This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Abu badali(talk | contribs) at 20:35, 19 May 2007(Spam? "''Internet Fashion Database''"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:35, 19 May 2007 by Abu badali(talk | contribs)(Spam? "''Internet Fashion Database''")
Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
This whole rant is a tissue of lies, but I believe that the accusation of murder, reference to a police cell and the call for a lifelong ban are all breaches of WP policy, requiring admin intervention, please. Note also the same users previous defamatory edits made using sock puppets. Andy Mabbett 22:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me as if Lewisskinner needs some education and possible support dealing with a Wikistalker, not banning. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You appear confused; I'm Andy Mabbett, not "Lewisskinner". Andy Mabbett 23:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone appears confused. You linked to Lewisskinner's post and objected to it. --Masamage♫ 23:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the accusation of murder here. --Haemo 00:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took it, and I may be wrong, as 'killing' the participation of a wikieditor, not of outright removing the pulse of a living human. ThuranX 00:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
that's how it seemed tome also. DGG 03:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From the cited diff. "He has already murdered another wikiuser". Andy Mabbett 11:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that as literally accusing anyone of murder, given that he specifically couched in the context of an analogy. --Haemo 21:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, let me identify myself as lewisskinner, using an IP here, and only here to defend myself (having been blocked, see beow). Of course, feel free to block this IP too after posting.
Secondly, why Pigsonthewing, did you not think to notify me of yet another AN/I complaint made against myself by yourself? (from the top of this page - "As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting"). But congrats in finally getting what you wanted!
Thirdly, the accusations of sockpuppetry are a) false, as explained, and b) Irrelevant in this particular incident. But hey, I expect to get that thrown in my face everytime Pigsonthewing has a dispute with me!
Fourthly, to defend the comment, it was a direct quote, as cited on my talk page. Twice
Finally, why does Pigsonthewing seem so averse to coming on to my talk page and requesting retraction of my comments? I can think of only one occasion in which he's ever posted on my talk page, and that was in response to user:Adambro gallant but ultimately (and always destined to be) futile attempt at mediation at User_talk:Lewisskinner/Archive_May_2007#Regarding_User:Pigsonthewing. Why will you not sort these problems out in private Pigsonthewing? Why must you always go to admins? It only wastes their time, our time which we could be spending editing articles rather than screaming each other down and trading insults, and other user's time who have to come here having been dragged in by the insults. I'd have retracted/reworded the comment if you'd asked! 91.105.170.205 03:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it acceptable for a user to evade a block in this manner? Andy Mabbett 10:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(info) I blocked Lewis for 48 hrs yesterday for this; the murder comment, in or out of context, was uncivil and inappropriate. If this is felt to be inappropriately harsh feel free to unblock (he's got an unblock request up now). I did not see it as an analogy; if Lewis meant it that way, he should communicate in a manner less prone to interpretation as accusations of physical violence. Neither threats nor acusations of that should ever be taken lightly. Georgewilliamherbert 23:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Pigsonthewing/Andy Mabbett is currently involved in another dispute on this page [1]. Is he involved in any other ones? -- Kleinzach 01:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to imply anything positive or negative about this editor, but maybe some history would be helpful.
Note that the above, unsigned lie was posted from the same IP-block as the above, block-evading edit. The only other edit by the user in this case was to vandalise an article I have previously edited. Andy Mabbett 22:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this intended to be another false accusation of sockpuppetry against me Pigsonthewing? If so, please stop, it's getting tiresome. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 02:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read both your "explanation" and the comments on it by the user who carried out the checkuser: "If that's the case, then, looking at the edit pattern, I find the confluence of interests and writing style remarkable and likely to break new ground in the study of coincidence. Or perhaps not" ([2]) and "On balance, my considered opinion as an experienced checkuser remains to suggest to Lewis "come off it" and to point out that Wikipedia is incredibly tolerant, but we're not actually stupid" ([3]). Andy Mabbett 20:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One user's word against another is not credible evidence Pigsonthewing. It is an opinion, which I refuted, and offered an explanation against. Please this vendetta has gone too far now. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 02:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the lie? How is the second part relevant? Where was the vandalism?
Lewis, it is not credible for you to expect that an IP address in a block from which you have sockpuppeted extensively in the past to come here and edit like that and for us not to conclude that it's you. Knock it off. Georgewilliamherbert 18:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging for non-free logos (formerly: Betacommand appears to be at it again
Betacommand appears to be at it again; this time their target (at the rate of several edits per minute) is all images which they perceive to be logos lacking a "fair use" rationale for use in the articles about the companies that the logo represents.
Now I'm not a Wikimedia Foundation copyright lawyer, but this seems to me to be a pretty safe "fair use", and I would expect that most companies would actually LIKE the use of their logos to decorate their articles. If this is true, then someone needs to rein in Betacommand. If not, then I think we need to either:
have someone draft a boilerplate fair use rational that covers this exact case, or
tell us exactly why this doesn't fall under fair use.
If the issue is that the images do not contain the fair-use rationale, then the burden is on the uploaders to fix the situation. The images are not embedded in articles, they are resources that are linked to as needed. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you bring this here first as opposed to Betacommand's talk page? --Iamunknown 18:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because I wanted advice and guidance before taking action. Atlant 18:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
that is the problem Boiler plate templates are not fair use rational. if people would actualy follow policy and take the time to write a one or two sentence explaining what the image is and why we need it the problem would be solved. as it is images need valid FU rational and templates dont do that. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot) 18:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Betacommand is acting quite correctly in this case. We require individual rationales for all fair use images, not a boilerplate one. Its not a matter of whether the companies would like us to use their images, its a matter of Wikipedia's policy on unfree content. We only allow copyright content in a very narrow range of circumstances. In particular, images must be free not only for Wikipedia to use but also for anyone else to use for any purpose. If this is not that case, a valid individual fair use rationale must be provided. Images are unlikely to be fair use if merely being used to decorate an article. Betacommand has approval to tag all images that do not contain a fair use rationale, either by himself or using his Bot account. If they are not added before 7 days after the uploader has been notified by the Bot, they will be deleted. WJBscribe 18:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Betacommand is doing the necessary this time. -- FayssalF 18:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. This is needed and necessary work. -- ChrisO 18:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) While the edit rate is a little high (4-5 edits/min) but not quite bot speeds, FU images need a fair use rationale and a source. He isn't quite saying they aren't fair use, just it isn't explained how they are fair use to fully meet Wikipedia fair use criteria. Commenting them out in the artices can help as well to encourage readers to add the info after thinking: "Where did the image go? I better do what th tag says." As opposed to just seeing a redlink for an image after a few days "Where did the image go? I better upload it again." Mr.Z-man 18:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first step in dispute resolution is to....contact the user involved. Swatjester 18:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One problem is that many images were uploaded at a time before it was made clear by Jimbo and/or Wikipedia policy that a justification beyond the template was needed. Rather than tagging at bot-like speeds, it would be better if someone could go through individually to check fair use images. If there is no justification but a good one could be made, then write it. If the image violates fair use policy, nominate it for deletion. Crotalus horridus 19:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bots are for large scale operations like this. Atlant wants someone to either draft a boilerplate (not a good idea, rationales should be written on a case by case basis) or "tell us exactly why this doesn't fall under fair use." The latter is obvious: if nobody has written a rationale for using a non-free picture, then fair use cannot be justified. We have had these images on-site for years now in such cases, and nobody has bothered to justify their use. Time to get rid of them. --Tony Sidaway 20:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bots are impersonal and rarely even describe the problem adequately. I've had at least one bot that never really gave me specific pointers in a peer review, just a general dump list of what needed to be done period. And in that list, I actually fulfilled 75% of the list. Even if you added a human element, we'd still have problems. --293.xx.xxx.xx 20:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've always wondered why people, instead of tagging en-masse and causing problems, don't simply create the fair use rationale. --badlydrawnjefftalk 20:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is certainly something unclear here, not so much about the policy but about what people think the consensus about its interpretation is. Do we believe that the practice of routinely having a logo image on each company etc. article is justifiable? In that case, a single type of valid fair use rationale could be devised that would apply to all these images in pretty much the same way (and the demand of having it written out individually in each case would be not much more than an enforced symbolic bowing down to policy but of little practical value, and we could really just as well have that standard rationale templated.) Or do people think that logos should be used on company articles only in special cases, for instance where the design of the logo was of particular encyclopedic interest? In that case individual rationales would be crucial but, first and foremost, 98% of all existing logos would have to be deleted. This is a real question. What, in people's opinion, would be a valid fair use rationale for a company logo? I honestly don't know. Fut.Perf.☼ 20:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Creating a fair use rationale takes time and thought, tagging random logos with a no rationale tag cuts out the latter requisite. The greater concern is to make sure that logo usage complies with Wikipedia:Logos. In my experience, simply deleting an image is unlikely to deter anyone from uploading a poorly sourced duplicate. So why not create a blanket rationale for the majority of cases? Asking individual contributors to cobble together a rationale that complies with policy as well as copyright law ignores the fact that the majority of users are not too well familiar with either. If we assume a janitorial role with image uploads, then lets address our own concerns. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Anetode. If WP:LOGO is appropriate then I don't understand the problem against a boilerplate FU rationale specifically for those logos (I thought there used to be a pulldown choice for uploading logos, which was implied FU, before they rearranged all that stuff). If we want to be more hardass about refusing FU images (an idea that I sympathize with) then the problem is WP:LOGO, which would need to be redone with the result of getting rid of almost all of the logos in the encyclopedia. I don't see the need for a handcrafted FU rationale message for each logo given that the actual usage is about the same in almost all cases. This particular bot operation looks ill-advised. I'd add that backlogs of stuff like this get large precisely because of the thought required to handle them correctly. Stuff that can be crunched through mindlessly usually gets taken care of quickly, either by hand or with software. So bots are usually the wrong way to deal with a backlog unless there's consensus to abandon hope of dealing with the backlog properly. 75.62.6.237 07:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then that's even worse. You could have left messages on linking articles' talk pages very easily, asking that the relevant images be tagged in accordance with the latest policy whim, and not cluttering main article namespace history. Instead, you simply commented each image out of each article, which is disruptive and at the very least vigilante justice, if not one step short of outright vandalism. VT hawkeyetalk to me 21:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Betacommand, that's amazing. I counted up to 7 edits a minute for hours on end. I wish I could do a neat trick like that without a bot. Nardman1 06:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not inappropriate to use something like AWB, or just old-fashioned tabbed browsing, to speed up the laborious process of mowing through fair-use images. It's a simple thing: if a page has no rationale and needs it, tag it with the appropriate tag and notify the uploader. It cannot be our job to write a rationale, which would require us to examine the image's use in every article in search of the critical commentary required by Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images. That job has to fall to the uploader. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it can be your job. It's not like only one person can come up with a fair use rationale. To not do due dilligence - check the image to see if it's appropriate, and then fill in the gaps if it is - is poor editing, and using an automated tool to go through the images - thus assuring there's no actual human review - is insulting to editors working on these articles and images. --badlydrawnjefftalk 16:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to take the time to make sure that poorly sourced or poorly justified images can remain in Wikipedia, you can find them in the same place I do. I don't view it as my job to search for critical commentary, especially when it isn't even there over 95% of the time. (ESkog)(Talk) 14:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I don't see the harm in asking the original uploader to finish the work they started. If we fix all of the problems, none of our other good image-uploading editors will learn the proper way to do it, and we'll have more problems to fix. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree w/ you. I am one of the worst uploaders and i never complained to Betacommand about his frequent warnings on my talk page. I've just started to know how to do it. Thanks Beta. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VT hawkeye before calling someone a vandal why not read the Policy I was enforcing. leaving notes on talkpages doesnt get the job done. Commenting out the image and notifing the up-loader get a lot better feedback and results. as for Nardman1's issues its not a bot but a tool like AWB that I have written for FU image review. if anyone would like the code Ill give it to them as soon as I debug my most recent code change. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot) 13:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of the policy, thanks. I'm disagreeing with your method of enforcement. Common courtesy (not to mention common sense) appears to be rapidly disappearing from WP, and this didn't help. VT hawkeyetalk to me 15:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
maybe if uploaders did what they were supposed to do, per policy and copyright law this wouldnt need done. but because users are lazy/dont know policy it needs done. this is the best method of getting results. if you think just placeing a template or notice does it your sadly mistaken we have articles that havent had sources tagged since 2005. since this is a legal issue i thought a more direct action is needed. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot) 16:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if you actually reviewed the images and tried to fix the problem instead of tagging 7 images a minute following numerous concerns about similar edits, this wouldn't be an issue. --badlydrawnjefftalk 16:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hay jeff before making comments why not double check your facts. I dont tag 7 Images a minute, most of the edits are removing them from the mainspace and notifying the uploader. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot) 16:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hay beta i did double check. If you're simply removing/tagging/notifying at a high rate without any real consideration, you're not really doing people a service. We allow fair use here, so if there's a fair use image being used that lacks a rationale, see if you can create one before tagging and removing. That's hard to do when you're making near-bot-speed edits. --badlydrawnjefftalk 16:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I am, for someone not involved with either the image and related pages it would take 20-30 minutes to figure out where and why its needed. on the other hand someone who is familiar with the issue can do it in 2 minutes. also having only one person doing this would take years to review, on the flip side we remind users that FU images need rationale's and then they take care of that for all of the images they've uploaded. now jeff tell me what makes more sense one user checking and adding FU rationale to 360,000 images or having the community do it? Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot) 16:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What makes more sense? Getting a bunch of people together to actually review the images as opposed to tagging them willy-nilly, undoubtedly. We are here to improve the content, after all. --badlydrawnjefftalk 17:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with betacommand here. Simply tagging the images, and hoping that someday, it will eventually get fixed per m:Eventualism is inappropriate in this case. This is a legal issue; we need fair use justifications, not just tagging it as being copyrighted. Leaving ourselves exposed to this sort of problem can potentially have serious impact on the project. Betacommand's actions are putting teeth into it. We might not like the teeth (even I don't like seeing some fair use images removed for lacking rationale) but it does have the effect of encouraging people to do it right in the first place. --Durin 17:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, it's extreme copyright paranoia, not a legal issue, and has no legitimate long-term, short-term, or any term impact on the project, let's stop fooling ourselves here. Secondly, no one's saying "simply tag the images," I'm saying actually review the images and attempt to fix the problem rather than throwing our hands up and insulting editors along the way. Make an effort, y'know? --badlydrawnjefftalk 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, Betacommand just ripping through pages is not much short of vandalism. It is no wonder that hard working page/subject editors are giving up posting in droves when someone is ripping through their work. If you are that concerned about fair use rationales for something which are obviously sporting logos, then why no add the rationales yourself rather than wrecking the pages. How to wreck an online community in one easy lesson. If people get genuine pleasure in their self imposed task of correcting other people's image 'errors' at a rather alarming rate(each to their own), then why not be constructive and source the rationales. I for one know my subject, but not the in depth workings of Wikipedia and am not remotely interested. Instead of wiping images, why not form, for example, a sports logo rationale those of us who write about our chosen sport. A sports logo is a sports logo. Hammer1980 17:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If doing this work is vandalism, then I suggest you have WP:CSD#Images.2Fmedia criteria 6 removed from that page as a blatant case of vandalism. --Durin 17:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That may as well be in a foreign language to me mate. Hence the reason instead of ripping pages to shreds, how about putting in these rationales instead. A sports logo on a page is not likely to be targeted for copyright violation on Wikipedia when just being on this project increases awareness of the clubs/organizations concerned. It 'is' paranoia. Hammer1980 17:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
de-indent You consider it extreme paranoia. Myself and others do not. There are droves of lawyers whose sole purpose in professional life is to go after people who violate copyright of their clients. I'm not terribly interested in running afoul of these people. We've tried for *years* to get people to appropriately tag their images without effect. If such an effort actually yielded results, hey I'd be all for it. That's one of the joys of Wikipedia; group effort. But, the group effort has categorically failed in this instance. We're long past the time when we should sit around and wish for it to happen with our hopes dashed. This is a legal situation even if you don't want to feel it's a potentially dangerous one. The right thing to do is to make this situation go away. Since group effort isn't working, deleting is a way of fixing it that will actually work. If you are offended by this, then by all means *please* form a group of people to go after these images that are tagged and fix them. But, I'll virtually guarantee you nobody will want to do the work. That's why this tack needs to be taken. --Durin 17:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it merely postpones the issue and pisses people off, not to mention actively harms the quality of the project and the product we're providing. If our paranoia is so great that we somehow think that a possible (not even probable) DMCA request is going to be leapfrogged for a lawsuit on a site that's been high-profile for over a year, I'm not sure what to say. --badlydrawnjefftalk 17:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I was being tongue in cheek. I've learned my lesson on civility from my recent failed rfa so I was just trying to use a little humor. You might want to fix your script a little, it's leaving comments in image page code indicating that you are BetacommandBot (when it lists the pages the image has been removed from). Nardman1 16:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Jeff is so all-fired desperate to keep these images, why doesn't he round up a bunch of people to perform the review which he seems to think would be so simple and quick?
Put your time and effort where your mouth is, Jeff.
—Phil | Talk 17:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do it where I see it, quite honestly, which isn't entirely often because I don't generally work with images. I also know that our extreme paranoia on copyright isn't nearly as urgent as about a hundred other things. More to the point - if there are people who actually see image patrolling as a valid use of their time, there's an effective way to do it that improves the project, and a lackadaisical approach that only stirs up more ill will for no good reason. If we can promote the former, we're better off. --badlydrawnjefftalk 17:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was really taken aback by the thoughtless way Betacommand stuck two boilerplate messages on my talk page yesterday, and then ignored me when I left a response on his own talk page. He should learn some manners. I also agree with Jeff that Betacommand would be better employed providing fair use rationale. RupertMillard (Talk) 18:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still a bit puzzled with this debate, and I'll repeat my question from above which nobody has answered: What, in people's opinion, would be a valid fair use rationale for a company logo? If people think a valid rationale could be found for the great bulk of these routine logo-in-infobox usages, that's one thing; if people think it couldn't, then we shouldn't be talking about uploaders writing rationales or not, we should be talking about preventing uploaders from writing wrong rationales. Fut.Perf.☼ 18:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a template that just needs filling in on my talkpage for a good example of a simple FU rationale. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot) 18:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty simple:
No free or public domain versionis available.
The image is of lower resolution than the original logo (any copies made from it will be of inferior quality).
The image does not limit the copyright owners' rights to distribute their product or image in any way.
The image has future historical significance, and is a more appropriate choice than any other image available.
The logo is only being used for informational purposes.
That covers 99% of any logos we have. Furthermore, most other sites on the internet aren't fair use retarded, so many popular logos could use a variation of "This image is used on various websites, so its use on Wikipedia does not make it significantly more accessible or visible than it already is." If, instead of tagging, bot users would simply replace the text with this rationale for most logos, we'd probably be in better shape, but they still need to be reviewed. --badlydrawnjefftalk 19:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff that rationale covers exactly zero percent of the images. per policy you have to state why you have to have the image on every page you want to use it on. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot) 01:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary page break
I don't even really care that Betacommand didn't/can't/won't provide the rationales on his own. My issue is with deletion from linking articles being the FIRST STEP he took. It would have been significantly more polite and courteous to leave a note on the articles' talk pages with a rationale request and, say, a 7-day warning, which would have caught the attention of watching editors just as effectively, but without disrupting the main articles for readers and casual editors. Are we trying to prove a point, or are we trying to write a usable encyclopedia? VT hawkeyetalk to me 16:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I aggree, I spent about 20 minutes fixing all the links to pages that his bot deleted images from in a flash, and placed rationales on the images. ≈ Maurauth(nemesis) 18:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, VT. Frankly, I do consider the damage Betacommand is doing to articles to be vandalism, and informed him so on his talk page. While properly tagging images is something that is important, the methods he is using to "enforce" these rules are bordering on disruption to prove a point. There certantly is a better way than to vandalize dozens, if not hundreds, of articles, but Betacommand refuses to consider them. His talk about "if only people would follow the rules" as a defense is particularaly hilarious given his own history, and that he was already slapped by an admin yesterday for deliberately tagging images with improper tags. Resolute 00:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I have to agree. Fair Use, even though it is a vital, robust part of U.S. copyright law, which governs Wikipedia, is under systematic attack on Wikipedia by anti-fair-use zealots. This is not a good development, and unfortunately, it has the result of diminishing the quality of Wikipedia in order to promote a rather radical agenda. --MCB 01:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Im improving the quality. wikipedia is the FREE encyclopedia having images that violate copyright law hurts use a lot. if even one of these copyright holders sued the foundation, it is very likely wikipedia would shut down forever, as the Foundation probably doesn't have the financial support to fight such a legal battle and then pay the court ordered fines. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot) 01:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Radical agenda"? Absolutely not. here Some Wikipedias do not allow fair use at all. Fair use is a slippery slope; after a while, the project will be completely dependent on it. When you look under the article's name, you see a little bit of text. This text reads "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". I agree with Betacommand; With fair use images, Wikipedia is not free. It may be a necessary evil that we must endure, but we need to stop sitting on the fence and decide one road or the other. Sean William 01:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, it is not your intentions that are being questioned, it is your methods. You are unnecessaraly disrupting dozens of articles in the process of conducting your latest crusade. Resolute 02:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
disruptions are not always a bad thing. I have gotten a lot of support from numerous admins and even one ex-B'crat for that Im doing and how im doing it. if the images in question were not so screwed up I wouldnt have to do what im doing. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot) 02:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And you are also being questioned but several admins and numerous users (some rightly, some wrongly) for your tactics. In your arrogance, you simply refuse to listen to anyone, or consider alternatives, and that is the true problem here, imo. You are still behaving like a rogue admin. Resolute 02:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not refuse to listen, I have considered the alternatives, show me a method that has a better result ratio, I would gladly use it. as for the complaints, I have yet to see any validity to them. they are mainly either complaints against our FU policy or from people who dont understand it. how is enforcing policy rogue? if inforceing policy is rogue then 99.9% of our admins are rogue. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot) 02:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalizing articles is rogue. I have already seen two suggestions offered: contact relevent wikiprojects when blocks of images with missing info is found, or place notifications on the talk pages of articles that such images have been tagged for lacking the necessary info. Show me that you have tried these methods. Show me what you have tried. And stop hiding behind "I'm just enforcing policy". The fact that you need to constantly trot this line out as an attempt to sidestep your vandalism pretty much shows me that you have no legitimate defense for your actions. Policy says FU images need proper tags, thats fine. Policy says that newer images without a valid claim can be deleted in 48 hours, and older ones in seven days. Fine. Enforce this, tag the images. But your actions to disrupt articles themselves are what concerns me. Until you show me the policy that states vandalism is a valid method for enforcing policy, your defense is quite empty. Resolute 02:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(de-indent) so your calling User:OrphanBot a vandal too? Because I choose to comment out images and make the fact that the image is about to be deleted clear? someone sees the image disappear they say "where did it go?" they check the history find out that it was commented out, they then can ignore it or fix the image. Yes I personally havent attempted other methods (why re-invent the wheel?), that is because I adopted orphabot's method. one that is very effective and has been in operation for a long time (1+ years). and calling me a vandal is very low brow. as for Identifying wikiprojects that is a very illogical action, I would have to check to see what projects each page every image is used in, make sure that project is still active and then find the right subpage to leave the note on. (a lot of work for very little reward). Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot) 02:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that Orphanbot removes images that have already been tagged as lacking source/FU claim so an admin can delete the image - i.e.: once the 2day/7day time limit has expired. It does not remove those images as part of tagging them. You have adopted OrphanBot's activities, but have changed the order to suit your power trip.
Also, I did not state check for a wikiproject for every image, but for when you identify a block of images that belong to an easily definable group. ie.: sports logos. When you come across a bunch of NHL team logos, as you did yesterday, you could very easily find the relevent project, in this case WP:HOCKEY, and mention it. I sourced about 50 NHL logos yesterday after being made aware of the issue. One message on that project's talk page could have accomplished the same function, saving yours, mine and a lot of other people's time.
However, a more reasonable alternative, IMO, is for you to post a message on the talk page of an article with an affected image rather than removing the image itself. This accomplishes the same goal: note of a problem appears in the watchlist of anyone watching the article without the vandalism of the article itself. If nobody takes care of the problem once the 2 days/7 days expire, then the image gets deleted. That is policy. Disrupting articles is not. Resolute 03:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Resolute, I'd like to get something straight here. Removing no-rationale fair use images from an article is not, by any definition, vandalism. You might disagree with how it's being done, and if you do, you have every right to state your opinion. But continuing to call it "vandalism" is a personal attack, and will be treated as such. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 03:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then call it disruption. Makes no difference to me. From my point of view, removing valid images - especially those that were uploaded well before the current rules were put in place - before their 48 hour/7 day time period is up over what is often an easily fixable problem does not add to the project. The point is, Betacommander's actions are overboard and unnecessary, and he has shown a complete lack of interest in considering alternative ways to accomplish his goal. At any rate, I've said my peace. I can only hope that at some point, he will learn that policy and the community can co-exist. Resolute 03:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand that Betacommand is simply implementing policy (regardless of whether we agree with it or not), I do find the “commenting out” approach unnecessarily disruptive and inappropriate. With images being placed in an article by different editors over a long period of time and these editors working on a great many articles, all of which are being steadily changed by other editors, it is not necessarily easily and automatically noticeable that an image has been “tagged” for review prior to removal – unless an individual editor has practically memorized the article and its images and their placement. Even if this does happen to be the case (and within the brief time to act and not altogether after the fact), that editor has to act on his or her suspicions of a missing image by scanning through the history to verify that suspicion and determine what image “disappeared”, and then check to see if the uploading editor (the only one being notified) remains active (and isn’t on a wikibreak, vacation, etc.); if not, then the editor – assuming they are familiar with the whole upload and justification process (which few are) – has to try to find a certifiably free image (however one does that) to replace the it (and finding the original image was almost certainly a hard enough and time-consuming task in the first place) – or else try to determine the fair-use rationale for an image whose source and status is unknown to them – all while the timer runs ever closer to zero … and other images in the same or other of the articles they’ve worked on “disappear” into the “commented out” void.
Frankly, there really should be a better way than “commenting out”. I can think of at least two options of which either – or both – would be preferable. First, instead of just notifying the uploader, also post the notice on the article’s talk page. Second, instead of “disappearing” the image, give it a red frame or some other marking that makes it immediately apparent to all and sundry that the image is “at risk”. That would at least give the editors watching the page a head’s up and the maximum time to try to remedy the situation. Askari Mark(Talk) 03:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he should have used something like this: {{speedy-image-c}}.
This file may be deleted at any time. What betacommand's doing so far has been very counterproductive. Many uploaders have not editted wikipedia for a while and it's unlikely that they'll get around to add the rationale. Not commenting out the image in the main article namespace, which betacommand should have done, is a lot more useful because it at least gives editors who view the page a chance to add the rationale themselves. Again nobody is arguing about the legality of his motive, but his method at approaching this. I hope betacommand changes his massive taggings and start listening to the community because what he's been doing is not helping the project at all. Blueshirts 04:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many uploaders have not editted wikipedia for a while and it's unlikely that they'll get around to add the rationale.. I'd say what if copyright holders come here before those many uploaders to sue the foundation? Please, think about it both ways and see which thing is more important. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're not getting it. The tag still targets the images for speedy deletion within seven days if nothing is done. What's different from betacommand's approach is that at least editors who view the page will have a chance to add the rationale, instead of having the images disappear from the article with a great number of their uploaders already missing. Blueshirts 05:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but i've got what you say as i've understood the whole mess since Atlant's started this thread. Betacommand is doing the job nicely and accurately. He notifies uploaders everytime he does so. He notified me today before i went to fix my pic at its roots before fixing what you are talking about above. It wasn't a big deal.
Think about something being straightforward: Tagging → commenting out → notifying uploader → Uploader fixes it.
Think about this now: Tagging → picture removed automatically after 7 days → no picture anymore.
The thing that doesn't make sense is if uploaders would be already missing than who would fix them? Uploaders are notified. If they are still here they have to fix it. If they are off than no one can do that job in their places because other users know nothing about the components. In brief, if the pic is tagged and the uploader is off, it will have 0 chances to survive.
Completely incorrect assumption. If the uploader is gone, or otherwise unavailable, a notification left on the article talk page can alert others so that if they can find the original source (as I did with many NHL team logos), then an editor other than the original uploader can correct the situation. Failing that, other editors could replace the images with alternatives, without disrupting the article itself. If after 48 hours/7 days, nothing is done to correct the image, then it gets deleted. The idea behind this project is to improve this encyclopedia. The improvement part is being lost by editors who do not want to work with the community at large to resolve this issue. Damaging articles and hiding behind policy is the lazy way out. We are asking that you take a look at an alternative that gives people an opportunity to fix an issue, not repair an article. Resolute 15:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an incorrect assumption. {{Non-free media rationale}} has a component called "source" (the most important component) and i don't see how anyone would know about the source if s/he wasn't the one who uploaded it. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User possibly tried to put Wikipedia in trouble with MPAA
User Kirbytime(talk·contribs·block log) has put a secret HD-DVD encryption key that the MPAA has been trying to erase from the web (see news article) and has also pursued legal action in order to prevent publication of the key. This is a bad faith edit, meant to put Wikipedia in legal problems. For example from the news site:
DMCA take down notices have been issued to sites like Spooky Action at a Distance and Digg.
The Digg users who published them have even had their accounts closed by mods.
This user's edit and the diff (including my news link, if possible) should be deleted and made inaccessible to protect Wikipedia from any possible legal trouble. By the way this is the same user who last week wrote the words "fuck you" in a hidden comment and edit-warred with admins who rightfully tried to remove it. Last week he got blocked for 3RR, abuse, disruptive editing and his block expired today. --Matt57(talk•contribs) 02:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok. I see, we are safe then. thanks. --Matt57(talk•contribs) 02:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just deleted it as "silly keyspam nonsense", which indeed it is. It's pretty close to WP:POINT - Alison☺ 03:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
kirbytime indef blocked
I'm done with him. I don't care whether the key is on Wikipedia or not, but he is just trolling by inserting it in his userspace as a comment. It may be acceptable fair use in the article, it's not fair use in his userspace. I've blocked Kirbytime indefinitely; I don't think he's here for the encyclopedia anymore, if he ever was. If another admin wants to undo the block, I won't scream about it, but unless there is a clear sign of an intent to turn this behavior around, I think it would be ill-advised. ··coelacan 03:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me, good call. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 03:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's posted an extremely pleasant unblock request. [4]. I don't really understand this whole situation with the key itself; however, it's quite clear to me that Kirbytime posted this as an act of trolling. I will not object to this block given Kirbytime's history of disruption. Heimstern Läufer(talk) 03:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. We have got to learn the difference between people who are here to help, and people who are not. The former, when they misbehave, get all manner of opportunities to reform, and rightly so. It is too bad we fritter away so much goodwill and energy by extending the same to the second group. Hesperian 03:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at the block log, I endorse the block. He should have been gone a long time ago. User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 03:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And note the subsequent (not very) veiled threat to sockpuppet. I should say that Kirbytime has just given his block the strongest possible endorsement. Hesperian 03:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep.[5] As long as it's agreed this is a community ban, any puppets can be blocked and reverted on sight. ··coelacan 03:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disgree with indef block. The code is certainly not supposed to add anything to encyclopedia but it is not vandalism either. First of all, it is his own userpage. Our contributions to our own userpages are not supposed to be of encyclopedic value in the first place. Having said that, addition of the code on that page was quite unnecessary. BUT it doesn't deserve an indef block. For just adding a hidden message to personal website. It is true that Kibri have had some blocks over "request" for some sex related pics which I don't approve but I think he has stoped that (or please prove me wrong).
I suggest for an indef block, his case should be submitted to Arbcom. --Aminz 03:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody WP:OWNs any pages on Wikipedia, including the userpages connected with their accounts. Userpages are not required to be encyclopedic content they way articles are, but they are to facilitate work on the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not Myspace, as the saying goes. And trolling on one's userpage is definitely blockable. 75.62.6.237 05:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of encyclopedic content or not; but a question of copyright infringement. It may be fair use in the article, and there are reasonable arguments that it is allowable in the article under WP:NFCC. But that explicitly does not extend to userspace. ··coelacan 03:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What does fair use have to do with this? --ElKevbo 04:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, but Ctrl-F for "I consider it blatant trolling" below, as I believe the block stands on Kirby's intent, regardless of the exact legality. ··coelacan 05:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coelacan, I still don't see how a copyright infringment can justify indef-block. It is too harsh. Indef-blocking of a user means that the user doesn't satisfy even the lower standards expected from a user. --Aminz 04:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. ··coelacan 05:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the result of an extended pattern of behavior, not just this single issue. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 03:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
agree Kirbytime obviously wansn't indef blocked for the MPAA copyright issue. He was blocked because of a whole series of problems. Neither Wikipedia, nor any decent human being, should ever tolerate pedophiles. The FBI keeps files on people who try to search pictures of child pornography... --ProtectWomen 08:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with an indefinite block as well. — MichaelLinnear 03:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that we didn't block the user just for pasting the code; there were plenty of other blocks issued in the past feew weeks for causing disruption, including asking for NSFW images at articles, including Child pornography. I feel like we gave this user way too many chances. User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 03:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zscout370(edit conflict), Kirbitime was asking for addition of pictures but as far as I am aware he has stoped it for awhile (please correct me otherwise). I think it is best to be addressed through RfCs and ArbCom. On the surface, issuing an indef block for some hidden addition to a personal userpage really seems unjustified.--Aminz 03:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you prefer if I unblocked and reblocked indefinitely for threatening to sockpuppet? Because he's done that already now. ··coelacan 04:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of case is a waste of time at RFC and a waste of ArbCom's time. Once a troll, always a troll. Editors that take actions like this are not welcome to continue editing here. --Spike Wilbury 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coelacan, it is his objection to "indef-block" for adding something to personal userpage. I think we are moving too fast. --Aminz 04:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MichaelLinnear, this is not a vote. Please explain your objection. ··coelacan 03:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of discussion, as you may be able to convince another admin: if the block were reduced, when would we be free from his trolling? When would the games stop? Do you have reason to believe that he's going to improve his behavior? I don't mean to pick a fight or anything; if there's answers to these questions that I and others are overlooking, someone should put them on the table. ··coelacan 05:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May I conclude that a more appropriate reason for blocking is "exhausting the community's patience"? —Kyриx 03:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please list User's faults. Please note that I agree that Kirbitime's instance on porn image was disruptive but did he continue this? I think he stopped it (please correct me otherwise) --Aminz 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking to me or Coelacan? —Kyриx 04:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To you actually :) --Aminz 04:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never expressed an opinion supporting or opposing the block. The above was just a conclusion drawn from observation. So I don't quite get your request. —Kyриx 04:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that :P I misunderstood your comment. --Aminz 04:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aminz, do you really want me to make a list of his diffs? I'll have to probably split it into 3 columns to prevent the page from getting lengthy. Here's one group diff though: edit-warring with admins. You should support better users of Wikipedia. Realize that you will be helped more if you have good users working with you; at the least not anyone who edit wars with admins, requests child porn, writes the words "Fuck you" in a hidden comment, gives a link to Piss Christ and so on. --Matt57(talk•contribs) 04:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't say that kirbi satisfies the highest standards but that he doesn't fail the lowest ones. Some of these edits may not be justified but may be explained. Aside from these you don't have a good editting record either Matt. --Aminz 04:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with high or low standards of editing, and everything to do with incessant trolling behavior. ··coelacan 05:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We all realize that indefinite doesn't mean infinite right? John Reaves(talk) 04:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hoped to make that clear at the beginning of this section; if another admin honestly thinks he's going to shape up, they can reverse the block. For what it's worth, he's now saying he copied the number there through a sort of misunderstanding.[6] You'll have to read his talk page. But I think the threats of sockpuppetry speak well enough for his intent here. ··coelacan 04:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider unblocking if I could take Kirbytime's protestations of innocence seriously. But his history makes me unable to believe him. Heimstern Läufer(talk) 04:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
John Reaves, i think indefinite means infinite. It means that the user fails the minimal standards. --Aminz 04:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't mean infinite. It mean an undefined period of time, i.e. it could eventually be reversed. John Reaves(talk) 04:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think in practice it means the same thing. --Aminz 04:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. I've seen indefinite blocks overturned. —Kyриx 04:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heimstern, indef block seems too harsh. Some of the previous blocks were related to asking on the talk pages for porn pictures which was bad but as far as I am aware the user has stoped that to best of my knowledge. --Aminz 04:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with indef. Too much trolling. - Merzbow 04:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support this long due indef block. This is one of the strongest trolls I've ever seen. The longer you keep this user in, the more trouble he will create for users and admins (edit-wars with admins) and the more you'll keep wondering why he wasnt blocked before.--Matt57(talk•contribs) 04:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are far from an impartial party in this. — MichaelLinnear 04:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For whoever says this is copyright infringement, this is not; it might be a violation of the DMCA, but you cannot copyright a 128-bit number. At best, it qualifies as a trade secret, which means that once released to the public like it is now, it is no longer controllable legally. The DMCA is the only law that applies here, most likely. "Fair use" is irrelevant, from what I know. —Dark•Shikari[T] 04:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The (bad) idea is that it's a circumvention tool and thus subject to the DMCA. I agree that it's daft and that fair use has nothing to do with it. --ElKevbo 04:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, while I will not express an opinion on the block, I would suggest that any block made should be specifically made for the user's incivility and attacks, not for posting a number which has been run in many major news sources such as Wired, Yahoo News, and so forth. —Dark•Shikari[T] 04:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The block should be applied because he deliberately makes edits like this to cause maximum chaos; his history is full of such behavior. - Merzbow 04:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I consider it blatant trolling, the same as if he had written expletives in his html comments (as he did last time). The intended purpose is disruption, even if the action was not a violation of US law. It's WP:POINT either way, and he's given us enough of that. I don't think he's here for the encyclopedia so much as for a "game" inside an encyclopedia; I stand by my block. Again, other admins have the prerogative of reversing the block. I will not. ··coelacan 04:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merzbow, writing hidden stuff on his personal userpage doesn't harm wikipedia nor produce chaos; I assume he is blocked and he is free at home so he started playing with his userpage. The main problem is with the article not userpages (and even then hidden writings). User pages are not supposed to add anything to the wikipedia.
coelacan, I am not saying he satisfies the highest standards but that indef-block(i.e. failing the lowest standards) seems harsh to me. But that's only me. --Aminz 04:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what this "failing the lowest standards" stuff is. An indef block represents my appraisal that the net effect of Kirbytime is more trolling than benefit, and that he's exhausted the patience of too many other editors. How many times has he been on ANI in the last month? How much time have we wasted running around this guy? I'm hoping that when this thread is archived, the answer will be "no more". ··coelacan 04:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the edits he made adding the key, for what it's worth. Might also be worth noting Kirbytime's reasoning for inserting it (I have my doubts - the key was inserted with ":" after each two numbers. This was done presumably to circumvent the blacklist, because I can't think of any time I've seen the key formatted like that...) Ral315» 04:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's formatted like that on a couple of websites. — MichaelLinnear 04:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I have a problem with the block. My only interaction with Kirbytime was the ANI thread where he claimed to be confused about what kind of images constituted child pornography. If someone can demonstrate that he's made recent positive contributions to the encyclopedia, I'd reconsider, but this user seems like a determined, long-term troll to me. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am personally aware, the user had stopped that. --Aminz 04:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because he was blocked for it. So he moved on to other things, like revert warring and html comment games. ··coelacan 04:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of "html comment games". Would you please explain it. Thanks --Aminz 04:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"HTML games" refer to the user putting thing in <!--hidden comments-->. John Reaves(talk) 04:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One example is this edit. You can't see them just looking at the page, but they show up when you edit. Phony Saint 05:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This editor appears to be an unrepentant troll. I was around for his requests for child porn. While he finally gave up that effort he didn't do so quickly. I see some editors here saying he wasn't that bad but I don't see anyone pointing to positive contributions to offset his disruption. On the whole, I think Wikipedia is better off without this user's involvement. ·:·Will Beback·:· 05:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those who want to review Kirbytime's recent ANI history can see archives 240, 239, 230, 227, 221, 221. ··coelacan 05:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good block. We don't have to put up with this nonsense from obvious trolls.--Jersey Devil 05:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
an indefinite ban is excessive for vandalizing your own talk pages imho, if he is to be blocked indefinitely it should be done by the arbcom Bleh999 05:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This block doesn't make sense as the key is out in the open in the Wikipedia article on the subject and Jimbo Wales has said there is no problem with posting the key to Wikipedia. The indef block for this non-"offense" is totally improper. That said, I am unaware of his past history, just that this latest offense doesn't appear to be an actual "offense." --Abnn 05:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shall I unblock and reblock for threatening sockpuppetry, instead? Would that make things clearer? ··coelacan 05:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't actually threaten sockpuppetry from what I read, rather he suggested being unfairly banned drives some to do so, I doubt he would admit he was going to sockpuppet and thus expose his intentions Bleh999 05:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you can read "It's almost like you guys are asking me to sockpuppet" any other way than "I will sockpuppet". ··coelacan 06:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't comment as I don't know. In all honesty, I can't knowledgeable oppose or support a indefban based on an analysis of his overall behavior as I am not familiar enough with him and this territory. --Abnn 05:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, he has been helpful in the past: I first met him and encouraged him to help us out on WP:PNT, where we needed people who could read arabic script at the time. He did handle a few cases. But I understand the sentiment behind his indef-block due to his behavior since then and I don't oppose it. Grandmasterka 05:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the block, the editor has been warned several times. (If one considers previous blocks warnings, which I do). block logAnynobody 05:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirbytime now threatens "revenge".[7] I don't have enough AGF kool-aid in my cupboard to continue entertaining the possibility of unblocking. Later, ··coelacan 06:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hos is that athreat of revenge? ViridaeTalk 06:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Threat or not, it crossed the line into trolling... again. I have now protected his talk page. Hesperian 06:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For those that don't know, it is a quote from the Merchant of Venice by Shakespeare: [8]. --Abnn 06:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I knew it was a quote, but it doesn't appear to be a threat - the context of it says that even more. ViridaeTalk 08:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Kirbytime had contributed for a year without major problems - I recall him being at some times reasonable and at others contentious and not really standing out in this respect - but recently has for whatever reason gone totally rogue. I was amazed to see him resume edit warring to push a completely ridiculous image (since deleted) immediately after coming off a 24hr block for…well, edit-warring, and having only minutes earlier assured others (sort of) that he wasn't going to immediately resume edit-warring after his block expired.
Re his latest behavior, this explanation strains credulity, and who knows what we should make of this Shakespearean reference? ("And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?") Besides the vague hints of a threat, this continues his very odd line of am-I-Muslim-Jewish-or-atheist identity trolling which like too many of his recent contributions seems designed to draw others into pointless discussions.
Were this block infinite and irrevocable, I suppose I might oppose it, but indefinite is a different matter: he is and should be free to petition for an unblock at some point in the future (say, a couple months from now) if and when he's regained his senses and is prepared to admit to his missteps instead of pretending he doesn't understand why the community is pushing back. In the meantime, I counsel Kirbytime to step away from Wikipedia for a bit and not make the situation any worse by sockpuppeting; see User:DavidYork71 for a user who dealt with this situation exactly the wrong way, and a result has probably blown his chances to come back.Proabivouac 07:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse the above statement... He's been okay in the past and we should leave the door open a crack barring further problems. Maybe one problem of his led to another and he let himself snowball out of control... Just a thought. Grandmasterka 08:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My patience with Kirbytime is certainly exhausted, though my patience is pretty exhaustible these days. I would think that if he asks nicely after a month or so away form the project, to regain his perspective, we would be quite likely to let him back in, but right now he's looking like a time-sink with no obvious payback for the project. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I didn't know that too many editors are following Kirbi's edits... :D --Aminz 09:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His name pops up rather too often. I have left a note on his Talk. Guy (Help!) 10:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the key is that the consensus over at the controversy article talk page seems to indicate that it should only be presented in the article and nowhere else (that's the primary reason it was added to the spam blacklist-- it was being spammed). - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 09:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirby deserves a long break (i'd say something like 6 months) to review their behaviour and understand that wikipedia is not a game. Instead of editing the encyclopedia we end up having long discussions that we could have avoided. But indef is surely a harsh block. At least they've contributed plenty of stuff. For me, it should have been 6 months, no more no less. We have had trolling, desruptive and pointy cases much more worse than that but people are still present in the project, probably because they changed their behaviour. For me, it should have been 6 months, no more no less. In brief, if there is someone i totally agree w/ in this thread is Proabivouac. Excellent analysis and synthesis. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be considerable support for unblocking at some point in the future if Kirbytime doesn't sockpuppet. So, do we leave the indef on and let him ask after X months, or do we reduce the block now to X months? ··coelacan 21:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer reducing it to 6 months. As i said above, it is too harsh compared w/ many other cases. I don't want to bring names but that is the middle ground i believe. In case of sockpuppetry it will become an indef if not a ban. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"too harsh" ? This user was requesting samples of child pornography for Christs sake. Kirbytime not only doesn't belong on Wikipedia- he probably belongs in jail. At the very least, he ought to be under some kind of internet equivalent to Megan's law. Too bad we don't have a way to enforce something like that.
FayssalF, you are implying that other users have done worse things than Kirby- if you can name one action worse than trolling for pictures of child porn, please tell me. I'd really like to know.--ProtectWomen 08:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I personally like following structured process when dealing w/ such issues. This is my method as an admin. It could satisfy many people as it could bother many others.
Let us be fair and avoid being emotional. We are not a real-life law enforcement body to put people on jail. We do block and ban users from Wikipedia. That is all we can do.
Let's avoid being subjective. As far as the child porno case in concerned, my memory tells me that this issue was considered closed and he got punished and blocked for 48h though it should have been at least a month or that he could have been indef blocked at that time. Since then, he hasn't brought that child porno subject again. So why are we bringing it again and again?
Now, we are talking about his general and overall behaviour. Is is a troll? Yes in many occasions he showed signs of being one. Has he made points? Yes in many occasions. Many have done the same and worse in overall. So i believe now when i say it is too harsh it certainly makes sense and therefore there's no need to bring names because i consider their cases as closed as well until further notice. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no, many have not "done the same and worse overall". Anyone who has is permanently blocked. Jayjg (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for indefinite block. Jayjg (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose indefinite block. Kirbytime is an intelligent, productive, and generous member of the Wikipedia community. He's been badly wikistalked by an editor who repeats specious allegations of Holocaust denial, and who appears to be obsessed with Kirby's ethnicity/nationality/religion; much of what has been described as Kirby's incivility has been an understandable reaction to this stalker. Kirbytime does have a rather provocative style of talkpage interaction. I don't mean this as a euphemism for incivility; he rarely engages in personal attacks. I mean that he'll take some admirably principled position on something (that denial of history can take forms other than Holocaust denial, say, or that Wikipedia should not engage in self-censorship even when the topic is taboo), and then make his case through tireless talk-page dialectics, often peppered with reductios ad absurdum. These latter are a great gift to his enemies, who can then run to other pages and "accurately" quote Kirbytime in such a way as to willfully misrepresent him. There's something schoolboyish about Kirbytime, no doubt about it, but he's the smart-aleck and the class clown, not the bully – and he's no troll. If he's blocked indefinitely, I will miss his puckish intelligence, and the community will miss his contributions.--G-Dett 21:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - This user should have been gone after the child porn pictures debacle. Instead, Kirbytime was allowed to troll repeatedly with several more blocks until the final (long overdue) indef block. Kudos to coelacan for stepping up todo the right thing --ProtectWomen 16:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second that. Finally, someone gets out the troll spray. I support coelacan's block - as she said earlier, the net effect of Kirbytime was more harm than good. That's justification for a block if I ever saw one. ♠PMC♠ 23:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly supportcoelacan's bold action. Guy said it best; Kirby is a timesink and his contributions here are not valuable enough to outweigh the community's time that he wastes. Indef is the way to go here. Perhaps it could be lifted in the future if Kirby demonstrates that he understands the apropriate way to behave, but I don't see any reason to just slap an arbitrary time limit on this block and hope he gets a clue in that time period.--Isotope23 17:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would endorse either an indefinite block (that's subject to review down the road) or a lengthy set block. Kirbytime's disruptions more than offset his positive contributions. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I am not going to reduce the block. If Kirbytime gets it together in two months, six would be too long. At the moment he is quite adamant that he's done nothing wrong. I agree with Proabivouac, "if and when he's regained his senses and is prepared to admit to his missteps instead of pretending he doesn't understand why the community is pushing back", he can be unblocked. He currently shows no sign that this will happen within six months. I say, let him petition when he's ready. This is my opinion, though, and not intended as "I've reviewed my block and found it correct". ··coelacan 10:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at some of his edits as far back as January, the indef ban is actually long overdue, and I'm disappointed this hasn't been done sooner. Support indefblock/ban.--Wizardman 15:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His today's edits at his talk page (i.e. Shakespeare quote) shows no signs of improvement and therefore i support an indef block. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But what about...
User:Matt57? This post and similar ones derive from stalking Kirbytime, and in some cases it seems Kirby trolled to see if someone (always Matt) would notice it. While I myself can 'monitor' troublesome users at times, Matt's cross the 'stalking' line because he is obviously "hunting" Kirby. Besides, Matt57 is an obvious tendentious editor (anti-Islam direction), which is detrimental to the community. I don't know all of the details as well as others may as I have relatively few dealings with this editor (and they have been unsatisfactory), but I definitely think that doing something about Matt57 is a good idea at this point. Any ideas? The Behnam 15:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how Matt57's actions are relevant in this incident, unless Matt57 is directly inciting Kirbytime to troll. It seems to be the other way around, from what you say. Phony Saint 16:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I definitely think Kirbytime needed a big block awhile back during the porn images thing. I'm just suggesting where things should move next. You know, when you have two problems it is good to get rid of both of them instead of just one. The Behnam 16:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Matt57 is really a problem editor, his name would be appearing here in relation to other editors and incidents, and not just with Kirbytime. — MichaelLinnear 23:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, Behnam, what did I do wrong? If someone asks for Child Porn, does it mean I stalked a person if I reported this to admins, or reverted their disruptive edits (for which Kirby was blocked 1 week ago)? Perhaps you think that Chris Hansen is also a potential stalker of Kirbytime. No sorry, and I do have my eye on yours edits ([9]) like we all do on everyone else's. Please keep your accusations of stalking or disruptive edits to yourself. --Matt57(talk•contribs) 17:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Matt57 had been inciting Kirby to do what he's done but that is irrelevant. We cannot prevent/punish people basing on assumptions. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Faysal, no I didnt "incite" anyone here. I'm not responsible for Kirbytime's actions of asking for Child porn, wiki linking of Piss Christ, edit warring with admins and all that stuff. Good god. No thanks, I havent done anything wrong except go after him, revert his disruptive edits, report him for trolling and all that. The admins made a mistake to let this vicious troll wreck havoc here. The big question I wonder is: How much damage do you let a troll do before he gets blocked? As for the block time, this user should be blocked for atleast 6-9 months regardless of their request to unblock. I doubt he will change though so he's likely to get blocked again, but then again, all you need is good judgement to see that this user is not here on this website for anything good. He does his work on the Reference desks to cleanse himself of the guilt or to use it as an excuse or 'proof' of his good intentions. Then he goes and interwikis to Piss Christ or edit wars with admins. This is trolling par excellence, as a user said above - pretty obvious. Its simply amazing how much time of the admins this person has wasted.--Matt57(talk•contribs) 17:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We just said the same thing Matt. I said it briefier than you. I haven't said you did it. "Maybe" means "suppose" in that sentence. I think you thought i was talking about assumption related to Kirby. No i was talking about the assumptions re you "inciting" him. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find it shocking that KirbyTime is blocked. He was such a resonable editor. In anycase, was there ever an RfC filed? Is there any compilation of evidence (edits) the KirbyTime has been trolling? Has KirbyTime been allowed to respond to these arguments?
It seems to me the block has come out of nowehere. Can someone clarify this. Thanks.Bless sins 23:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you read the above thread, and Kirbytime's talk page, you will find the answers to all your questions. ··coelacan 23:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As of now User_talk:Kirbytime is blank. Can you be more specific as to what messages on the talk you are talking about. Also, is there anything offensive KirbyTime did outside his/her talkpage? If yes, has list of those offensive acts been compiled?Bless sins 18:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page?
If Kirbytime is indefinitely blocked, how is it that he is still able to edit his talk page? Just curious. ---Cathal 18:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All blocked users can edit their talk pages. Otherwise {{unblock}} wouldn't have a point. -Wafulz 19:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even to the point of creating large blocks of hidden text [[10]] which seems to contain vulgar messages intended for other editors and administrators? ---Cathal 22:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In cases of disruption the talk page can be locked, SqueakBox 22:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And he's not quite at that point yet. He's storing an old version of his user page in that hidden comment (probably because he's afraid we're going to delete his user page outright, which would be unnecessary). The old version of the user page had an expletive in it, which Kirbytime promptly removed with the next edit. Quite possibly a mistake, and in any case not a big deal. ··coelacan 12:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom of speech
I admit that i don't understand what the recent link added to Freedom of speech is actually linking to, but it appears to me that linking from an article to a user's talk page — User:Advocates For Free Speech — is, at the least, unusual. Someone want to take a look? (And if possible, explain what the h... this is???) thanks, Richard Myers 10:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In his defense(?), I did find "The virus in the sandbox" section of his page interesting in a "can anyone really be that stupid" way. --MediaMangler 11:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was still being nonsensical (reverting block notices etc.), so page blanked and protected. Review welcome. Daniel 13:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put his talk page back up. It doesn't seem to do any harm and may stop him from creating another sock for the same thing. It's protected now anyway. The way, the truth, and the light 11:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the victim of the majority of workforall.net's abuse I just want to say that it's fine by me if the comments / propaganda are reinstated. As User:A. B. mentioned, it might prevent future re-creation of the same thing. The discussion at User_talk:Bully-Buster-007 might also be a useful record of the events that transpired. I leave this up to your better judgement. (Requestion 17:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Hallo. I am mediator1, and I am in the business of mediating in conflicts and disputes. I was contacted by The Work and Wealth For All staff to make an ultimate proposal to come to a reasonable concensus in this escalating conflict [User:Requestion] versus [User:Bully-Buster-007] case ( see: [11]. Both parties now seem to agree that the present way of handling this conflict is leading nowhere. Let us interrupt the escalating madness, and use our energy to positive contribution of WP quality. Both parties have reasonable arguments which can lead to sensable conclusions as to the appropriateness of external links.
User Requestion is kindly invited to reflect well before declining this ultimate offer. Alternatively WFFA staff is also willing to accept arbitration in this case. WFFA staff asks the bans and blockings and blacklistings to lifted during the debate considering :
blockings and blacklisting should be preventive not punitive, and WFFA assured to have no intention add any links.
blocking was illegitimate as the administrator being spamfighter himself was party in the conflict.
uninvited neutral users have already requested (local) lift of the ban on several cases
so far no other motivation for the qualification "Spam" was provided other than the mere number of contributions
WFFA staff tell me that incident about the parrot WAS true, and is worth investigating.
Before getting too fixated on Requestion, note that the workforall spammer was repeatedly warned and blocked by multiple administrators and experienced editors. Here's a list of those that I'm aware of:
Additionally, there are five more editors commenting unfavorably on this page above. Contrary to the workforall accusation that this was done by some cabal of spam-fighters, the preponderance of these people are not normally involved in spam cleanup as Requestion and myself are. There has been clear consensus that workforall's behaviour on Wikipedia was wholly inappropriate and that this person persisted in spamming and harassment despite the community's best efforts to stop it. Now it appears that a mediator[12][13][14] is presenting the Wikipedia community the "opportunity" to "mediate" which links it should have to accept in contravention of its editorial standards.
It's more accurate to view Requestion not as the source of workforall's problems but rather the most visible editor in the Wikipedia community's efforts to deal with the workforall problem.
I leave it for the more technically-minded of the community to evaluate the problem of workforall's Phallic Fire Phoenix of Doom[15] in our Sandbox. In the meantime, workforall may wish to consider updating their anti-virus software.--A. B.(talk) 19:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
using Wikipedia as an advertising agency
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Outcome: User:Olivierdb has been blocked with an expiry time of indefinite as a Smelly trolling sock -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think there could be a problem with advertising on Wikipedia. I noticed that a user MikeGogulski is using his userpage as a vehicle for advertising. This account is only a few weeks old. On his first day he started developing his user page with an army of userboxes. [16]. These userboxes contain his various skills and services and his personal website. He explained his userpage as follows
"...if you click one of those userbox soldiers on my talk page, a single click more will bring you to a site where I maintain a paid account and profile containing a vast array if personal and commercial information about myself, including a copy of my CV." diff [17]
By the user's own admission his goal is to spread commercial information about himself, and gain free advertising by maintaining this account and userpage. The profile he wanted to advertise [18] and his personal webpage [19]. These contain statements like "I can accept payments in USD, EUR and SKK via bank transfer to US or Slovak banks, PayPal, Moneybookers and e-gold." and similar. While this may not be a major case, if this type of behaviour goes unchecked Wikipedia will be flooded with personal userpages advertising every type of service imaginable not just translation. I know that wikipedia has a tough stance against advertising by companies but I'm not sure about individuals offering services, so I'm bringing this to the attention of administrators requiring some type of action to be taken.
This type of commercial exploitation of wikipedia is despicable in my opinion, as wikipedia is not an advertising agency for anyone to gain higher rank on google search. It seems that he is not here to write an encylopedia but for other reasons. It seems he is pretty successful already in advertising his talents and services, already rank 4th on google with a few weeks old account. [20]Olivierdb 14:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At a minimum, I think you should give MikeGogulski the courtesy of letting him know you're discussing his userpage here. That would give him the opportunity to respond. --ElKevbo 15:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since Olivierdb did not notify MikeGogulski of this conversation, I did. --ElKevbo 15:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the fact that I can't find evidence of these links to his pages, I'm a bit confused about what action should be taken. EVula// talk // ☯ // 15:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The link is in the "this user has a website" userbox Olivierdb 15:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) While the talk page diff might show some uncivility (I would need to read the whole conversation first, to see the context) I would hardly call a "This user has a website" userbox advertising. He seems to be a decent contributor, not what is usually seen by advertisers. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 15:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(After edit conflict) Indeed. Unless I've missed something, MikeGogulski has done nothing wrong. In fact, his user page is pretty toned-down and nondescript as far as these things go. There's nothing wrong with including links to one's own personal sites on one's user page. Mike has plenty of mainspace edits and it doesn't at all seem like his intent on Wikipedia is merely to promote himself. His "admission of commercial intent" that you linked looks like a defense against your accusation of sockpuppetry, not him announcing his plans to advertise himself on Wikipedia. You definitely should have raised your concerns with Mike before reporting this on the noticeboard, your accusations seem pretty groundless. -- mattb 15:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern is not his userboxes, but the fact he uses his whole account (all his contributions) to advertise his real name, to gain hits from google to his service(translation). If this pratice spreads who out of all Jack Smiths et cetera gets to have the name and the userpage as advertising space? I titled this thread the way I did because also wanted to ask about the general issue of advertising on userpages and account names if it is permissible. My post wasn't about this one user but the issue in general. Olivierdb 15:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a pretty common practice (and it used to be the standard) to use your real name for your Wiki-Username (from Wikipedia:Username#Choosing_a_username: "The choice of username might be based on your real name or a familiar Internet nickname..."). Furthermore, all external links not within the "article" namespace are done with the nofollow tag (see [21]), so he won't actually gain much PageRank from that listing. I don't think there's a problem here. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please specifically link to where this editor has explicitly said that "his goal is to spread commercial information about himself, and gain free advertising by maintaining this account and userpage." I am not seeing that it in the information you have provided. --ElKevbo 15:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His user page seems unobjectionable to me. -- DS1953talk 15:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that at this point it is worth looking at the contributions of Olivierdb (talk·contribs) instead, in particular this edit. This noteboard section appears to be a bogus charge of advertising aimed at an editor who questioned whether Olivierdb was a single-purpose account created in order to disrupt discussion, by re-making controversial edits that were currently the subject of a lengthy talk page discussion (see Talk:Bratislava#Names). That this is the only editor in that discussion to have strayed from discussing the article onto the subject of other editors' names and user pages indicates that the sole purpose here is to disrupt, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. I suggest that we give our attentions to other matters. Uncle G 16:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Defendant responds Thank you, ElKevbo, for notifying me of the accusation. Obviously my own words on the subject will speak less loudly than my actions, but I will state unequivocally that my work on Wikipedia is based on a genuine desire to improve, expand, and add articles in areas of interest to me, and where I feel that I can make valuable contributions to the project. The notion that I suddenly appeared with an "army of userboxes", and that this should somehow be taken as evidence of my ill intent, befuddles me. I've used wiki software in several professional engagements in the past, and was a long-time user of Wikipedia prior to starting my contributions here. This included using wikicode I found implemented here on internal company projects. I based my own userbox population primarily on User:MarkBA's user page, and it was MarkBA's contributions which formed a big part of my inspiration to become a registered editor. I choose to edit under my real name for purposes of open and honest attribution. That this has a knock-on effect of potentially increasing my market exposure as a translator is an inevitable consequence, not dependent on me placing a (permitted, small) link to my website on my user page. In agreement with mattb's position above, my motivation to point out my website link as part of the sockpuppetry argument was to provide evidence that my Wikipedia identity is identical with my real identity, with the thought it mind that it would be pretty ridiculous for some pseudonymous user to create a sockpuppet in his real name. I'm treating this as controversy for the sake of controversy and nothing more. By the way, User:Olivierdb, thank you for telling us that you're Hungarian by means of the Google link you pasted above; we'll take that into account in considering any apparently anti-Slovak POV in your edits. To your response that "My post wasn't about this one user but the issue in general", well, LOL. It seems to me you're here to start (or perhaps continue) a war, and to do so by sounding reasonable. MikeGogulski 16:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Olivierdb(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) is obviously a sockpuppet account and no newbie. He/she knows WP:ANI and his/her only edits have been disruptive reverts, not real contributions. As Mike pointed out above, the google links posted by Olivierdb suggest he/she is from Hungary. Olivierdb's POV is to change the names of Slovak cities into a non-Slovak version.[22] He/she abuses WP:ANI to accuse opponents in a POV dispute.[23] I might be wrong, but all three things also characterize the only known Hungarian sockpuppetmaster, banned VinceB(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log). Olivierdb account was founded just three days after VinceB's last attempt to evade his ban using sockpuppets was stopped by administrators.[24] It may be all a coincidence and Olivierdb may be a sockpuppet of someone else. But even in that case, it seems to be a "bad hand" account, forbidden by WP:SOCK. Tankred 17:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I resent the gross incivility and personal attacks against me above also violating WP:AGF. I find the comment regarding my alleged ethnicity "take that into account in considering any apparently anti-Slovak POV" bizarre to say the least. The same can be said about the "here to start a war" part. MikeGogulski also solicited comment on the talk page of Bratislava[25] urging other editors to defend him, the result of this is Tankred's comment above who is an active editor of Bratislava. I also think the actual advertising taking place is undeniable, indeed he admits it again now a second time above "That this has a knock-on effect of potentially increasing my market exposure as a translator is an inevitable consequence". This time he calls the advertising effect inevitable. The fact that his very first action as a wikipedia editor ever was to construct those userboxes suggests otherwise. I think advertising is a serious issue on wikipedia and when not done by companies but individuals is not taken seriously enough. With that said I accept if the consensus is that nothing really happened here, but I ask others to refrain from off topic personal attacks against me, especially if those were solicited by MikeGogulski. Olivierdb 17:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my time on WP I've noticed that it's always the sockpuppets who cry "AGF!" the loudest. Reviewing the activity and contributions of Olivierdb leaves little doubt that this is a sockpuppet account. Using a sock is bad enough, but using one to bring accusations here against a legitimate editor is especially reprehensible and should be dealt with accordingly. Doc Tropics 19:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Please, Olivierdb, we're not idiots. New accounts don't file ANI complaints two days after creation. You are transparently a sockpuppet. Georgewilliamherbert 19:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My word, some wicked rouge admin appears to have blocked him. Mwuhahahahahaha!Guy (Help!) 19:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since the complainant has been blocked, and I've seen nothing but support from the admins commenting here (thanks, all), I'm removing this page from my watchlist. I'll be happy to respond to anything further about the matter on my talk page. MikeGogulski 12:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:71.112.142.5, who has vandalized the Afro page as User:71.112.7.212 and User: 71.112.6.35 is once again vandalizing. This user has been the subject of a RfC, has been blocked several times, and now is using multiple IPs. They engage in disruptive editing and WP:Game the rules so they just slightly dance inside the system. They are continually reverted. A review of their most egregious behavior is found at User:71.112.7.212, but now that they are slipping in and out of IPs, they try to only troll selectively. I'd like to ask for the above IPs to be blocked from Afro or, at the very least, have some admins take note of their behavior and engage them. --David Shankbone 15:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page has been temporarily protected. The IPs you cite are Verizon DSL addresses. If we block his address today, it is very likely that he can force Verizon to assign him a different IP tomorrow by simply unplugging his DSL modem for a few minutes. The best answer is often to simply revert and ignore, report the IP addresses at intervention against vandalism or ask for page protection at requests for page protection. Thatcher131 16:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not vandalizing
At first sight, a few hours ago, this issue appeared to me like a report on a vandal and a request for blocking an IP. Nothing suspicious at all. It is just like an edit warring and we don't fix those kind of problems here. What i don't understand is why you're calling the IP/S vandals. They are doing the same thing you are doing. They do replace "your" pic by another everytime you do the same w/ User:Steve-o's which was uploaded very recently.
That said, i believe there is a conflict of interests in here. What i don't understand also is that you are saying that that user has been the subject of a RfC. Who is this user and when was that? I can think of 2 possibilities: User:Urthogie or User:Rbaish. The thing is that no one of those has been a subject of an RfC as far as i know and correct me if i am wrong. So who is the user you are referring to and how do you know s/he is the one?
To sort out this issue, why not use Image:LaurynHill.jpg? It is of a very good quality and encyclopedic because it reflects many things the article discusses. Can you explain please what is particlar about "your" picture Afro 2 by David Shankbone.jpg? Does the article talks about social activities like drinking related to Afro style? The article talks about the relationship between the style and some artistic activities except drinking. I strongly believe that the pic of that Afro style girl w/ a drink (some of it poured on her dress at the right side) and a napkin on the other was taken at the Tribeca Film Festival 2007. Am i wrong?
Please gently refrain from calling contributors vandals and trolls when they are not and discuss objectively the issue at nice photo! here. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response
To answer:
We can't use the Lauryn Hill photo because the article neither talks about Lauryn Hill nor does WP:Fair allow us to use a photograph that is "fair use" when there is open media available.
What is particular about my photograph? It is a high-quality photograph of an Afro. What is the difference between what I am doing and what this one person is doing in the guise of three IPs? The difference is: I am not being reverted by anyone but this IP; the IP has been reverted by at least five/six other editors. I've been reverted by none. The photo depicts an afro; you raise questions that are harder to answer for your Lauryn Hill photo than they are for my photo. I chose to do a full body, but just as the article doesn't talk about an "afro and smiling" or an "afro and standing" a photo of an "afro with a drink" is just as benign.
This User was the subject of a sock puppet review here. Additionally, they have countlessly edit warred or disruptively edited Wikipedia. If you need a previous list of examples, you can find them here.
The user is both a vandal and a troll; I don't throw around those terms lightly, thank you. And I am not the only one who has called them out on it. Perhaps you should review their three different IPs and their histories, and how they are continually reverted for their edits than "gently" admonishing me for calling a spade a spade?
Fair enough. Good explanations and i apologize for my tone. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like things are cleared up (and the protection is only for 48 hours, to encourage a little more discussion) but I do want to note that the Lauryn Hill photo is free licensed under Creative Commons and isn't subject to Fair Use restrictions. I think it would be an excellent main photo for the afro article. KafzielTalk 03:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to insist that it is free licensed. Thanks for the reminder Kafziel. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just found this. I find this user very offensive. He has called me a "vandal" and so on many, many times. I have never vandalized and to anyone watching, you'll notice he never points to any piece of vandalism, he just claims I am a vandal. When any of his images anywhere on wiki are replaced he starts slinging names around. Today Im a "troll" and a "vandal" who has been subject to an RFC. And today he filed this report asking that I be blocked, because I replaced his photo with (IMO) a better one. I even asked him for discussion on the talk page at Afro. A real bad character. 71.112.142.5 04:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why people leave Wikipedia
I have over 1,000 photographs on Wikipedia; one photo of an Afro really means little to me. But the IP above tried to replace it with someone wearing a wig -- and I wasn't even the editor who called them out on it. The IP, in all its incarnations, has found nobody to support them in their trolling and vandalizing. They have been reverted in 90% of their edits. One need only look at the histories and Talk pages (and, especially, talk page edit summaries since they delete most comments) to see. If others want to put up the Lauryn Hill on the Afro page, go for it. But a blurry photo of a kid wearing an afro wig? That's User:71.112.142.5, AKA User:71.112.7.212, AKA User: 71.112.6.35 (and, probably, soon User:71.112._.__ idea of a better photo. I'm not sure why a celebrity photo (and I have generated the most celebrity photos on Wikipedia) need replace a decent one of a good afro, but if others want to do so, I won't revert. But it's a shame that a troll and vandal would inspire a change--what's that say about the Wikipedia community? I'm nearing the end of my contributions on the site anyway; mainly for the "shoot the people who show dedication" attitude on here, that has caused many editors to leave. Thanks for the apology FayssalF, but in the end, I'm an accomplished editor and you rushed to the defense of an IP who only likes to toy with those who have strived to build a good encyclopedia. No wonder so many of us leave. I'll be going soon; I've given it a good bit of thought--it's ANIs like these, where others let the IPs get the upper hand instead of those of us with pretty big accomplishments, win out. Remember, the less we stick up for those with experience who have put countless hours and creativity into the site, the more you'll be stuck with people like this IP and less with people like me. I've given enough. I'll be finishing up some work on here, but my contributions will be limited and then cease. --David Shankbone 05:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been following this particular controversy (I've been hip-deep in other disputes this week), but I didn't see any replies here, so I'll be the one to say to David that your contributions are appreciated and I hope you'll reconsider, because we'd be sorry to lose you. Newyorkbrad 13:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please reconsider that. We receive tons of complaints against IPs here and sometimes we do mistakes (i.e. blocking innocent people). Your report wasn't backed w/ diffs. So i wanted to know more about the issue. While investigating i found out a legit request for discussion at the article talkpage and that you insisted on the fact that he's a vandal instead of answering objectively. Now that you have provided the diffs i apologized for my tone though the issue as i pointed out (as well as Kafziel) is not limited in vandalism but edit warring. The IP could have been a registered account and at that point we'd not be talking about vandalism. This is how i see the situation. So, please reconsider your decision and if you want help at the article, we'll provide it for you. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is isn't a 'shoot the good contributors' attitude, its a fundamental philosophy that no persons worth more then another. The IP disagrees with you. Doesn't make him a vandal, he's a user with a legitimate, albeit different from yours, view on the subject. This sort of 'I'm better then people who are new or unregistered' is exactly what we don't need here. Either step back from that view and contribute to a wiki or go find a website with an elitist attitude toward others. -Mask? 22:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comtheo sockpuppets and John Moyer article recreations.
Hello. 2 days ago, there was an incident with a rather intrusive guy who replaced an article with his own multiple times. It was resolved for the moment, and is archived here. After that, the user created many sockpuppets and article about his hero with them, resulting in the users being blocked and the article being deleted and ultimately protected from re-creation. It went on and on, as administrators were able to delete the articles / block the users when they saw the article as candidate for speedy deletion. Today however, Comtheo is very fast. He removes the speedy template within a very short time period after they are set-up, so i decided to come here again. The current article is John Moyer: comedian by the current puppet ComtheoJR (talk·contribs). Some more info on recent articles and puppets is in the speedy deletion message, which i'll just re-post here:
Is there a more permanent way of drawing him off, instead of just deleting the article and blocking the user, forcing him to just register a new account and creating a new article with a slightly different name? ~ | twsx | talkcont | 16:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's forcing him to keep re-creating his vanity article. In fact, by now, it seems that he is wilfully ignorant rather than just clueless. It cannot posisbly have escaped his notice that we do not want his vanity spam, but when was the last time a Mormon took no for an answer? Guy (Help!) 17:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see bigotry and deragatory comments about particular religious groups are alive and well on Wikipedia. Maybe you can add that insight to the article about members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I'm sure it will be appreciated since there's such impartiality and objectivity here. Tchoeme 19:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a warning on the Realg187 (talk·contribs) talk page, asking him to stop the attacks and contribute constructively or be blocked. If he continues, let me know or bring it back here. In the meantime, please disengage with him; it will make things go more smoothly. MastCellTalk 23:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He is doing strange edits on Wikipedia. Adding protections templates to non-protected pages. He also nominated himself for adminship. Just a new user or a sock? -- Hdt83Chat 00:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More inclined to think this is a clueless newbie doing disruptive things - I'd let the usual uw- templates take care of it. x42bn6TalkMess 23:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Billy Ego is now blocked indef due to more sockpuppetry. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Billy Ego is the case. The account was blocked for 1 year prior to this. I've now extended the block to an indef block, due to 17 new sockpuppets. Open for review and possible reversal. —— Eagle101Need help? 01:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly endorse upping the ban to indefinite. His ban timer has already been reset once for sockpuppeteering, and he's openly declared that he's not stopping. Revert. Block. Ignore. Sean William 01:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17 is enough. We won't let them achieve a Wiki record! -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will be surprised if there is anyone who will contest this.Proabivouac 01:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason in my mind the community should not consider this user banned. Heimstern Läufer(talk) 02:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also endorse. I just blocked another one of his socks who was trolling on Jpgordon's user talk and on WT:IAR. --Coredesat 03:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Billy, and old friend of mine. Endorse block. Daniel 04:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given the prolific nature of the sockpuppetry, is a subpage at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse, and/or an abuse report to his ISP, warranted? He tends to show up and argue the same points in the same tendentious way over and over, and it wastes editors' time to unknowingly deal with him in good faith, only to have the sock eventually blocked. His MO is pretty easily described and recognized: fringe POV-pushing from an anarcho-capitalist/libertarian/Austrian school perspective, worshipping at the altar of Milton Friedman, occasional ham-handed attempts to use "good cop-bad cop" accounts, etc. MastCellTalk 00:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:RBI is what should be applied.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hate reporting but this is causing me some grief. Gwen Gale has repeatedly impugned my integrity, while I am trying to have a rational discussion. Here are the diffs:
LOL.. thanks for asking. I do not know. What am I supposed to do? Is uncivil behavior allowed on wikipedia or is it disruptive to the project?--Blue Tie 04:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Blue Tie, I guess nobody told you. Gwen owns that article so it would be best just to move on. It took me HUGE efforts just to remove the word "Friday" from the lead sentence. With over a million other articles, I wouldn't fight it. Cheers :) --Tom 18:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that is a good way for wikipedia to operate? I was under the impression it should be different. --Blue Tie 01:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the more insubstantial complaints I have seen appear on this noticeboard, which, might I remind you, exists for matters which require the attention of administrators.Proabivouac 04:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You, however, are her friend and have participated with her in efforts against me, so I do not believe you are unbiased in the matter.--Blue Tie 14:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might not have noticed this, but some of those responses she gave me were where I had asked her if we should be involved in mediation. She was not very interested. But more importantly, mediation pages say that an assumption of good faith is required for mediation to work. The fundamental issue is that she does not assume good faith with regard to me but assumes bad faith. She calls me a troll. One of her edits, that I show above, has me requesting that she refrain from personal attack and she says it is ok to attack me personally because she makes her attacks in good faith. Another one, in response to a fair request, is to bring up her beliefs that I am somehow I am not representing myself honestly, and several times she returns to that theme - evidently believing that I am somehow some other editor with whom she has had problems. So Mediation, which requires good faith, does not seem to be an appropriate venue. Just asking her to assume good faith and be polite has not worked. What else would you suggest?
I want to work to write articles in a fair, neutral way, without things getting personal and unpleasant. I do not abuse people. I do not call names. I apologize frequently when I know that I have upset someone. I rarely report anyone. And in return I find myself regularly getting walked on. This is not the first time, but I am, after a year of this, starting to grow tired of it. Why can't wikipedia be a place where rules of civil behavior are appropriately enforced, so that the process is not disrupted? Is the right answer, like Tom says, to just let bullies drive you off articles as it did with him? How is that the way to write an article well? Is that how wikipedia wants to operate? I ask the question seriously because it seems so to me and it is frustrating.
Finding mediation not very fruitful in 4 past encounters and also not believing the conditions meet the standards for mediation, I have instead come here. Have I done it wrong? It seems Arbcom is a step past this and should not be considered or recommended yet. So, what have I done wrong? --Blue Tie 14:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It occurs to me that perhaps this is seen as "too light a problem". Perhaps that is because I have not included some history going back and only discussed the most recent issues. But I generally prefer to assume good faith and let past problems just go away. However, with this user, the problems continually repeat. The accusations of trolling and wiki stalking her are not new. I just have not complained about them or included them above, because it seems to me that it is ok to put up with things for a while, but after a while enough is enough and a reasonable concern posted here should get at least a bit of attention if not respect.--Blue Tie 15:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Juro indefblocked
I have indefblocked Juro(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) per this 3RR report: [27]. The editor has a long history of being blocked for various reasons from civility to edit warring to block evasion. I'm assuming from this that there is no need for Wikipedia to put up with this editor any longer. As I'm not too familiar with the editor's history, though, I've decided to post here for review. Heimstern Läufer(talk) 06:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the block log:[28] and this comment by the last sysop to block the user:
Bogdangiusca (Talk | contribs) unblocked Juro (contribs) (giving one more chance.)
Pretty much sum it up.
I'm curious though, why something like this shouldn't be on the WP:CN? Anynobody 07:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I admit, I don't really believe in that noticeboard. I don't think it's really worked out. Feel free to mention it there, though. Heimstern Läufer(talk) 07:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CSN is for those who want to get it done. WP:AN/I is where admins say they did it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. When editors report various incivilities here would it be appropriate to refer their issues there? It's practically empty, and ANI is anything but. Anynobody 07:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: I'm also not at all sure if this user is community banned or not. I think it is likely, given the block log, that he has exhausted the community's patience, but I don't know. Heimstern Läufer(talk) 07:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point too, some people may feel the editor hasn't exhausted their patience.
I don't mean to give the idea that I'm second guessing your decision, after what Ryūlóng (竜龍) said this is the right place for it. I have just been wondering about ways to cut down on some of the unnecessary posts here. It sounds like user v user conflict issues should be over there. Anynobody 07:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There will be only 2 editors, whom feel Juro hasn't exhausted patience. Only because they agree on every questions, so their patience will never be exhausted. On the other side, there are 20+ users, whom have fed up with Juro's style, behave and edits in the previous years, many of them even left editing wikipedia. "Pop the question" on Wikipedia:Hungarian Wikipedians' notice board, how Juro harassing all the Hungarian users for more than 2 years now. It would be the shame of Wikipedia, if this user would be unblocked again from indefinite ban. Because this is his second indefinite ban, and he absolutely deserved the first one. PS, Juro is a notorious puppetmaster also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Juro (13 on this cu), but I'm sure, another checkuser is needed, since Juro also a known and proved ban evader (5th block from top to bottom) [29]. Anyway, do you really thinking it need any discussion? a 6 times temporary (24,48,1 week), and so far twice (this is his second) indefinite blocked user worth any extra extra extra chances??? --195.56.230.195 10:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
please, also place the tag "sockpuppeter" on Juro's userpage. His buddy (or sock?), user:Tankred continuosly deleting it [30], like if it would not be true and proven, and blocked for that. I also suggest a checkuser, but I'm not sure in it's succes, however. But Tankred is definietly acting like a meatpuppet for a long time now. --195.56.211.177 22:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request block for this user for homophobic personal attack on another user. JBAK88 (talk·contribs) has also disrupted in various ways including trolling and racism: [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]. Was previously blocked indefinitely as JBAK (talk·contribs) and Williamdevino (talk·contribs) for death threats, and given a one-month block as User:BOV1993. "88" in username is a far-right abbreviation for "Heil Hitler" - the user (who is openly a fan of far-right causes) has been asked to deny that this is what it means, but has refused to do so. Zaian 08:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to report this user, when I saw this post. I would like to add the following diff where the user added racist term ("kaffir") to article: [37] --Deon Steyn 13:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I make no representations about JBAK88, the use of "88" does not necessarily mean "Heil Hitler" to everyone. 8, 88, 888 are considered lucky numbers in Singapore. The 2008 Olympics Games will begin on August 8th because of the association of the number 8 with good luck.VK35 19:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough - it could also refer to a date of birth (but doesn't in this case). However, in JBAK's case, it quacks like a duck, and what's more, he's been offered the opportunity to dissociate himself from the far-right interpretation, and has declined to do so. This isn't only about the username though. The user's behaviour has been exceptionally bad over a long period. Zaian 19:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User Griot - continued disruptive edits
Reporting continued disruptive edits by User Griot. User Griot accused various editors of sockpuppetry. Griot then used sockpuppetry and vandalized these editors. User Griot declared his exit from Wikipedia after editing conflicts with Ralph Nader article. User Griot then returned to Wikipedia and began more disruptive edits. Recommend WP admins block User Griot from articles that aggravate his COI issues. 76.166.123.129
Not agreeing or denying what the IP editor said, but I also had a dispute with Griot. ⇒SWATJesterDenny Crane. 13:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SWATjester. Yep, you, me and many others. His SPP, vandalism, disruptive edting is so apparent, it burns the corneas. 76.166.123.129 19:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: my dispute with Griot ended amicably, and I'm not endorsing a thing the IP says. ⇒SWATJesterDenny Crane. 19:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as though there is a a point being made with regards {{spoiler}} tags - Anthony DiPierro is removing them in bulk, with no edit summaries to support the action (see here). I'm going to plump for a hacked account being the cause (no actual edits for a few days, then a rampage of removal - Tiswas(t) 11:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And you'd almost certainly be wrong. Guy (Help!) 11:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which part? Or have I hit the double? - Tiswas(t) 11:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit summaries would be helpful. There's been a good deal of discussion on this, some on this page and/or in the recent archives of this page. To sum it up: it's a somewhat controversial action that has some degree of consensus, and it's not vandalism or a compromised account. It would probably have been a good idea to contact the user first on their talk page and ask what's up. ··coelacan 12:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My bad on that front - I misread the user page, thinking that the user was a sysop (and, by association, an admin). Leaping, before looking, and all that. - Tiswas(t) 14:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Several people trying to delete Wikipedia's spoiler warnings in the RfC have taken to removing spoiler warnings in bulk. Some of them according to the spoiler warning guideline, others not. It disrupts the debate and the editing. The RfC is two days old, and there's been no announcement and very little informing about the attempt to make a sweeping Wikipedia-wide change. That is not "consensus," and that is definitely not grounds to act like their side has already won. A few of them are valid removals of superflous tags, and for that I thank the removers, but the matter should be kept in the RfC - it should not be taken to the streets, as it were, where there can be very little in the way of productive outcomes but a whole lot of edit wars and bad feeling. --Kizor 19:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:David Gerard is now using WP:AWB to delete spoiler warnings. From the fact that he has done so over 500 times in the last few hours and the list is growing every few seconds, I infer that he's doing so indiscriminately. Apparently, he's trying to remove the spoiler tag from every single plot summary on Wikipedia. This is either an unilateral action resulting from the recently started RfC in progress, or a way to bolster his attempt to destroy spoiler tags altogether. He has not discussed his decision to do this, and there is no consensus that would allow him to do so, and his involvement in the RfC means that he has a conflict of interest with making such a sweeping change. It'd do wonders for my blood pressure if someone was to explain why he is allowed to do that. --Kizor 23:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When a number of editors start making masses of edits of a certain kind, and the net effect is no ruffled feathers or very few, that's a pretty good empirical definition of consensus. There has been surprisingly little opposition to the edits, and those opposing them have been overwhelmed by those supporting them. --Tony Sidaway 00:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Overwhelmed" being the keyword here. --87.189.99.112
I've restored the comments of pro-spoiler IP which I believe were unfairly deleted. As for the 'consensus', there's the TfD which gained a consensus in favour of keeping spoilers but was closed after less than a day by Tony Sidaway. Whilst the MfD (which was broadly in favour of deletion) was transcluded onto the RfC, the TfD was buried on a sub-page. This disparity doesn't seem right.--Nydas(Talk) 17:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please review close of RFC
I have already discussed this with the closing admin on his talk page. He proposed I take my concerns here. I am not sure closing the RFC I filed on MONGO at this time is a good idea. I agree with Guy's motives for bringing the discussion to a close, and some headway was being made at a summary. But he has let the last word (on the discussion page) be MONGO's accusation that the whole RFC was "petty, vindictive and incivil". The summary says that "the complaint has no legs to stand on" "as complaints go this one has no legs", which seems to give MONGO's characterization tacit assent. It should be noted that neither MONGO nor I (who filed the RFC) have endorsed the motion to close. I am not comfortable closing an RFC with two editors (MONGO and I) this far apart and without moving the process further. If someone who hasn't been involved in the discussion could review the decision to close, I'd be grateful.--Thomas Basboll 12:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The close of the debate as I saw it was that MONGO, while continuing to resist the POV-pushers and conspiracy theorists, should be a little less abrupt while doing so. MONGO seemed to accept that, or at least undertake to give it serious thought. In as much as that was pretty much the stated aim of the RfC, I fail to see what Thomas is complaining about. Guy (Help!) 13:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the stated aim of the RFC was attained, why did your summary characterize my complaint as having "no legs"?--Thomas Basboll 14:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody needs to tell Thomas "enough already." Aside from the RfC, see his arbcom filing agains MONGO -- declined, with one arbitrator going so far as to call it "frivolous."[39] Mr. Basboll's dogged pursuit of MONGO no longer serves any purpose and is becoming (has already become) disruptive to the project. Raymond Arritt 14:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I think I can see why Thomas is concerned. Whatever the merits of the close (it probably did need to be closed), closing with the comment "MONGO should please refrain from being overtly rude to vandals, POV-pushers and trolls, however richly they may deserve it", and it being closed by an admin who endorsed a view on the RfC which said (in part) "we should give [MONGO] a medal, a cigar, and our undying thanks", may be less than ideal from the point of view of neutrality.--Guinnog 14:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it closed. Frivolous and pointless pursuit and harassment of other editors should not be encouraged or rewarded. --Tbeatty 15:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think they will keep at this as long as anyone will reply to them. Let them have the last word and move on. Tom HarrisonTalk 15:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hum...well...I've opened the MONGO complaint board which can be linked from my user page or simply by following this link.--MONGO 22:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Advice would be appreciated - ridiculous ultimatum
Situation is resolved, user feels misrepresented, courtesy blanking should take care of that. ··coelacan 14:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Banned user posting at RFCU
Should a banned user be allowed to post comments at checkuser? Should a banned user's comments be kept in a checkuser request out of concern to keep checkuser cases intact?
See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dereks1x. I removed the banned user's long diatribe against Bobblehead, a user in good standing, from the checkuser request per WP:BAN, but it was reinserted by another editor here. I have objected to the reinsertion of the banned user's edits at the checkuser request's talk page, noting that the banning policy allows removal of the edits and noting that the banned user is merely using checkuser as a soapbox. More comments on this issue are welcome. · jersykotalk 15:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Working with a few people who have been blocked for 3RR, SSP, and edit warring in the attempt to reduce conflict (it's easy to find these conflicts, just look at the 3RR, SSP, RFC pages), trying to hide the edits just encourages them to come back. Sometimes, freedom of speech is better than censorship (even if done under the reason of "banned user"). I remember a case that I tried to informally mediate where one party didn't come back after speaking his/her mind. A comment on the RFCU will likely become lost and forgotten. My guess about human psychology is that if the comment is reverted, expect 100 more to come. See User:rms125a@hotmail.com as a possible example of someone with 200+ socks.VK35 17:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, freedom of speech doesn't apply on Wikipedia. WP:BAN does. Your comment sounds eerily familiar to me, though . . . · jersykotalk 19:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your memory is correct about being familiar. Same point was raised a few days ago at AN/I. [[40]]. After my comment, many other editors made edits regarding this matter. I think this raising this current matter in AN/I is giving it much more publicity than it deserves. I would have let the matter die except there is a need to respond to snipes against me. It's not unique as it happened before to which another editor jumped to my defence and characterised my behavior as "exemplary".VK35 20:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, WP:UCS applies here to. If he's making a legitimate attempt to defend himself or present his view, let it slide. If he's being disruptive and trolling, yank it. Seriously, just think about things and the right decision becomes clear. This doesn't need an AN/I thread. -Mask? 22:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand the situation: this is a banned user evading his ban, coming in under a new addition to his 20+ sock accounts, to make a false RFCU accusation against one of the editors who had provided evidence of his sockpuppetry. He shouldn't be able to present any view at all - he has been community banned. And the posts of a banned user should be removed and stay removed. It is a completely legitimate thing to have brought up on AN/I. Tvoz|talk 03:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Err, yes. Im retarded. Ignore me :) -Mask? 04:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user has repeatedly remove the "Unreferenced" tag from Mothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (the article had no sources cited). Then the user puts in
ISBN:0709302177 and there is no mention of this in the ISBN that was given. The user is also on general probation for disruptive behavior. Any thoughts on why this user does not want the article to cite any sources or have references? What can be done? Purgatory FubarConverse or Snafu 15:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is your objection to using the book as a reference? I'm not sure I understand. I do think asking Pigsonthewing (talk·contribs) about this on his talk page would have been a logical first step instead of coming here. --OnoremDil 15:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
there is no mention of anything to do with the article in the references that Pigsonthewing provided, atleast none that I have found. He has also reverted the article three times in a 24 hour period after being on probation for 3RR. Purgatory FubarConverse or Snafu 16:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A book about Mothers doesn't contain information that has anything to do with an article about Mothers?
I could be mistaken, but I believe the probation period is over now. I might be looking at the wrong page though. --OnoremDil 16:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have to buy the book to see it's references? That's not good enough. Purgatory FubarConverse or Snafu 17:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Books are verifiable...just not immediately, or can there be no reliable sources that don't come with links? I guess we should just remove the section from Wikipedia:Citing sources that explains how to cite books... --OnoremDil 17:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not "put in" ISBN:0709302177, it was in the article before my edits of yesterday and today; in fact it's been there since June 2004. I note that you have ignored my comment about this issue on the article's talk page; but did post a sarcastic and unwarranted "welsome" message on my talk page. Andy Mabbett 16:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No false allegation here. You removed the "Unreferenced" tag three times. And what, we have to buy the book to see it's references? Purgatory FubarConverse or Snafu 16:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is acceptable Wikipedia sourcing to require someone to buy a book to see its references. Ken Arromdee 17:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could write to the editor who added the book to the reference list, and have him tell you something about it. It does seem fairly obscure. The book must exist, because it is found under that ISBN at amazon.co.uk and is currently available for sale. I couldn't find the book in any online library catalogs. You could ask for more sources to be added. EdJohnston 17:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I basicly did when I added the tag (that was removed) OK, the article is challenged per WP:VERIFY. There maybe a book out but one should not have to go out and buy a book that may or may not be a reliable source. A secondary source should be provided that can be checked online via a link. Purgatory FubarConverse or Snafu 17:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has never been a requirement that a source be online. Books by reputable publishers, by reputable authors, are acceptable sources. Corvus cornix 20:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your logic and solution Purgatory FubarConverse or Snafu, but as a sign of good faith would you please refer to him as Andy Mabbett? It's antagonistic, unnecessary, and makes you look like a WP:DICK no matter how correct you are when you don't. Anynobody 05:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't the user request a name change if he doesn't want people to use his, er, username? Dan Beale 14:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've put his latest target Steve Rizzono up for speedy, per G5. He is the only major editor of the article (through all his sockpuppets) SirFozzie 17:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has got me mad enough to spit. We keep getting admins closing this discussion who are deeply involved in it. User:JzG has closed it twice, despite having participated in the discussion all along. And several other admins have closed it, and other have opened it (I have done WP:IAR and reopened it) . Not to mention that none of this satifies speedy closure, except that there were previous discussions, all of which were improperly speedy closed. I must go, so I can't speak for long. Please look into to this ridiculous policy violation though. The Evil Spartan 17:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And there are users reopening it who are heavily involved. Pots shouldn't run to mummy complaining that the kettle is black.--Docg 17:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, I never heard about this thing before today. And I think this is ridiculous. Funny you calling me a pot, when you were the one involved doing the closure. Nice try. (Not to mention your WP:IAR arguments are wrong: I see tons of hits on google under "Qian Zhijun"). The Evil Spartan 17:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This whole ridiculous charade came about when an admin re-opened the deletion discussion and undeleted the article despite having already !voted to keep the article. I trust any complaint of yours will include this very pertinent fact. -- Nickt 17:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I didn't know about that part. But the admin should have gone to DRV - not that it matters, though. The point is the second DRV, despite this evidence, was to bring back to AFD, and this was completely ignored. The Evil Spartan 17:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
God forbid we delete an article about a fat kid who was made into a widespread object of derision through absolutely no fault of his own. Thatcher131 17:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ick. Well, I hadn't known that part of the WP:BLP story. Maybe I should rescind. The Evil Spartan 17:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't get this, are you saying you hadn't actually read the discussions and the article this is about, yet it made you as mad as you described in your first comment in this thread? Thatcher's comment really isn't some big BLP secret OTRS kind of revelation... --JoanneB 19:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the previous AfD, particualrly the parts cut-off and existing only in the history, you will find significant arguments as to why BLP does not provide a reason to delte this article. Not everyone finds those argumets persuasive. But they really ought to be addressed, not ignored. The recent full-length DRV found, in effect, that thare was a xase to anawer and tha tthe prior AfD close had not done so, so a new AfD was started, wher the BLP arguments (and others) could be made and met, and perhaps a consensus would result. This new AfD was closed, aftre less than one hour, by an admin who claimed that the previous AfDs ( the ones overturned by DRV) had given the subject all the discussion time in needed. That is simply ignoring the DRV result. There had been a numbe rof other irregularities in the previuous AfD, and a good deal of heat in the Drv discussion. This shows that there is not a WP:SNOW situation here, so an early or IAR close of the AfD was IMO celarly inappropriate. Then when this new close was broght back to DRV, involved admisn "closed" the DRV discussion almost at once. This too is IMO highly inappropriate. DES(talk) 17:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was no early close. The previous AfD ran for over seven days, the DRV had a weight-of-arguments balance for endorse and ran for over six days, the second AfD attracted a huge weight of deletes form some of the most experienced editors we have (including some of the OTRS crowd who rarely pitch in) and the only reason for the second DRV was the wilful and obstinate process wonkery of someone who I will swear blind does know better but chooses to be an ass anyway some of the time. Plus this thread is founded on a misrepresentation of the facts, as noted above. Guy (Help!) 18:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The weight of numbers in the first DRV was clearly on the side of relisting. Judging the weight of arguments in inherently subjective, IMO (admittedly the opinion of an involved person) the weight of arguments, and in particular of valid, relevant, policy-based arguments on the first AfD was for keep, and on the first DRV was for relisting. The second AfD was closed in less than one hour, which is hardly time for a reasonable sample of people with legitimate views to see the page and express those views, so it can hardly be considered as a consensus, and it was in effect closed with the argument that the first AfD (with all its irregularities) was sufficient and there should be no second AfD the first DRV's closure to the contrary notwithstanding. The second DRV was started because this closure of the second AfD strikes several editors, including myself, as outrageous. What is the point of having a DRV discussion if the resulting AfD is to be closed again 1 hour after it opens? If people want to abolish or drastically change DRV let them create a consensus to do so. DES(talk) 19:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Neutral, uninvolved with this discussion, note) I've speedily closed the DRV due to it being an out-of-process listing. In the meantime, please feel free to join in on the AfD discussion. - jc37 19:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh, which AFD discussion? The first and second nomination are closed already. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither do I. If there is an AFD discussion going on, why is the article still deleted? *** Crotalus *** 19:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted to another user, I was reading too many pages at once, and missed that it was already closed. I'll fix it momentarily. - jc37 19:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The DRV discussion appears to be open again at the moment. DES(talk) 20:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am new to the discussion, but it is boggling to me how dismisive some of the attitudes of some of the editors have been on this DRV. Myself and several other wikipedians in good standing are of the opinion that the article should be kept, and I for one am more than willing to discuss the issue in a civilized manner and come to a consensus. While I definitely understand that it is frustrating to some of the editors who have already participated in two deletion debates on this topic, it is equally frustrating that the opinions and arguments of several wikipedians are being dismissed as "process-wonkery". Can we return to the DRV and keep the discussion relevant and civil? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh... this DRV has been closed again, this time by User:Mbimmler. I am really hesitant to revert the closing as I don't want to get in a revert-war over this, but are people really this reluctant to even discuss it? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was obviously out-of-process as the user is non-admin and involved in the dispute, so I reverted it. This is getting ridiculous. Prolog 20:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the article is kept or deleted, in the end, is not all that important. What is important is that both sides get a fair hearing. Instead, there seems to be an insistence by some people that the "keep" arguments be dismissed out of hand. This is unacceptable. *** Crotalus *** 20:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fyi, according to Xoloz, ArbComm has blessed non-admins closing DRVs -> [41]. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether he's an admin or not is beside the point. What matters is that discussion was still going on, there was currently no consensus, and he closed it anyway. That's clearly not acceptable, nor respectful to the numerous good-faith editors who made arguments for the article to be kept. *** Crotalus *** 20:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have closed the DRV, per all the policy arguments (and not the content ones) and relisted it at afd. ViridaeTalk 02:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK... now this new AFD has been closed again, this time by User:Nick. Given the fact that this third AFD was opened after a DRV, the rationale for early closure does not make much sense. I would re-open it, but as I was involved in the DRV and had already voted in the AFD3, I don't believe it would be appropriate. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not reopen it. We've debated this for days. Four closing admins have now viewed there to be a consensus to delete. The process wanking has gone on long enough - if you do it again, it will be terminated again. Frankly, drop it - or take it to arbcom (but expect to be hit with a cluestick).--Docg 12:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you noticed how many admins are on the other side, but had the restraint and good sense not to edit war over the closure, just follow the proper procedure for improper behavior? What's so horrible about actually just letting the AfD run? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have remarked on the aggressive editing of the Chicago project before on this page. Their bot has just included Juan Cole, who has no visible connection to Chicago at all. Please act; my last comment on the bot talk page has been ignored. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 18:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing here for administrator intervention. Talk to the bot's operator directly at User talk:SatyrTN if you don't like the bot's behavior. ··coelacan 00:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very likely another sock of Infomanager(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log). Contribs show an immediate fixation on the PGNx article. Which was previously infested with puppets: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Infomanager. On the editors 4th edit they post content to their user page from the deleted article [42]. This is significant because it contains links to long deleted images which a new user would have no way of recovering the names for unless they could view the old deleted content (or had access to it having worked on it under a previous account). [43]. RFCU doesn't have a code for this and says to post here. They claim to have gotten the content for the article from another site, however the external site doesn't contain those links to those old images, they have their own image code.[44]--Crossmr 19:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That article, Emirates Airline, and related articles, have been the frequent haunt of a serial miscreant, who has been deleting content and replacing it with large chunks of advertising text clearly culled from corporate sites - stuff about how luxurious the planes are and how opulent the airport lounges are, etc. He's persistent and prolific, and I've no doubt that we've missed a lot of the junk he's been adding. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure why you brought your question that, essentially, is asking what CambridgeBayWeather's intentions were, as opposed to asking CambridgeBayWeather at his or her talk page, but I can comment (as an involved editor who is active on that page) that multiple editors have repeatedly posted content directly from pages within http://www.dubaiairport.com/. Searching Google (within the domain) for unique phrases reveals that the copyrighted version comes from multiple pages. --Iamunknown 20:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the history. Then the copyright version which can be found here, here and here. You could have asked me about it. I just blocked the last IP for a week due to them reinserting it. CambridgeBayWeather(Talk) 20:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This editor has been attacking editors (including myself) and creating attack pages. I don't feel comfortable blocking him (as I am an involved party) but can someone review this user's actions and take action? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 19:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reported him to WP:AIV after his recent set of attack articles/edits if that's any help. I'm not an admin obviously, but I figured any help here can't hurt. Wildthing61476 19:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Attacks like this are more complex than simple vandalism, which is why I posted it here, but I guess either way works. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 19:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add, the attacks made on my talk page, and yours ikiroid are of a threatening nature. Understandbaly this is a kid acting like a toughy on the internet, but death threats are something not to laughed off. Wildthing61476 19:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, if anything of the sort happens again I'll just ignore policy and indef the editor. Because the editor had made some constructive edits and I've only been an admin for two and a half days, I was uncomfortable making such a difficult block. Don't think I was going to let it blow over though. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copy vio allegations with no immediate proof
Not sue how to move here. Phoenix Arts Centre has had an IP repeatedly either blanking or adding speedy delete tags. Finally they agreed to communicte on the articles talk page, and I have no issue now re: 3RR etc. The problem is that the anon asserts copyright violation but as it stands I can't see how they can offer any proof (after all if they turn up with it now who's to say which was first?). I have checked the homepage of the articles subject and find no vio at all. Here? Or direct me to another department please admin type people !!! HELP!!Pedro | Chat 19:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This collection of anon edits adds some really obviously ripped-off text. The Centre's website is a study on shocking unusability, but certainly some of the stuff added by that anon is straight from this page on the centre's website. Our current article is clearly highly derivative of that article, so I do think it's a copyvio. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but the main body seems okay. Or shall we just RFD the whole article - it hardly seems that great as it stands I have to say and notability looks dodgy. Also - anyone want to comment on the 3RR thing, or am I now in breach myself ????
Yeah, that sure is one sexy site. I particularly like the onload action - fresh from the late 90's!!! :)Pedro | Chat 20:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Our current article is clearly highly derivative of that article, so I do think it's a copyvio - how does that work? Derivative works of copyright works are still copyrighted... and our article is, as you admitted, a derivative work of the website, yet its not a copyvio? --Iamunknown 19:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's why I wrote "I do think it's a copyvio". -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The IP asserts that they created the text but it was not used by the company (a school project). How can we resolve this ? The IP has only basically edited this article, here for more, yet seems reasonably adept at inserting images and sd tags but unsure of how to use talk pages etc. I really am not fussed - I found this on RC Patrol - but it does seem to need attention. Pedro | Chat 20:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have emailed wikipedia about this, i can provide a copy of the orginal site it was copied from, if you look at the history of teh page, you will see the orginal article was cut down because it was written as an advertisment, it was written like that because on a website you try to sell the company.
After reading your comments, I would once again, love to add that the website they currently have displayed is NOT my work, I have more talant than that.
That was just a bit of humour and I don't doubt you could do better. Why not rewrite the article rather than tagging / blanking ? If you are happy to do that under WP:GFDL then the problem is solved. Alternatively put it to WP:AFD. Pedro | Chat 20:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i'm not going to rewrite the article because i'm pissed at the company for using it in the first place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.108.140.194 (talk • contribs).
BTW, i have a new IP address, some loser put a block on my old one. He actually caused me 4 extra clicks to get a new IP. I'm still here for discussion though
IP dude - do you have a Ticket Number from your email to the email support? If so, I would be happy to conduct my own investigation. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this article popping up in my Watchlist from when I categorized it way back when. I went back to the original version of the article and realized that it actually referred to a theatre in Leicester, and not the theatre in Hastings. The original article was overwritten. I have reverted back to the last version that referred to the original subject of the article. This does solve any copy-vio problems, but, of course, the AFD notice is a problem. Should it be reinstated, bearing in mind that it now refers to a different subject? Flowerpotmantalk|contribs 21:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would leave it and watch it I guess - to much has gone on there for one evening!Pedro | Chat 21:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your problem has been solved by Flowerpotman. Kindly don't use the IP switching to evade bans in the future. Pedro | Chat 21:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, yeah, so i'm just gonna sit on my arse and wait 3 hours when 4 clicks can get me back into the site and aid in sorting it all out.
OK so the article existed before the IP's edits. oldid, and the article was eventually contributed to by the IP. diff. I find it hard to see where any copyvio allegations can be raised, without a link to the alleged violation. Further, this guy needs to stay blocked. He's already being dealt with on OTRS, no need for him to continue block evading on wiki to prove a point. ⇒SWATJesterDenny Crane. 02:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User: Calton
Despite admins warnings and blocks, User Calton continues to litter articles with ugly and/or inappropriate templates, WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT, etc. Recommend block user from articles around which he can't seem to stop vandalizing, reverting and making uncivil remarks. 76.166.123.129 20:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No Guy, don't think so. Pretty obvious Calton has repeatedly trashed articles and violated various WP alphabet. Suggest bringing in admins with a little diginity. Guy ignored the template that disputed article deletion. Any honorable admins who see the writing on the wall want to participate? If not, no reason for me to stick around. 76.166.123.129 22:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest shutting up about your dispute over the deletion of your article. I did not ignore it, but " notable enough" does not constitute grounds for challenging deletion. It wasn't. Feel free not to stick around, and do let me know if you need help with that. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to advise the anon -- who is almost certainly the owner/subject of the articles in question she's whinging about -- that she's had several MONTHS to make a credible assertion of notability (or even the slightest assertion in the case of the now-twice-deleted Seasons & a Muse, Inc.) and has failed to do so. Also, removing unambiguous speedy tags? Definitely a no-no. --Calton | Talk 11:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can guess the real world identity, as well, since Jeanne Marie Spicuzza appears only in films made by her own production company, and her books are also published by her own publishing company, and I can't find any obvious evidence of anyone else's work being produced by either. Guy (Help!) 08:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A one week block of the two accounts and the IP would appear prudent, to avoid disruption of the current AfD debates. Past experience indicates that this user will disrupt such debates. Guy (Help!) 08:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the best approach is to take this problem directly to the university computing center where this malicious user is known to operate and contact the administrative personnel there, using existing Wikipedia procedures for such contacts. Since other preventive measures have failed, use of these external contact procedures is justified by the very extensive sock and meat puppet recruitment tied to this person. Buddhipriya 02:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive editing and possible wikistalking
It seems that User:Vlad fedorov decided to "get even" with me after returning back after 3RR block. Today he started reverting all my edits (or deleting large segments of sourced text) in many articles that I edited recently. Please see:
[51] He reverts even such minor thing as a category.
[52] He inserts poorly supported defamatory statements to biography of a living person, although two other editors disagree
[53] He revently under official mediation, see [54]
[55] Another deletion of well sourced text without discussion
He edits in a highly disruptive manner article GRU.
That is all he accomplished today. Honestly, I am very tired of that. Can anyone give me a piece of advice, please?Biophys 21:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What could I say? Look into Biophys contribs since 9th of May 22:47 when I was blocked. Biophys used this moment to revert all of my contributions and all of our agreements on the articles. So, if Biophys who wasn't stopped by anyone deleting all of mine contributions is not disruptive, then why my edits, returning back the hard work that I have done searching for reliable sources and contributing to the articles, are considered by Biophys as disruptive? Please also tell since what times adding contributions to Wikipedia by me is disruptive and deletion of sourced texts by Biophys is undisruptive? Calling your opponents editing disruptive, vandalous, etc. is very easy way to win the ordinary content dispute, right? I have never reverted your contributions while you, Biophys, was blocked for 3RR. Never! And it is you who is responsible for disruptive editing.
However, if User:Theresa Knott doesn't wish to look at the articles at the issue, let me show some diffs by Biophys while my blocking period.
diff Biophys deletion of sourced judgement of the most respective international organization - changing it to the local US nongovernmental organization judgement. Article Russia. See his comment:"(The statement by Gil-Robles is outdated (2004); the rating by Freedom House is recent (2007). But maybe this statement by FH should be moved to a different place? I am not sure.)".
diff deletion of text concerning the criticism of both the author and the book in Putin's Russia. See Bophys comment:"rv - please read talk page - this article is about the BOOK, not about Politkovskaya. There is a separate article about her. This text was simply cut and pasted from another WP article.)".
diff Deletion of absolutely sourced criticism on the conflict of interests in the organization. Article Glasnost Defense Foundation. See Biophys comment:"(irrelevant info removed, see talk page)". Self-explainable? Other editors - Mikkalai and Alex Bakharev found my information useful, but Master Biophys doesn't.
diff Deletion of the information about a case on which the whole book is founded. Article Blowing up Russia: Terror from within. See Biophys comment:"(remove not relevant information copied from another WP article)". Self-explainable?
diff Reinserting again extreme POV with violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Article List of political parties in Russia. Look into history of this article - Biophys does it systematically and doesn't want to compromise with other editors. See Biophys comment: "(rv - if you want to make NPOV version - please add more things supported by your sources, rather than deleting well referenced text (this may be considered as vandalism))".
diff Reinserting again the whole POV section full of allegations and moved by user QZXA2 to talk page for discussion. Article Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation. See Biophys comment: "(rv - large-scale deletion of well sourced text without discussion. "Too POV" is not an argument. You can try to make small changes if they are justified and supported by alternative references.)" WP:OWN? Self-explainable.
diff Article Tambov Rebellion. See Biophys comment: "(Removing large segment of text copied from another article, which is completely unsourced. It creates duplications and makes the article unreadable; other edits)". Self-explainable?
diff. Article Anna Politkovskaya - deletion of all criticism section. Comment by Biophys:"(removing a few defamatory statements supported by a single unreliable source and a couple of outdated comments by non-notable people; minor editing. This article is already too long.)". Self-explainable? Any critcism of Biophys political POV - is defamatory in Wikipedia and should be deleted according to him. But if he inserts his extreme POV in the article with violation of WP:UNDUE he than typically says add your POV. But afterwards he begins his campaign about defamation and unreliable sources.
diff Again deletion of the information, that Biophys doesn't like. Again article Anna Politkovskaya and again the same comment:" (Two more non-notable opinions; Mayorov is a sportsmen)".
Yevgenia Albats. All claims of Biophys about defamation and poorly sourced statements are false. All that I described in the article is a well known thing in Russian internet. You may ask both Ellol, Irpen and Alex Bakharev in order to ascertain this. All the sources are provided to every sentence. Most of the sentences have two or more sources.
diff Reinsertion by Biophys of the category "Russian dissident" in the article of terrorist Akhmed Zakayev.
diff. Again editing the article to his POV while I am blocked. Comment of Biophys:"(more proper categorization and more consistent with sources. He is former political prisoner according to Amnesty International.)".
diff Reinserting unsourced POV category. Again. But this time Biophys doesn't provide explanations since there are no sources in support of his category.
Political repression of cyber-dissidents. Boris Stomakhin was sentenced by the court because in his publications he called to exterminate all Russians without any mercy and was calling to commit terrorist attacks on Russian civilians. Therefore he can't be described as a political blogger. Mr. Osama Bin Laden is not a dissident, or he is? Methods of repression are claimed to be stalking, bullying and psychological methods? Well there are no such information in source Biophys inserts - Bagryansky. And the creation of internet teams is described not in Bagryansky but by Saydykov article - and iit is just pure allegations without any evidence - but I left them.
diff Again revert to his lovely POV version. David Satter. Comment by Biophys:"(rv to 162.129.250.1 (Talk) at 03:59, 15 March 2007. Same text but better English.)".
diff Reinserting "victim of political repressions" category into terrorist article.
diff Article Internet brigades. Deletion of my tag. As for Biophys claims of deletion of his edits. It is he actually who deletes information that I insert. Just look at that latest diff.
Please also look at the history of these articles - Biophys reverts continually reinsertions of my texts by other users - he continues his work in Wikipedia using the methods of elimination of the information he personally doesn't like. This is an issue in Operation Sarindar, Human rights in Russia, List of political parties in Russia,Anna Politkovskaya, Boris_Stomakhin, Yevgenia Albats. In all these articles Biophys is fond of just deleting of the information. See his edits in history of these articles. He doesn't contribute to the content - just deletes. Vlad fedorov 09:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for wikistalking see the history of all the articles involved - I have edited them long ago. Biophys allegations of stalking are very old indeed and see my RfC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vlad fedorov where even my strong opponents like User:Piotrus acknowledge that there is no wikistalking.
I don't think this was at ArbCom, but yes, something should be done. That said, we can wait a month or two for ArbCom to block the disruptive user, or just speed up the process... considering that Vlad back from his week-long ban is causing disruption and revert warring again, I really don't see why we should burdern ArbCom with an obvious situation.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 07:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And again a comment from a user trying to win content dispute with me on administrator's noticeboard. Piotrus manner to bandwagon his opponents is already a matter of arbitration against him . Piotrus, why reinsertion of my materials which Biophys deleted as shown up here is disruptive? Piotrus, however, also prefers not to explain why Biophys deletion of information that doesn't suit his political opinions is not disruptive. Should I invite my friends here too? Csloat? Ellol? QZXA2?Irpen? Alex Bakharev? And, please, Piotrus, considering that Biophys teaming up with you and your disruptive and tendentious editing are already a matter of arbitration Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus, please don't be quite hipocritical by making comments against me. It's typically, look who's talking. You also never explained why you consider series of Biophys disruptive reverts during my block period to be normal. Vlad fedorov 09:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, why isn't user Piotrus assuming my good faith? Is good faith policy is applicable to Vlad Fedorov only? Assuming that I had not disputes with him over last 3 weeks, it is very unpleasant for me to see again how he tries to make revenge on me because of my contributions to Institute of National Remembrance, and because Biophys was blocked for 3RR and got two warnings for 3RR. Vlad fedorov 11:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wish Piotrus having to assume good faith. Vlad fedorov 13:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
O, just by the way, Biophys why you haven't reported to noticeboard this English user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:217.134.106.8? You gave him so many warnings. Why you haven't reported user QZXA2? You also gave him warnings? And how it comes that so many users disrupt your "editing", Biophys? Vlad fedorov 16:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever Vlad said, everything in my initial statement remains valid, as well as RfC about Vlad's alleged wikistalking submitted by User Colchicum. So, all of this will continue indefinitely unless something will be done about it. Biophys 16:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has any form of mediation been tried? —Kyриx 16:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[56] Vlad reverts article under official mediation, see [57]Biophys 17:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Biophys, dear, learn the definition of revert. Revert means undoing other editors contributions. As we look at these diffs, it is clear that I do not delete any edits. I only add my sourced information which you have falsely claimed to be violating BLP. Please do not clogg this page in order to make your point more visible. You complained about my reinsertions of material sterile deleted by you? Well, you've got an answer. You asked about stalking? Well, you've got an answer on that matter two months ago. Vlad fedorov 19:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As RfC on me was filed by user Colchicum, could you please provide any links in support of your accusation that I pursue Colchicum? If you mean yourself, Biophys, I think that Bakharev, Piotrus and others on my RfC page made it clear that I am not stalking you. But if you choose to pretend you haven't got an answer on your decision, whatever. Vlad fedorov 19:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, no one made it clear that you are not wikistalimg me. Just the opposite. It was not me who accused you of wikistalking (I only joined the case). It was Colchicum who accused you of wikistalking of him and me, just as now I think you are after Piotr. I must tell that Colhicum is the most neutral editor I met in WP - just look at his edits of rivers, lakes and Russian state officials. But you got him. Furthermore, you personally offended him at the talk page of Alex Bakharev - using Russian - to make sure that others do not understand. Biophys 20:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Potential? I say it's a legal threat. Support block. x42bn6TalkMess 23:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely is a legal threat. Looking through the user's contribs, he/she seems to be canvassing admins for support in deleting the article. --Kzrulzuall Talk• Contribs 23:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
S/he seems to be new to Wikipedia, and may not have been aware of our policies. I think that a warning or a clear explanation would probably be better than a block. I didn't do it myself (and mentioned the issue here instead) because from our conversation in that talk page I fear s/he wouldn't pay much attention to anything I say :-) Regards, Ev 23:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it was a newbie error, it is too much to allow. The soapboxing, the incivility, the confrontational and disruptive editing etc. won't go away with experience. I say a block is justified. A legal threat is a legal threat. Period. AecisBrievenbus 23:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ev, I was impressed by your responses on the talkpage, but her(?) behaviour could hardly be excused by inexperience; threats of any kind are simply incompatible with our working environment and goals. A brief block and a very firm explanation of policy would seem to be appropriate. Doc Tropics 23:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To add to what Doc has said: your behaviour on the talk page has been exemplary, Ev. You didn't let yourself get outshouted, you explained our policies and guidelines clearly, you remained civil and you never bit him/her. AecisBrievenbus 00:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; page protection helps a lot :-). To be honest, I simply don't like the idea that "everyone can edit": too much time & effort is lost because of incivility & plain disruption. And yet, since account creation doesn't include some "be civil and follow policy or be blocked" wording, I would feel uneasy about personally blocking new users that may not be aware yet of what Wikipedia really aims to be. In any case, since -luckly- I'm not the one making the decision, if you think a block would work better than a clear warning alone, I won't object: arguing with such emotionally-involved users is too often futile. - Regards, Ev 01:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request uninvolved admin to look at spamming situation
Hello. Can I ask an uninvolved admin to have a look at HIPAA Compliance Validation Services and perhaps have a word with User:LokiThread? S/he is continually adding promotional links to the article. In fact, this user created the article as a fork after being told not to keep inserting their links at HIPAA. They've continually de-tagged the article and reinserted the links ([58]), and apparently believe that I'm making up the provisions of WP:EL and WP:SPAM. I'm involved, so would appreciate input from an uninvolved user or admin. MastCellTalk 22:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the text seems to come from other websites verbatim as well... I put one link on the discussion page. --Cheers, Komdori 23:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that pickup - I missed that. We had a pretty persistent spammer from the Supremus Group (one of the copyrighted sites) some months back, so this may be a redux. HIPAA is a spam magnet. I should probably add some (sourced) content to the HIPAA article about how the regulations have led to a cottage industry of "HIPAA consultants" and their attendant spamming/promotional efforts... MastCellTalk 23:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Images
The images on that page may be copyvio as well. Eventhough they are tagged PD, it states "proprietary image of autor". --Edokter (Talk) 23:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just noticed that. I asked LokiThread (talk·contribs) to explain on his talk page. Thanks much for all the extra eyes on the article... I don't think I'd have picked up the copyright issues. MastCellTalk 23:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please disable TWINKLE
As mentioned on WP:VPT, it's currently putting the word "undefined" in a bunch of places. Could someone please blank the source code or something until it's fixed? -Amarkovmoo! 01:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its not exactly possible, even if we blanked it people would still use it until they purged their browsers. The best thing to do is to notify the developer of it, and have him fix it ASAP. —— Eagle101Need help? 01:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Kinda stinks, then, because Azatoth doesn't appear to be currently on. -Amarkovmoo! 01:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would still be somewhat effective, and it would be increasingly effective over time, right? —Centrx→talk • 01:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The caches will eventually refresh, which is why it updates automatically. We could blank it. Prodegotalk 01:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I guess so, I'll go blank them, I presume its the revert part only? If so I'll just blank that part with a note to the developer :) —— Eagle101Need help? 01:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Just note that this is not likely to have much of an effect for a few hours). —— Eagle101Need help? 01:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like User:Prodego made an edit, it might fix the problem. Prodego, I suggest reverting back to the May 3 version (we know it works). —— Eagle101Need help? 01:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, twinkle is not blanked, but the problem should be solved, I'll do some testing. —— Eagle101Need help? 01:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the May 6 version is correct code wise, it fixes a mistake in the May 3 version. Looks like it just takes an hour or so before the cache automatically clears, based on when AzaToth made the breaking edit. Prodegotalk 01:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated, Twinkle fits well into my UI, and I'd be significantly less happy without it. ⇒SWATJesterDenny Crane. 01:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'll confirm that the existing version of twinkle is working correctly. —— Eagle101Need help? 01:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've emailed Azatoth about it, so don't spam him anymore if anybody has. :-) Evilclown93 02:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't working. CSD is OK, though, for now. It's only rollback that's glitched. Evilclown93 02:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It will take a while for my revert to affect you, or you could manually clear your cache, which will fix it immediately. Prodegotalk 02:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kizor blocked
I've blocked User:Kizor for 24 hours for a mass reversion of David Gerard's removal of some of our stupider spoiler tags. The intent is simply to edit war, following and undoing every one of David's removals without thought. This is not an acceptable practice. Phil Sandifer 01:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um... why was removing them in the first place, which any reasonable person should know would be disputed, any better? I mean, Kizor didn't even use AWB, while the original removals did. -Amarkovmoo! 01:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A block is heavy-handed in this case, especially since you seem involved in the debate. You should have asked an uninvolved admin. I suggest unblocking to facilitate discussion. --Spike Wilbury 04:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see a need for oversight. It was a BLP concern, to be sure (claim that subject was arrested for assault), with no real source, other than answers.com and the name of a TV episode, neither of which specifically refer to what part of the sourcing contains the actual reference. It's reverted, it needs to stay out, etc. ⇒SWATJesterDenny Crane. 03:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is more than this than first meets the eye. The IP failed to source edits. However, Frank Pais has previously reverted a valid reference to the Toronto Sun, specifically about the arrest. I'm going to reinsert THAT edit, and leave the IP's edit out. ⇒SWATJesterDenny Crane. 03:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was the source: " ^ Jonathan Jenkins. "Eatery 'stormed;' Diners terrorized as Zundel fans and anti-racists clash", The Toronto Sun, September 15, 2004, p. 36"...surely that meets BLP. ⇒SWATJesterDenny Crane. 03:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the Toronto Sun is a tabloid and should not be considered a reliable source. Secondly, simply having been arrested isn't enough to be included in the article of a living person. There should also be a conviction, and there is no proof of that whatsoever. My understanding is that the charges were dropped. Thirdly, the video isn't published by a reliable source, but is made by a neo-Nazi outfit and therefore shouldn't be included. It also looks to be libelous from the way it is described by the neo-Nazis. Therefore, Wikipedia shouldn't be promoting / linking / referring to it. Lastly, I've seen various videos online of the day in question, and they identify the person in the picture on the DVD box as being "Jose", not Shane Ruttle Martinez. So, I don't think your action was justifiable.
Since when is being arrested "not enough" to be included in the article? If someone is arrested, and it can be sourced, then it goes in. It doesn't matter whether there was a conviction or not. As I said on my talk page, if you have a problem with the video, sue them, we're not responsible for their content. Wikpedia is not censored. And all that Jose stuff is original research. It appears you have some very strong POV regarding Shane Ruttle Martinez. Let's not push it with allegations of "libel". It appears to me that you are removing everything that you dislike about him, even sourced stuff. Your removal of the IP address edits was correct: they were unsourced and negative. Your removal of the registered editor's edits were not, they were sourced. ⇒SWATJesterDenny Crane. 18:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. Primary source material from the subject himself may be used with caution. (See Using the subject as a source).
In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic."
"Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia. – Jimbo Wales"
First of all, the video is a third party, primary source. Therefore reference to it should not be included, unless it has "first been published by a reliable secondary source." That means the DVD reference is out.
Secondly, you are violating Wikipedia's privacy policy with your speculation about my identity, which was implied by your suggestion that I sue over the DVD. As for the arrest, including a reference to it without a reference to the outcome of the case is prejudicial and possibly defamatory since it suggests the subject broke the law. Since there is no source I can find regarding the outcome of the charge against Ruttle Martinez, no reference should be made to it at all.
Lastly, the only source for the arrest is a tabloid newspaper, and the above quote from Jimbo Wales does not partake of tabloid journalism. If you can find a credible newspaper or other news source that references Ruttle Martinez's arrest, then (and only then) could you even consider including it. But, since that doesn't exist, and since there is no reference anywhere to the outcome of the case against him, then it is clearly a dead letter. Remember, "do no harm", that's what Jimbo says.
I would have to disagree with a block solely on that grounds, but the user's most recent edit is reporting an admin to AIV for a deletion someone else carried out. So in this particular case, the block is perfectly fine. -Amarkovmoo! 03:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen them throwing a barnstar randomly at a talk page of a controversial user whom they don't know i believe. Esperanza is not active anymore. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the block of people who are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Disruption is just the icing on the cake. Sandstein 07:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seeking long-term block for vandal account: User:Martonte
The editor uses this week-old account to create and recreate (after admin warning) hoax articles about a purportedly "popular" musical performer, presumably the editor himself, and his associates. The editor falsely claims the performer is affiliated with major record labels (in the first version of the article, Epic; in the second, Atlantic) and has released albums for which no records can be found. There are no Google hits and no AllMusic listing for this performer or the musical acts he claims membership in -- or, in cases where the acts actually exist, no record of his association with them.
User:Martonte inserts factually-inaccurate information into articles, presumably for the purpose of self-promotion, either inserting this non-existent or sub-notable "performer" into lists of musical acts or else falsely claiming for him current or former membership in real musical acts: [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67].
User:Martonte also ignores warnings against removing speedy tags and inserting factually-inaccurate information: [68], [69], [70]
As well, the editor uploads potentially unfree images with frivolous assertions about their sources and licensing/copyright status: "somewebsite," "don't know":
[71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76]
I've given an indefinite block. See if he finally pays attention to his talk page. I'm willing to listen to a reasonable {{unblock}} (go go second chances), but I have a feeling that the user might not even respond. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stevanjak (talk·contribs) was modifying Bitola inscription. I suspect a problem based on his style of edits (e.g. changing the date to mismatch what is shown on other language versions of Wikipedia and internet sources), also claiming that there is no date visible on the inscription (which I doubt, since internet sources showing an image of the inscription seem to have markers in the general location of these numbers). He's also been known to blank the page previously or otherwise remove content improtant for the article.
He's not active now (although he is a recent editor), but I strongly consider his sources to be suspect. --Sigma 7 04:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assume it was an oversight that this was an IP. As Heimstern noted, it is good etiquette and good practice to discuss an issue with the involved administrator before 'reporting' it here. Daniel 06:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just announced by blizzard. Article was immediately hit by an organized vandalism attack. It bears ALL the hallmarks of being a 4chan or 7chan /b/tard raid: apparently organized, rapid fire, timed, edits of things like "kekekekek" and "~desu" etc. Many of these accounts are vandalism-only, so don't forget to do a history check on them. ⇒SWATJesterDenny Crane. 06:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am fed up w/ Pokémon circus. This is only one of the 493 fictional species and i've got no idea what's going on in there. So don't count on me. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 06:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Throwing up the possible sources here won't help anything. Anti-trolling rule #1: do not feed. Watchlisted, in any case. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Starcraft II is the sequel to Starcraft one of the best selling games of all time. Unfortunately, it's one of the most fanboy obsessed games of all time too. This page is being edited at the rate of multiple edits per minute, sustained at this point. This bears watching even if you have no idea, solely to stop blankers, and simple vandalizers.⇒SWATJesterDenny Crane. 06:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any possible explanation why Starcraft is relatively more stable than the other? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 07:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've put up Image:Female pubic hair.jpg (one of the images used in the edits) up for deletion on Commons. I'd also like to take this time to mention how much I hate not having a mop there, too; I'm completely spoiled here. :) EVula// talk // ☯ // 15:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I hate having to look for Commons admins to help out :) By the way, {{speedydelete}} probably gets the message across quicker (I just changed your nomination to speedy, hope you don't mind). – Riana⁂ 15:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind though that image isn't eligible for deletion according to Commons' image guidelines. As Commons is intended as an image repository, the fact that it's unused doesn't make it eligible for deletion (and there's plenty of exhibitionist self-portraits over there). Krimpet (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen images like that get deleted for not coming under the scope, but maybe I didn't understand it properly. – Riana⁂ 16:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Riana, you've got more Commons experience than me; I'd be a damn fool to be upset. ;) I understand that "it's unused" isn't the grandest rationale for deletion, but considering its use only in vandalism, I think that makes for a perfectly fine reason for its deletion (which is what I mentioned). EVula// talk // ☯ // 16:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His/her edits weren't blatant vandalism though; looking at his/her contributions, they simply tried to insert it into Pubic hair, apparently unaware of the consensus on the talk page that the page shouldn't turn into an image gallery. It was reverted, they added it again two days later, and they were then blocked for vandalism, without any warning. Since they're a new editor, we should probably AGF and assume they probably don't know how consensus and talk page discussion works yet. Krimpet (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what Commons does, we can block it by adding it to MediaWiki:Bad image list, which I have now done. --BigDT 16:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do unblock if you feel it was an unwarranted block. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Admin review
[from discussion between Anthony.bradbury and FayssalF]
Hi there; you have given this user an indefblock as vandalism only. You have been both an editor and an admin for longer than I have, so I would not attempt to argue with you; but given that Wikipedia is not censored, I am am not certain that I can see the vandalism. The user is asking for unblock which, of course, I have not done. But I would be most grateful for an elaboration of your reasons.--Anthony.bradbury 09:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anthony. It has nothing to do w/ censorship or otherwise i'd be blocking everyone editing nudity-related subjects. We've been having a lot of disruption cases (see Woman's talk page history where pubic hair is not the subject of the article) and image-related problems lately (please have a look at the actual and related AN/I threads). We can't tolerate that. There has to be a limit by applying WP:IAR especially in smelly sockpuppetry and WP:POINT cases. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He sent me an email early today and it was me who told them to request a formal unblock. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have unblocked them with a caveat as they appear to be acting in good faith, if a little misguided; if so, we don't want to WP:BITE. If he/she shows any signs in the future of being a sock puppet rather than just a misguided newbie, though, break out the ban stick. Krimpet (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been having a revert war with 81.149.27.200 for around 1 and a half months and previous calls for admin assistance have been falling on deaf ears. I have made some compromises and some edits but the IP simply blanket reverts. This is our diff on Malhotra, this is our diff on Luthra. I came to Wikipedia and worked on expanding and improving articles on surnames, including Luthra. When I came to Malhotra I decided to NPOV the article, upon which the anon started reverting my edits on Malhotra and Luthra (as revenge I guess). But from the diffs you can tell who is right. I tried to initiate discussion on Talk:Malhotra, but no reply. The only time he replies is when I report it to admins, and then he picks up some diffs from March which no longer represent the state of things.
The origins of my actions on this dispute can be seen from my oldest contributions which reveal that I was editing Luthra happily and also adding tags to numerous other Punjabi surnames when I reached Malhotra with this edit. Then I began removing unsourced edits. While the anon has said in the past that my edits are revenge edits for his reverts on Luthra, it makes no sense if you look at history. Please act. dishant 07:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you wish to be done? I suggest asking the anonymous user to start commenting on the talk pages. I see you've been at it for a while, and I commiserate - I would certainly say that if the user refuses to come to the talk page, then the user could be blocked for edit warring. But until you make this appeal - it just looks like you're both edit warring, as you've both just used each other's talk pages, and there's no way for anyone to verify the material, as it's not on the talk page. The Evil Spartan 16:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The blocking of the pro-spoiler IP
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Ryulong unblocked the IP within 15 minutes; no administrative action is required with regard to this. The complaints regarding David Gerard, whether correct or not, is already being discussed above, at #{{Spoiler}} tag removal, sans edit summaries; please avoid splitting discussions. These two facts render this section moot. Daniel 09:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The pro-spoiler IP was apparently blocked for complaining about vandalism by User:Ryulong for after Ryulong removed seemingly reasonable comments on the admin's noticeboard about David Gerard's mass use of AWB to remove spoilers. The justification for removing the comments was that they were 'already being discussed elsewhere' - a discussion elsewhere which the comments linked to. I find it hard to accept that good faith comments can be removed on such a flimsy pretext, particularly given the bloated, incomprehensible nature of the discussion on RfC. --Nydas(Talk) 08:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also unblocked the IP within 15 minutes seeing my error. The IP in question was adding an additional complaints section concerning David Gerard's removal of {{spoiler}} tags via AWB in sections that frankly should not have included anything of the sort. The commentary about the use of AWB was already listed in the prior thread, and this one appeared to simply irritate the issue at hand. However, the IP was later blocked because he had given me two vandalism tags, and then had reported me to WP:AIV in a disruptive manner.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the top of this page, it says 'If you want to make an open informal complaint about misuse of administrative powers, you can do so here.' Removing other people's fair comments is totally out of order, no matter whether you think that it appeared to irritate the issue at hand.--Nydas(Talk) 08:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with Nydas, the action was very inappropriate. Matthew 08:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was no misuse of administrative powers by David Gerard, and the issue that was brought up by the IP was brought up by Kizor in another thread. There was no reason to have a second thread that said "David Gerard used AWB to remove {{spoiler}} tags" at least here. Such commentary would be useful at the RFC, but not on ANI, when there was no abuse of any administrative powers. I also apologized to the IP for my block, seeing my mistake, but the actions taken by the IP afterwards led to a different block that I did not enact.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Incidentally, if you scroll down the history here, you'll see him doing the same thing. There, the IP got blocked for 3RR, but no one made the right connection at the time. The user has again violated 3RR here by logging out. Someone needs to either block him for it, or tell him in the strongest possible terms to stop indulging in this sneaky edit-warring. MoreschiTalk 10:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like an extension of the on-going turf war between Wikprojects, abbout whether or not Composers and Musicians should or shouldn't get Infoboxes. Given the duration of this fight, is it really surprising that we're seeing Incivility violations cropping up? Can't the two wikiprojects either sit down and work it out, or else wikipedia will just disband both projects for edit warring? ThuranX 11:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. This isn't really about incivility, it's about one user logging out to revert-war and violate 3RR, whether he uses insulting edit summaries or no. This particular user has done this twice, and needs to be told to stop doing so, by block or otherwise. MoreschiTalk 12:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please do. Checkuser confirmed he violated 3RR - he ought to be blocked - and perhaps for extra time for being deceitful and logging out to do it. The Evil Spartan 16:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A review of the edit history there, just going back a dozen edits or so, shows multiple Personal Attacks by Ramirez72, in edit summaries and article text edits, and multiple reverts of his uncited additions, by more than one editor. ThuranX 11:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's not a personal attack but Ramirez72 has continually (with warnings) removed cite-taggs from articles while writing in the edit summary "spelling" and "fix information".Rex 14:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user is a valuable contributor, but certainly has a history of incivility. The Evil Spartan 14:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, how is that edit summary not a personal attack. It's completely unacceptable, and the user has a history of problematic contributions, judging by his block log. I'm inclined to block for a couple of weeks, because seemingly previous messages have not gotten through. MoreschiTalk 14:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not start this edit war with User:Howard the Duck. All I did was corrected the Philippine article introduction and he reverted it back saying it's a POV comment from a Latin American point of view, which is not true. Howard should study his country's history and demography etc. carefully before making wrongfull edits and blaming it on me. I've had past arguement with Howard the Duck before, including the article about the Spanish language. I know how Filipinos are they are very emotional people and loves the United States so much. I know this because I use to hang around with my fellow Latino and Chicano street gangs around the street of Los Angeles County when i was living in California. I have meet alot of nationalisties including Filipinos, which i find very good people and have exchange ideas and talk about their culture etc. There is alot of things that Filipinos today do not know about their culture and history. I'd like to help and expand the articles in the Philippine article, but Howard seems abit bias towards Latinos, and he wants it in his own way.. You might be surprised that the information i have provided in wikipedia articles is true after all..Thanks! --Ramirez72
None of that justifies your inappropriate edit summaries. --OnoremDil 16:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason i attack Howard the Duck was because he was really pissing me off about his nationalistic point of views that everything had to be the Filipino or Filipino-American way and every time i add an information or talk about Hispanic issues in the Philippine article he becomes sceptical. Why? --User:Ramirez72
The reason I removed the citation tags provided by User:RexGermanus in the article "Mexicans of Filipino descent" is because the sentence does not need one. There are Mexicans of Filipino ancestry and they are found in large numbers in Guerrero, Mexico. How would Rex know, he has never been to Mexico nor meet a Mexican of Filipino descent, that's because he has never meet one. I have meet several fellow Mexicans in Guadalajara who posses the Filipino ancestry. I also believe that Pável Pardo the talented Mexican football (soccer) midfielder is of Filipino origin.. --User:Ramirez72
Pot, kettle etc. All part of a bitter ongoing feud between what Kittybrewster calls "Irish nationalists" and himself regarding articles about Kittybrewster's family. Nick 11:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a personal attack. Incivility, sure, but not personal attacks. —Kyриx 14:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly let let me say, I don't think I have ever edited a page remotely connected with Ireland and definitely nothing politically with Ireland. So I have no axe to grind anywhere, and I am far from ani-aristocracy. Vintagekits and Kittybrewster have given each other the same treatment. In fact Vintagekits observations on Kittybrewster's work does now seem to being proved correct. However now, Kittybrewster's edits and insults to other editors concerning their political beliefs are going beyond what can be tolerated, the most recent example is towards the end of this page here [82] - He seems to have a pathological hatred of the Irish and anyone who does not venerate his ancestors in the same way he does. Several have recently been deleted for non-notability after heavy and almost unanimous voting - yet still he cannot se any fault on his part and continues to blame the Irish and bad faith editors. This is plain rubbish.
I think he needs a severe warning regarding the consequences of such comments. He claims all those do no not agree with him and his views are either acting in bad faith or from ulterior political motives. I think he either needs to put his money where his mouth is, apologise or be banned. Giano 15:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kittybrewster apparently maintsains a genealogy website and has created articles for many of his ancestors and relatives. This also relates to disagreements about whether simply being in a peerage book because of having a notable ancestor grants inherent notability. Some of the articles nominated in AFD have been deleted, and some have been kept, because in fact the individuals were in the Dictionary of National Biography and other reliable sources. Some have been deleted because they were only cited to such sources as a family history book by his grandmother or some such relative and his own website. None of the articles I have seen were about individuals of no notability whatever. Passions can clearly rise to a high level when it is one's ancestors or relatives up for deletion, which is one reason for avoiding such WP:COI situations by not creating articvles about oneself or one's own relatives. Nonetheless, it should be possible to keep the discourse on an objective level, without hurling accusations of bad faith nominations or impugning the nominator's motivations as rampant nationalism. Edison 16:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He is now resorting to his usual tactics of reverting warnings from his user page unarchived [83], I expect it will all end in an arb com case, it would be nice though if that could be avoided, but unless his non-notable pages are alowed to remain I don't see how that can be avoided. Giano 16:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leave them blanked (no use getting all hyped up reverting the blankings). The warnings still exist in talk page history. —Kyриx 16:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True! I'm certainly not getting into a revert war. It's just a pity that it's a little more difficult for other editors and admins to spot the history of previous warnings. There is a risk that editors may miss previous warnings, and issue a level-1 warning when a final notice has already been given. In those circumstances, is it appropriate to block anyway? In the case of KB, I would have to declare too much of an involvement to implement a block, so I'm asking the question as a general policy issue which would be relevant to other admins monitoring this case? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blanked warnings remain valid as long as they were issued recently. Blocks may be and have been applied in a future incident based on recently blanked warnings. —Kyриx 17:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that nobody has informed User:Vintagekits about this accusation here. It would have been the decent thing to do to inform them that they're today's 'feature' here. Notified ... - Alison☺ 16:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think most people can see that since this discussion instigated by BrowHairedGirl 10 days ago that I have backed off these issues and also I have not !voted in any of the numerous AfD's on members of the "Arthbutnot family" despite the fact that those who are seen by some to be on the "other side" have continued. My issue earlier was to highlight the "lockstep voting" and AfD abuse of a small cabal - I am sure I did this is an overly aggresive way but that was because I had witnessed months of this. Any I have stopped !voting on the AfD's for now as I hoped both sides would have backed off and allowed the rest of the community to make there own minds up on these articles. Sorry that was a bit rambling but I hope you got my point.--Vintagekits 17:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Cocoaguy was planning to create a bot named Cocoabot and someone beat him to it. Question is why didn't he say "I tried to register this account name but it's used now"? ··coelacan 10:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well the account was created on May 18 according to the checkuser, and Cocoaguy hasn't edited since the day before that, so that may explain why he didn't say that. I think the more important issue here is that Salad Days (talk·contribs) said "I don't think this person has a clue" on the request for bot approval and then, according to the checkuser, proceeded to create the account and use it to vandalise. Will (aka Wimt) 11:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a requirement in the bot approval that the bot account must be created before it receives approval. --Kzrulzuall Talk• Contribs 11:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked Salad Days for an explanation. Daniel 11:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per this response to Daniel, blocking the account would seem the best course of action. I have blocked the account; a review would be appreciated. Sean William 14:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The block is appropriate, the user has explicitly stated that they purposefully disrupted the project to make some sort of point. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the indef-block of Salad Days a bit over the top? It was stupid of him to use the other account to vandalize, but he's a regular contributor who's done a lot of useful work (e.g. on the WP:DEAD project) and to immediately indefinitely block for a first offense seems a bit unfair. Any thoughts? Cheers, Jayden54 17:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a pre-meditated usurpation of identity combined with deliberate vandalism to get an account blocked to spite a user he disagreed with. This shows the worst qualities in a wikipedia editor and identifies the user as a threat to the integrity of the project. The block is appropriate. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, keep the block indefinite. We should not let anyone, not even a normally good editor, disrupt Wikipedia like Salad Days did. Funpika 18:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional consideration for the folks who have doubts about the motives of this editor, see this edit. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
after legal threats, unblock-maybe review
Can some other admins look at User talk:Nraden#Legal Threats? I'm not sure whether they're complying with WP:NLT now or not (I'm inclined to say no but I could be misinterpreting what the policy requires). Anyone who's satisfied that they are should feel free to unblock; I just wasn't comfortable doing so. ··coelacan 12:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, not remotely. He explicitly threatens a named user ("I never (meant to) threaten Wikipedia or its administrators, only Deborah Vanderstadt"), he likens himself to "a peacekeeping force", and he refuses retract his earlier threat, saying "I reserve the right to take legal action against Debv". The block is good. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was the latest "I will reluctantly agree to refrain from taking legal action against her for actions on Wikipedia as there appears to be adequate means to redress greivances" that made me think, "maybe". ··coelacan 12:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's saying that in the same edit where he's threatening to sue someone - there's still a clear threat of legal action, and even the (IMO limp) wording of WP:LEGAL does say "Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely, while legal threats are outstanding" (not "...while legal threats relating to wikipedia are outstanding"). So I think there continues to be a clear threat there. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. ··coelacan 13:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected.--Docg 12:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked all the accounts. There's been some good IP editing in the past few days; it may be a good idea to unprotect fairly soon. ··coelacan 12:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's the 'GNAA'? ThuranX 12:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Gay Nigger Association of America, an internet trolling group. AecisBrievenbus 12:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! And I'd JUST been following the latest AN/I about them on the 'gnaa disambig page'. Sometimes the mind just slips. ThuranX 12:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to remove the semi-protection in a bit. But we need to watch this like hawks - the UK newspapers would just love a story about sick vandalism and bad wikipedia in this case. We are not giving them one. Anyone reading this please watchlist, the article and the images.--Docg 12:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest waiting until a checkuser either blocks the underlying IPs, or declines the request. ··coelacan 13:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about this vandalism spree? The edits and the edit summaries are still lingering in the article history atm. Should they be deleted from the article history? AecisBrievenbus 13:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both accounts have been blocked indefinitely as sockpuppets of banned user Iasson, and MfD nomination speedily kept and delisted. Feel free to comment and review if necessary. Phaedriel - 16:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to the ridiculous wheel war that's been going on over the last hour or two, I've instituted full protection on this page. I am not going to take any more admin actions in the matter, but I want to say here and now that any more reversions of this page by admins: any more wheel warring at ALL should be met with blocking. Enough. I know I voted in the debate, and I may have protected the "wrong version" - personally, I'm quite well on the record as saying I would like to see a full debate and for process not to be ignored, but I ended up protecting the debate in a closed state because that's where it was when I got there. (And yes, I did have a plan in mind if it was in a non-closed state, but it's kind of irrelevant now.) Mangojuicetalk 16:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Realizing it is not a vote, the tally is 13 editors arguing to keep the article and 8 wanting it deleted, so why is the result Delete? Edison 16:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A DRV just closed as restore article, what's going on here? Nardman1 16:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether for right or wrong, I've sent it back to DRV. I propose that any discussion at ANI be limited to the propriety of wheel warring. Discussions of the article itself should go to DRV. Nardman1 16:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if the very first AfD ran its full course we won't have to go through all this. This is where process is important because we don't want nor need to create a hellhole. —Kyриx 16:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first AfD ran it's full close and was closed as a delete - this was reverted against consensus. Nick 16:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The first AfD did run its full course. It ran 8 days I believe. The problem has been the constant running to DRV by people unhappy with the result. WjBscribe 16:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If DRV sends something back to AfD, you let the new nomination run course. Not close 45 minutes into it, not 12 hours later, not wheelwar with multiple other admins undoing each other's closures. Consensus is just that, you let people comment THEN you decide. Nardman1 16:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just closed the DRV as "wait", while being edit-conflicted with the nominator's withdrawal. Sean William 16:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minor point: if it's a true wheel war, how can full protection stop it? -- drini[meta:] [commons:] 16:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It gets worse when somebody unprotects it. That's how it works. Woohoo! Sean William 16:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is symbolic, I guess, functioning much like a stop sign. You can run through a stop sign, but only at your own risk. —Kyриx 16:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:WHEEL. It's a repeated reversion of administrative actions. It's a Very Bad Thing. Sean William 16:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get this straight. The first AfD was valid, and everyone agrees with its validity (not the decision, just the validity). Then is it safe to say that the thing that caused all of this is the closure of the first DRV? —Kyриx 16:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To some. I think the problem started with the speedy closing of the second AfD - if the AfD that was the result of the consensus decision to overturn ran its course, the second DRV would have never been opened, etc etc. --badlydrawnjefftalk 17:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no concept of consensus on Deletion Review. It's a straight vote. This may be part of the problem. Reviews are sometimes robotically closed without any attempt to examine arguments. --Tony Sidaway 17:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's an issue i've been trying to change. Not surprisingly, many don't see a problem with the vote counting. --badlydrawnjefftalk 17:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree, this has become a problem, with the behavior and attitudes of several people being questionable. It doesn't seem there's any interest in developing consensus, or persuading others to their position. Instead, it seems to me that the way things are being handled is more a case of folks throwing their weight around. Now while rules for the sake of rules are against the spirit of Wikipedia, so is unilateral action that is simply imposing on others in an arbitrary fashion. This situation has become quite escalated for what seems to me to be a minor situation. Mister.Manticore 19:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merkey, again
Despite allegedly being on "wikibreak", user Jeff Merkey continues to be disruptive. See this diff, where he vandalizes a talk page based on unproven allegations of sockpuppetry against other users. *Dan T.* 16:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not vandalism. Jeff attempted to revert User:RhodiumMiner who was shuffling other peoples comments around the page. Given the name and edit history there isn't much doubt this is a single purpose trolling account. I'm reverting RhodiumMiner's edits and blocking him. --Duk 17:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed from looking at the diff that Merkey was deleting several users' comments, and made the edit summary "Remove edits of banned user Vigilant", implying that he was being judge, jury, and executioner on an alleged sockpuppet (without actually going through proper channels of requesting a checkuser). *Dan T.* 17:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed the removal was unintentional. The RhodiumMiner name comes from the SCOX message board. --Duk 17:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Waleed Shaalan
Our article on Waleed Shaalan, one of those killed in the Virginia Tech massacre, was deleted last month per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waleed Shaalan, and is now (quite reasonably) a redir to a summary article that briefly discusses all the victims. Today new contributor Headsdraft(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) recreated it as a minimalist stub. I've restore the redirect and advised Headsdraft of the AfD discussion. I wouldn't normally bring a straightforward matter such as this here, but in this edit identifies herself as Waleed Shaalan's wife. Can I ask someone more familiar with the whole Virginia-Tech deletion/retention matter than I (and with a gentler manner than I, to boot) to stop by Headsdraft's page and explain things a little more clearly than the link to the rather vexed AfD discussion I've provided will. Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definite trolling...
User:81.145.240.170 has been engaging in vandalism in a few places, including Talk:Sailor Moon, and as the notice on his talk page seems to indicate, he is a sock of another user who was engaging in vandalism against User:Eternal Pink(though I don't remember who the other account was; the notice is signed "DUSTKING" but we don't have a user by that name). This is an issue of either disruption or harassment (either fits), and it would be great if an admin could look into this and take any necessary action. MSJapan 17:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked, 24 hours. Trebor 18:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Samuel Luo(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) has been using several sockpuppets to evade the block imposed by the ArbCom. (ArbCom decision: [84]) (checkuser: [85]) (recent edits: [86], [87]). He was away for a couple of days, but now he's returned. Samuel seems to have no intention to stop this trolling. Is there any chance to block his IP address permanently if keeps doing this? ✔Olaf Stephanos✍ 19:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spam? "Internet Fashion Database"
The account User:Ifdb was recently created apparently with the sole purpose of promoting a website called "Internet Fashion Database". It created the template {{ifdb model}} and is adding it to the "external links" section of a lot o articles.
Is that something that should be dealt with, or is it better just let the articles maintainers judge the edits? --Abu badali(talk) 20:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
ResolvedUser:Kafziel blocked the user indefinitely. Pants(T) 19:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)![[43]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:PGNxMediaHorizontalLogo2.jpg){kind=link}
![[71]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Kyle-massey-3.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
![[72]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:BeiBVHE051306-0194.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
![[73]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Sam_logo.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
![[74]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Picture_013.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
![[75]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:P56738R4PD0.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
![[76]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Trav_K.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
