I've seen some rationals that were just "its the cd cover". Right, I can see that... but why must we use it? Does it identify the cover? (please think twice before you say that all covers identify the album, they don't, some albums have multiple covers, and even if all albums had one distinct cover, I challenge anyone to recognize a random album from the cover based on just the image (text removed). I doubt anyone can do that consistently.) Please see articles such as Microsoft where the logo actually has text written about it. As much as I hate the company, that logo is justified fair use. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 02:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Christine Marais

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Garion96#Christine_Marais Is it standard Wiki practice for administrators to be dismissive of reasonable requests? Is it possible that sufficient barnstars lead to a divinity complex? Could someone rationally look at this issue? 41.208.199.187 13:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Undeleting copyright violations, or pasting them to userspace, is not a reasonable request. Garion96 has not been dismissive, rather he's been quite willing to explain what he did and why. Please do listen to what he's saying. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 14:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

What he seems to be saying is that even in development an article may not contain any text which could be construed as a copyright violation by overzealous administrators. The real question is why a final article, which shows no copyright violation, should be deleted because of its ancestry? All material used in Wikipedia was obtained from sites that were copyrighted - editors and contributors simply modify the wording, but the essential facts remain the same. For 41.208.199.187 to ask that the text be pasted where the supposed copyright violation can be seen by editors who may be impartial, is certainly NOT an unreasonable request. When malicious deleting or editing is kept undercover, in a system that should be transparent, then it is time for policymakers to heed the warning signs. Roxithro 16:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Garion found that portions of the copyvio text remained. When I originally tagged it, I think I came to the same conclusion. This seems to be Paul Ventor complaining, who asserted his right to start with a copyvio and gradually reword it into "free" text. Even if every word is changed it's still probably a copyvio or plagiarism. In this case I don't think it was altered quite that much. --W.marsh 17:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Editors who specialise in copyright violations should be sure of Wiki policy - asserting that "if every word is changed it's still probably a copyvio or plagiarism" doesn't create a great deal of confidence that copyright issues are being handled competently. Roxithro 19:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Even if every word is changed, the resulting work is a derivative work and thus still violates the original author's copyrights. Don't copy and paste text into Wikipedia. Is that direct enough for you? -- Jonel (Speak to me) 20:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It's unfair to say all text on wikipedia is simply reworded from another site. I think generally what happens is someone writes about something they know and then find sources confirming what they wrote. Articles grow over time from contributions by a large number of people. It is false to think that someone just googles something and then rewords it. Jackaranga 20:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

People do that sometimes, but it's inappropriate. Using a source as a reference is different than just rewording it enough that it's not a copy and paste. --W.marsh 21:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I said "probably" because it's possible that a new article was written that bore no resemblance to what was there before. And thus, was not a derivative work. But this was not the case here. I did not mean that just changing a few words but leaving chunks of phrases intact is only "probably" a copyvio. If you want to be a language lawyer that was not the quote to do it over. --W.marsh 21:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirk Fraser

I nominated Kirk Fraser for deletion four weeks ago; it was deleted and then deleted again three times after recreation. YousoCrazy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who made his first edit yesterday, requested on my talk page that this deletion be reviewed because Kirk Frasier is the correct spelling. I have two questions.

1. Is this correct? Could someone please do an "unofficial" deletion review to see if this fellow's claim has merit?
2. It would appear that YousoCrazy is a sockpuppet of someone who is aware of the previous deletion discussion, and he also "spammed" five other user talk pages. Is any action (i.e. warning or blocking) called for?

Shalom ^Hello 16:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look like the spelling difference would help any. Googling "Kirk Frasier" brings up 92 hits, most of them related to the wikipedia article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the IMDB link listed in the deleted article, his name is "Fraser". He also has exactly one IMDB credit which doesn't bode well for his notability. IrishGuy ^talk 17:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirect error

In an article, when I put "fluorescent" as a link, it redirects to an old version of the Fluorescence page, it has the picture missing at the top, at the bottom it says "This page was last modified 07:29, 12 July 2007", the correct page was edited on 15th of July, when I added some things to the "See also" section, which is also not there in the 12th of July version. When hitting Ctrl and Refresh, it loads the 15th of July page. (At the bottom it says "This page was last modified 16:47, 15 July 2007".)

(The page I was adding the link to was "Fluorescent Multilayer Disc". I've left it as "fluorescence|fluorescent" for now, which makes the link "fluorescence" rather than a link to the redirection, "fluorescent".) 85.211.175.239 17:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Heads-up on User: 70.128.41.152

70.128.41.152 (talk · contribs)

This anon has been quietly removing {{trivia}} and similar tags from pop-culture related articles over the last couple of days with neither significant edits nor any talk page consensus to justify such moves. I have reverted where I found them, and warned him once, but keep an eye out in case he goes back to it. Daniel Case 14:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

2007 Pan American Games medal count

I fear that I may be running close to the 3RR so I've come here to suggest my worries. The page in question has been handled by one user User:João Felipe C.S for a few days now. I've stepped in several times with suggestions as to how to fix up the page more appropriately, but the user, who uses no edit summaries, refuses to allow anything I do onto the page, using his inability to speak English as his excuse not to hash out an agreement.

I don't want to take over the page myself, but at WP:OLYMPICS, a wikiproject that may have some claim of jurisdiction over the page in question, we have long-standing precedents for pages such as this. I would have hoped the user would take some of my suggestions as an editor, and even as a WikiProject member, but seeing as how the user cannot do this, I felt like I needed to seek some higher authority to address this issue. All I am asking is that the user recognize that others want to edit freely, too. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  19:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have left a comment at User:João Felipe C.S's talkpage, which I copied to the article talkpage. You may wish to make your own suggestions or comments there (the article talkpage). It would be best if no changes to the format were made while waiting for any response/discussion. I hope this helps. LessHeard vanU 21:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I haven't done anything yet. And perhaps it may be better to wait until the games are over anyway. Thank you for leaving the user a message. I've left my own personal suggestions on the article talk page, so I'm awaiting a reply. I'm not going to make this too big a deal; I just wanted to ensure that the user didn't get a sense that if he edited a page long enough, he's the one that gets to take charge of it. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  22:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

User:João Felipe C.S responded quite civilly at my talkpage. If they are indicating they will be co-operative then you might try commencing a dialogue? LessHeard vanU 22:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Davenport

Resolved

User:Ctjf83 did a cut and paste move of the disambig page Davenport to Davenport (disambiguation) back in May, then redirected Davenport to Davenport, Iowa. Both pages have now had several edits made to them. Could somebody fix the messed up edit histories of both pages, and redirect Davenport to Davenport (disambiguation) with a protection so that the redirect can't be moved back to Davenport, Iowa? I don't think there is any consensus for that redirect. Davenport, Iowa is certainly not big enough to warrant having the name alone. Corvus cornix 20:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the heads-up, Corvus cornix. Keegan^talk 21:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I put the article at Davenport and not Davenport (disambiguation), because there is no main article at Davenport. If there were, then we'd use the disambig naming convention. Keegan^talk 21:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Keegan. Corvus cornix 21:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hamid Yassin Adem

This article has been recreated after it was deleted at AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamid Yassin Adem. It was put to AFD on July 9 and closed 'delete' on July 15. --Bduke 21:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedied. LessHeard vanU 21:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This was recreated again. I have speedied and salted. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Noticeboard move war

Few weeks ago a Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard has been created, it was intended to be used (and is) to discuss whether a given source is reliable or not; since then it has been used by dozens of users. Some time ago User:SlimVirgin moved it to Wikipedia:Verifiability/Noticeboard, explaining in her edit summary that this should be attached to the sourcing policy, not to a discredited guideline. She has not linked the page, however, from WP:V, nor fixed any redirects. I asked on the noticeboard talk page why was it moved (Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Noticeboard), no answer. I asked her on her talk page; after a few days my question was archived without any answer. I asked at WP:V talk page, where she didn't answer (Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Wikipedia:Reliable_sources.2FNoticeboard). I thus moved the page back some time ago. Today, my move was reverted by SlimVirgin, without any edit summary. I reverted her and asked to state her reasons, I got the edit summary of This is the policy. Don't keep attaching it to a widely ignored, contentless guideline when she reverted. Since I don't want to start a move war, particularly silly between admins, I'd appreciate if other voices could comment on this. I believe that a board designed for discussion of reliability should not be attached to any related policy (it could have as well been moved to WP:OR or WP:CITE), as it can only confuse editors - particularly as content editors want to discuss reliability of sources, not their verifiability (which is never challenged). PS. As long as I am posting here, I'd also like to advertise a need for comments at a related WP:RS discusson.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Erm one question, where has WP:RS been discredited? If there are problems with the guideline lets start a RFC. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 22:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss in RS or V talk pages. There is no admin action required. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit protected

Resolved

I request that three minor edits be made to the protected page Wikipedia:Requests for oversight:

• In the sentence "Click below and supply the "diff" of the revision which needs removal", link the word 'diff' to Help:Diff
• Please uncapitalise the word "admin" in 'Note to Admins'
• Please remove the unnecessary hyphens after '(faster)'

(sorry for posting this here, but Wikipedia talk:Requests for oversight is currently a protected redirect, and WP:RPP says one should only post an editprotected request there if the change is controversial/major) SalaSkan 01:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, Salaskan. Keegan^talk 02:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Google Web Accelerator and range blocking

Should I rangeblock 64.233.172.0/23, 72.14.192.0/24, and 72.14.194.0/24 based on evidence I found on this anti-Google Web Accelerator weblog page, and if so, which options should I choose? I would choose indef blocking with disabling both registered and anonymous users' edit access. I never rangeblocked before, so I would like a review of this action before doing it instead of going ahead and causing collateral damage. I ran the WHOIS and found that these ranges belong to Google, so I don't think that this blogger is trying to trick people into blocking other ISPs. Jesse Viviano 02:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the issue with this accelerator? Please clarify why a block is needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Final Warning before block

I am seeing that users are being blocked without receiving a level 4 warning (final warning). It would be considered biting if a user gets blocked right after receiving a level 2 or 3 warning and without a final warning. I am concerned with this situation. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 02:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not, really. Can you please provide specific examples where you believe someone was inappropriately blocked without getting a level 4 warning? --Deskana (talk) 02:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

On User_talk:69.137.3.95, User:Kuru has left a level 2 warning at first, then a level 3 warning. Then, without a level 4 warning, User:69.137.3.95 have been blocked. This really is biting. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 02:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't concern me. Firstly, if you look at the diffs ([50] [51] [52]), you see that the user was blatantly vandalising. Secondly, the IP address does not seem to be dynamic, as the only edits that have ever come from that IP were in that particular vandalising spree. Thirdly, the block was only for 31 hours. I don't think it's actually policy (or even a guideline) that someone should only be blocked after a level four warning. --Deskana (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That depends on the situation. If someone has a repeated history of vandalism, and/or their vandalism is particularly disruptive, vicious, or abusive, I'll swat them after just one or two warnings, and on occasion--if they're obviously a returning and experienced troublemaker--I'll block them immediately. In my opinion, genuine newbies messing around deserve four warnings. Judgement of individual administrators may vary.

Regarding Kuru's block, I support it. That person clearly knew they were vandalising, and they had two warnings. You don't get a free pass to vandalise four times. Antandrus (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If the user is very disruptive, then a more appropriate warning message would be {{uw-vandalism4im}} or {{bv}}. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 02:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think every admin is aware of the bv template. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at here. Is this a open complaint or a suggestion? --Deskana (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a suggestion that if the user is very disruptive, then the {{uw-vandalism4im}} or {{bv}} should be used, or start warning the user with a level 3 warning. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 02:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)