Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive162

I should have reported this earlier,but it seems that user:Kumarnator is attacking me again,this time using a sockpuppet. I request that the IP adresses of these "two users" be checked.

Compare comments here to comments here

[1]

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nadirali&diff=90851488&oldid=90687926 here]

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nadirali&diff=91662407&oldid=91624330here]

and [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nadirali&diff=91527604&oldid=91525388link here]

A few notes:

• both "users" seem to be interested in where I live.
• both "users" are obsessed with the fact that I'm
  agnostic
• Kumarator posted "Jai Hind" at the end of one of his comments,the same word this "second user" has used for a user name.
• This "new user" seems to know quite a bit about adding templates to his page for a "new user" as he claims to be.
• The "new user" hasn't really contributed except for attacking me.
• User:Kumarnator is one of the few people that edited his user page.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jai_Hind%2C_Jai_Bharat&action=history

I'd like to know if any connection is found between these "two users".

Thankyou

21:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

File:Wikitruth poses with Jimbo Wales.jpg

The following is a fairly obvious fake image added to the Wikitruth article. Can we make sure it doesn't go back into the article again? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I find the photoshop'd image rather amusing, but I'd have to agree. Could this image be removed? :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 08:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Done Alex Bakharev 08:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I wish I would've been able to see it :( - Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

View it over on their site http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Image:Wikitruth_poses_with_Jimbo_Wales.jpg as far as I can tell this is not a photoshop job. I'm surprised everyone seems to think it is.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 11:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm in it :-O Cyde Weys 11:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So then you verify that its real and not a photoshop?  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 12:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, of course it's fake.

►

12:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What makes you so sure it's fake? I don't see any Photoshop artifacts when I look up-close. --Cyde Weys 12:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a real one. But were you there as well Proto? I see you pretty sure about the pic being a fake one. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you guys kidding? Real photo, fake texts (the identical handwritings are a give-away clue for starters), so in toto a fake image which was rightly deleted. — Preceding

Fram (talk • contribs

) 13:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

while I don't know exactly what highjinx went on at wikimania I suspect it is real Judgeing by the comments of those who did go.Geni 13:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it really so unbelievable to think that one person wrote the majority of the signs? --Cyde Weys 13:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

wikipedians working together?Geni 14:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No, having fun! -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think its a plot by those from Wikitruth to defame the cabal. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 14:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Or vice-versa. --Cyde Weys 17:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't seem NPOV when put like that, but I guess that's to be taken up on the article page 163.1.188.201 22:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't tell for sure if it's fake or real, but what I can say is that if it is a fake, it's a damn good one, and someone must've spent a significant amount of time getting the details (such as paper translucency) right. If it's a fake and whoever faked it is reading this, congratulations! However, a rather different issue is that the image file contains a JPEG comment saying "Copyright 2006. All rights reserved." Given that someone must've deliberately inserted that comment there, I would take the uploader's GFDL-self claim with a very large grain of salt. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The original copyright notice actually is "(c) 2006 The Wikipedia Cabal". --Cyde Weys 04:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You can see where the original text has been wiped from the sign the lady at the bottom right is holding - the paper is translucent everywhere except just around the text. It's easier to see if you invert the colours.

►

13:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me as though the woman at the bottom right is holding two signs, a smaller one in front of a larger one. Just my opinion. --BostonMA ^talk 13:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Since people are apparently curious to know the truth - no, the picture is not a fake. After the closing ceremonies of Wikimania 2006, as people were leaving, I had an idea - I wanted to win the Wikitruth scavenger hunt. So I got everyone who hadn't left together, called Jimbo's cell (he was in his hotel room about to take a nap) and told him to come back to the auditorium pronto. We posed for photos (Greg Maxwell took the one here) and everyone did laugh very hard. (If any Wikitruthers are listening - I WON YOUR CONTEST) I also got Jimbo on video saying "tell the Wikitruth" and (to get even more wikitruth scavenger hunt points) "Tell the Wikitruth, dammit!" Afterwards, we all went out for dinner. Raul654 07:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

PS - I'm the one in the red shirt, sitting down -- third head to the right of Jimbo. Raul654 07:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No doubt Jimbo was taking a nap. Look at his eyes. So i believe in Raul's story. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Aye, I was there too :) It's not a fake, we won the contest :D Btw, there should be some other photos from that event - here is another one :) And this entire threads needs to be archived in

WP:BJAODN - with the gallery :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 

20:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Raul654, I guess whoever faked that image got to you too. What did it take to break you? --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was clearly fooled. A good thing I usually stay out of all things image-related here and stick to texts :-)

Fram

14:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm in there too, in the back with a sign hooked over my glasses. It wasn't a fake. --Improv 00:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I was reading up on the feud and saw this blurb

In an entry posted Wednesday night on her Web site, O'Donnell duplicated an excerpt on Trump's rocky financial history from his biography on the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, which is written by users.

Original MSN.com link

If this, which is making national TV and news coverage, is drawing sources and ammunition from Wikipedia, we need to be very careful that the related articles are not vandalized, either with the intent of libeling other side, or with the intent of maliciously changing the information to give false information to either side.

Stupid? Yes. But something that needs to be watched.

03:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. Scrutiny on both articles is suggested.
  Danny Lilithborne
  03:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Might be a good idea to notify the office and/or the Communications committee so they can be prepared for any legal/press issues. Essjay (Talk) 04:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

So what's been done so far?

02:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Also note that Donald Trump has just publicly stated that he will probably sue O'Donnell, if he feel he has even marginal reason to do so he might sue wikipedia as well just for the hell of it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Just for everyone's convenience, the link: Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The relevant sections appear to be heavily edited now. Sandstein 05:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• We need to get to a clear version (yeah, I know: "right version") and do an S-protect and add the slashdotted template. If nothing else, we need to warn folks that the fluidity of the article may mean that its claims are contentious. Geogre 13:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This edit contains suggestion (though not threats) of legal action by the subject. At the very least, it seems there may be serious

19:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The page is in arbitration. Although you should feel free to make any edits that seem necessary. The short version is that the guy is considered by some to have invented a quack medical procedure, and there has been an edit war over this.

Thatcher131

22:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, that page is fully protected, so changes cannot be made. ;) --BigDT 22:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:LEGAL? | Mr. Darcy talk

23:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It's probably also

Thatcher131

01:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Community ban for CltFn

This last block of CltFn's for 3RR is his sixteenth block in his time here at Wikipedia [2]. His last block before that was for 2 weeks for a pattern of edit warring with no sign of stopping. After that block, CltFn sent me an email indicating he intended to turn over a new leaf, and so I removed the sockpuppet tag from his user page and let him start over. He didn't though; the disruptive behavior continues. He has, since then, continued to engage in edit warring especially on the same old articles. His current block for 3RR on

10:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Regretfully, endorse perma-community ban. There was an

WP:RFC over his conduct – Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/CltFn – where he asserted that he would mend his ways, but what I see is completely opposite. — Nearly Headless Nick

10:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hard to argue with this. Sixteen strikes and you're out... Guy (Help!) 12:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Add my modest support to this list. My reasons were discussed at the above mentioned RFC. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the issues discussed at the RfC i must add a note re their total non-respect of

WP:NPOV (see Talk:Samira Bellil and Sulh history) -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®}

12:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't approve of long blocks in non-clear cases without a DR procedure first, but if an RfC was held first, and a majority of those who commented on the RfC supported increased blocks if he doesn't change, than a year-long block seems fitting for the 17th violation. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  13:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that a standard? 17 blocks per year gives you a year ban! -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I support the block, but note this block log. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That as well. IPT's behaviour is no different than CltFn's one. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't start getting at my good friend Irishpunktom. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 14:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Your friend? He is one of my wikifriends as well check this. Friendship is one thing and abiding by the rules is another thing. Admins must be totally fair and neutral. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Endorse. - Aksi_great (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Endorse, based upon the outside RfC view of User:Grenavitar and RfC talk of User:Zora. I've not had much contact with CltFn but after having read that outside view and talk I understood what he was about. In the interests of full disclosure, I filed this last 3RR report so my view is likely tempered by my own final personal interactions with this editor. (→Netscott) 14:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. The 3rr is bad policy. CltFn should not be handed a permanent ban on grounds of inability of other admins to handle him properly. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 14:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You're right, he should be handed a permanent ban on grounds of inability to handle himself properly. --Cyde Weys 15:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    • 3RR is one of the many infractions CltFn has committed. NPOV violations, edit warring non-stop, sockpuppetry (see his sock User:Amenra), copyvio, personal attacks, harassing admin. This is not fiction. It's all in the block log. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you're suggesting we should do, as not blocking him when he engages is revert warring doesn't strike me as likely to be a worthwhile strategy. Absent a suggestion for a better way to handle CltFn, I endorse blocking him indefinitely—until such time as we admins get our acts together and develop tools for allowing him to edit productively. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Though it's moot (he's already blocked) as one of the previous blocking admins, I endorse this block as well. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 20:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Same here. All I ever saw this user do on Wikipedia was make anti-Muslim edits, and in the most disruptive way. He's had enough short blocks. Khoikhoi 04:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

So... following a request from CtlFn, I have conditionally unblocked him: see User_talk:CltFn#Conditional_unblock?. I don't know if anyone is watching this archive though... William M. Connolley 13:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Somebody may want to sort this (WARNING - highly graphic) out, its a mutilated vagina, and it seems to be linked to numerous band album pages. -

03:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

WTF?? I don't see the image in any of the articles it says it's linked in.

masterka

03:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

When I saw it on

Deathrocker

03:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there a Commons admin here that could delete the image? That would be great...

masterka

03:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I have requested the image's speedy deletion on commons and added it to the Bad image list here on en.wp. —Centrx→talk • 03:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just seen it too - on All_That_You_Can't_Leave_Behind - but can't work out where it came from. I can't find it in the diffs. WARNING: I suggest not looking at it. It is particularly hideous with a pool of blood. Makes me nauseous. It was superimposed over the whole article when I was checking diffs. Merbabu 03:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It was in Template:Rating-5. Now deleted on Commons. --Rory096 03:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah HA. Found the templale... {{

03:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, see contributions by User:CPOD2 ... same thing with another image. BigDT 03:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverted, blocked.

masterka

03:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI to anyone who cares, add [3] to your shortcuts bar. This is the recent changes for the template namespace ... it's EXTREMELY easy to find these things when they happen. Just look for the one with the image. BigDT 03:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Please vote for bug 8322 to make it easier to find and revert this vandalism. --NE2 03:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

What do people think of this guy? He seems to almost exclusively edit his userpage (though edits articles occasionally), and has a number of similar user pages/accounts on language projects, most (if not all) of which have no edits to anything other than his userpage. --Deskbanana 21:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, he does love his country...a bit too much. I'm not sure if he's doing anything that's violating WP policy at the moment hoewver. Khoikhoi 06:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose someone can warmly welcome him to contribue to some project closely related, to get him more involved with wiki. Other than that, I don't see this user is doing any harm either. -WarthogDemon 06:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

, the link he has removed is claimed, with no contrary evidence, to be on YouTube with the copyright holder's permission.

There needs to be significantly more clarity in the policy, or this sort of thing will continue to happen ad nauseam. As it is, I am tempted to obtain a copy of AWB so I can go reverting all the unjustified deletions. Argyriou (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I would resist that temptation. Just my opinion but the gross copyright violations on Youtube render all such links invalid. As I understand it, that policy does have consensus support. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Reading Links normally to be avoided i understand that YouTube is to be avoided and that Sir Nicholas was being bold in removing it:

• Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content
• Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Having read the multiple screensful of argument on Wikipedia talk:External links, I see no consensus that YouTube links are automatically invalid. I won't rehash the particulars of the arguments here, but suffice it to say that there is enough legal content on YouTube that anything other than case-by-case examination of each video for copyright and relevancy is an action which does not have support of a community consensus.

YouTube links are not Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content. The guildeline states: It is always preferred to link to a page rendered in normal HTML that contains embedded links to the rich media. That is exactly what one gets with a YouTube link. Argyriou (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The "Direct link" point is not relevant here. We still have the much more relevant copyright problem, of course. --

✉

16:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Which, in the case of the Barrington Hall video, Talk:Barrington_Hall#you tube, is not relevant, either. We have an assertion from the copyright holder that the YouTube link is not in violation of copyright, and no evidence from anyone else that the statement is not true. As the content is not hosted on any Wikimedia project, we don't need the ironclad proof we would need for content hosted here, merely enough to create the presumption that we are not contributing to copyright infringement by linking to the YouTube page.

However, there is still a larger policy problem, because there is quite a lot of content on YouTube released by independent filmmakers who would rather have the exposure than the royalties, and we have deletionists and wikilawyers like Sir Nicholas who continue to remove content without checking the links for copyright issues or relevancy. Argyriou (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The following has been copied from my talk page. This user has not only

. It is obvious that he does not understand the policies and guidelines provided on Wikipedia.

Relevant links –

• User:Dmcdevit/YouTube
• User:Dmcdevit/YouTube links

Oh, so URLs are copyright violations now, are they? What is the world coming to, when adding a simple URL is considered a copyright violation? —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by Grockennnnheimer (talk • contribs

) 04:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Barrington Hall

Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Wikipedia articles, as you did to

the policy. Argyriou (talk)

15:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Kindly review

the concerned guideline and revert yourself. Also your warning, to a edit made in good faith came as unwarranted. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}}

16:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, the YouTube links are not

reliable sources as any person with an internet connection can upload any kind of file over their website. Many of the vidoes uploaded are copyrighted by their respective owners and links to those should not be used on Wikipedia. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}}

16:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Read the discussion on Talk:Barrington Hall and [[Talk:WP:EL]]. There is no consensus that it is against policy to link to YouTube videos which are not clearly infringing copyright. That particular video clip is claimed to be allowed to be posted on YouTube, and nobody has offered any evidence that the clip exists on YouTube in violation of copyright. Deletion of a link which does not knowingly violate copyright, which has been discussed at grat length on the talk page, is not a good-faith edit. Neither is wholesale removal of links to YouTube throughout Wikipedia. Argyriou (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What exactly are you talking about? We do not need consensus on

clearly states

–

• Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See
  Reliable sources
  .
• Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. – YouTube is not an authority, there is not reliability as anyone can upload new videos, including copyrighted ones. Facilitation of copyright violations is not a choice with Wikipedia. Either link it to the website retaining the copyrights over the video or remove the link to YouTube.

Kindly get yourself familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines of

external links and revert yourself. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}}

16:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you even looked at the videos you delink? In the Barrington Hall case, the video is not some talking head talking about Barrington Hall, it's a video of the actual building; it is by its very nature, a reliable source. The restriction on personal websites, besides being controversial (see the WP:EL talk) is also a guideline to the potential reliability of a link. The guideline is titled "Links normally to be avoided". It does not read "Links always to be avoided". The guideline assumes (not entirely justifiably) that in the "normal" case, most personal web pages are not reliable sources, but it does not ban such links.

If you were removing video links after having examined them, and tagging them as copyright violations or irrelevant to the article, or such, you'd be doing useful work. But if you're just going through articles and automatically removing all YouTube links without checking them, you're vandalising Wikipedia. Please stop. Argyriou (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Fys above (and didn't want to miss the chance to say so). I think virtually all of these links should be removed. Any that are to be kept should have their inclusion justified individually. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The particular link in the

User:Dmcdevit's misguided YouTube deletion project, users like Sir Nicholas will continue to blithely delete every single YouTube link, irregardless of whether it has been justified previously or not. As I stated at the top, the issue is larger than the specific case - having looked at Dmcdevit's page, I think his project ought to be stopped until he can put in some protection against deleting previously justified YouTube links. As it is, he provides the information necessary to allow AWB users to find and delete YouTube links without any protection against removing valid content. Argyriou (talk)

17:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

MOST links on wikipedia to YouTube should be removed. (Yeah, not all... but most). It is not ok to copy a music video, upload it to YouTube and add a link to it from an article. That’s copyright infringement and that’s basically what 9 out of 10 YouTube links on wikipedia are. I haven't seen the Barrington Hall video yet but, I will when I get home so I can respond about that link directly... however, reverting all YouTube link-removals would be disruptive and against numerous policies. ---J.S ^(T/C) 17:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As an uninvolved party, I took a look and don't see the problem with the link. I commented on the talk page of the article; shouldn't we be discussing this there? --NE2 17:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Just as reverting all YouTube link removals would be disruptive and against policy, so is mechanically removing all YouTube links without examining the articles or talk pages to check if the link has been justified. Argyriou (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington has stated on his talk page

“

Unless the video's copyrights are exclusively owned by YouTube, no – you cannot link to the site.

”

Anyone with such a blatant misunderstanding of

17:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Or if the user has uploaded it as free-licensed. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 13:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither do we entertain unreliable and unverified sources on Wikipedia nor copyrighted videos uploaded by general users of the internet on to that website; which is clearly facilitating copyright violations. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 17:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS does not apply to WP:EL. --NuclearZer0 17:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

We have two problems, first we cannot be sure that whoever uploaded the video is actually the person who shot the video, making it so we cannot confirm copyright status. The goal is more then just not being liable, but on building an encyclopedia with content that anyone can use freely. The other problem is blanket rules being applied blindly. Considering some publishers and people have put work on YouTube, to state that everything on it is copyright and can be removed is also false and quite disruptive. Those who decide to take up the task to remove an item need to research it and find out who made it as best they can and if it was put on YouTube as an advertisement etc. If the person is not willing to do this correctly then they should not do it at all. --NuclearZer0 17:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

read the guideline carefully. Every guideline and policy is inter-related in one way or other. We are here to build an encyclopedia, which is free-for-all and has free-content. However, linking to copyright violations and unverified research sites like YouTube – damages the reputation of the encyclopedia and makes liable for a legal action by the real holder of the copyright. Neither do we violate copyrights on this website nor do we facilitate blatant copyright violations. Period. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}}

18:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct it does not apply, saying everything is inter connected is like saying anything I post on my talk page has to be cited per WP:CITE. Most external links are not WP:RS if they were they would most likely be sources, wouldnt they? I mean think of all the home pages on BLP articles, fan sites on movie/artist sites etc. So perhaps you need to go read WP:EL, it does not say sites need to be WP:RS. --NuclearZer0 18:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Egad. At least conduct a little research before commenting here. From

WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided

–

2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 10:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I can see a huge problem with the video - it contains a copyrighted music track with no evidence of permission to use it. Also, there is no verifiable information to show that the uploading user is in fact the copyright holder of the footage. This is about as clear cut as you can get - it is a more than probale copyright infringing clip on a site that is reknowned for its availability of such copyright violating clips.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else involved in the YouTube cleanup project, but I review the link in the context of the article. If it looks obvious (like, 10 min clip from The A-Team) then I nuke it(WP:C). If it's redundant to other links, I nuke it(WP:EL). If it's irrelevant to the article(WP:NOT), I nuke it. If it doesn’t provide any new information for the article I nuke it(WP:NOT). If it's being inappropriately relied on as a source, I nuke it(WP:V). If it's not obviously inappropriate, I look closer. I've found very few that are truly legit. The best I can usually get is "likely legit." So I leave... 1/50 usually... and I'm the most liberal of the 4 of us.

Remember: this website is NOT a linkfarm. Our guiding philosophy is to make an encyclopedia. It is our job to make the articles great and include as much relevant information in the article as possible. Adding tons of semi-relevant links to questionable material does not advance our goal and it puts us in bad position legally. ---J.S ^(T/C) 18:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You have repeated this in three places, and are wrongmy mistake - one of the two links has music, and the other does not; I changed the one with to the one without; there is no music or sound at all in the video. Let's take this discussion to the talk page so I don't have to debunk you in multiple places. --NE2 18:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have responded on the talk page. Please can someone else comment on the fact that there is music? I have checked this on several computers now, so it does have apparantly copyright infringing music.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe further discussions are to be continued at Wikipedia talk:External links. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. "This is not the Wikipedia complaints department" ---J.S ^(T/C) 19:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I left a talk message for

). There isn't a serious WP:RS concern since as someone explained, it's a video of the building itself, like a photo of the White House. I didn't notice anyone questioning anything about its content, just that it's hosted in a "ghetto".

I'm not a YT fan but I don't believe there should be any type of project to remove every YT link from Wikipedia blindly, since that's what the spam blacklist is for. There are occasional situations where they're appropriate and the deletion frenzy seems to be a bit much. We import suitably licensed pictures from Flickr etc. all the time without going berserk about verifying the licenses unless we have some reason to think something is amiss. We similarly allow totally anonymous contributors to insert potentially-copyvio text directly into the wiki. We should not link to known copyvios but we are also not in the business of finding every way we can to protect the interests of the MPAA. See: m:avoid copyright paranoia. 67.117.130.181 03:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This non-music version seems fine. I do remember this one... I looked at it weeks ago. The argument at the time was copy-vio.... and it was. The music in it was a problem. However, this one seems to satisfy all my main conserns. I'll let others argue for/against relevence... thats not realy my main issue. ---J.S ^(T/C) 03:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no project to remove YouTube links blindly. A bot could be made to do that, but AWB is not a bot, it is a program designed for user oversight. Any editor removing links for it is responsible for what they remove. Having said that, the video in question still has no licensing information, so, while I'm not interested in arguing about it, and while I'm not going to make any reverts myself, I don't mind it being delinked. I'm not going to waste much time on this single link, though. The bigger problem is blatant copyvio like music, TV, and movie clips, of which there are probably still thousands on Wikipedia. Attacking the project to help that is counterproductive, especially for one borderline case. Giving vandalism warnings for it is offensive and uncivil, and will probably get you blocked if you continue. Part of the problem I've noticed is people who respond with an argument like "no one's going to sue us or we're not legally responsible for linking to copyright infringements"; no matter how true this is, it is absolutely opposed to the Wikimedia vision, to create reusable and free (as in speech, not beer) content.

07:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are being willfully obtuse if you believe that "(t)here is no project to remove YouTube links blindly." Editors like Sir Nicholas and others are taking the information you've posted, and removing every link to a YouTube page without checking either the talk pages of the affected articles or the videos being removed.

People like User:J.smith and User:Tom harrison are correct when they say that most YouTube links should be removed. But most is not all, and your project is encouraging people to remove all YouTube links, without any checking. Tom Harrison suggests that each YouTube link requires individual justification, but how is someone running AWB with the regexes you supply supposed to know that there's a talk page with 30k of discussion on why that particular YouTube link has been repeatedly justified?

Ok - I've just answered my own question. Will you, and the people who are part of your YouTube deletion project, honor notices like the one I've placed on Barrington Hall? I've placed it in a way that it's nearly impossible for an editor to miss. Note that I don't agree with Tom Harrison - I think the burden of checking should be on the deleter - but if people in the YouTube Deletion Project are willing to actually stop and notice that there is a history or justification behind a particular YouTube link, I'm willing to accept that it's up to the person linking to YouTube to justify and restore (once!) the link. Argyriou (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No, don't expect anyone to heed you once I've given you a warning for incivility and your response is to repeat the very same incivility, and then even come here to point it out. Vandalism is a bad-faith attempt to harm the encyclopedia, not a disagreement over links. Stop it.

t

04:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

...you are way out of line talking to Argyriou that way. First of all, his vandal warning was clearly given in good faith. Bringing the issue here is precisely what he should have done, and also done in good faith, not "pointing out incivility." Moreover, you are not The Arbiter of civility (and I have personally noticed Argyriou to be more civil than I have noticed you to be). Last but not least, it is a gross failure to AGF to decide that you will ignore a reasonable request/refuse to engage in reasonable discussion "as an authority" because of something you have decided someone did in a previous conversation (i.e., if Argyriou had been blocked and returned, that would not be sufficient reason to render any reasonable edit he made "ignorable," now or in the future, as you are well aware.) The fact that the whole YT issue is something in which you are very subjectively over-enagaged makes this much worse, in my opinion. This is the second time I have observed you to be rude and threatening to someone over YT, and I believe that you may be so ill-equipped to objectively assess any situations in which YT is involved that you should recuse yourself from acting as anadmin with regards to YT disagreements. I may file a report. Cindery 01:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Update

10:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The presence or absence of a free-license would be relevant if the content were being copied to Wikipedia or Commons. No such free-license is required in order to link to that video. As long as the YouTube upload commits no copyright violation, Wikipedia commits none by linking to it. It is being viewed there, not here. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 19:18, 21 Dec 2006 (UTC).

• Wait, are you saying the link must be removed because its (presumptive) creator has not free-licensed it? If we are to delete every link to sites whose content is not free-licensed, do we also have to get rid of links to CNN, BBC, New York Times, etc.? Andrew Levine 11:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hold your horses right there, buddy! CNN, BBC, New York Times *hold* the rights to the content they host on their pages. Either they secure the contents (media files, pictures etc.) by the way of journalism or by providing the appropriate remuneration to the original holder of copyrights. Many of such news agencies have general tie-ups with other news agencies such as Reuters, Associated Press etc. In this way, we are properly accrediting them with their work, hence none of the copyrights are breached. The case is not the same yourself with "YouTube – Broadcast Yourself", any person with an internet connection has the ability to upload any kind of media, without seeking any kind of permission. Although, YouTube discourages uploading copyrighted videos of any kind. Have a look at YouTube's policy on contents here – [5]. I have unblocked User:NE2 because he assumed good faith and wanted to edit other articles. Cheers! — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 12:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Copyright tips from YouTube – [6]. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 12:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• But we are talking about a situation where the copyright owner uploads the clip. You said, "in case he is the creator of the clip, he has not free-licensed or allowed expressly for use on Wikipedia or other sites". In other words, if we assume that YouTube user mahlenmahlen is telling the truth when he says he filmed the walls, and that its hosting on YouTube thus violates no copyright law, that somehow the fact that it's not free-licensed means we can't link to it. Andrew Levine 12:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• The user Mahlenmahlen must mention on his YouTube page which shows the clip, or on his user page, if YouTube provides one; that he is either free-licensing it or releasing it in the creative-commons. Such assertions that he was the uploader of the file on YouTube cannot be under any terms of reasonability be accepted. The Wikimedia Commons developers and user are considering starting hosting media files such as videos. In case, that is implemented – Mahlenmahlen can upload that file onto the Wikimedia Commons server. Any default on the policies and the copyright laws would then be treated like we treat other kinds of plagiarism. HTH, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 12:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, that applies to uploading the content to Commons. The topic here is linking to an off-Wiki site, as long as the linked location is not violating copyright. The link takes readers to that site to view the content. The content is not being viewed on Wikipedia, so it does not need to be released to Wikipedia. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 19:18, 21 Dec 2006 (UTC).

• seems like there's a lot of resistance from contributors to your policy. is there no way we can challenge what we view as overly conservative policies? why not assume good faith w/ the linkers and remove only the links that are proven to be copy vios? u are basically convicting based on the assumption of guilt rather than the assumption of innocence. moving away from the copy vio issues, if u're talking about reliability, all the information from the liquid and glowsticking articles can't be easily verified from published sources b/c they are, by nature, underground activities performed by a smallish group of ppl. the videos linked in those articles is about as concrete evidence as you're going to find as to their existance. all other evidence exists in the form of forum posts on various streetdance websites. why not just go ahead and remove those articles completely since contributors can't find a source that's reliable? the reasons given by
  glowsticking video is completely arbitrary. Wongba
  17:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Gee Thanks for not mentioning to me that you cited me on AN/I! I answered on your talk page in detail concerning the removed links. --

Spartaz

22:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Nick, there is no reason to believe that Mahlenmahlen is not as he claims the copyright owner of the film. If we followed your logic, we would have to delete nearly every user-made free-licensed photo in Wikipedia, since there is no way to prove that the user actually made the image instead of stealing it. Tell me how these two cases are different:

1. A wire story owned by the AP is hosted on the CNN website, per an agreement between the AP and CNN, and Wikipedia links to it;
2. A video owned by Mahlenmahlen is hosted on the YouTube website, per an agreement between Mahlenmahlen and YouTube, and Wikipedia links to it.

• So since we accept on faith, absent reasonable evidence to the contrary, MahlenMahlen's claim of authorship of the video (just as we accept on faith the claims of authorship on user-made Commons images) and since there is no difference between the two examples above, your proposal is inconsistent. Andrew Levine 19:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

We, on Wikipedia do not assume things. The law does not assume or make any kind of presumptions. Please see my comments below. When we upload an image on Wikipedia, and if it is any kind of copyright violation, we treat it as plagiarism – and the user gets blocked along with his IP (in cases of long-term abuse). This happens when some other entity claims that they hold the copyright over the works. Ask Mahlenmahlen to assert on this YouTube page that that those are his contributions and that he has no objection for their usage anywhere in anyform. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

But linking to that YouTube video is not uploading it to Wikipedia; it is not using it anywhere else, or in any other form — but directing readers to view it there and in that form, where he has already uploaded it for public viewing. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 19:27, 21 Dec 2006 (UTC).

You are still asking for a standard in excess of what the law and Wikipedia policy requires. For links to external content, Wikipedia must not knowingly link to material which is in violation of copyright. To protect Wikipedia from the copyright lawyers, I'm happy with a policy which requires delinking to things which a reasonable person would infer are violations of copyright - major media outlets don't give away their rights, and anything from a major studio or tv network or major record label which appears on YouTube is likely to be copyvio, and any reasonable person would know that. However, there is a large class of "small-time" content producers who are willing to allow free distribution of their content, most of the time because the exposure to people who might give them paid work in the future is worth more than the (probably zero) income they could obtain from their productions marketed on their own. Such content appearing on YouTube is not something which a reasonable person would infer is automatically copyvio, and therefore does not violate the DCMA or Wikipedia policy, until someone reliably asserts that the linked material is copyvio.

In the Barrington case, there is the additional factor that material produced before 1989 is not copyright unless it was properly registered under U.S. law. The particular video is claimed to have been made in 1988, and there is no copyright notice, just a credit. So the video may not even be copyright. Argyriou (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - has anyone considered getting the YouTube uploader to upload the video to Internet Archive? That has verifcation and strict rules that limit copyright infringment, I believe). -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 22:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Quote from Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works –

If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, please don't link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry).

Quote from Wikipedia:Copyright problems –

What's copyrighted? Copyright exists automatically upon creation in a tangible form. An author does not need to apply for or even claim copyright for a copyright to exist. Only an explicit statement that the material is in the

GFDL

, or is otherwise compatible with the GFDL, makes material reusable under current policy, unless it is inherently in the public domain due to age or source.

So much for my inconsistency. Please don't meddle with lawyers. >:) — Nearly Headless Nick 09:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

What you cite does not require that copyrighted works, legitimately posted off-Wiki, be GFDLicensed or made public-domain or otherwise released in order to be linked from a Wikipedia article. In order to be copied to Wikipedia or Commons, yes; in order to be linked, no. The criteria for

WP:EL don't require such a release; they require the absence of copyright violation by the site being linked to, not the same thing at all. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs

16:47, 21 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Obviously. We can conveniently link to those sites which provide the licensing information and/or own the work. YouTube, unfortunately does not. The users on YouTube merely copy the media from other sources and post them without authorisation. There is no reliability or any kind of onus on users uploading copyrighted or fake work. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Nick, please look over the above paragraph and consider whether it might contain some degree of over-generalization. Do you really mean to assert that in no case does a copyright holder or other authorized person ever upload legitimate content to YouTube? – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 15:50, 22 Dec 2006 (UTC).

RfC on this issue

• I've filed an RfC on this issue. Argyriou (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Per discussion at EL, it should be a user conduct RFC against Nearly Headless Nick, Dmcdevit et al. Furthermore, serious consideration is due Wiki policy on libel, and the legal jeopardy engendered by accusations of copyright violation without evidence. Cindery 03:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Cindery, would you mind letting the RfC on the issue proceed to some conclusion first? And then waiting a bit to see whether user conduct conforms to that consensus? Who knows, by then the conflict might be over.

...the conflict has dragged on FAR past the point that it is a gross disruption which is harming Wikipedia, wasting huge amounts of time with circular evasive arguments. A minority is violating policy in bad faith. It is a user conduct issue, see my talkpage. Cindery 09:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Otherwise, certainly nothing prevents you from filing your own RfC on user conduct right now, without asking Argyriou to withdraw his issue-oriented RfC... but I think reviewers might hesitate to judge conduct by compliance or non-compliance with a guideline still being discussed. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 07:03, 22 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Before you start accusing other editors of poor conduct I suggest that you review your recent contributions and ask yourself whether you are entirely blameless yourself. You as much as admitted in the RFC that your tone was intentially designed to inflame the discussions. This seems like more of the same. --

Spartaz

09:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, spaz. "My style is intentional" means "I am rightfully pissed off and grossed out "--and, I am rightfully pissed off/grossed out. (For "inflaming," See your own comments to me re indenting at EL, referring to me as he, harassment on my talkpage--not to mention pretending in first ANI discussion that you were not an official member of YT deletion committee...) Cindery 09:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Its not harrassment to drop you a note drawing your attention to a criticism I made about your your agressive tone and uncivil comments. Its actually good manners because I think its really bad form to criticise people behind their back. If you check J.smith's talk page you will see that offered to help out with the link review campaign after he asked for a review at AN. Why not ask me or check your facts instead of making stuff up and accusing me of bad behaviour?

Spartaz

10:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that I am not the only person who thinks I should be annoyed, and that the annoyance is justified. You have been told: "the way you are conducting the porject seems designed to cause upset, and you should desist and apologize." Re mytalkpage, you repeatedly posted after I asked you to stop. And: read convo between Barberio and JSmith at the pump re whether discussions at AN/IRC are "consensus" to proceed. Answer is: no. The problem with you is that you were already involved in deleting when you posted in response to my first ANI complaint re the project--you said, hmmm, as long as the links are being checked, I don't see a problem with this. Instead of: I am actively deleting these links, and might have a reason to be defensive about it--that foreclosed open/honest discussion/my trust in you. You made yourself appear like you were just an univolved editor, giving an unbiased opinion. Which you were not. Cindery 11:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

LuisMatosRibeiro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked a few days ago for heavy POV-pushing and as a single-purpose account used to edit the Holodomor page. It was shown by a request for checkuser that he was using the 82.155.xxx.xxx range, which is however huge and contains other accounts.

Today, however, one of these IPs, namely 82.155.63.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) , returned to edit war on the Holodomor page and also removed the indefblocked tag on User:LuisMatosRibeiro's page, which is a clear edit pattern.

To me it looks like a clear block evasion using an IP. I would like something to be done with this situation. Thanks, Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

(cur) (last) 20:54, 22 December 2006 Naconkantari (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Holodomor: IP block evasion [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

I also blocked 82.155.63.105 (talk · contribs) for one week. Khoikhoi 10:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin has been placing a comment on Talk:John Chrysostom and signing it using my signature [7]. Originally I had placed the comment on his talk page; the comment was directed toward him and has nothing to do with John Chrysostom in particular. I removed the comment from Talk:John Chrysostom making it clear SlimVirgin did not have the permission to post comments on my behalf. So far he has re-posted the comments at least 2 times. My case has been very clear: If those are comments being made by me, then I certainly should have to right to self-revert when I feel the discussion would not be a positive one (especially because no one has responded to them). If those are not my comments, then why are they being signed using my signature??? Could someone talk to this guy? ==Taxico 09:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears you did say that, and it is relevant on that page since you are complaining about her reverts on that article. Talk pages are often refactored and posts moved around; see

WP:TALK. I guess she could let you have your way but then just quote you, which would be the same thing. —Quarl ^(talk

) 2006-12-23 09:26Z

No, this has now become a violation of

09:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Slim has not signed using your signature; only moved your comments from her talk page. Please do not misrepresent her actions. Also the use of

WP:CIVIL. — Nearly Headless Nick

10:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I won't keep restoring it if Taxico really doesn't want it there, but Taxico, once we post something to Wikipedia, it stops belonging to us. No one is misusing your signature by reposting it, so long as it's attached to the same post you signed. And I'm not a guy.^[citation needed] :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

At the recommendation of admin Hiding, I'm asking on behalf of User:CovenantD, User:Doczilla, other editors and myself who have tried many times and ways to talk and work with a persistent rogue editor, User:Asgardian, over his repeated wholesale reversions to several sites in WikiProject: Comics. He insists he doesn't have to follow the comics project exemplar, he reinserts misspellings and other erroneous edits, he removes authoritative reference sources that I and others have used and cited, and he won't give straight answers to our questions and comments.

There's some discussion about all this at

and other articles — but he erases all comments.

Could you suggest a way to go on this? Maybe have a third party compare, for instance, the properly formatted and written version of the short "Awesome Android" article here and Asgardian's consistently reverted, "nyah-nyah-nyah" version here. Just by skimming, not needing to know details of the character, the differences are obvious to the naked eye.

As you can see from these comments he erased from his talk page and retrieved from its History here, here, and here, other editors have tried to speak with him about his wholesale reversions that go against both consensus and editorial policy/guidelines/exemplar. The word "stubborn" comes up a lot in these posts. Several editors are at their wits' ends.

What can we do? Please help us: Dealing with him is taking up so much of so many people's times that could be put to good use writing and helping to improve Wikipedia articles. Thank you so much for any help. --Tenebrae 17:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes he responds. It's sporadic. Sometimes he takes a lesson to heart when it's explained in great detail. Sometimes. And sometimes he just repeatedly blows off style guidelines no matter how many people disagree with him. I first got drawn into his mess because someone else in WikiProject Comics begged for people to come take a peek and try to help find a way to resolve Asgardian's relentless edit wars over the Thor articles. At that point, he'd only been at it for a month. I think it's been three months now, fighting the same edit wars. See how he stubbornly insists on reverting Hercules (Marvel Comics) to tightly in-universe perspective. One night I spent hours trying to edit his version bit by bit to give him a chance, then he just redid all the same mistakes and guideline violations. It wears you out. So many of us got so tired so long ago of fixing his edits that we just can't devote the energy to selectively keeping his good edits when he makes so many bad ones, therefore a lot of people have to revert articles even when it means reinserting some problems he'd fixed because he did more damage than good. Several of us repeatedly advised him to make one edit at a time so he could learn from each. It's just bizarre. There are now at least two competing versions getting edited, bouncing back and forth for almost every article he keeps hitting. He has some good information. He makes some good edits. He's just so amazingly stubborn.

He got warned about 3RR. He got blocked for violating 3RR. I saw other times I could have reported him for violating 3RR after that, but chose not to because I really was trying to find a way to work with this intelligent, knowledgeable person despite how aggravating it could be. He deleted WikiProject Comics notices about his edit wars until I warned him very strongly that to do so was deceptive when he knew darn well that edit wars were going on. Lately he hasn't been as overtly contentious. Lately he simply hasn't been replying to people as often. Admittedly, a lot of us have given up on explaining all of our fixes to his edits when we've already offered the same explanations repeatedly. I still think there's hope for him. I really do, based on the times he has learned lessons, but after this much time, I question whether he's worth the effort because he creates so much work for so many people voluntarily helping edit Wikipedia articles. Doczilla 02:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Summary:

• He is willfully lowering the quality of Wikipedia articles.
• He is fully aware that his edits are contrary to various policies and guidelines.
• He isn't responding (well, severely unresponsive) to light methods of behavior correction.

He's doing no good and shows an obvious disinterest in collaborative efforts. Block him for a month; hopefully that will make him realize that, hey, we're here to improve articles together, not single-handedly make them shit. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I stumbled across this user's edit war with Covenant D over the Thor comics articles about two months ago. Sadly, since that time, I have seen little progress, only regression. The edit war still continues and has expanded to other comics articles. I reported the disputed articles on the WikiComics Project notice board in order to get more people involved and, ideally, settle the dispute. However, rather than trying to work toward consensus, he erased my notice. [8] I know that we have to assume good faith, but actions like this strain credulity. Nonetheless, I have tried to work out compromises by changing problem sections within disputed articles in a piecemeal fashion, rather than a wholesale reversion. Initially, this seemed to be effective, but things eventually degenerated back into blind edit warring with little to no discussion. Occasionally, he will justify his edits on an article's talk page, but he is more likely to ignore or erase requests for discussion. When he does comment on talk pages, he is frequently incivil [9] [10] [11] and more than a little combative. [12] [13] Sadly, he actually makes some valid points in his arguements, but they are all but lost in the edit wars he provokes. Like Doczilla, I, too, had hope for Asgardian. But that hope is fading. --GentlemanGhost 08:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• The posters here assume a great deal and present a fairly weak case. On behaviour, their own has been self-righteous and condescending on more than one occasion. Citing users such as CovenantD is also not a good idea given his track record and some of the comments he has made (such as "as long as that silly list appears, it gets reverted"). As for deleting comments on my user page, what of it? At least two of the persons cited do it all the time - as is their right. As for the argument that I am lowering the quality of the articles - I believe that's a very silly thing to say. They both know I have created over half a dozen sourced entries on characters that did not exist. Not for my benefit, but for the everyone's use and enjoyment. I have also added references and tidied up many, many more. They KNOW some of the entries were a mess prior to the fix. Rather, we are tussling over fine grammatical points, NOT revised articles per se (example - much of the Thor article is my version).

On co-operation - the posters here seem to have missed the discussion on Galactus, another comic character. I trimmed it back to an acceptable length, and was acknowledged by some as being quite good. Others responded with petulant insults. It is here that many posters fail - it is NOT about who knows more but the enjoyment factor, and of course presenting the information within a "Wiki context." I then offered another poster a chance at presenting his version of the Galactus article. I don't think he's been able to repost yet, but true to my word I've stayed off the page until he has had his chance and we can then discuss it. If that's not co-operation, I don't know what is.

As for 3RR, the first time was simply an experiment. I wanted to see if Wikiepdia followed through (I wrote a paper on Wikipedia and procedues). The second time I believe the moderator got it wrong - I was editing and improving on an article, not swapping backwards and forwards three times or more times. I explained this and simply received a "you should know better." I actually expect better from a moderator.

I am happy to discuss this, but there needs to be more objectivity and less exaggeration. At present, some of the argument smacks of "X must be stopped!" and is a tad immature. The fact that certain users have followed me to pages they had never previously visited speaks volumes (or those that I've created). There needs to be a little less "my way or the highway" from everyone, not just myself.

I won't be making any edits for the next fews day or so, but would hope that when I do that a discussion can follow - not a simple revert and complaint. They are simple grammatical issues that can be thrashed out courtesy of the Exemplars. So long as people are reasonable and a little less self-righteous, then a compromise can be achieved. I'll start with a topic over there in about two days and hopefully some positive change can come of it.

Regards

Asgardian 02:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Re: "As for deleting comments on my user page, what of it? At least two of the persons cited do it all the time - as is their right." Actually, I stopped deleting comments on my talk page because a remark someone else made on your talk page made me realize that wasn't how Wikipedia does things. (I'd thought of it like deleting old e-mail. Somehow I'd missed that Wikipedia policy along the way.) The one exception to this in the last several weeks was to revert a heading Asgardian should not have added to my note about my own talk page. Doczilla 06:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Wait a minute. It just hit me: Asgardian, you just said you deliberately violated 3RR as an experiment while writing a paper. You're not editing much this week because you're taking finals, aren't you? Did you start these edit wars as an "experiment"? Doczilla 06:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• • That's it, isn't it? That would explain the thing that has baffled me beyond all else about you. Why else would anyone spend three months making nearly two thousand edits (seriously) on the same bunch of articles over and over, editing, reverting, defying Wikipedia guidelines, reverting, and reverting without branching out and taking an interest in other articles any more than you have? Doczilla 09:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Asgardian's answers here are simply spin. He is at the very least guilty by his own admission of violating Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

Three editors here and a larger number throughout the affected Talk pages are all corroborating the extent and the nature of Asgardian's behavior. I don't know if he's been behaving as he has for purposes of some Sociology or Media class project, but it's extremely unfair to let him continue when so many responsible editors are spending so much time and effort on him. I don't want to give up on the Comics Project, but all it takes for his kind of behavior to flourish is for good Administrators to stand by and do nothing. --Tenebrae 22:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• The comments are still somewhat self-righteous and quite a few assumptions have been made once again. I suggest more discussion on character pages where needed. Have there been any reverts of late? No. Cooperation? Yes - see Galactus. Some of the articles mentioned still need work (eg. Awesome Android) and some will also have to accept that a touch up is inevitable. I'll start with an Exemplar discussion today as some of the "accepted" features need to be readdressed. See you there.

Asgardian 02:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"Have there been any reverts of late? No." How can you say that? Here's the most immediate example of how that's just not true: Your last four edits before this noticeboard report were all reverts.

[14] reverted all changes since [15].

[16] reverted a lot of changes since [17], keeping (or adding, whichever) two little edits

[18] reverted all changes since [19]

[20] reverted all edits since [21]

And we could keep going back through your edits, pointing out how very many of them are reversions. You tend to edit your version of each article and not the version most other people are working on. Doczilla 03:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• You seem to forget that I rewrote much of the information on those pages and it is still in use. The changes are also minor and acceptable. You are also not taking in what I've been saying. As this is an Admin Board, forward any direct comments to myself or place it under the relevant character.

Asgardian 05:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is an Admin Board, and this information is for the benefit of whichever admin looks at this because they'll be unfamiliar with what you've been doing, even though I've worded these newest remarks in second person to Asgardian. I say them to you because part of me still hopes you'll work with other editors (remember, I personally made sure you knew about this so you could contribute to this discussion), even though experience says how stubborn you are about not taking other people's remarks to heart. I haven't forgotten your edits. I know you've reworked a lot of things, and I've tried to incorporate your better changes to see if you'd accept that as the compromise you mention further above, but you just don't back off. You've kept reverting and kept reverting for three months. You've got your own version of each of those articles. Someone reverts your version, other people edit, you revert back to your own version, it gets edited, it gets reverted. Notice how many different people have been reverting away from your version. You're the single person repeatedly reverting back to your version in spite of all the reasons people have outlined over the last three months regarding what's wrong with your changes. Yes, some of the edits in your versions still need to be added to the version everyone else is working on. I've entered some of your edits into the other version of some articles and I've left some for you, hoping you'd start working with the other regular contributors to those articles. It's just not working. If you really want a compromise, act on the suggestion that several of us have made: Make one edit at a time and learn from other people's responses to them. There have been good edits I'd have backed you up on if you hadn't made twelve bad edits at the same time. But you've gotten this advice and gotten this advice, and yet here we are now. Doczilla 06:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

So let us begin with Exemplars. One final observation I will make is that the more serious contributors seem to fall into two groups - those that focus on technical edits, and those that contribute creative edits (I'd be the latter. I'll let anyone else reading decide what camp they sit in). Marrying the two together seems to be the challenge, which is not always easy. Asgardian 07:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting that when you refuse to follow the consensus or the exemplars, you dismiss it as a "technical edit". Being a "creative" type doesn't justify stubbornness, unresponsiveness, incivility, or an unwillingness to work with other editors. --GentlemanGhost 01:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• You are making an erroneous assumption.

Asgardian 05:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

false dichtomy to try and excuse the fact that he feels the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia do not apply to him. --Tenebrae

01:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Not said. I am making an observation. Most of those I've talked with to date on Wikipedia perform more technical as opposed to creative edits. If still in doubt, ask yourself how many articles you've written or added to as opposed to correcting little technicalities. Anyway, this is not the place to be discussing such things at length.

Asgardian 05:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Using the erroneous "technical vs. creative" dichotomy not only splits editors along a nonexistent line, but also serves as a futile attempt to demean other editors (in short, an ad hominem attack). Regarding your assertion that it is hard to "marry the two together," apparently many have done so, with positive results. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have to disagree.

"Erroneous" is an assumption on your part. Analysis of many of the comic entries shows that some contribute via a technical "dotting the i's and crossing the t's" edit, while others are creative and may rewrite or create an entire new entry. Edit Histories will show this. It is certainly not a "nonexistant" line - people are different, and their contributions will also differ accordingly. Neither is better than the other, making your claim that it was ever a "futile attempt to demean other editors" a tad ridiculous. As for marrying the two together, not so easy with the comic entries. There's often a greal deal of passion involved but not as much logic. Just study the entry for Thor. It took months to get that article to the standard it is at now. People with pet fetishes, people wanting it to look like a fan site, people insisting such and such happened in issue X and so on. Asgardian 06:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you used it as example, I checked your last Thor edit. How does, among other things, repeated refusal to follow the exemplar for identifying him as a fictional character help keep the page from looking like a fan site? Doczilla 07:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that since Asgardian has refrained from doing much on Wikipedia this week, Hercules (Marvel Comics) has gone three days in a row without inspiring other contributors to fix it. The last time it went three days (two whole calendar days) without edits was also when Asgardian refrained from immediately undoing someone else's reversion of his work. That just happens to be the only page my watch list includes from Asgardian's edit war list. I expect this phenomenon can be found on other pages he has kept at. This illustrates what I have kept saying about how much work Asgardian creates for other people. Doczilla 07:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• You make a good point and a not so good point. The "fictional" issue needs more discussion over at Exemplars (after all, of course Thor is fictional!) as do 1-2 other terms that aren't too clear. As for creating "work" for other people, you again sounding a tad self-righteous. Please remember no one owns Wikipedia, and that some changes are inevitable. There's being conscientious, and then there's taking the hobby (which is what it is) a tad too far...

Asgardian 09:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Remember no one owns Wikipedia. Words to live by. Can you take your own advice? --GentlemanGhost 22:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Since I said it, I should think so.

Asgardian 00:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not "a hobby", but an avocation. Lay historians are contributing to a new form of academic encyclopedia. A hobby is for fun. We do it from a sense of duty.

And since you asked, go here to see I've created about 120 mostly lengthy articles, including several biographies of unsung, important comics creators such as Syd Shores and George Klein. Your schism of "technical editors" and "creative editors" is false and obscures the central issue: That by your actions you demonstrate your belief that the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia don't apply to you.

The consensus emerging is that you are doing more harm than good by being here. If this is just a hobby to you, and you aren't serious about collaborative historical scholarship, one has to ask whether you would be happier working on a comics fan site. --Tenebrae 00:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

For me wikipedia is just a hobby and sometimes a obsession. Brian Boru is awesome 00:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

For me, yeah, it is just a hobby (more like a habit), one I wish I'd spend less time on. Its being a hobby is a strong reason not to make waves (or at least not massive tidal waves), a reason to defer the exemplars, policies, and guidelines set by those who devote more serious time to it and to the consensus of contributors in general. If I disagree with an exemplar, etc., I shouldn't inflict my will on the articles. I should investigate the logic behind them and then, if I still disagree, I should discuss changing the exemplar. I'm puzzled by Asgardian's talking about the exemplar talk pages here when we've previously told him to take up these issues over there and yet he continues reverting to versions for which he has been repeatedly informed that they violate the Wikipedia way of doing things. Are you saying that you will now only take up these issues at the exemplar talk pages? Are you promising that you will finally stop making changes that you have been told violate the exemplars, policies, and style guidelines set by consensus? And beyond that, what about non-policy/exemplar-related changes you want to make that umpteen other people disagree with? Doczilla 01:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Why don't you contribute to the Exemplar discussion I've started? Two others are participating and some progress has already been made on an issue. Also, Tenebrae - I am not demeaning your contribution when I say "hobby" , but in all fairness we have all gone a tad too far before now. I am the first to admit this. Yes, Wikipedia is important in it's way, but it is not life and death when we are arguing over whether Thor has super speed or not. There is also someone who to judge by their entries sits in front of the computer hour after hour, watching for the slightest change. Condemn me if you will, but I believe that is going too far. In fact, in the interests of OH & S perhaps users should only be able to tweak a finite no. of entries in 24 hrs? It may help reduce edit wars and sometimes, obsession (another Wiki-related sin). Anyway, a good thread has been started at Exemplars. See you there.

Asgardian 08:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• • You didn't answer the questions: "Are you saying that you will now only take up these issues at the talk pages? Are you promising that you will finally stop making changes that you have been told violate the exemplars, policies, and style guidelines set by consensus? And beyond that, what about non-policy/exemplar-related changes you want to make that umpteen other people disagree with?" Wryspy 09:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I've also encountered User:Asgardian, and typically in the middle of a reversion war of some kind (

, for example). I have to agree that the user has added quite a lot of information to Wikipedia (the quality of which, I'll leave to others to determine). To give some benefit of the doubt, attempting to ascertain who's doing what is often difficult because often those who he is in reversion war with do not use edit summaries, or he and they may use the edit summaries to merely attack each other, (which still does not describe the edits in question. and in most of these cases, rather than discuss on the talk page of the article in question, it often becomes a multiple user talk page assault. Imo a LOT of this disruption would be averted if both sides would recall that 22:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Propose a ban

I would just like to note that the arbitration committee takes a dim view of people needlessly changing an article to suit their personal preference. See

09:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have seen this editor's edits, and I support this ban. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Why would we abandon this dialogue? It has actually been quite useful. There have been a few candid admissions from several posters. I've also made no edits for the duration of this dialogue and created a discussion at Exemplars. You also seem to be overlooking the number of articles I've created. I'm going to raising issues on the appropriate discussion boards where I feel it necessary, but beyond that will not play with the agree structure. That said, some creative changes (eg. images, reworking information) are permissible and indeed expected - and can be discussed, rather than being a source of outrage. I also believe that using the term "obsessive" is dangerous and a two-edged sword. There are several posters who have been a tad obsessive from time to time, not just myself. I suppose it is the nature of the hobby.

In short, I find the suggestion of a ban to be premature. I also have to say that I am concerned that someone who professes an interest in comics on their homepage chooses to get involved. Given that the subject matter is comic-related, objectivity cannot be guaranteed.

Asgardian 22:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:"candid admissions from several posters" Some candid admissions from you would go a long way to help smoothe things over. Doczilla 22:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• I would also like my last 6 odd edits noted bfore anyone does anything rash.

Asgardian 08:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, something like RfC, a ban, or more could certainly be more appropriate if the previous edit wars resume. But now? I go back and forth on this. We already took the step of bringing this to the incident board, after all. If Asgardian is actively trying to work with consensus and striving to play by the rules Wikipedia set for its sandbox, that's all we really need. (Is that what Asgardian intends to do? Unless I missed it, he still hasn't explicitly said so. Not fully.) Skeptic that I am about pretty much everything, I would nevertheless like to assume good faith. Given the history, though, we need some strong assurance. One week of backing off (a week when Asgardian had already said he wouldn't be editing much), well . . . it isn't a lot to judge by when weighed against three months of edit wars, is it? I would certainly support a ban IF that mess resumed. His apparent lack of humility (telling other people to be smarter, calling other people self-righteous or rash when his repeated edits have worn out their civility, lack of acknowledging that he has been pushy no matter how many people oppose his edits) can make it hard to want to work with him. If we were going straight to a ban, though, I'm not sure why he'd have been given the opportunity to discuss things here and change his actions. Doczilla 09:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for the being the voice of reason, Doc. I think Hiding's suggestion is after the fact, given that you and I have just cooperated on and improved two entries. I also don't think Chris Griswold even read the rest of the discussion. At any rate, I think this has gone on long enough and needs to be resolved. As previously indicated, my edits of late speak for themselves.

Asgardian 01:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Like Doczilla, I remain skeptical. Are we going to have to go through this again in another month or two? I'm not a crystal ball, but User:Asgardian has edited responsibly at one point after complaints came up, but he only did so temporarily before all this flared up.

One has to go through with things or else some people will always call your bluff. A month or so ban to show how seriously the rest of the community takes Asgardian's actions would drive the point home once and for all. Maybe then the rest of us can get some rest and channel our time more productively.--Tenebrae 03:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not interested in calling anyone's bluff. By the by, you should avoid making comments on behalf of everyone else. "The rest of us can get some rest" is a tad melodramatic. Again, just follow the recent edit trail.

Asgardian 04:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• But you didn't address Tenebrae's point. (Admittedly, a lot of points have been brought up, and not every one has to be addressed directly as long as the key issues get covered.) The recent edit trail is a spit compared to the bucket of nearly two thousand prior edits. You still haven't addressed the concerns regarding (1) showing concern for what you should have done differently over the past three months and (2) what you're committing to doing in the future aside from discussing exemplars. Again, some assurances in these areas would go a long way to help smoothe things over, to help convey that you're not just making nice again for a couple of days only to go right back to the edit wars when the heat's off. I hope that's not the case. You're the only one who knows your intentions. So please help clear this up: What are they? Without some clear and strong assurances, a ban of a month or two from the pages you've edited most seems likely to be pursued soon. Doczilla 07:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• I would think that my actions of the past few days speak for themselves. Nothing has been a blind revert. If in doubt, I have discussed - you know this. Given that I've changed some of the articles, and others have made some additions which I've then added to, it would be counter productive to revert. Close examination reveals that most of the entries are still my words anyway - I was just getting stuck on the minor points, which can be discussed (eg. fictional). This will be my modus operandi in future. What WOULD help, however, is if we all took this a little less personally, which might make the discussions a tad easier.

Asgardian 09:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think perhaps a probation might be the best move then. I suggest a probation of two months whereby Asgardian is to discuss any changes, to avoid reverting and is to follow civility and good faith assumptions. Does that cover the behaviour? If an admin deems Asgardian has breached the probation, short blocks can be imposed. Maybe we should consider the idea of mentorship, too. Hiding Talk 15:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice this section was a part of the above until after I posted there : (

I think probation sounds like a good idea. Though I'd like to re-affirm my suggestion above that he (and others interacting with him) should make better and more use of article talk pages, and edit summaries. - jc37 23:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. Doc will attest to the fact that I have already been doing this. As for probation, I would have assumed I am already on it, yes? At least three people seem to keep track of my movements. That said, I think this has gone on long enough and business as normal can resume (if there is such a thing on Wikipedia). The only thing I would ask of fellow posters (the reasonable ones at any rate) is that there is a little lessv "the sky is falling" if edits are made on some entries (someone recently said that their edit on an entry was more or less perfect, which I can't agree with as nothing is perfect and change is inevitable on Wikpedia) and more discussion. Jc37, thanks for acknowledging the contributions I've made thus far.

Asgardian 00:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has a probationary status? Where can we find details on how that works? One might argue that an example should be made to deter other edit wars (and it can be a strong argument), but if that were the only acceptable outcome to this discussion, then the step of coming to this page should have been skipped. Tenebrae's question was "What can we do?" not "How do we get rid of him?" Given that people bothered to come here instead of going straight to ban discussions, probation seems appropriate and Asgardian has indicated willingness to work with that. If he continues as he has for the last several days, he will make useful contributions to Wikipedia. If he's just lying low as some suspect and waiting to resume old behavior, he'll get busted out for violating probation. (Boy, that sounds dramatic, but those are the words, aren't they?) As for the "mentorship" suggestion, it would need to involve an objective party who hasn't been particularly involved in this along the way. And how does that work? Where is a link for information on Wikipedia mentorship? Doczilla 01:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User, maybe that would work? What I'm proposing, though, is that if all parties agree, I can take the agreement to the admin's noticeboard and get a consensus on whether it should be adopted. I can't see why it shouldn't. It basically establishes what sort of behaviour is expected anyway. Once it is accepted, any transgression of the probation should be reported here, I would think. Hiding Talk
    16:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think this topic has now overextended itself and past expiration (other discussions have been and gone). My edits of late speak for themselves. Folks will watch at any rate. Let's leave it at that as this is also becoming a tad condescending. Thank you.

Asgardian 21:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• First, I would like to believe that everyone has the best of intentions here. And I have empathy with the idea that being "on the stand" can start to feel like everyone is accusatory, and standing against you. But I think that at least some of the Wikipedians above have concerns, and are looking for a way to balance the several sides of "what's good for the encyclopedia". I think we all would rather that you have the continued ability to positively edit this encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but at the same time, we all really need to find ways to hopefully avoid these continued disruptions to articles and altercations with other editors, and hopefully start working together towards consensus. (I think there is a rather large difference between having a heated talk page discussion, and the disruptive

  POV

  reversion wars that have been occurring of late.)

• I think Hiding has a rather good idea. If the community can ban, the community should be able to suggest probation. This would seem to be the perfect "middle-ground" for this situation. That said, we should lay out some very specific points in relation to the probation, so that Asgardian isn't unduly attacked with just the reason (excuse) that he's on probation. I believe Hiding and CrisGriswold are the current administrator members of the Comics WikiProject, so I think that they would be the ideal choice for monitoring the situation, with notices here, should the situation warrant. And if unacceptable behavior continues, then I think there would be no choice but to submit a request for arbitration. - jc37 21:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• jc37, I have to commend you. You must be one of the most reasonable posters I have encountered on Wikipedia thus far. What I can gather, the probation process needs to be pioneered as it doesn't exist. I can only say again, that I am in effect already on probation as at least one poster would be watching. No one seems to have had issue with the edits, which have helped improve several articles. jc also raises a good point about undue attacks. I think some edits are reasonable, and should not be seen as outrageous and a cause for confrontation (in theory anyway, but I'm sure it's happening on a few comic pages somewhere). I would hope that when there is a need to discuss issues in future, people will be reasonable.

Asgardian 04:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Just please remember that that specifically includes you, even in situations when consensus is going against you : ) - jc37 08:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• • The probation process doesn't need pioneering any more than anything else on Wikipedia does. It's an established process, and monitoring user behaviour is part of the admin role. There's nothing being stretched out of place here, and if there was, it would have been pointed out by now by another admin. And discussions hang around as long as people discuss them. They are archived after no-one has posted to them for a set number of days. Since all people have agreed that probation is an acceptable outcome, I think we should move ahead on that route. Hiding Talk 09:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have to disagree. I am also concerned about objectivity here. You came out of nowhere and proposed a ban and are now trying to drive the consensus toward a probation. As I've already stated, I'm on virtual probation and are no doubt being monitored. The fact that no one else has responded would seem to suggest that there is hardly a cast of thousands pressing for this. Once again, the edits from the last week speak for themselves. Even if it came to such action (which is unnnecessary) I would have to insist that a person who was not associated with comics - and therefore objective - made the ruling. I really think this can be dropped now.

Asgardian 21:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• If you "... insist that a person who was not associated with comics - and therefore objective - made the ruling", then I think the next course is
  assuming good faith here. If one's interest was to "game the system", then of course that person would prefer a "virtual probation" under which wikilawyering and obfuscation would be possible. I'm not saying that that is your (Asgardian's) intent, but it would explain an interest to wish to keep this from becoming "official". In any case, I support Hiding's suggestion that "we should move ahead on that route" (towards probation, community or otherwise). - jc37
  09:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• • "You came out of nowhere and proposed a ban". Um, I'm an admin. This is the admin's noticeboard. I tend to read it. I haven't come out of nowhere. To address your concerns about objectivity, you'll note I have already stated that anyone who feels you have breached your probation should list that breach here so that an admin can decide. However, as you say, if your edits continue along the path already trodden in the last week, there is no issue. And to your last point, any admin who is not in a conflict with you is free to discharge their admin duties in matters in which you are involved. Hiding Talk 17:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Hexvoodoo (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), blocked for spamming. Most of his edits were to add an "invitation to boobpedia" to the Talk pages of every single category for porn stars by nationality (see my deletion log, most were empty beforehand so I simply deleted them). Guy (Help!) 14:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

He's taken a vacation anyway! However, i see no prior warning Guy. I believe he followed AnonEMouse advice. He also participated on a few AfDs. I think shortening the block w/ a final warning would be appropriate. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• He does have an awfully limited horizon, it seems. I suppose it takes all types and all, and he could well have thought he was announcing a project ("Silicon Mountain" maybe). Crowbait 18:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

User:84.9.192.124 has been blocked before as a sockpuppet of User:Irate. The same edit pattern has emerged today on this IP, User:84.9.210.94. Could they be reblocked? Regan123 16:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Current IP blocked and rolled back.

WP:AIV will usually give a faster response to obvious sockpuppetry like this. --Sam Blanning^(talk)

17:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Regan123 17:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed an odd user page creation as it went by on Recent Changes: [22]. System_c0ntr0ls (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) and a similar account,

17:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Both blocked as falsely representing authority, clearly the same person. I have put {{spa}} templates by their posts on the article's talk page. Thanks for pointing this out. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It is difficult to determine whether someone is who they say they are or not, and this sometimes impacts on editing around an article. For instance, at Cosmic ancestry one particularly large edit was conducted with the accompanying edit summary "founder of theory clarifyies (sic) and expands entry" and the username associated with the edit is logical to be associated with the founder of the theory (User:Bklyce). Further, this edit is being used as the basis to propose the article for deletion, saying that the article is, as a result, a 'vanity' piece. However, there is no verifiable association between the editor and the actual identity of the authority figure. I think this is certainly not the only such case, but I have no idea how widespread this potential problem is ... potential misappropriation (I'm not saying the person is not who they say they are - merely keeping up healthy doubt) of authority figure identity to influence (for good or ill) article content. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking through the users' contributions I think it is clear they were 2 accounts created by the same person pretending to be in charge here. Also being an expert, or even the founder, of a subject does not give anyone special privileges on Wikipedia, they must refer to verifiable published sources like everyone else. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You are referring to Group Systern Head and System_c0ntr0ls, yes? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Well, the first sentance I was, the rest was a response to your statement about someone claiming to be "founder of theory". HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the right place to take this. Mlaurenti uploaded Image:New 8a.jpg and a number of other images that are copyrighted to NJDEP, and has claimed public domain. I have asked on the image description pages and on his talk page for evidence of this, and he has reverted twice. Can the images be deleted, or is there a process I should follow? --NE2 17:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

There is

WP:PUI. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me}

) 17:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, so I have to not only add this tag to all the images and hope he doesn't revert this time, but also go to all the articles and insert a template, and list them all on that page? Maybe I'll do it later. --NE2 17:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Tough, I know. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

If the images are clearly copyrighted, delete them. These are not "possibly unfree images;" they are unfree, period, and using them is copyright infringement. I'm also going to notify the user that continuing to upload copyrighted images may lead to a block (from

WP:COPYVIO: In extreme cases of contributors continuing to post copyrighted material after appropriate warnings, such users may be blocked from editing to protect the project.) | Mr. Darcy talk

18:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)