Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Current issues

Mass G7

This is easier than tagging all my images as G7 and flooding the category: I request all fair use images I've uploaded been deleted as CSD G7. Further I'm also rescinding any fair use claim I made on images I uploaded.

I do not have a problem with a user re-uploading the image and claiming fair use; however, I do not wish to be associated with the images following a request to remove an image by a copyright holder.

All non-fair use imagery I've uploaded is non-problematic, so please avoid deletion of them. Though I believe they are at Commons now anyway. Matthew (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of them can be seen here [1]. Neıl ☎ 11:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please put this on hold and restore the deleted images - they have been deleted, restored, and now deleted again. These are not personal images, but captures from television series (for the most part). If it is just a question of creating fair use declarations, then that can be done. It makes no sense to remove them all as they are on hundreds of articles. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ckatz, I refer you to the second part of my message "I do not have a problem with a user re-uploading the image and claiming fair use; however, I do not wish to be associated with the images". I think it's also plainly implied that they are not "personal images".

This is a simple good faith G4 requested complicated by the fact I've uploaded lots of images. I could got through, if needed, and tag the images - but I'd rather not. Matthew (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No question of faith, good or otherwise, was intended - and I apologize if you took it as such. My point is that these images are valuable to the project, and are currently in use on hundreds of articles. It doesn't make sense to delete them and then have to start from scratch. If you don't wish to be associated with them, that is certainly your right. I just think it would be better to keep the images and redo the tags. Obviously, you wouldn't be expected to do that, but I'd like to see others (myself included) have the chance to do so. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

So why not make a list and WP:PROD the ones for which you're not prepared to write a fair use rationale yourself. Otherwise it's nuke-o-rama, since none of us is likely to have the time for more nuanced action. Guy (Help!) 23:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't the best idea here be to contact a WikiProject like WikiProject Television and see if they are willing to re-tag all of the images? Or do I misunderstand the situation? SorryGuy  Talk  04:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That might help, yes. Neıl ☎ 11:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as someone who knew Matthew on en.wiki quite well, I still had him on my watchlist, and when the January flood came in, I alerted several of the related wikiprojects that they might loose a substantial amount of images and that they might want to take action. I informed at least Lost and Stargate, and perhaps a couple more, but they didn't seem to be too worried, and Lost said that it might be easier just to start from scratch. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Block

Hello administrators. Please be aware, before getting involved here, that you will need to take at least an hour to understand the issue at hand. I am completely desperate and request your attention. This is my only hope.
I am User:Daniel575, I am User:Chussid, I am User:Bear and Dragon, I am User:GivatShaul, I am User:Motz5768, I am User:D. Breslauer.
I was blocked a long time ago because I had said that if permitted, I would love to kill Messianic 'Jews'. Since then, I have requested to be forgiven multiple times. However, I regularly see plain false information on Wikipedia, and then I correct it. For a year now, User:Yossiea has been hunting me on a personal witchhunt. The reason for this witchhunt is the fact that I am a member of a strongly anti-Zionist Hasidic group, while Yossiea is a right-wing Zionist who identifies with Kach. Yossiea intends to silence my voice here and remove any and all mentioning of Jewish anti-Zionism from Wikipedia. See the recent history of Yom Ha'Atzmaut. I am a civilized, recently married 22-year old Hasidic Jew from Jerusalem. For some background on the reasons for Yossiea's attacks on me, please see what I wrote on User talk:Tiamut#Arabic.
I request from you, administrators, to take a clear, unbiased view on what is going on here. I agree that I deserved a block for the things I said as Daniel575, that was very uncivilized. But it should not have been an indefinite block. Please take into accounts the fact that none of my subsequent 'sockpuppet' accounts were used for vandalism, in any way. I created new articles, performed maintenance work, reverted vandalism, improved existing articles, participated in discussions - not the things you expect from the average 'sockpuppet'. I reiterate what one participant in the blocking discussion about my remarks about Messianic Jews said: 'Propably he doesn't mean it literally, but he is speaking figuratively, as Haredi/Hasidic Jews often do.' That is indeed true. Judaism does no longer have a death penalty. There are no Jewish courts that have that power, and there will not be any such courts until our Messiah has arrived. Thank you for your attention, --D. Breslauer (talk) 12:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The most appropriate place to bring this up might be ArbCom. Emailing them would be most proper. Continuing to make accounts while being indef blocked does not help your case. B'hazlacha. Bstone (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not a rightwing Zionist who identifies with Kach. I am someone who is disgusted that this is your 9th sockpuppet case. I am also disgusted that after 9 times you still come crawling back and demand to have rules not apply to you. Your POV is not the reason for your bannings. Wikipedia has users from all POV's. The main reason why you were banned, besides your threat, was because you are unable to debate in a civilized manner. Anytime a user disagrees with you, you go off. That is unacceptable. You are a confirmed sockpuppet account, and I don't think we need to debate this further. Yossiea ^(talk) 18:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Advice to Daniel Breslauer

Dear Daniel. Mazel Tov upon your recent marriage! May you and your wife have a happy life together forever! BUT, Why are you bringing in all this information about your personal life into this discussion? It is not right, and it shows poor judgment that you are exposing your young wife to attention from people online that I am sure she would not want. You are very young still (some of us here are far older than you and have been through life a lot!) You have a life ahead of you, why are you wasting time online? Go to your heilige yeshiva and learn more Toirah! In your spare time review the shiurim or learn with some Baalei teshuva and spend time with your wife, but why are you coming back here where people will have no patience or understanding of what you are trying to do? Stop it! Try to calm down. You are too hotheaded and disruptive. Maybe you need something to calm you down, but you are clearly coming here to cause trouble (you forget that Wikipedia is NOT a Yeshiva), you can't even help yourself that's how bad it is, just look at your editing and behavior, you are back a few days and already at loggerheads with other editors! Right now, you are violating:

1. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
2. Wikipedia:Civility
3. Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
4. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing
5. Wikipedia is not a battleground
6. Wikipedia is not for propaganda
7. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
8. Wikipedia:Sock puppetry
9. Wikipedia:Libel, and even
10. Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man.

So PLEASE, take my advice, do yourself and your new young wife a huge favor, and leave Wikipedia alone. You have contributed plenty! In fact leave the Internet alone. Follow the advice of the Rabbonim and Chachomim that you yourself follow who forbid use of the Internet. Why do you want to put your future kids at risk, like with this?: Parents are warned by rabbis that their children will be kicked out of yeshivas if they allow them any Internet access. See Of ostriches and cavemen; Can Israeli rabbis enforce their ban against the Internet? and Bezeq to launch ‘Kosher’ internet. If G-d forbid someone is setting you up and asking you to be online tell them that you have married now and you want to start a fresh life free of the Internet! Daniel, I beg of you, leave Wikipedia alone and learn more Toirah! Otherwise there are more than enough reasons for you to be blocked forever even as in your new incarnation, because it is irrevocably tied to the past with all its baggage. On the day of your chasuna H-shem forgives everything, but that rule does not apply with Wikipedia admins! Be well, IZAK (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Article probation for Homeopathy

At the suggestion of Jehochman and arbitrator Sam Blacketer,[2] I propose that Homeopathy be placed on Wikipedia:Article probation due to the long-running edit warring and other violations of policy which have afflicted that article. MilesAgain (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems like this might help. Let's try it. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wording of the restriction that would be added to Wikipedia:General sanctions:

Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from homeopathy and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. Editors must be individually notified of this article probation before being banned. All blocks and bans placed under this remedy shall be logged at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation#Log of blocks and bans. Actions taken under this probation may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard.

Wording of the notice, {{Talk:Homeopathy/Warning}}, that would be placed on the talk pages of affected articles:

The Wikipedia Community has placed all Homeopathy-related articles on probation (see relevant discussion). Editors making disruptive edits may be placed on revert limitation or banned by any uninvolved administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages. Editors must be individually notified of this article probation before being banned. All blocks and bans placed under this remedy shall be logged at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation#Log of blocks and bans. Actions taken under this probation may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard.

I think editors must be notified about the article probation and warned individually before they are subject to a topic ban. Jehochman ^Talk 17:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support This will help reduce disruptive, tendentious editing. Jehochman ^Talk 17:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support Lara❤Love 18:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional support, but only if it is abundantly clear that enforcement of AGF, NPA and CIVIL will apply equally to established and new editors, registered and IP editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• PS, I should add that I'm not an admin, lest anyone is misled, but we can't expect new editors to behave well if established editors don't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support per other opinions already voiced, however, SG brings good points to light. I don't have any personal history relevant to this topic, but it appears to be contentious. Rudget. 19:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional Support - Per SandyGeorgia. Gromlakh (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Yep. If any article richly needed this, it's homeopathy. I don't see anything wrong with 24-hour blocks without extra warnings, and topic bans after one warning. The level of nastiness – from new and established contributors – is toxic. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Please do. — Scientizzle 19:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Added revert limitation, logging requirement and appeal process, since there is no RFAR page to record these bans. Thatcher 19:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  Perhaps a subpage of the article's talk page would be a better place to keep track of user-specific blocks and bans? I can see stuff getting lost in the AN/I archives. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to put all homeopathy-related articles on probation, then do a centralized record of blocks and bans at a subpage of the main article talk page, and link to it in the warning banner. Thatcher 19:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Also added uninvolved. Thatcher 19:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have made the requested changes. Jehochman ^Talk 19:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely. Guy (Help!) 19:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I also guess this is related. D.M.N. (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Yep Tiptoety ^talk 19:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Just do it per WP:SNOW consensus. Keeper | 76 19:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support - This is probably the easiest and least oppressive way to try and end this apparently endless conflict. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I have installed all the necessary files and code (within comments) to implement this, because it seems very likely to pass. As soon as an uninvolved administrator determines that a consensus exists, they, I or anybody else can uncomment the code. Jehochman ^Talk 20:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

/me applies Wikipedia:Make it so... Guy (Help!) 21:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support, although someone might question why the community is doing this when ArbCom refused to take the case in a content dispute. This action is probably the best way of preventing further out-of-control disruption with Homeopathy and seemingly unrelated articles, such as Thuja occidentalis. If we do this, then we can dilute some of the toxicity of these arguments. Sorry, I couldn't resist. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support per duh. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support DrEightyEight (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC) per SG. All "related pages" should be marked as such too, before action is taken - unless the editor can be shown to have been fully aware and acting in bad faith --DrEightyEight (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• There's no question in my mind that this is necessary. It should broadly apply, esp. to botany articles as well. --Haemo (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Apply {{Talk:Homeopathy/Warning}} to the talk page of the disrupted articles. Jehochman ^Talk 22:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• OK, here's a serious question: "Editors making disruptive edits may be placed on revert limitation or banned by any uninvolved administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages... Actions taken may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard." That's probation? I thought that was always the case, anywhere on Wikipedia. That ought to be standard operating procedure, not a special case, right? Or maybe I'm just taking rouge pills... MastCell ^Talk 22:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Err, roughly, it's just "expect less warnings and more kicking ass and taking names".

• Support - can we get a second poll to apply it to everything else in the namespace? WilyD 22:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Edit wars, multiple reports to multiple noticeboards, RFARs, and general mayhem. If this will help stop the insanity, then heartily Support. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Lawrence § t/e 23:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Bryan Hopping ^T 23:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Should include the endless botany articles that are filled with fringe alternative medicine nonsense. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comments -- traffic tix for blowing red lights are supposed to cut down on the number of people blowing red lights. They don't. •Jim62sch• 00:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comments -This is ridiculous. What's going to happen is that admins, many of whom are clueless about things like SPOV=NPOV in science and medicine, will think the loudest whiner is the one in the right. Thus, we'll have uninvolved administrators blocking and banning and protecting without a full understanding of the NPOV. The edit warriors who promote Homeopathy as if it descended from Mt. Olympus will push aside the science to win their point. This isn't going to work, and it is a reflex move that will have terrible unintended consequences--the demise of Wikipedia into the same unsourced crap that we see in Conservapedia. Sad. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• What is the problem with having an involved admin(s), who actually know the background, rather than relying on admins who don't have the interest (or capability) to review? Shot info (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There will be a suspicion that involved administrators are trying to gain an advantage in a content dispute by getting rid of an opposing editor. Same reason why admins aren't supposed to use their buttons in any dispute they're involved in. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "suspicion" and WP:AGF. Nevertheless, as OM and others articulate, uninvolved admins will need to be involved at some point or be woefully ignorant - much like what admins have(n't) done to allow the article to degenerate to the point where it is at the moment. Shot info (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The quality of new admins is so low, I do not trust them to actually understand this stuff. Do you know how many admins actually think NPOV is that all fringe theories get equal weight in an article? Moreover, with or without experienced admins, it's still untenable. The reason there is an ongoing edit war is that Homeopathy promoters have installed their POV in dozens of articles. Moreover, the main article, homeopathy itself, wouldn't be a mess if certain new POV-editors wouldn't show up every week or so to start arguments that were settled months ago, wouldn't toss in their own POV (getting rid of all of the criticism), and would allow the truly balanced editors (Peter Morrell for example, is a Homeopathy expert that USUALLY sticks with NPOV) complete their task. There are several tendentious editors, usually with a strong homeopathy POV, that jump in and start what appears to be an edit-war, but in fact, it's the truly NPOV editors reverting bad edits, arguing on the talk page, etc. It is wearisome, but not requiring this ridiculous edict from a few admins who don't dig very far. Yeah, I'm pissed at some of the admins for taking this route. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I suggest that two involved admins and one uninvolved admin be assigned as a committee who agree on sanctions. Let them consult each other and if they agree, let them rain fire down from heaven. -- Fyslee / talk 02:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • In practice what will happen is one uninvolved admin will place a ban, and then a discussion will ensue on this board. If the ban is improper, it will be removed. Otherwise, it will remain. This gives everybody a chance to comment. Note that users who are topic banned are not going to be blocked unless they violate the ban. Therefore, banned users can come to WP:AN to make an appeal. Jehochman ^Talk 02:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • But the problem quickly arises that the admin is not familiar enough with the topic to even make the call for the ban. I have to echo OM's statements from above. Baegis (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
      • We are not ruling on knowledge. Admins will observe behavior and remove those who are acting badly. Jehochman ^Talk 13:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Experience shows otherwise. I've seen an admin chastise an editor for saying that homeopathic preparations amount to a drop in the ocean, calling this hyperbole and an indication of bad faith, when in fact common homeopathic preparations are weaker than this. Given the nature of homeopathy it can be hard for someone with no knowledge to tell what's in good faith and what isn't. Raymond Arritt (talk) 13:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
          • • I've seen this happen over and over. If you guys want one of the really awful admins that we've elected to do this, go for it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Point of clarification What are "disruptive edits"? Unsourced edits? Badly-sourced edits? Edits that misrepresent a source? Or something else? Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Misrepresentation, POV pushing, repeated violation of consensus, edit warring, name-calling, flaming, baiting. Ignorance is not disruption. Jehochman ^Talk 13:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly a source of drama. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What is a homeopathy article

There are homeopathy tags being placed on non-homeopathy pages and on pages with no history of edit wars. What gives? Who decides what pages are related to homeopathy? Anthon01 (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Relevant talk here. The template talk should be the place to contest a specific article being on probation as a central place. Lawrence § t/e 23:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussions at AN where everybody can see them. Jehochman ^Talk 00:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If somebody uninvolved in homeopathy disputes wants to remove a tag, that should be allowed; however, if a homeopathy edit warrior removes a tag, I and probably others, would view that as disruption. Jehochman ^Talk 00:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a good idea. That will automatically suck you into dispute involvement. Rather, we should just change the wording to include points where homeopathy disruption could happen or is likely to happen. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Only on these articles in which there is disruption. No disruption, no tag. And yes, adding that tag indiscriminately it will be assumed disruption. We had enough/. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What is a homeopathy article?

Seriously. Without a comprehensive def, this entire idea is asinine; hell it reminds me of the famous quote re pornography, ""I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it " •Jim62sch• 00:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

A homeopathy article is any article that the homeopathy editors are edit-warring over. --Carnildo (talk) 06:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You might consider changing the template name from homeopathy to Alleged Psueodscience-related topics. That would cover all the pages that the editwar is being carried out on. Anthon01 (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the template to match the exact wording of the remedy. That wording was copied from prior ArbCom decisions, so it has been tested and found to be serviceable. Jehochman ^Talk 17:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

We need to be clear that it is articles that homeopathy disruption is relevant. Otherwise, some person could go through and declare the entire encyclopedia related to homeopathy and put everything on probation. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If it were our policy to assume bad faith, that would be a valid argument; but since our policy is to assume good faith, let's assume that no one will go through and declare the entire encyclopedia related to homeopathy and put everything on probation. Dlabtot (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

(ri) No offense, Carnildo, but that reply is mind-boggling in the depth of its inanity. What, praytell, is a homeopathy editor? Someone who edited the article once, ten times, weekly, daily? What if two of these homeopathy editors are arguing over Differential calculus, does that make that article a homeopathy article? Please.

Dlabtot, SA's argument is perfectly cogent: however, the dismissive answer is unworthy of a wiki-sentient being. Were wiki a Utopia of perfection, your answer might have a chance at attaining value, but it isn't and it doesn't.

It's quite obvious that a number of points of logic or either being missed or willfully dismissed here, likely in the belief that wiki-tough-love and strict adherence to rules will simply end the debate. Sad. •Jim62sch• 21:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

A homeopathy editor is someone who edit-wars on homeopathy articles. Now, this may seem like a circular definition, but if you can identify even one homeopathy article (say, homeopathy) using other means, you can use the two definitions to identify all homeopathy editors and all homeopathy articles. --Carnildo (talk) 03:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Again: What if two of these homeopathy editors are arguing over Differential calculus, does that make that article a homeopathy article? See Charles Darwin.

I really don't have the energy to spend bucking the winds of mass hysteria, nor am I apt to plunge into an abyss of illogic trying to rescue wikipedia from itself, so y'all have fun.

BTW, better tag 10 April and 2 July: Samuel Hahnemann's birth and death days. Oh, and the Samuel Hahnemann article itself, of course. •Jim62sch• 11:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hidden text

When the article is unprotected (or even before) should some noninclude text saying this article is on probation and referring the person to the talk page be added? MBisanz ^talk 00:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this mic on?

Apparently removing tags supported by both sides of the dispute and calling another party a "stubborn editor" is not prohibited. Are the pro-science editors fears that this "article prohbation" is actually a "A-SPOV" (anti-scientific point of view) proposal founded, contrary to all of my hopes? PouponOnToast (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Quick question: Why are you harping on this point in three places? spryde | talk 20:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If you feel I am disrupting wikipedia to prove a point (also known as "state your point, don't demonstrate it"), feel free to block me. I posted a notice about an incident on the incident board, commented on the disruption to the article and a proposal to stop it on the article and came here to see if anyone was interested in enforcing this probation, or if just saying "probation" was the extent of action. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I encourage editors to review Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. Please notify anyone you think needs to be aware of this page. Administrators are welcome to add their names to the list of uninvolved admins who can provide enforcement. There is no rush. Soon most editors will be familiar with the expected standards of conduct, and those who refuse to cooperate will be limited or banned from the locus of dispute. Jehochman ^Talk 21:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Shortly thereafter there will peace in the Mideast, a cure for the common cold, and an end to poverty. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So saith the book of the Prophet Wikien, yes? I hope you're right about the common cold: I have a nasty one at the moment. •Jim62sch• 12:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrators may impose article probation without taking a case?

I have proposed a means by which arbitrators may impose article probation without necessarily taking a case, at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration policy#Arbitrators may impose article probation without taking a case?. I invite discussion there. MilesAgain (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The community apparently can impose this remedy without arbitration if there is a consensus. Arbitrators are not required to participate. Jehochman ^Talk 18:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if an article is such a mess that probation is the obvious response and no admin seriously disputes this, article probation may be imposed and enforced by admin consensus. This is rare but has been done before. Thatcher 19:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Brian Pepper

I recently deleted the article Brian Pepper as it is a recreation of the article Brian Peppers. The latter article was expunged from Wikipedia records at the request of the subject, an I suggest that the same is done with this one. Can someone arrange this? DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you mean oversighted, I don't think it was. There are still 600+ deleted revisions available. Anyway, I've watchlisted the new one. If it gets recreated frequently, it can always be protected. -- Vary | Talk 19:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify the situation here: Vary is correct that this article has never been oversighted (nor is there particularly a need to). Also, DJ Clayworth is incorrect: as far as I know (as far as there's been onwiki record of), the subject has never contacted us; after Jimbo deleted this article, we made our own decision to keep it deleted for the sole reason that it did not meet our policy for inclusion. Chick Bowen 04:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not just protect it against recreation now? Considering the history of the first article, it seems likely that this will be recreated, and it's unlikely there is a legitimate article that needs to be created at that title. (Of course, if there is one, the recreation protection can always be lifted.) Natalie (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Protected by DJ Clayworth --Stephen 23:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I am here to "not be surprised"

Hey. Just looking for some input. I might have gone a WP:RFC route but this involves an admin's edit and I made the suggestion that he might want to get some input here. He flipped it back to me coming over here, so here goes. This is faster, too. User:RyanGerbil10, an admin, added a self-made image to Project Chanology. I challenged it as OR, contentious, not clearly related, etc., etc. (please see Talk:Project Chanology#Lisa McPherson Image - that contains my arguments and saves us the trouble of duplicating them here); in other words failing on multiple points. Ryan said I should come over here and not be surprised when I "find that other admins fail to see your point." So here I am. Thanks. --JustaHulk (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That's an unconventional dispute resolution procedure - this is an administrator's noticeboard and you are having a content dispute that has nothing to do with administrators. The person is not acting as an administrator when he uploads images or edits articles, and has no special status or privileges simply for being an administrator. But moving past that, there is no OR question with images. Obviously, many to most free images have no source - if they did, they would have to be published in reliable sources, meaning they would likely be copyrighted. So we have to take on face value that they are what they appear to be or what the uploader says they are, and if they aren't we can have a discussion about it on the appropriate article page. It's not contentious if it illustrates valid article content - it looks like it is simply documenting a protest. I agree with the "not clearly related" part, though. It is purportedly a sign used at a protest at the University of Pittsburgh, but there is nothing in the article about that protest, or in fact anything saying that the university or city of Pittsburgh has anything to do with the subject of the article. The image doesn't seem related to the article, so as an editorial matter I would think it should go. That's the kind of consensus that ought to be developed on the article's talk page and, failing that, through normal dispute resolution channels. Wikidemo (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, several editors on the article's talk page agreed that the image, in the absence of better alternatives, is appropriate for the article. When JustaHulk's calls for the image's removal fell on deaf ears, he brought the dispute here, against my advice. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 19:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Against your advice??? That is pretty disingenuous, considering that you said something pretty entirely opposite (links above). This AN thing started because I really wanted you to go to someone you trust on policy decisions and ask for some input and I suggested here, if you had no other option. Nothing formal, just for you to see if you were on stable ground. When you did not want to and suggested that I do then I did so. Nothing formal, just trying to save the trouble of an RfC for all parties. Frankly, that article talk space is full of inexperienced editors (see "mini operation: Wikipedia" on the Chanology site) and I do not trust their interpretations of policy. And I would like some input from people I trust before going to the trouble of an RfC. --JustaHulk (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how it ended up here, does it? I just think it would be better to work it out on the relevant article pages. Failing that I would go to the mediation cabal, third opinion, or some other informal dispute resolution before doing an RfC. But really, there seems to be a consensus among the editors of the pages that the image belongs, or at least no consensus to remove it, and I don't see any obvious grounds for overturning the consensus. Actually, though I think the image is a little irrelevant for the Lisa McPherson article I think the balance is slightly in favor of it being relevant to the Project Chanology article. Nothing intrinsically wrong with self-made images. But please don't take that as a vote or consensus position. I'd rather defer to the people who are actually editing that page. Wikidemo (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for copy of deleted page

Greetings Corey_Delaney went through an AfD a few weeks ago and was deleted because of WP:ONEEVENT. Due to a recent news report of the subject being attacked, this is no longer a relevant reason for deletion, but I do not want to step on toes by re-creating the page again in mainspace. Please place a copy of the page in my userspace to allow me to bring it up to date before I move it into mainspace. Fosnez (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think this is a good idea given the problems that the article has previously caused; I can't see that a minor news story makes any difference to this person's (non-) notability. Also, WP:ONEEVENT was only one reason for the deletion of the article. BLACKKITE 00:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I am generally a fan of userfication but not when there are concerns that it can adversely affect the subject's life. Jon513 (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose this - see the close at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 15. There is no distinction between mainspace and userspace for WP:BLP, which consensus has determined is violated by an article on this subject. Daniel (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well there is no obvious BLP issues (In the deleted material, apart from age IMO), so I propose a compromise. Email me, and I will reply with the deleted contents in a text doc. You can then work on it in word or something similar and use the preview function of create a new page. When you think its up to scratch post it in your userspace and get a few peopl to look at it. Everyone happy with that? Viridae^Talk 00:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not. This content shouldn't be posted in userspace until consensus is formed to accept it into mainspace, and we owe the subject not to have a userpage indexed. The only acceptable solution would be for the content to be emailed to Fosnez, who works on it offline, and then the absolute final version be viewed through "show preview", a screenshot taken of that and uploaded temporarily to either Wikipedia or an external imagehosting services (images can't be indexed easily by Google). At this point a deletion review discussion/a specially-formatted articles for deletion discussion would be opened, to comply with the Arbitration Committee decision on undeleting/reinstating articles on subjects deleted involving WP:BLP (in that a consensus must exist to reinstate before it occurs). Depending on the result, the article is either not recreated or is recreated. Daniel (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No no no. The kid is still a minor in Australia. Because some lunatic bashed a minor who was notable for a crime, we're now going to consider re-adding the article on a minor charged with a crime because the minor is now the victim of a crime? Lawrence § t/e 02:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

FFS Lawrence, I have explained to you over and over again. We are quite able to write an article on the "minor" as long as we don't mention what the crimes were that he was charged with. We, and the press, are quite able to say "charged with crimes in relation to the party" without mentioning what the crimes were. Your apparent crusade to protect this minor is ill-founded. He is bathing in the stupid glory that was created by the media, and an article on him stating pure fact is what is needed to help kill this fame. Examples would be the fact that the promotional event that he organised was a massive flop etc. Fosnez (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

And you can explain your flawed stance again and again. This minor's entire notability derives from the fact he committed an act that was ultimately a series of crimes. We don't write or publish articles on a child who committed a crime. Because he's a child. He may be a jerk, or a saint--he's still a minor. That's the problem I have. Once he's of legal age I can assure you this disgust by me over some infatuation with creating an article about some kid who was the alleged perpetrator of a crime, and a victim of a beating, will pass for those reasons. If he wants to still be in the spotlight then, more power to him. But for God's sake--someone beats the shit out of a kid that was charged with multiple crimes and he's suddenly notable enough for an article? Total lunacy. Lawrence § t/e 06:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The notability of this person is not derived from his crimes. It is not against the law to host a party. His notability stems from Significant coverage by multiple Reliable Secondary Sources Independent of the subject of that party which has been demonstrated time and again. The fact that people are now deciding that he needs to be publicly beaten only goes to enhance his notability (and i am quite well aware that notability does not equal fame). There are numerious sources for this: [3] [4] [5] and some are even saying that it could have been staged: [6] Fosnez (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Creating an article for the purpose of "kill[ing] this fame" is not exactly keeping WP:NPOV in mind. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, i didn't mean that the purpose of the article was to abuse him. It would be informative to have a consice, accurate article covering the events leading up to the media storm, the reaction of the public in general. This guy is not going away, we might as well provide readers with a decent supply of information than censor ourselves because of one person screaming "Won't someone think of the children" Fosnez (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The new "developments" (loosely used), in my opinion, aren't substantial enough to overturn the blatant consensus that existed at the AfD and DRV. However, given this isn't DRV, such a comment can wait. However, there's no doubt that there should not be this article, in any form, put on Wikipedia in any place until deletion review endorses recreation (per Badlydrawnjeff). Daniel (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have an objection to the deleted contents being provided via a word or text doc however? Viridae^Talk 05:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally? Not at all. It just can't be reposted onto Wikipedia - into any namespace - without a consensus to do so, though, per our general standards towards deletion biographies and Arbitration Committee rulings. What I will say is that I highly doubt that deletion review/modified articles for deletion will establish a consensus for recreation, though, regardless of the modifications Fosnez makes. However, I may be pleasantly surprised. Daniel (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to feel the same way about the likelyhood of a recreation being allowed, but seee now harm in providing the deleted contents. Viridae^Talk 05:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ditto, provided Fosnez understands the restrictions about not reposting in any mainspace until a DRV/AfD concludes with consensus to allow recreation. Daniel (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Any editing that Fosnez would do on an article emailed to him/her would be a GFDL violation unless the original article was undeleted so that Fosnez's copy, once vetted, is overlaid over the restored history. Corvus cornix_talk 03:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose any re-creation of the article. The article has been discussed in several places now and consensus was clear. The fact he was in a scuffle that would not be notable save for his temporary fame is insufficient to change this. -- Mattinbgn\^talk

Dunno if anyone cares, but he's not just a criminal, he's now a party planner and DJ. I have come across him in the British broadsheets- see this, for instance. I don't see why there's any problem on having an article on him, whether he's a minor or not. Not news/One event doesn't really seem to apply with this guy. Long story short, if I came across an AfD on him now, I'd be for keeping. J Milburn (talk) 09:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Template is giving me no love...help!

Left a message at the pump, but I'm getting kinda antsy. Any help would be gratefully appreciated! Many thanks in advance, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

(Reverted back to more stable state for now, but should be last edit.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"fake move attack" comes back again

• (See Archive118 Please) This guy comes back again, he uses ip 172.165.194.53 to add fake information into Barney Bear, thanks for giving a hand for this.123.193.12.44 (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope you see archive118 again, I reported this attack at WP:AIV 8 times (from 2 December 2007 to 21 December 2007) , At the 8th time , some administrator told me to report here.

This guy comes back again today , he uses ip 172.165.194.53 to add information of a fake movie Tom & Jerry: The Great Beginning into Barney Bear.123.193.12.44 (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a short while (being an ip.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Are WP policies optimal for technology articles?

I would love to know where this has been discussed before...I can't find it...so, interested admins are invited to drop in on WT:WikiProject_Robotics#An interesting problem with technology-related articles and comment either here or there. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Btw, I don't think my focus at that page is guilty of WP:BEANS but I'm sure I'll be lovingly corrected if I'm wrong. I have noticed many examples of editors of more technical articles (such as robotics articles) being frustrated with admins and vice-versa, and my main goal is to invite comment and learn from past disputes as we push for consistency and for better articles. And btw, if your eyes glazed over as soon as you saw words like "technology" or "robot", then you'll understand why we robotics editors feel that we might not be getting our share of WP:wikilove. If you have something to offer, try to stay awake a little longer, please :) - Dan Dank55 (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

New deletion dropdown script

I made a new script that is now ready for wider testing at the bottom of my monobook.js.

Features:

• Integrates with the existing drop down menu at MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown
• Automatically selects G10 from the menu if deleting an attack page (uses same regex as Ilmari's script)
• Automatically selects other items from the menu if a speedy deletion tag is found (simpler regexes, but catch most cases)
• Automatically links to AFD or MFD (note: I had to alter the MFD template, MFDs opened before 16:30, 31 January 2008 will not do this) if a tag is found.
• Blanks the text box if an item is selected from the dropdown, only if the default reason is in the text box.

This script conflicts with the current code in sysop.js, which must be disabled for testing. —Random832 16:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

So {{db-a3}} on the page would make it auto-select WP:CSD#A3? John Reaves 21:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I just tested it out and it's pretty damn nifty. Only suggestion I have is to link to the policies in the deletion summary. John Reaves 21:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I just checked my logs, they are linked. Well I guess all I can say is good job. John Reaves 21:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No soliciting

This essay was inspired by the notorious article The Game (game). Please feel free to expand it further... it's an essay which could be useful. Thanks, --Solumeiras (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this covered by a few policies already? John Reaves 21:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets? --Stephen 23:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

New pages list

Hi. A quick question - if I'm looking at the new pages list, change it to display 500 entries, mark a page as patrolled and then click on the 'return to New pages' link, it reverts to displaying 50. Is there any way to get WP to return to the page and still keep my display preferences ? CultureDrone (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

My cheat is simply to use the back button on my toolbar to get back to the list - the page I last edited is highlighted and I can go to the next unpatrolled page. Once I have cleared the page (I work on 100 articles per page at most) I hit F5 to refresh that page, which gives me a new batch to work on. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Bénard cells

Figured I should check here, since I don't want to have done the wrong thing. Another editor added the homeopathy-warning template to Talk:Bénard cells. Since this article does not seem to be homeopathy-related, I removed it per discussion. If I was incorrect to have done so someone may wish to add the warning back. —Whig (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems like a simple mistake. That article does not mention homeopathy and I see no evidence of homeopathy related disputes in the edit history. Jehochman ^Talk 19:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Benard cells are occasionally invoked as a potential physical explanation or correlate of water memory, a homeopathic concept. Still, there are no article-space links (only talk-space) between the two, and no evidence of edit-warring or other problems at the Benard cell article, so the tag is unecessary. If homeopathy-related problems become an issue, then the tag could be re-added, but I don't see a need to tag it pre-emptively. MastCell ^Talk 19:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It should be related to water memory and previous links have been removed, but it is not homeopathy-related. If homeopathy relates to water memory, that does not mean it relates to everything else that also relates to water memory. —Whig (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No, of course not, but one of the bones of contention had been that references to homeopathy were being inserted into tangentially (un)related articles. In any case, I agree with your removal of the tag as there has been no homeopathy-related dispute on the page that I can see. MastCell ^Talk 20:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Attn:Admins - cpvios galore

Well... long story, but here's the gist. Category:Images from Bollywood Blog contains images from a certain blog called - bollywoodblog.com. Couple of months ago, I sensed that something was wrong with the way the images were being licensed and I brought it up. A long discussion ensued on various pages before I consolidated all(well, almost) of it on the concerned admin's sub-page. During the course of the discussion, I proved that the less than honourable blog was only hawking stolen stuff and many(dozens) of the images that they'd so graciously released on a CC-2 (not CC-3, as the licensing info proclaims) license didnt infact, belong to them at all! As a result of the discussion, dozens of images got deleted.

Even as more and more were getting deleted, editor(s) who had uploaded those images and were using them in their articles, bargained for more time saying they would come up with evidence that the images werent bootlegged. Soon after that, I went on a wikibreak for about 2 months only to return recently.

I now see that, there is neither any of the promised evidence, nor have the cpvios been deleted. Can any admin here give me a very good reason why? I tried knocking on some doors, but havent gotten any reply yet. And if there is no "very good reason", can somebody do the honours and speedy them now? Sarvagnya 20:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Based on the discussion on Riana's talk page and the lack of confirmation that the images are really owned by Bollywood Blog, I'm deleting all the images as copyvios, and the associated template and category with it. east.718 at 20:59, January 31, 2008

Please restore them. Unless you have had personal contact with the blog and they have informed you that they have been lying to us? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 22:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with restoring the images. While Sarvagnya may have some points, it was confirmed by multiple parties that the images were freely available. As indicated, two other admins reviewed the material and saw no basis for deletion. At the very least, I believe User:Videmus Omnia and User:Riana, who were both involved in the discussion with the organization, which to the best of my knowledge Sarvagnya was not, should have been contacted in advance of deleting the images. I am taking the liberty of contacting them both and requesting their input on this possibly rash and ill-informed mass deletion. John Carter (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

ahh.. so you ".."tend" to agree with restoring the images..".. do you Mr. John 'uninvolved-no-axe-to-grind-third-party-opinion' Carter? How very slick! Stop being dishonest about it and trying to mislead people! Who are these "atleast two other admins" you're talking about? And what have they seen that proves that the two-bit blog actually owns the images they're hawking? If there is any such evidence, your two admins, yourself, blofeld and your friends had three months to bring it to the table. And you didnt. Worse, you guys had the gall the take me to ANI over the matter and more recently, to snigger. Short of incontrovertible-not-open-to-interpretation evidence being produced that the deleted images genuinely belonged to that "multi-million pound" blog, I strongly protest any calls for or attempts to restore the deleted images. And there is no need to 'inform' Riana or anybody else. It was done the last time around and even this time, I informed her (and Yamla and Butseriouslyfolks and on that Riana's subpage) a full day or two before I brought it here. Sarvagnya 22:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well they shouldn't have just been deleted like that without any new discussion. I have the disclosed media company which is the contractor of the images and only myself and one or two other admin know about it. The deleting admin has no idea what agreement was made and certainly shoulnd't have speedied OTRS affirmed images without new consensus ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 22:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

VO doesn't edit anymore, and Riana won't be online now. I'm going to admit a lapse in judgement - I acted with too much haste. I'll step back for now and undelete those images. east.718 at 22:39, January 31, 2008

I did not necessarily see a lapse of judgement, simply responding to a statement from a very vehement editor. In any event, you have my thanks and respect for your quick response. John Carter (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The lapse of judgement was not when you deleted them, but when you undeleted them. I am sure you have some questions to answer now. Sarvagnya 23:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It was a long time ago since I received the emails but I had the disclosed media company which owns all of the images and contracts them to various Bollywood related sites which was kept private for contractual reasons. Once I slipped and even provided the link to Sarvagnya himself and User:But Seriously Folks had to yank it out of the history system immediately because keeping it private is serious, and it was revealed to only a few of us in good faith and trust by private email. The high profile media company was revealed as having ownership of many of the channels on Indian television, film distribution and other related media stuff. I spoke to the director of Caledonian publishing which is a contractor of the media company and it was confirmed almost to the point of frustration that wikipedia is able to use the images without a problem. It is clear the Bollywood blog is free to distribute them therefore we are cleared to use the images -if they were "illegally" "taken" how do you think the website is able to obtain images of events that had taken place only hours previously and in abundance of the latest events if there wasn't some kind of genuine connection and authorisation to distribute them?. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 22:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"The high profile media company was revealed as having ownership of many of the channels on Indian television, film distribution and other related media stuff."

Absolute bollocks. The ownership of each and every channel on Indian television is public knowledge. The big players include the Zee group (Subhash Chandra when I heard last), Star TV group (Rupert Murdoch when I last heard), the Sun TV group (family owned, Eenadu group (Ramoji Rao) and such others. Film distribution is also a high profile business and there are big and small distributors, all of whom make it to the posters, publicity material, credits, awards ceremonies etc.,. And you're telling me that there is another "hi-profile media company" which owns the Zee group and star tv group and sun tv and eenadu and film distribution and "media stuff"? Pray, which company is this? They must be worth a 100 billion dollars and its amazing they can keep their operations secret! Is it Her Majesty's secret service? And who heads it? James Bond? Sarvagnya 16:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the case, it is clear that Sarvagnya isn't here to constructively edit the encyclopedia. Aside from the fact that he has barely edited wikipedia since the beginning of December, if it is personal committments elsewhere this is understandable but he has returned and felt rather surprised he hasn't got his own way. It makes me wonder why he is so concerned about Bollywood given the fact he rarely edits the articles. Whatever the case and whether he genuinely intends to improve the encyclopedia in the future and do something contructivie to help the site, it is clear that his true colours are revealed in moments like this, given his long history of disruptive behaviour (forgive my english english) and reports to admin councils. Clearly doesn't have an ounce of respect for admins either whether it is Riana, Videmus in the commons or John on here or anyone who has worked hard to make a legitimate agreement and gone out of their way and beyond to help this project develop. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 23:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I recall in the last discussion Riana saying that some of the images (no one knows which ones) were not owned by whoever is giving permission and were not properly licenced and should be deleted.[7] Do we have any way of knowing which ones? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

comment yes but it was revealed that the Bollywood blog is under contract from a major media company which distributes the images to many of the Bollywood related websites and it indeed owns many of the images that were deleted rather than the bollywood blog owning all of them. If the agreement between the disclosed company and bollywood blog is 100% valid which it clearly is otherwise they wouldn't be able to get hold of the images so fast then it is clear the agreement is valid. And as for those promotional images appearing on other sites this is exactly what I am saying -these images are distributed by the media company to sites such as Bollywoodblog and others which would explain why some of them appaear on different sites because they are under contract from the same company. Think about it rationally, why would the owner of Bollywood blog risk disclosing his contractor and telling us we are free to use the images if he was lying all just to help wikipedia? Does anybody really think he would risk the very running of his site just so he can provide wikipedia with a few images? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC) ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That was probably just as we were stepping into the discussion. Read the discussion fully and she admits that the blog had been dishonest with her and pending any new evidence emerging, the whole lot would have to be deleted. Just read. Sarvagnya 23:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Also these were Yamla's, BSF's and Coren's closing comments. Sarvagnya 23:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I am seriously concerned here. I understand that some images were shown not to be owned by the company. The claim (and I'm not trying to put words in people's mouths) is that some images are obviously screenshots and are not part of the deal. However, it is not at all clear to me which images are screenshots and which are owned by Bollywood Blog. Unless we are sure that all of the images are owned by them or that the images which are not owned by them (screenshots, etc.) are clearly marked as such, I feel we should not use any of the images. I'll note that it is not clear to other people which images are owned by them and which are screenshots because people have been uploading the screenshots here. --Yamla (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

it's not just about the ones that are screenshots from movies and television. The blog has provably stolen from other amateur, corny blogs. Read my opening post here. Note that all those red links were blue when I posted. Also, people might be interested in what BSF came up with after careful research. He said, "...Based on all of the above, I would wager that the blog has no photographers or exclusive images, and that all of the images on the blog site belong to other people. So unless somebody has compelling evidence to the contrary, they should all be speedied as copyvios and the site should be blacklisted." Sarvagnya 00:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Sarvagnya 00:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of the problem images you identify are screenshots. However, the Rakhi--Sawant image is way beyond troubling. --Yamla (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

comment no it isn't Yamla. Please read my above comments tha Bollywood blog is under contract with this media company which distributres promo photos like Rakhi to various sites which accounts for your perceived idea they are copied. As for Sarvagnya basing his judgment on what little he actually knows about the agreement and had and still has nothing to do with what went on behind wikipedia he is ill informed to make such a judgment ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. And that Rakhi Sawant image was one that I picked almost at whim to research. I am sure if you looked closer and harder, there are more such waiting to be unearthed. Sarvagnya 00:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone verified the OTRS ticket again? If the ticket is right, we can keep them. If they are copyvios and complain, we can direct them to this blog because of the authorization given in the ticket. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh now. Stop taking the discussion backwards. The OTRS thing is moot and besides the point. OTRS was where the last discussion started and it was soon trashed ... in the face of overwhelming evidence that the blog didnt own the pictures. Also, notice the discomforting fact that afa the blog is concerned, the images are only CC-2.. not CC-3. Care to read before you comment? Sarvagnya 01:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I am just wondering. I thought a third opinion of someone who is not involved in the case would be appreciated, but if it is not, I leave. By the way, it would be good to have someone from the OTRS office contact the one who gave permission stating there are concerns with their images, and whether they continue to confirm the images are copyrighted by them or not. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a good example Image:Subhash-Ghai.jpg [8] [9]. I was already concerned about these images after reading the previous ANI discussions, but having read the sub-page discussion I endorse revoking the ability to take any image from this blog site, and the speedy deletion of all the images except in cases where there is clearly demonstrable ownership of copyright. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Why was it undeleted?

I want a very good explanation before I take this any further. Sarvagnya 23:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Because it strikes me as odd to discuss images that nobody can see. Let's try and be cool here, we can just redelete all the images if the need arises. east.718 at 01:05, February 1, 2008

And it strikes me as even more odd that a full two months after the last discussion the images hadnt still been deleted. Sarvagnya 15:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Gah

Sorry, I've been away for a tad. I keep forgetting about this. I would delete the lot. We've been contacted by the folks at the blog who admit that they don't own copyright to all the images. They've given us contact details for the photography agency who actually do own it. I've contacted them, it's been a few months, and no response. So... I'd get rid of them until we do get word. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's as good as it gets. I'm going to redelete the images again in a couple hours if there aren't any significant objections. east.718 at 03:01, February 1, 2008

Yes that would have been best if the agreement was made directly with the photographic agency which do actually own ALL of the images rather than the Bollywood blog. All I can propose is that they are contacted one final time and if there is still no response within a week then I unfortunately think they have to be deleted. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

East, I do not see any 'significant objections' and I think it is high time the images are nuked and the site blacklisted. The two hours you said have long passed and I demand that the images be deleted immediately. I didnt spend hours digging and making a case for those cpvios to be deleted just for it to be brushed under the carpet. Sarvagnya 15:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not being brushed underneath the carpet; we are taking the time to make sure the right course of action is taken. With OTRS, which I used to be a part of, we deal with image permissions all of the time and we have to make sure that everything is right. Plus, it would be fruitless to delete the images, undelete, redelete and undelete because of a posting of a user or two. Now that Riana is giving us the word to remove the images, we will accomplish it as soon as a we can since we don't want to cause collateral damage with unrelated images. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• The claim of license is provably wrong in enough cases that it simply can't be trusted. Nuke the lot, and if people can find genuinely free versions or can provide evidence of release then they can be re-uploaded with that sourcing instead. They've had two months to clean up their act, they have not done so, I think it's time to act. Guy (Help!) 18:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Just let me know what to whack and I will see if I can do a few. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Attn:admins - cpvios galore - Part II

While we're at it, another one that doesnt pass the smell test. Look here Sarvagnya 19:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Durzatwink and Styrofoam1994

These two seem to be taking light-hearted friendship a little too far, with fake warnings left on talk pages and this sockpuppetry report. I know it's only good faith humour, so obviously I'm not asking for the hammer of Thor on this one, but perhaps someone could step in, delete the report and tell each user to use their time more productively? (Lovebirds...) haz (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been watching the situation for some time since coming across User:Styrofoam1994 via my contribution of new editors sweep. I think he just wants to play. Deleted the SSP as test page. A couple of more eyes with some slight steering in the right direction might help. Agathoclea (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one that closed the first SSP case and did the blocks therein. Note I made User:Rws_killer the master as it's the oldest account. The newer (deleted) SSP case is really interesting. Durzatwink's edits are similar to the other socks and he appear just a couple of days after the blocks I did. Based on that alone, it looks like a new sock. But the odd parts are Durzatwink calling Styrofoam1994 his "adoptee" (when Durzatwink's claiming he's a new user) and Styrofoam1994 making attacks (like "perv") on his page and also impersonating an admin--I'm warning Styrofoam on both these points. In summation, I think we should RFCU the whole bunch and sort this out. Agathaclea is right to be suspicious, but I think we need to dig deeper. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Policy against adding non-existent templates to pages ?

Hello is there a policy which says one can't add a link to a template which doesn't exist in an article ? User:81.197.39.178 insists on adding {{crap}} to Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but the template has been deleted long ago, he left a message on my talk page after I removed it, and reverted my removal. Do I have to treat this is as a content dispute ? Or is there already a general consensus to not use non-existent templates ? Jackaranga (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like plain old vandalism to me. If he continues after a final warn report him to WP:AIV. Tiptoety ^talk 23:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The IP has now left a note on my talk page [10]. Either they don't understand the term vandalism, or it would really help for me to see the deleted edits because the template was once used for something constructive. Tiptoety ^talk 00:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it to cleanup-rewrite because it basically says the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.156.93.198 (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm just pretty much asking for Template:Crap to be redirected to Template:Cleanup-Rewrite, because I still remember it just as good old Template:Crap and can't really be arsed to learn it again. And oh, I cannot sign because my keyboard broke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.156.93.198 (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If you press tab for long enough (or use a mouse if you have one) you will get to the "signature" option in the wiki-markup keyboard below the edit window. Carcharoth (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Connell66 banned long enough

Resolved

 – indef block by Kafziel. Bencherlite^Talk 01:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Connell66 has shown on numerous occasions that he can be a good editor here, perhaps even an excellent editor, if he chooses to be. There have been no recent vandalism accounts operated by him over the past while, as the category of Connell socks has not increased. Let's AGF and unblock. Lancastor (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If he wants to come back, he can appeal to ArbCom by email. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 00:32, 01 February 2008 (GMT)

WP:DFT Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD for Balbridie

Resolved

 – Bencherlite^Talk 00:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please would an admin visit the AfD for Balbridie and close it — may I suggest as a speedy keep — because the nominator withdrew the AfD, and consensus was to keep. - Neparis (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you remove the AfD notice too please? - Thanks, Neparis (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Done, sorry. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oddness: IP creating pages?

Resolved

I'm not sure if I'm just clueless or what, but could someone take a look at Special:Contributions/70.236.28.26 and see what should be done with this collection of pages apparently created by this IP? I wasn't aware that IPs could create any pages, including talk pages or subpages - am I wrong on that, or is this something bizarre going on? (I asked the IP to lay off, since the pages don't make any sense...) Tony Fox (arf!) 01:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

IPs can create talk pages - how else would they use a talk page if t hadnt been used before? Viridae^Talk 01:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh and the sub pages are still in the talk name space, therefore still talk pages. Viridae^Talk 01:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

'kay, well, I didn't know they were capable of creating even talk pages. *kind of clueless* Sorry for the bother. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Collinmichael (talk)

What do you do if a user contributes not-too-bad content to Wikipedia, but the content is unsourced and unverifiable? He's been warned several times not to do so with links to appropriate articles to learn about WP:V, and recently I gave him his last warning. I really don't think he should be blocked, since he actually contributes (in a way), but the {{Template:uw-unsourced5}} template just redirects to the vandalism one about being blocked. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

the question here is adding what seem to be reasonable characteristic traits to astrology articles, with very general sourcing. giving the extent of the literature, there is probably good sourcing for them, so I think the appropriate response is to ask him to try to source it. i do not think it warrants formal warnings. DGG (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

DGG, Collinmichael (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) been asked, repeatedly, by multiple editors, to no avail. There has been absolutely no response. He's been singlemindedly at this since the end of November and has never made use of a talk page. Unfortunately, this is typical of editors to the astrology articles - there's a number of IP accounts that do the same thing, also ignoring requests for citations. Over a period of days or even hours the text of the article can stray wildly from what the sources can confirm. I've taken to going in periodically and clearing out unsourced changes, and am working with another editor to establish a baseline set of characteristics that has been checked against sources, but would appreciate any advice on how to handle this without seeming to "own" the articles. Pairadox (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

75.100.82.191 (talk · contribs)

Resolved

Whats up with this: User talk:75.100.82.191? User is currently blocked, and seems to be making some strange edits to his user-talk. Somehow he knows how to add speedy's and different templates to his page. Maybe it should be protected? Tiptoety ^talk 03:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(continuation)User is blocked due to a range block, has already made two requests to be un-blocked and both have been denied. Looks like a troll to me. Tiptoety ^talk 03:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Protected. east.718 at 03:51, February 1, 2008

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The indefinite community ban of Bluemarine (talk · contribs) is still in effect, with an Arbitration Committee ban now running concurrently for one year, at which point the community may consider unbanning the user. As a result of the violations of our Biographies of Living People policy that have occurred on the article Matt Sanchez, it has been placed on article probation, which requires that editors be especially mindful of content and interaction policies. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Article probation?

I'm confused. WP:Article probation redirects to WP:General sanctions. That page lists all active sanctions by the Arbitration Committee, including some articles that are under "article probation" (somewhat circular here...). The page also has a brief paragraph that, I think, says that any administrator can ban any user for "disruptive editing".

That's as clear as mud. Can someone clarify that? What exactly does "Article probation" entail? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, Article probation comes from three places in descending order: ArbCom, RfC, or consensus agreement on one of the various noticeboards. Probation usually means that the user must discuss significant changes on the talk page before editing (removing "Be bold"), reduction to 1RR to prevent edit warring, or other such remedies that work out discussion before restricting article or user access. Thus maintaining the free spirit to edit any article or to be an editor on on any article. Long story short: the editor needs to keep in mind of maintaining neutrality in editing an article that they may be passionate about. Others may have a different view, of course. Keegan^talk 07:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'd say the common interpretation is, and it's codified well on the associated page:

Article probation : Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from articles on probation and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. See Category:Articles on probation.

General sanctions apply to individual editors, and discretionary sanctions give administrators a remarkable berth to do whatever is necessary to effectively combat disruption. east.718 at 08:17, February 1, 2008

It's not very clear to me. In the case in question, the particular user has been banned for a year, so the sanctions don't specifically apply to him. Instead the 'article' is on "article probation". From what I'm reading, that seems to mean that any administrator may ban any editor for "disruptive edits". Is that true!?!? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate images in an article.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello There Admins,

I wish to bring to your attention a dispute in an article. The severity of this issue is so big that it may cause global problem not only for wikipedia but probably be a cause for disputes among people belonging to different religions.

The problem that i wanted to bring to your attention is about the portrayal of images of Prophet Muhammad in your article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

You must've read about the Jyllands-Posten controversy and how it affected the muslims worldwide. There are also other incidents that affected muslims worldwide and caused instability in international relationship.

I would like the add that any resource that gives information should not have content that people of different religion may have any problems, be it racism or any other issue. This is immoral and is practiced by most content management websites and portal.

I would urge you on behalf of myself and the whole mustlim community to please remove the following images from the article before it turns out to be another major issue.

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Maome.jpg

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.49.168 (talk) 09:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We do not determine matters of this nature. Administrators have no power to remove images from articles anymore than any other editor. I have proposed a solution at Talk:Muhammad#Use of hidden template. Please direct all comments there. DrKiernan (talk) 10:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for Permanent deletion from edit history

I'm sure there is a specific page for this sort of request, but I've had no luck in finding it.

On article (commented out) an IP made three edits on Feb 1st. The second and third edits (timed at 07:51 and 07:56) added personal information to the article - that is a postal address and an email address. As it was an anonymous IP user who added the information, I have no idea if this person was adding their own information, or publishing someone elses information. To be on the safe side, it may be best if these edits are permanently removed.

As an additional request, could someone please add a link on the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion to wherever this request should be made? StephenBuxton (talk) 10:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for oversight is the place to go for this kinf of request. Woody (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. I've emailed a request with the diffs in question. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 11:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Very Important

User:Tinucherian is involved in bad faith AfD nomination in my articles since I nominated two of his articles AfD. Immediate action required. He already nominated 3 and it is still countinuing. Thanks. --Avinesh Jose  T  10:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Tinucherian (talk · contribs) does seem to have been childish with a spate of ill-thought out nominations. Those with no rationale I have speedy closed for having no rationale. The one with a rationale that obviously doesn't apply to the article in question I have speedy kept for that reason. That leaves Skyline Builders and Caritas Hospital where the articles have problems that do fit the reasons given. So I've formatted these correctly and will list them for community input. I don't see any evidence of talk between you two, so perhaps you'd like to drop User:Tinucherian a line on their talk page and start a line of communication now? ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 11:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Soon after I tagged AfD of two articles created by Tinucherian (talk · contribs), he started attacking me. So I did not find much time to leave a message in his talk page. Instead, I thought of informing it in admin’s notice as it is per WP:ABF. Thank you. --Avinesh Jose  T  13:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Nostradamus1's behaviour

The user in question (Nostradamus1 has been in a number of edit-wars which might be the reason for his comments, but still does not justify his words against others. It all started with a content dispute with another contributor - although it was an obvious content dispute and it was not even an actual edit-war (yet), here is what Nostradamus left on the user's talkpage right-away [11]. Since this was far from all civility levels I tried to explain to him that this is not the way to act in Wikipedia - this lead to a discussion on his talkpage in which he used words like I am assuming you brought this to my attention in good faith and you have nothing to do with the rest of the gang of Bulgarian users disrupting the edits of Turks in Bulgaria and then I see now you are helping him archive his talk page so that these warnings are hidden. A great demonstration of Bulgarian solidarity. - obviously trying to point out a connection between me and User:Gligan although he actually received help from an admin Fut.Perf..
Later on there was another uncivil comment left by Nostradamus on Bulgaria talkpage [12] where he wrote the following You also have a history of plagiarism. Is that how you got your PhD? Or is that claim as credible as your other comments here? And a couple of days ago he did it again - here is a part of what he said: All three of you -regardless of your so-claimed academic level of education/degree- (Lantonov, Gligan, and Laveol) have been representing yourselves according to the well-known Bulgarian reputation when it comes to history so far. - whatever the last part should mean it is clearly intended to insult. As for the part about the level of education/degree it's obviously a reference from his previous words and the target again is User:Lantonov.
And this was followed by these comments on Gligan's talkpage where we have again: An emerging pattern is that you come to the defense of this user in a number of different articles which makes me suspect the two user accounts might be somehow related. Gligan was not even aware that he was banned from uploading images before. I also read that some user accounts originating in Bulgaria were determined to operate on a 24 hour basis out of IP adresses out of Bulgaria. I am getting suspicious. again suggesting there might be some connection between me and Gligan. I'm not sure why Nostradamus keeps reminding Gligan that he had been blocked, but it seems like he's mocking him for some reason.
As this is getting too long, I'll put a stop here. I think Nostradamus needs to be reminded that there are Wikipedia policies and that the attitude towards other contributors is one of the main. Since he didn't bother with my warnings, he might respond to an Admin warning or something. I'm starting to feel personally offended by him and I'm not even his main target. User:Lantonov and User:Gligan might have something to say. --Laveol ^T 11:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I may add that instead of answering directly the questions on the Talk page of Turks in Bulgaria, he is asking other questions and leaves unanswered comments and instead he is calling me a multiple offender. He also accuses the Bulgarian people on the same talk page of forging history and creating a myth of Bulgarians being "superhumans". I also noticed somewhere a comment of his about Macedonia "Bulgaria did little to deserve it" (it is not a citation, but something like that, I will try to find it) and for me in that way he offends hundreds of thousands Bulgarians who lost their lives in the Wars of National Unity (Balkan Wars, WW1). That behaviour is insulting. --Gligan (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

About 10 days ago I decided not to respond to anything said and written by Nostradamus1, and avoid all pages on which he is active since he proved many times in a number of ways that he is a SPA with a strong agenda of attacking anyone and any article that opposes his pro-Turkish, pan-Turkic and pro-Ottoman views. Actually, my interactions with him started 2 months earlier on the talk page Talk:Bulgarisation, in which I responded to his posting Talk:Bulgarisation#This Article Needs to be Rewritten or Deleted where he insisted, among other things, on including the words "ethnic cleansing", "assimilation" and "Bulgarian nationalism" in this article. This striked me as obvious POV pushing but I still decided to reason with him, and even changed the lead section to include the word "assimilation" to achieve some "NPOV". With a hindsight, I regret the decision to interact with him because what followed was two months lost by me unproductively in responding to his personal attacks and abuses. In the course of this, after some threats to me, Nostradamus1 initiated a review, in which I participated only because not to be accused of uncooperative behavior. The review was inconclusive, and another loss of time for me trying to find sources (52 of them). To save you a description of our altercations, please look in articles and talk pages Bulgarisation, Turks in Bulgaria, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-05 Turks in Bulgaria, and Bulgaria, in this order. After the review, on an advice of the reviewer, I decided to abstain from editing Turks in Bulgaria, and only corrected some typos and style edits of another editor. Nostradamus1 continued to edit-war and personally attack other editors on Turks in Bulgaria, and Bulgaria, and as a result Turks in Bulgaria was locked by an admin Fut.Perf., and all warring editors were put on notice. Nostradamus1 personally protested to Fut.Perf., and requsted from him to put me (by username) on notice. The admin, acting on this request, and in the interest of peace and justice, put me on notice too, and I deleted Turks in Bulgaria from my watch list, and continued to edit other pages, totally unrelated to anything connected with Nostradamus1 and his agenda. As result of this stressing experience for me, I came out of it feeling dirtier and humiliated by Nostradamus1's personal attacks and slurs. I started asking myself whether contributing to Wikipedia only for the benefit of truth, without expecting a reward for lost time and nerves is worth it. I feel like I have gone through a law suit which I have lost not because I was not right but because the odds were against me, and personal opinion and position, however well supported by facts and sources, do not matter against persons whose only job is to provoke quarrel and hatred. I don't anymore have the incentive to participate in the rush to achieve some "NPOV" which everyone understands differently. Sorry that I gave voice to my frustartion but this is how I really feel. Thank you for your time. Lantonov (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, at some stage User:Lantonov almost dragged me into this debate because he took some of my words directed to another Bulgarian user in a completely separate discussion and recycled them without asking for it, or attribution, in a debate with User:Nostradamus1. I then chanced upon my own words later. When confronted about this behavior, I got excuses and legal arguments but no apologies (I was not making a legal case, just was upset about the inappropriate behavior). I also informed Nostradamus1 of this event in the discussion where my words were used. Nostradamus1 then evidently used this against Lantonov in the 'plagiarism' comment used above. I think the word 'plagiarism' is an exaggeration as it was only about a few throw-away sentences in a debate.

That said, I'm not defending user Nostradamus1, I'm just adding this for context to prevent a one-sided conclusion. I stayed out of the debate and cannot comment on either side's arguments, but my impression is that he engaged in repeated edit warring. The situation does not however appear to be one of one-sided attacks by Nostradamus1. My impression in general is that this is a messy edit war where neither side has clean hands. Martijn Faassen (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Nostradamus1 used the incident with Martijn Faassen several times against me. Please look in our (my and Faassen) user talk pages, and in Talk:Bulgaria, and you will see that the words that I copied from the unrelated debate in no way dragged Martijn Faassen in our discussion with Nostradamus1. The decision to participate in our debate was taken personally by Faassen, in my understanding, because of some perceived copyright on three sentences written by him in the course of unrelated discussion. Lantonov (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay everybody, I think there's not much need for you to keep on quarreling on this page. Administrators now know where to look, and somebody will be around shortly to deal with y'all. Please don't bloat this noticeboard page with further argument, accusations and counter-accusations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

User supervision?

Hello all you lovely people! I'm mediating a case where one particular user's behaviour is in question — my suggestion has been that that user is supervised and mentored. Is this something we do? And could someone here please advise me on how to proceed? Many thanks, ^† DBD 14:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mentorship might be of use, and yes. x42bn6 Talk Mess 18:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

BAG confirmation running

Just a quick note that there's a WP:BAG confirmation (from the trial membership) of myself at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Approvals group#Confirmation under the old system (Snowolf). As has been required in the past, I'm posting this notice on WP:AN, WP:BOWN, WP:BRFA & WP:VP. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Changed link based on change to that page Martinp23

Similarly there is a confirmation running for Cobi (talk · contribs) at the same location. Martinp23 18:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

IP address - privacy implications?

Resolved

 – I'm happy now.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi; I'm in a bit of a dispute with Dr who1975 over here, but it's not that that I wish to discuss. He is insisting on posting my IP address onto the page. I removed it politely, and he replaced it most unpleasantly. Who's in the right, here, I genuinely don't know? I'd personally rather I didn't have my IP listed. Anyway, I'm no longer touching the case with a barge-pole, and not bickering with Dw1975 on any page at all, I'm leaving it well alone from now on because it's giving me a headache, but I would like this issue of my IP resolved if poss. Cheers!--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I attempted to leave an anonymous message with my IP that Porcupine felt was vandalism. Unfortnately... this has blown up into a sockpuppetry case that I have already successfully defended against once. I have left a further response on the checkuserpage. Once the dust has settled I have no problem with Porcupine's IP being removed. P.S. has anyone ever done a checkuser between Porcupine and France A's most recently active Accounts? I don't think he's france a but considering he's made good on threats that France A made to me I think it's worth a check.--Dr who1975 (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you possibly provide some diffs and such that show some sort of connection between Porcupine or France A ? If not, I'm really not at all sure why you insist on adding Porcupine's IP address to the page in question. Nick (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I never remotely suggested that your anonymous message was vandalism, I suggested that the IP had been used for vandalism and specifically, vandalism that was characteristic of France a.
• How is my IP address relevant to this? I think you just put it there for the sake of it. Does it have any bearing on the case?
• I'm not France a. I think that everyone who knows me here will agree that I'm not France a. I've even been suggested as a potential (very hypothetical, admittedly) admin. It's utterly absurd to suggest that I'm a juvenile vandal who can't spell.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Honestly... I think you probably aren't France A. Like me, your IP was accused of Vandalism long ago too. All the "vandalims" you're talking about was to France A's user discussion pages...I called him a wanker. We also once had a disputeover the Sonic Screwdriver which wasresolved peacefully. Can we just bury the hatchet here...seriously... it's costing both you an me a lot of time? I have no problem with removing your IP once our dispute has been resolved. Please re-read the recent edit and ask your self "is it really vandalism" It wouldalso be nice if you stood up for me and told Dreadstar I'm not France A... but I've alreadyproved that so I don't need you to.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Sorry, you've missed both my points, I'm afraid. 1: I'm not just talking about one edit. There have been at least five edits, from your account or IP, all vandalism, to the various userpages of France a. Five. That shows something unusual. 2: Why are you insisting on having my IP there? It's not relevant. If you think it is, please explain how. I'm not being sarcastic here, I'm utterly bemused.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Posting of another users registered IP address is bad form, and should not be done. If there are potential problems that need to be investigated, enlist the help of a checkuser, but please respect the rights of logged in users to keep their IP addresses private. It is one of the express benefits of having a username. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Since we're all broadly of the same mind, could someone remove my IP, please? I promise not to try to get it oversighted, I just don't want it showing. It'll still be in the history; I obviously can't remove it myself a second time! Thanks.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'lldo it right now. Please actually read what I'm saying here.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Porcupine closed discussion prematurely. Can somebody please unblock my IP per the discussion above?--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The discussion was closed because it was about my IP being posted, and only that, so I didn't do anything prematurely. I think the sock-case is still open and you stay blocked until it's concluded, but as I say, I'm through with this, I won't contest anything any further.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Rehashing Old Stuff/Vandalism Allegations

So you're going to force me to make a whole new entry on this same page to discuss my issue which has already started to be discussed... c'mon... I removed the damn IP for you... meanwhile mine's mentioned all over the place... I have a privacy concern.

Porcupine and I had some minor issues in the past that we've already come to a conclusion on.... I recently posted a valid message under my IP address instead of my account which Porcupine also thinks is Vandalism... you'll recall my point in exposing your IP was that.... you've done it to.... the checkered past and the recent edits. I posted under my IP because I wanted to keep my messages to France a unconected to my account... IPs are neither anonymous nor accounts. I'm also not IP jumping (although I do occasionally use my other computer... if anyone want's that IP i'll give it to them too). I need mny IP 67.62.103.180 un marked as a sockpuppet of France A (because it already has been proven not to be) and unblocked for vandalism (because there hasn't been any recent vandalism). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr who1975 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Porcupine won't actually link directly to the recent message that he says is vandalism because he knows he's on shakey ground... does that kind of dishonesty count as vandalism? --Dr who1975 (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S. I have marked my IP address with a note letting the world know it's my account (something Porcupine is unwilling to do). If people here still think I'm guilty of vandalism... can I please get the usual punishment for a first offense past warnings instead of a permanent block on that IP. I even told Porcupine I was sorry for offending him. --Dr who1975 (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this the right place? I need help

Would someone help me out? I have been accused of sock and/or meatpuppetry as the debate can be seen here. Here is the story: I created Bowie State University, Department of Public Safety a month or so ago. Another user placed an AfD tag on it. The article went into debate. As I am typing my case on my MDT (computer), my partner (in the Police Department that I work for) asked what I was typing so intently. I told him the whole story. He wanted to comment on it. Now, a few weeks ago, I helped him create a user account so maybe he would take interest in Wikipedia. His interest was marginal at best and didn't do anything with the account since then. When I told him about my AfD he seemed to get interested. I knew at the time that his input wouldn't really help my AfD, but I thought that if it got him excited about wikipedia, it was worth losing a minor article that I had written. Sock (or meat) puppetry didn't even cross my mind at the time. I can understand how it would seem as though it is a sockpuppet, but if you look at my record and my contributions, I don't think I even fit the puppeteer "profile." And if you look at the alleged "sockpuppet," if I did create it as such, I didn't even try to hide the fact that it was a sockpuppet. Maybe I am just guilty of being too naïve, I would just appreciate a little administrative guidance. I have asked for assistance from other admins, but basically got a guilty "stare" (if you will) and no assistance. Thanks. Sallicio (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Sallicio

backlog of possibly unfree images

According to the list of admins there are over 1,000 active admins on Wikipedia. Could one of you please take care of this? It goes back to the 18th of December. --Rockfang (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think these were purposefully being left undone... but I don't recall for certain now. I'm trying to find out. Lara❤Love 16:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You might be thinking about #Disputed fair-use image deletion deadlines (update) above. Woody (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So....was someone going to help out Garion96 with this? --Rockfang (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm bringing this up again. Will someone please help out with this?--Rockfang (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please help me bring more roboticists to WP

I continue to run into a frustrating but interesting problem. I'm posting this here because the toughest problem I'm facing is that I keep on talking to people on one side or the other of a cultural divide, when what I really need to find is Wikipedians who span the divide, understand the problem, and might be willing to help a bit...maybe I can get help here, maybe you can point me in the right direction. In a nutshell, the problem is that people with important experience in robotics...people whose help we could really use...are mostly staying in their own little communities and not contributing to Wikipedia/Wikia/Wikiversity. I have put a lot of time into chatting with communities of hobbyist and student roboticists (who, btw, tend to have fantastic wiki-values and are just the kind of people we want editing here), and trying to get them to understand the benefits of being brave and tackling the WP-and-sister-sites culture, and a lot of time chatting in WP-related irc channels and robotics-related WP talk pages. Technologists in general, and roboticists in particular, are used to feeling rejection on a number of levels when they talk with people who don't have the same interests...and I'm convinced that's why we don't have more participation from them in Wikipedia.

Here's the problem: try posting a comment to a general audience somewhere saying that you've had some success with getting a robotic vacuum cleaner or a robotic toy to work better, and asking people to try it out and see if they like it, and most of the responses you get will be dismissive in some way. This is not at all surprising...everyone has issues with everyday technology, everyone knows that all this stuff gets particularly scary if you look 20 years into the future (and these anxieties are reinforced every day by TV and films), and people who are perceived as technophilic are sometimes suspected of being semi-autistic, not willing to play by the usual social rules. All this discomfort tends to get dumped, without apology, on the heads of robotics-enthusiasts, and this has tended to make them clump together for their own protection and comfort. To translate to another context that you might understand better: imagine that you're the only black, or gay, or disabled person in a small town, and suppose every time you try to talk about what's interesting to you, people respond based on all their own stereotypes rather than listening to what you have to say. Get the problem?

Of course, WP isn't here to make the world better, we're just trying to build an encyclopedia...and this is exactly the problem. Wikipedia has coverage of most subjects in excruciating detail, but even the most basic questions about everyday robots aren't covered well in Wikipedia...and worse, you'll have to read 600 pages of stuff before you find out that what you want to know isn't here. (This is not a criticism of all the incredibly fine work that has been done so far on robotics articles, just an acknowledgement that the simplest questions...."Can I buy a robot to do this?"...are also the toughest questions with very complicated answers, and the people who know the answers are in general not participating in Wikipedia.) This is a tough problem to fix, the subject matter is hard and changes every day, but I am convinced that both Wikipedia-and-sister-projects and the hobbyist groups themselves would benefit from sharing, and I'm convinced that people who are neither technophiles nor roboticists could make a difference, simply by not allowing people to stereotype and beat up roboticists...that is, show them the same support you would show any minority, hell, any human. (I keep saying "them" because I'm representing as a "cross-cultural" member here, but I'm a proud roboticist, too.) - Dan Dank55 (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Attn:admins - cpvios galore - Part II

Now that we have the bollywoodblog fiasco out of the way, I request people to turn their attention to this group of images from another seedy, corny blog. Let's get started with the problems -

1. This is an example of an image from the category and like all others in the category it has been released on a CC-3 license. The license info says -

“ ...Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify these images, providing the site is attributed and a direct link running to the source on their site is provided. Correspondence to this effect is archived on Wikimedia's OTRS system ”

1a. The first problem is that there is no direct link to the source for any of these images. The source info only points to the blog's home page which is not very helpful at all.

1b. Since the images have been released on CC-3, does the 'permission letter' deposited with the OTRS expressly give permission for such a license? Or did somebody put the words in their mouth? Bear in mind that CC-3 provides for free use and reproduction even for commercial purposes. So once again, did the copyright holders give explicit permission for 'copy/distribute/modify' for commercial purposes also?

2. As with the bblog images, there are some images in this category also that are patently not the property of the blog. I am referring to some that are screenshots(cpright owned obviously by the producers of the movie), photo shoots(arguably owned by professional photo studios and modeling agencies) and what seem like crops of publicity material(the copyrights of which, once again belong to the producers of the film).

3. A little digging, I am sure will turn up more images from the category that fall in the Rakhi Sawant-Subhash Ghai(from bblog) category.

Can somebody please take a look at exactly what the letter with the OTRS say and confirm that permission has indeed been granted for a CC-3 license? And when we have that out of the way, can somebody confirm that the images are, in the first place, the property of the kollywoodtoday site to license. Sarvagnya 19:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)