Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive294

I have blocked this user for 24 hours for edit warring. This is the third time in the last few days that he has reverted three times - on

19:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Endorse block, edit-warring like that across multiple (related) articles is disruptive and block-worthy. Moreschi ^Talk 20:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a fair call. (

('Stop') : ('Go')

) 22:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Good call, and if there's no improvement in his behavior after the block expires I'd have a low threshold, in this particular case, to escalate block lengths. MastCell ^Talk 02:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I also endorse the block.--Jersey Devil 17:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

User 68.0.232.203 incorrigibly spams articles with promotional links like midnightmarketingonline.com and salestimes3.com. User had received four warnings before he made two additional spamming additions: one to Rhode Island, and [[4]] to New England. Recommend permanent block of IP and blacklisting of websites.--Loodog 20:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Loodog. This is a pretty obvious case of spamming, so in the future you can report to

WP:AIV, as I have just done. As a practice, we don't permanently ban IP's without exceptional vandalism or unless they're open proxies. You can also put in a request at m:Talk:Spam blacklist. However, I would wait until you see someone spam these links again. The Evil Spartan

20:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If you report it to AIV, please check to see if they have spammed since the final warning, as was not the case here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. It's easy to get confused with timestamps and time zones. I'm still never sure if I'm 4 or 5 hours behind... The Evil Spartan 21:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are on EST and on summertime you are 4 hours behind (I think) Secretlondon 10:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

He continues to delete citations[5] and citation requests[6], after being given an original warning on August 25[7], and a second warning on August 27[8]

In addition to this he continues to add a link to a fansite[9] after being told to stop[10], and he will delete all of these warnings from his talk page, to make it look like he is innocent of any wrong doing.[11][12][13][14]

Hoponpop69 23:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I did NOT add the fansite except only once because I didn't know the policy was against it. And I did not delete ANY citations, just a citation request ONCE and I stopped after reading the one policy. Hoponpop69 is a liar and if anyone should be blocked it's him.

(talk)

23:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Tim - look at her diffs - those are your edits - one shows you deleting a citation.--

folsom

03:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

the point is the edits only show him deleting 1 sitation and adding 1 link and clearing his talk page. Not quite what you should ban someone over (unless shown the user keeps doing this which is what Hoponpop is saying)--Dacium 10:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Can some one deal with this continuing vandal. [15] Thanks

07:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

RockMFR beat me to it Raul654 07:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

i just started write article,but always deleted and block by Wikipedia! i does not know how to create an article! i hope Wikipedia will improve it with teach people step by step to create an article!Thank... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deqingjames (talk • contribs) 09:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read:

Why was my article deleted?. x42bn6 Talk Mess

09:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be writing about yourself and you don't meet the music or biography notability guidelines. Secretlondon 09:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Float954 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is on indefinite block for uploading images with false claim of copyright ownership. A newly created account Skarth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now uploading and restoring to articles the same images. Gordonofcartoon 11:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Skarth indefblocked as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This image of an erect penis was recently used to vandalise Runrig diff. I suggest that it needs tagging as a Bad image. I'm guessing that this needs to be done by an admin, as I can't edit the "exceptions" myself (the picture is currently used on penis) Iain99 16:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned a series of problems with a vandal that keeps leaving the following on the Miley Cyrus talk page:

"I think every inch of Miley Cyrus tastes like candy"

Well, we have a new IP spitting out the same spam, and in addition has hit the

.

Requesting block for this IP for aforementioned vandalism as well as possibility (judging from edit history) this is a sockpuppet.

17:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked.
  ELIMINATORJR
  17:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Can I get a ruling on Playboy Magazine Covers ?

The fundamental rule is that only free photos can be used on the biography of a living person.

It seems to me that the use of Playboy Magazine Covers violates

.

In fact all the magazine covers in Category:Playboy magazine covers seem to be violations.

Look at

, the commentary in the article is that they were the playmates for that particular month – is that enough to justify the use of the magazine cover ?

Excusing copyright violations only harms Wikipedia.

It seems to me that all the Playboy Magazine Covers on Wikipedia should be deleted.

Am I correct ?

Please advise.

Tovojolo Tovojolo 09:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that these models only claim to fame is their playboy apperances. So the playboy cover photo is a legitimate fair use and not a copyvio. OTOH these models do not IMO merit an encylopedia article at all. I'd be happy to see their articles deleted altogether. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 12:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If that is their only claim to fame, what are they doing here? This is not a directory of Playboy models. Fair use criteria for magazine covers states that they should only be used for critical commentary; didn't we nuke all the Time covers for that reason? Guy (Help!) 14:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

How do you categorize public figures such as Paris Hilton, then, who has done nothing of note other than to occupy media attention for inexplicable reasons? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well she has had a lot more media attention than the models above. She merits an article because she is genuinely famous. You don't need to be talented to be famous, but you do need to be famous to have an article here. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Only an Admin can delete. In that case, please delete all articles found in Category:Playboy magazine covers

Tovojolo 13:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleting articles unilaterally, in general, is not an admin's job. Feel free to nominate those articles and/or photos for deletion yourself, and let the community decide. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You can nominate them as a group if you want. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

this is obviously a case of fair use, as described in {{Non-free magazine cover}}:

free use to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question — It is not acceptable to use images with this tag in the article of the person or persons depicted on the cover

i.e., if these are used on biography articles, remove on sight. If they are used in articles about the Playboy magazine, fair use applies. If they are unused, delete away per {{

15:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

wow. I just realize that practically all images in

dab (𒁳)

15:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

to the people who might be interested in keeping these images around: you might consider adding them to list articles as thumbnails, to articles such as

dab (𒁳)

15:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It's basically yet another case of the deletionists gone mad. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

what part of It is not acceptable to use images with this tag in the article of the person or persons depicted on the cover do you find difficult? "Deletionists" are people who want to get rid of free but "irrelevant" content. This isn't free content. Wikipedia wants to be "the free encyclopedia". There is really not much room for debate here. --

dab (𒁳)

17:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

How do I nominate them for deletion as a group ?

Tovojolo 17:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Damn it (apologize for my use of profanity). Okay, I may not be a smart man, but I am not even sure how images are nominated as a group. Greg Jones II 18:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

These are probably best taken care of on a case by case basis. I think it's unwise to block-nominate them for deletion or even to systematically remove them without taking a proper look at the context. A vast majority of these images don't satisfy the NFCC but there are cases in which a fair use argument can be made (for instance in the article Jessica Alba which mentions a lawsuit about the cover itself), some cases where indeed the whole article should be deleted because many playmates have no other claim to fame, etc. But, a blind removal of all the images really gives ammo to the "you're all deletionists gone mad" camp. Pascal.Tesson 19:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Decide on a case by case bases whether to include them in a group. I suggest nominating all articles where a model's only claim to fame is that they have appeared in playboy to AFD as one large group. Obviously models who have other claims to fame should be treated seperately. To nomonate as a group, nominate the first one in the usual way. Then edit that nomination to include the others. Copy and paste the AFD notice from the first nomination to the others so that a link points to the debate. Hopefully that makes sense. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

the notability of a model is a question completely unrelated to the placement of unfree images on her article. This isn't about notability concerns at all, but about improper use of copyrighted content.

dab (𒁳)

13:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree they are separate issues. But I don't see why onw conversation cannot cover both. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Ryno102 is a new user, and has been making very poor edits so far. I suspect he's a juvenile. I've been reverting them on my own; however, I'm starting to doubt if this is the right approach, or if someone else might not be able to do it better. Any help would be appreciated. The Evil Spartan 20:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone there? The Evil Spartan 01:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I am a little puzzled how we can possibly formally intervene. No person information is disclosed, and none of the edits would justify a block. Some of the edits show ignorance of WP rules, and I would suggest trying to explain how to do things here in careful detail. School starts again on Tuesday, so maybe he will be otherwise occupied. DGG (talk) 05:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Two authors have removed most of the content of Matte painting. 74.102.212.164 seems to be randomly removing links to books, magazines, and other references from a number of articles. User:Soundfrucht removed most of the text claiming he wrote it yet his user page is an advertisement for his services as a matte painter. Robert Elliott 23:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain that I wholly disagree with what's happened. The copyedit situation may be a case of material that was a copied from something else like a book or magazine article, not necessarily his website, so it's best to use caution. Plus, it read much like a how-to, which probably meant its loss was for the best. As for the loss of the links, it's arguable both ways. I can see why he believes them to violate WP:EL, but I also agree that at least a few had merit. My advice is to restore what you consider to be irreplaceable (and mention your reasoning on the talk page), and consider rewriting the other parts so as to avoid accusations of copyvio. I'm not convinced that this is vandalism. Girolamo Savonarola 02:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

To understand this better, look at the history. The User:Soundfrucht changed much of the content (over a long series of edits) to suit his taste then claimed he now owns the exclusive rights to the content and removed most of the content. It is now shorter than a stub (two lines).

User:Soundfrucht says, "I removed my written text, because it is copyprotcted by me"

This requires more than a simple restore. Robert Elliott 23:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I have restored to the last version (Aug 22nd) before these two started editing it, and left a message on Soundfrucht's talk page asking him not to do that. If the previous text was a copyright violation of some of his earlier work, then he needs to explain that and show us where it came from. But it makes no sense that he would remove those words a week after starting to edit the article, words he didn't put there in the first place, and claim that they were "copyprotected" (and not copyrighted). The series of edits are improper; if there was a legit root cause they need to explain this, but for now they're all backed out. Georgewilliamherbert 00:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Please someone have a look at the edit war going on at Eckankar. i am going offline now. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I left the new editor a long message and welcome template about things, and asked him to read our policies, then review his edits. I'd appreciate an admin review of my note, but i'm glad to follow up on his edits tomorrow. ThuranX 02:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, that article sounds like it was written by someone trying to promote the religion and convert others.

Cowman109^Talk

02:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I made that a point of my note to him, please review and you'll see that. As it's a new editor, I'm hoping that clarification of policy and the chance to self-revert may be enough. If not, we can surely pursue stronger recourse. ThuranX 02:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not even that user. The whole article was awful before he came along. Just looking at it, I feel like it would do more good to wipe the article and start from scratch in a neutral manner instead of trying to fix the mess it's in..

Cowman109^Talk

02:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It was a bit stable a while ago. Even though i do not know much about the subject, i still think it merits {advert}. Tagged. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

ALright, all that I'd agree with, it IS ridiculously overpromoting. Perhaps a review of that article might help the editor learn how to edit here a bit more. I'll watchlist it for a bit, to follow up. ThuranX 04:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think a few of our articles on

Raelians and thinking people should join.. Secretlondon

10:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

eckankar.org is the main source! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The second paragraph of "Plagiarism" was particularly amusing Orderinchaos 04:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The IP User:203.87.127.18 was banned for six months after edit warring on the Family First Party page last month, as well as general incivility; he was also active on the Biblical inerrancy page. A user from User:203.192.92.73 posted the comment "Does blocking an IP work? Dont people ring their ISP and have a new one 5 minutes latter? LOL" to 203.87.127.18's talk page a few days ago (diff), before picking up where the banned user left off.

16:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see this thread. I just left another warning on his talk page. I'll take another look, Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just hardblocked the IP for 6 months. I.e. I blocked registered users on that IP also. If Polygamist times 4 isn't that user he wont be affected. If he is, he will have to call his ISP again. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Strangely, his edits stopped when that IP was blocked.

ELIMINATORJR

17:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Mind you, if he is Australian (as his edit history on a range of Australian political parties might suggest), it was after midnight in all timezones at the time, so I guess a day will tell us if we're right. Orderinchaos 19:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

... however it now being mid*day* with no further posts, quite possible. Orderinchaos 04:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

User snowolfd4 is being extremely hostile, rude and has been repeatedly blanking my edits. I have repeatedly pleaded with him to avoid personal attacks to no avail [16],[17]. This appears to be chronic problem for this user. He had attacked others including admins such as Jayjg, which was reported here [18].

His latest tirade at me over the past few weeks:

"None of your claims are supported by this, so stop disrupting Wikipedia to spread your propaganda, and let genuine editors work constructively to improve articles." [19]

"If you had actually taken time to read the article, you'll have realised what I added was inside the ref tags, not in the actual intro itself. By selectively adding content to the intro, you completely defaced it." [20]

"You want to take this to WP:AN/I or whatever replaced WP:PAIN, go ahead. But mark my words, people like you will not be allowed to destroy Wikipedia." [21]

"You should go back to school and learn what Artillery is without disrupting Wikipedia with your asinine edits." [22]

"Okay, I'm sorry. I'm correcting myself. You need to go back to kindergarten to learn how to Read." [23]

I am not exactly sure what to do next. Please advise. Sinhala freedom 22:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Warning left on his talk page. Georgewilliamherbert 23:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Understood George, and I'll tone down the comments. You however have to understand the reasons why I decided to address the user as such. Looking at his contributions will help, and I won't bother elaborating further because I frankly can think of hundreds of

better things to do

that go over his contributions and point out his sins.

Regarding the above comments, I see nothing wrong with the first three in the context of those discussions. To explain the last two comments,

fact}} tags to every sentence of a paragraph, even though the citation is given at the end of the paragraph, [28]

When he again requested a citation for already cited text [29] with the edit summery

"artillery didn't exists 430 ad, what bs is this ?"

I replied on the talk page with the 4th comment mentioned above. He then replied

"Your wiki reference to artillery precisely proves my points. Either you don't read these things or are ignorant of them. Thanks once again for undoing your arguments."

Per the first sentence of the Artillery article,

Historically, artillery (from French artillerie) refers to any engine used for the discharge of large projectiles in war... Older engines like the catapult, onager, trebuchet and ballista are artillery

which is why, understandably I believe, I suggested he learn how to read. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 00:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The expectation is that you're polite to people even if they're wrong and annoying. Snapping at people as you did just exacerbates situations from polite corrections into hostile conflicts.

NPA warnings don't mean that you're not factually correct on a point. You both have to make the truth known (sources included, etc) and say so in a manner that doesn't cause or exacerbate fights.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 00:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Can an admin tell an editor that he is not allowed to report another users behaviour on this board? Many thanks....NeutralHomer ^T:C 00:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me. El_C 01:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

When said admin is doing everything in his/her power to give you advice to help you avoid a seemingly more and more likely date with

WP:ARBCOM, I think you should take that advice and run with it instead of breaking it and asking about it here. Metros

01:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to my world. --Calton | Talk 01:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Um... can you tell me again why he is not allowed?

cool stuff

) 01:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You'd have to go back through NeutralHomer's edits for the last day or two and see. He's been insulting other editors in slightly sly ways on subsidiary parts of his talk page. He doesn't seem to want to listen to El C anymore... *shrug* maybe not blockable yet, but headed there. He can either listen to advice to knock it off, or keep it up and get blocked, his choice. Georgewilliamherbert 01:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the correct term to use for this situation would be '...'. Correct? HalfShadow 01:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow... look in reporting user's talk page history at the edit summaries, one in particular. :| Orderinchaos 04:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This user user:Kumarrao has indulged in sock puppetry. Checkusr has confirmed that user:Tejam is his sockpuppet (confirmed by User:Deskana). He has done two reverts with two accounts to give the impression of two people agreeing when there is only one user. These reverts were made on articles Chalukya dynasty and Bhattiprolu‎. I request action be taken against user:Kumarrao, in addition to blocking user:Tejam permanently.Dineshkannambadi 03:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the sockpuppet indefinitely per Deskana's confirmation (on Blnguyen's talk page). I've given Kumarrao a warning, but don't see any pressing need to block him. Picaroon (t) 03:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Should be noted Kumarrao complained about another user only a few sections above this one, that complaint should probably be reviewed in light of this finding. Orderinchaos 04:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

He was complaining about me for reverting his edits. Kumarrao has been trying to delete vast amounts of cited information from a Featured article even after he has been adviced (by

WP:UNDUE.Dineshkannambadi

04:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Further, User:Hornplease did look into that complaint and confirmed that my source was a valid source and a well known historian (please see talk page of Chalukya dynasty, a India history related article which I authored) while Kumarrao's source is an Engineering student's web site that was considered "not reliable". This is also the opinion of admin Blnguyen. user:Kumarrao refused to accept their opinion.Dineshkannambadi 04:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason this user makes bot edits without a flag? Just a little curious.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.9.89 (talk • contribs)

Because Gwern isn't making bot edits - being bot assisted isn't exactly the same as being a bot. And if you go through her contribs - you'll notice that there are actually normal, non-bot assisted edits.--

folsom

03:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Can another admin look at the edits in Singapore Airlines and consider protecting this article? The extent and nature of the changes amount to an edit war. The constant major changes are a negative on the article. Vegaswikian 05:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see an edit war, but just major expansion of the article. —Kurykh 05:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I skimmed through the history and the talk page, and everyone seems to be getting along. Someguy1221 05:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I am really irritated with the deletionists here. I posted a 1951 diagram of the Polo Grounds for the express purpose of factual verification in that article and also in The Catch (baseball). Now it has been deleted, of course, despite my attempts to explain its necessity to those articles. I would like for someone to explain how I am supposed to prove the facts in the article without providing the diagram in question, owing to the fact that your average wikipedia reader does not have access to the Official Baseball Encyclopedia of 1951. As I told the potential deleter repeatedly some days ago, and which I also posted on the illustration's page, there is no free alternative. The structure was torn down over 40 years ago. And drawing it myself, besides being a dubious notion in itself, is also blatant original research, as I could draw any bloody thing I want to from some obscure book, and who would know if it's true or not? I explained this stuff to him over and over, and he does not care. Apparently his pleasure in life is in deleting things, and in irritating those whose efforts he deletes. I say in my editing philosophy that I don't like "running to Mommy", and here I am doing just that. But I am getting fed up with these guys. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would suggest that just as a person's having died does not make it impossible for one to find a free image of him/her (I recognize that we have sometimes taken a more liberal view here, permitting, for instance, the use of non-free images of individuals immediately upon their deaths, and I think that to be a good thing), a structure's having been destroyed does not make it impossible for one to find a free image of it (diagrams are, I know, a bit of a special class), although surely—especially where a structure has long been gone, such that there are likely to be fewer readily available photos (and likely even fewer on sites such as

NFCC criterion one doesn't really make any grand distinction. Joe

21:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

As a side point, drawing and uploading something yourself isn't really original research, an element of artistic license is inherently implied in the context of artwork, simply be clear in the image caption what it is your showing. Original research really deals more with text contributions largely to do with science and pseudo-science topics. For example; say you were to come up with a theory that cats evolved from trees, and you'd done a few basic unpublished experiments to 'prove' it. Then you came here and edited the cat article to say they evolved from trees... thats original research, its unpublished and frankly 99.999% likely to be very wrong. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 21:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If the facts come from the Official Baseball Encyclopedia of 1951, just

cite it; the fact that it may not be available online or in most readers' bookshelves is not a problem. Incidentally, uploading a scan from a book doesn't really prove that's what's in the book any more than you simply saying so, since retouching a scan is pretty easy. —Ilmari Karonen (talk

) 22:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a pretty obvious case of fair use being legit. I suggest going to

WP:DRV - I would certainly back you up. Unless we are going to get rid of fair use altogether, this is clearly a legit picture. The Evil Spartan

22:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand why we don't simply create an equivalent diagram. The dimensions of the stadium are known and creating the diagram is a 3 minute exercise in whatever software you want to use. In that sense the image is definitely replaceable by a free equivalent. Pascal.Tesson 22:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The point is that the full dimensions of the stadium are not altogether known to the general public. The key point of fact is that the scale drawing includes a measurement the authors took, showing that the center field bleacher corner was only 425 feet from home plate, not "about 460" as Brickhouse said on the broadcast and which many people thus believe, especially since it's quoted in the article. Aerial photos suggest the truth of the matter also, reaffirming the diagram. And the diagram (drawn by professionals rather than by some idiot like me trying to draw one) jumps out at you, whereas words just lay there. There really seems to be some kind of anti-illustration sub-culture on this site, and I just don't get it. Illustrations say a lot more than words do. Meanwhile, the argument that a free equivalent could be found is made by someone who clearly knows nothing about the subject. I know a lot about this subject. There is no free equivalent. You have this one, and you have similar diagrams in The Sporting News Baseball Guide. Those are the only sources for this information. Everything else I've seen on the subject is taken from those sources. And none of them are free. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The really sad part about all this is that if I had uploaded it and claimed it as my own, the odds are good no one would have made a peep. Instead, I'm honest, and it gets deleted; and you expect me to do some hand-drawn thing. Neither the punishment for honesty nor the encouragement of amateurish illustrations does anything to enhance the credibility of wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers free content to professional-looking content. If it was the other way around, we'd just rebrand ourselves as a licensed vendor of the Encylopaedia Britannica. Also, the same principles that apply to text apply to illustrations in the same way. We always post a new article and cite its info to the source; we don't just copy/paste the source. Same deal with this stadium diagram. nadav (talk) 03:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

In short, you want wikipedia to look like it was done by rank amateurs (which it too often does already). So how does that enhance its credibility? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It occurred to me that there's a possible compromise. The hardest part about drawing the Polo Grounds is getting that half-circle and those quarter circles down. But I theenk of great Lobachevsky and I get idea - aha! I could take the 1951 diagram and revise it sufficiently so that it isn't "theirs" anymore, by adding additional info from the Sporting News Guides and from a photo source that's mentioned in the Polo Grounds article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

As long as the diagram is your own work, you can certainly use that, just make sure you don't use the copyrighted diagram and just add or change things. That would be a derivative work, so it would still be covered under their copyright. And in answer to your early question, yes, we prefer amateurish free content to professional nonfree stuff. This isn't "the any old encyclopedia", it's "the free encyclopedia". And it is written by amateurs, for the most part. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

And in the peculiar world of the internet, looking like it was written by 15-year-olds is somehow considered a good thing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

And amateurism and deceit get by, and honesty gets punished. And yet you wonder why wikipedia as a target of scorn and ridicule. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"Hey! We're wikipedia! We look stupid and ugly, and we want to keep it that way!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The diagram was vectorized. Comments please. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me.Problem solved. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 12:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeh, it's a gem. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I know you meant well, but that illustration is just not bad enough to meet wikipedia's low standards. Maybe you could try throwing the diamond more noticeably out of square, or have a different font size for each numeric digit. With a little more effort, you could draw something so amateurish that even the most ardent wikipedia deletionist will like it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If your only response to people working out a solution which satisfies all our guidelines is snide and childish whining, you need to re-evaluate what you're trying to accomplish here. --Haemo

The problem is I didn't fully understand the "guidelines" before. Until yesterday, I had thought that the bad illustrations that kept turning up were some kind of anomoly. I foolishly thought that wikipedia would want to look professional and attractive, despite much evidence to the contrary. Then that one user set me straight, informing me that looking "amateurish" (i.e. looking stupid and ugly) is actually an objective of wikipedia. And your own comment just confirms that epiphany. You may now close this entire section if you want to. I started with an honest complaint, and the appalling responses I got have really lowered my expectations of what this website is supposed to be. I appreciate that one editor's offer to support my argument, but it is clear that the situation is hopeless. Despite that, I will continue to try to work in wikipedia... only I will also try to steer totally clear of any contact with the deletionists, whose viewpoint I find extremely offensive. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Try

Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve, AN/I is not a forum for bitching about graphics design. If you encourage cooperative editors to adapt the diagram, you'll eventually arrive at a satisfactory render. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩

02:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The original complaint was not about graphic design, it simply evolved into that, pushed by the deletionists who won't accept the fact that there is no free alternative. If you draw it graphically correctly, with all the information, you have effectively produced the exact diagram that already exists in the book. That's a copyright violation as surely as posting the original diagram is. I say again, and again, and again, there is no free alternative. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, what else can I do? You complained someone deleted an image, so I used my admin tools to see what it was. It turned out to be an outline, which I drew in Inkscape. (That is the whole point of the replacability factor people mentioned earlier). I drew it and now you are treating it like trash. What the hell are we supposed to do? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You're supposed to use the actual diagram, the unimpeachible source, with a reasonable fair use argument, rather than making a drawing which has no factual standing and amounts to original research and thus is a violation of wikipedia policy, no matter the argument to the contrary that someone made earlier; and which is also geometrically incorrect. Oh, and thank you for the civil remarks in the edit summary, which I have no doubt will be ignored by the admin who complained about my heated but G-rated complaints. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

And just to clarify the issue, it's not with your diagram, it's with the idiotic policy that wants to make wikipedia look as amateurish as possible, as if that were somehow a plus. I'm still waiting for someone to explain how the purposely-ugly look of wikipedia helps its credibility. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I used the source diagram, it is still in the history as the first upload. It includes the numebrs and stuff, so I am not sure what is OR about it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, if you drew it yourself, based on nothing, then it's original research. If you drew it incorrectly, then it's distortion of the facts. If you drew an exact copy, then it's a copyright violation. Any way, it's a policy violation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It also occurs to me I've been too generous with my phraseology. Of course the home grown diagram is an "alternative" in a loose sense of the word. It is not an equivalent. If it were, it would be an exact duplicate, and hence a copyright violation. FYI, when you switched it from svg to png a minute ago, I can't read it on my PC anymore. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The SVG version is gone, since it didn't include the arrows. Now with the PNG version, it has them. It works fine for me. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record I think you've done an excellent job in the circumstances Zscout370. :) I was in the same position when writing an FA, as all maps were copyvio. However, drawing one in SVG was actually permissible, on the grounds that the area existed in that exact form and it itself was not copyright, so making a new representation of the area was fine so long as I did not use the intellectual property of the mapping firm. This is obviously more of a problem with a *defunct* venue, but a diagram of this type seems to meet the need well as long as it acknowledges the source of its information. Orderinchaos 04:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It "seems to meet the need" to someone who has no idea what the issue is. It's just as well I can't see the new version. I've had enough of this already. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

By US copyright law, creativity is required for copyright. The aspects of the original diagram that were not creative are not copyrightable. Facts are not copyrightable. The shape and dimensions of a baseball ground are not likely to be copyrightable; furthermore, if there IS any copyright possible in them, they would be owned by the designer of the ground, not the person diagramming the facts in existence.

If there is no copyright issue with the diagram from that book, then it is, in fact, free, and there is no need to find an "equivalent" somewhere. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

And on the strength of your explanation, I intend to upload the original diagram again, as there is no longer any reasonable argument against it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The diagram is not a violation of copyright, IMO. As to original research: of course it isn't. It's taking documented facts and illustrating them. It would be original research if one obtained the measurements oneself or out of unpublished data. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

In general, you could be right. You just don't get the issue in this specific case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, above you say you can't see the png version of the image. This is almost certainly because you have an overzealous advertising blocking filter, as the image is in the /a/ad/ directory. If thats the case then you also can't see roughly 1/256 of the other images on Wikipedia. You should exempt Wikipedia from your advertising filter,as we do not have ads here, and if we ever get ads you should get a filter which isn't rubbish. --Gmaxwell 08:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at that. Thank you for your help. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I adjusted one of the parameters in ZoneAlarm, and now I can see the illustration, which is nearly the same as the original and thus nearly a violation of its copyright, if any. I wasn't aware that ZoneAlarm was considered "rubbish", but if so, perhaps you could suggest a superior (even if not free) alternative. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to tell this person that the reference (s)he is irrationally claiming on [32] is given, quoted, and moreover - online readable and accessible. See [33] I explained it on the talk page here [34] which (s)he removed twice. Overall, we have pointless edit war unnecessary damaging this atricle by Spylab.--4.249.72.18 18:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This IP comes from a range that has been editing the article since the block of

talk · contribs) with similar edits. Spylab has accused the IP range of being a sockpuppet in edit summaries, I've let them know about the debate here. Orderinchaos

19:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, pay attention to the problem as reported. Do not sidetrack the issue! The accusation, even if might be justified, does not justify this vandalism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.0.233 (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ante Perkovic

09:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, it is totally obvious that the anonymous IP is a sock puppet of permanently-banned User:Velebit aka User:Guivon aka User:NovaNova aka User:Modelsides, etc. See my IP check request here: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check#Obvious IP socks of banned individual. He has made a few posts at the administrators noticeboard trying to get me blocked, and every single one of them failed because he is the one who violates Wikipedia rules, not me. This individual has been harassing me for months, making personal attacks, vandalizing my user page; and doing the same to other editors as well.Spylab 12:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

After responding to a mailing list request for an unblock, I unblocked

, as the user in question had already been told numerous times, and in any case the warning was dated. I'm undid by Ronz, who states it "assumes good faith" - hardly. I then revert Ronz.

I'm later informed by User:Tango on my talk page that I had been reported for 3RR [39].I explain my reasons to Tango, who agrees with me, and told me next time to get an outside opinion. I then have a conversation with Ronz [40], but he's since readded the link to the page, so I'd like others' opinions. Yes, he might have been spamming, but Ronz has effectively driven off a possibly good contributor by the insistence on readding the warnings - Mdebow told me by email about stuff he'd write about, and I think it's a shame he's been supposedly driven off by this. Majorly (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

As an example of

19:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I have little to say concerning my interactions with Majorly. The warning I gave by definition assumes good faith - that's what it's for, to give a good-faith warning. Accusations of editors actions driving off others are completely baseless as far as I can tell. As for the edit-warring and other interactions, I wasn't a part of any of it, other than my putting the link and only the link onto the page [41]. --

Ronz

19:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as Levine2112's comments are concerned, they're irrelevant and harassment. --

Ronz

20:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think re-adding warnings after the fact, and after the user has been unblocked, is unhelpful? We're allowed to remove warnings from talk pages, and Majorly was trying to give this editor a clean slate to work with. "Good faith" only stretches so far when you keep re-adding warnings like that.

masterka

20:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The most that can be said is there has been some mild "doubtful faith" issues between various of the above (reasonably or otherwise). It's clear that all parties have tried to support the project... Majorly has dealt with the unblock in a way that seems fair... and Ronz has left a warning/note that I agree is basically an AGF note on the editor's page (perhaps because of his history). Maybe what would be best is if Ronz and Majorly can agree that the editor has spammed in the past, and has agreed to be unblocked and to not continue, to AGF of the editor based on his email conversations, and wait and see how it works out when he/she resumes editing. An informal agreement to talk by email and close the matter without illwill by the above named, and an email to the editor to apologize for the minor misunderstanding which was in good faith, may be a reasonable first approach to resolving it. In other words - make peace, let it go this time. Simple and easy miscommunication, no drama, no bad faith obvious :)

If there's more to it than that, or it's a repeated problem in the past, then I would withdraw from the discussion -- this is a "first take" on it, without having looked deeply. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

(Responding to Grandmasterka and FT2) To clarify, I placed the warning as context for the link. I placed the link as a reference for other editors that might later be investigating similar vandalism (the link is easy to search for). My original edit was just to identify the link for future reference. I prefer not to include such links without context of some sort. --

Ronz

20:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I've never known of anyone putting text on a user talk page in order to facilitate searching like that - is that common practice and I've just missed it? I don't really see a need to know who else has spammed a link in the past when dealing with a new case of spamming, it might be nice to know, but it's certainly not necessary. The harm done by issuing warnings for acts that have already been dealt with appropriately far outweighs the negligible gain. --Tango 21:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We all can (and do) examine the contribution history and Talk page history of editors when funny things are afoot. Talk pages are not intended to be nor are they typically used as permanent records of alleged or actual misdeeds or mistakes. --ElKevbo 22:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"is that common practice and I've just missed it?" I don't believe so. Given all the spam investigations I've done, this may be the only one where all warnings were removed, leaving no context for adding a link. I'd prefer not to write up a

Ronz

02:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

How often do people actually search talk pages for spammed links? What do you get out of it? --Tango 13:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be getting off topic here. No matter. When ever I find a spammed link, I always run a search to see if it has been spammed elsewhere. I don't know how often others do so, but link searches are a basic tool for spam and coi investigations. --

Ronz

15:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This user has been

20:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It may be of interest that Toronto has a large and well-known Ukrainian community. Orderinchaos 21:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you open a case on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets and list out all the IPs and users you believe are associated with this? I don't disagree that there's evidence of a problem, but admin review will go much faster if someone who was following the conversation can summarize which ones you think may be socks. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 21:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't figured out how to work that contraption. I can however list the suspected sockpuppets of Horlo. Reginmund 21:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that blocking Holro is unneeded not because he is useful (he is not), but because he is harmless. He used to Kyivize articles around. He does not do it anymore. He used to flood talk:Kiev with his campaign making the talk page unreadable and useless for discussing the articles. This has ended too as the subpage was created specifically for him to type his kilobytes. Unless an addition of harmless (but useless) rant in an amount of several kilobytes per day is really the load that matters for the WP traffic and hard-drive space, he may continue this activity just as well. --Irpen 08:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a rather ingenious solution to this kind of problem that I might well use one day. :) 385k... that's some dedication. Orderinchaos 15:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

- something that I am not sure is a violation of policy but which seems a little off to me.

Could someone maybe have a word with him? Artw 04:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Done.Rlevse 11:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Chaplain Kent Svendsen (USMIL)

04:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

See

WP:SOAP. Raymond Arritt

04:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct. Here was his last account where he was warned for doing the same thing (the Chaplain) ChaplainKent. Dheyward is wrong.

Δbutler•

05:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

(Irony meter pegs scale and bursts into flame; shards damage all within a 10 m radius.) Raymond Arritt 05:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I would remove such trolling but maybe thats expected.

Δbutler•

05:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, you've come off a 1 week block and within a couple of hours, you put your name/account back on this board again? Voluntarily? It's like you want to be indefinitely blocked. (Disclaimer: I take no responsibility if any admins reading this take that last statement as a suggestion). R. Baley 11:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked (for one week) the anon IP 83.229.104.4 (talk · contribs) for disruptive editing and as an apparent sockpuppet of the indef-blocked Klaksonn (talk · contribs) (see discussion of my indef-bloc of Klaksoon at ANI284#Blocked_user:Klaksonn).

I was notified of this by a message on my talk page by another editor, and the reply by the anon IP is definitely Klaksonn's style: a personal attack rather than a discussion of the issues. The contribs also fit Klakson's style: same areas of interest, and the same PoV-pushing abusive style.

In any other case, I would have asked for a checkuser and if the sock was confirmed, blocked indefinitely; but I was unsure what to do with the case of a blocked user clumsy enough to edit from an IP, because

says that privacy policy "does not allow us to make a check that has the effect of revealing IP addresses".

Since I have not previously encountered a situation like this, I'm not whether I have taken the right steps. Can anyone advise? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Given the repugnant edit summaries you can see just from looking at

ム

11:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough! Block now extended to one year. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently now 77.42.178.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log); I've blocked for 24h. Antandrus (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Donny's been trolling for the past couple of days on

21:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment but usually checkuser requests for the purpose of proving one's own innocence are not accepted. Checkuser is not definitive and there are simple methods around it. Analysis of the users contributions is often a far better way of identifiying a sockpuppet or a supporting meat puppet. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 21:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I haven't pursued it myself - Donny can try it if he wants to. A look at the contribution pattern pretty much puts the issue beyond question. Acroterion _(talk) 21:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser's irrelevant to the editor's clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia with the constant addition of what I can only assume is either his personal fetish, or his personal animus (no pun intended) towards the human involed in the story. A substantial block would be appropriate. His movement from article to article to expand and spread his nonsense indicates he's aware that his material is unwelcome, and thus, a block is timely now. he's done this for days, so the 'he's not doing it right now' argument doesn't hold ground; he'll undoubtedly resume his activities next time he's on. ThuranX 02:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Man, the things one finds on Wikipedia. Orderinchaos 19:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, CheckUser shows that he has edited articles as an IP, seemingly to avoid 3RR. My opinion: a substantial ban. He knows the rules and is deliberately playing games. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not an admin, so I can't do much, but FisherQueen's keeping an eye on Donny. He's been laying low ever since this [47], so the net effect is the same. He won't be hard to spot if he comes back. Acroterion _(talk) 15:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

HAHAHA That made me laugh out loud. no, for real. not just a LOL, not the lolz and lulz, a real Scare-my-cats and wake the fert laugh. That ought to make ANY editor sit up and knock it off. ThuranX 19:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

In under half an hour, this editor has redirected dozens of articles to non-existent pages, used offensive language and deletes warnings from his/her talk page. I request that this person be blocked. faithless (^speak) 07:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Was blocked indefinitely about 40 minutes ago. I think that all of his moves have been successfully fixed. I have posted a WP:RFCU on the account to catch any sleepers they may have created. Georgewilliamherbert 07:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, send this to

WP:AIV—Ryūlóng (竜龍

) 07:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, this was my first time requesting a block. Thanks! faithless (^speak) 07:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. You did a good thing. AIV is a more precisely right thing, but this would have been helpful if the incident hadn't already been under control. Definitely, if you see something like this in the future, check if the vandal is still active, and if so take it to

WP:AIV as soon as possible. You may help save us much pain and suffering. The more people help, the better our reactions are. Thanks! Georgewilliamherbert

07:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Might wanna get this checked to see if isn't a Hel Hufflepuff (talk · contribs) sock. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Heee's back

Returned as HAGGGER? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and did 20-ish page moves, similar target set as last time. Another sleeper account waiting since Aug 19th. CU assistance would be very useful right now... Georgewilliamherbert 00:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

12:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

They are playing to see what we pick up. The bots don't seem to pick up wikipedia with the accent. I've blocked a few with account creation blocked but presumably this is having no effect. Secretlondon 12:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

There are more of similar ilk:[49],[50],[51]. Someone has a lot of time on their hands. Can the IP[s] from which the user it editing be blocked? Or should this be ignored until the user gets bored, or actually starts editing?

Kablammo

12:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, [52] and [53] (took a few minutes to figure out how to find this). ThuranX 12:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

He's a prolific one, eh? [54], [55], [User:User Norm was WoW's "good" account until it "departed"], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60],

[61]... and on and on... the IP needs a hardblock. ThuranX 13:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It was given several. It was clearly getting new IP addresses, and we then need to be careful of colateral damage. Secretlondon 20:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The accounts are actually an almost daily occurrence, and usually four or five new accounts are created from each original one. They are sometimes accompanied by articles about raping babies, but most of the time they don't edit at all and can be ignored. My guess is it's a dynamic Optimum IP range. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added Wikipédia to HBC bot's blacklist. I might or might not add one or two other things based on this...

masterka

21:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday, an IP editor had blanked a section on

) 12:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I highly suspect the newly created account and the IP address as sockpuppetry. The blanking of the critical reception is a disgrace. The reasons explained by TheFarix is why blanking it is really bad. Greg Jones II 13:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The user has deleted the section again.[66] I've went ahead and issued a {{

3RR}} warning considering that this is his fifth time in 24 hours he/she has removed the section. --Farix (Talk

) 20:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the user for 31 hours for violating 3RR, and commented that removing cited text without consensus is also vandalism. Hopefully they will become more communative when the block expires... but if socks appear, report it here or at

WP:AIV. LessHeard vanU

21:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

And here I was filling out a 3RR report when you blocked him. I guess I can just ditch that now. --Farix (Talk) 21:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: If you are involved in this dispute, or have strong opinions about it, please do not comment. The intent of this section is to find a way to make the discussion on the talk page more productive, not to discuss a content dispute.

This ancient content dispute (already listed at

, a page I frequent, I wrote the following third opinion there:

Third Opinion - This whole section violates

WP:OR. Unless all of you happen to be doctors of international law, stop the discussion and find sources. Remember that talk pages are for discussing changes to the article, and are not a forum to discuss the subject. Wikipedia is not a forum. User:Krator (t c

) 13:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Another user came from

WP:3O

and reaffirmed the above. From their responses, however, it seems the involved users are not inclined to heed my advice, and will instead continue their forum like chatter on the Wikipedia talk page.

After reading all recent and ancient discussion on this dispute, I do not think the current discussion will become productive after the involvement of third opinions, requests for comment, or even the mediation committee. I think, and fear, that some administrator involvement, and use of fancy buttons, is needed to get any productivity. Either a block per persistent violations of

.

Your thoughts and suggestions are appreciated. User:Krator (t c) 15:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFAR#Liancourt Rocks disputes? Daniel

02:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Good faith editor, bad edits

Can someone advise or help out with

) 16:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This editor is far past the 3RR and continues to revert even after I gave them a 3RR warning. Their reason for including duplicate text of List of The Naked Brothers Band episodes in The Naked Brothers Band (TV series) was that it's for people want's to print it out all at once as stated here. I, like SandyGeorgia, don't know what to do in this situation. Many editors have tried to communicate with them but they continue to revert and ignore the other editors. Any ideas as to what to do would be fantastic at this point. AngelOfSadness talk 17:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

My sense is that Annie doesn't read edit summaries or talk pages; the issue is how to communicate with him/her. Annie is spreading from the Wolff brothers now into autism articles as well; s/he does make some good edits, but how to get him/her to communicate? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to block her to get her attention. There's nothing else that can be done to get the message across that hasn't been done already. Sarah 17:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Another editor just tried something on his/her talk page that might work (a "click on the edit button if you're reading this" message). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a really good idea Sandy, I noticed her earlier and was mulling over what might catch her attention without alienating her. I was going to have a word myself, but what could I say except more of the same and I didn't think that would help? --Zeraeph 18:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

She's got an interesting thing about light switches on her talk page. Perhaps someone can guide her regarding how to add that sort of content to Wikipedia, as the actual article lacks the facts she's written? might make a great 'hands-on' sort of way to show her the right way to work WP by using somethign she does seem to know, and showing how to include that as positive editing? ThuranX 20:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Not that anyone would necessarily suggest it, but it would be a great shame to ban someone simply because they are difficult to communicate with. As far as she seems to understand, she probably isn't doing anything out of the ordinary. Perhaps another request should be made, but the rest of her page blanked to avoid confusion? Because as soon as you click on the "new messages" bar, every time, you see the same top to your userpage. Maybe it doesn't occur to her that new messages are posted at the bottom of the page.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 21:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

After stepping through some of her edits at The Naked Brothers Band (TV series), I note this editor is not a pure vandal and has some literary skills. She knows all about making wikilinks. She knows where the 'undo' button is and she uses it, assuming that anyone who doesn't share her vision is completely mistaken. IMHO she can't go on contributing here unless she is willing to (a) communicate and (b) cooperate. After a certain point, I think we need to ease off on the good faith assumption. Have we never before seen an editor who was well-intentioned but very stubborn? Isn't that about half the cases at Arbcom? EdJohnston 21:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This perspective is relevant to the situation. Raymond Arritt 22:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me direct your attention to the remarkable phenomenon known as:

I'm sure he's glad to have made your acquaintance. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 22:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we have a winner. Raymond Arritt 22:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

And ThuranX's light switch has gone on, indicating possibly s/he is reading his/her talk page. Interesting, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If he's autistic, as seems to be the case, it's possible that he'll read but not respond verbally. Raymond Arritt 23:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, some of the resident MascotGuy experts are telling me that this is not his handiwork. Striking similarity, though.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 02:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

So I went back, and left another note for her, with more suugestions, a welcome template, and a direct link to my talk for more help. Let's hoep that helps. ThuranX 04:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

68.239.144.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) keeps inserting a spam link at Universal Life Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) GreenJoe 19:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That's definitely something for

WP:AIV. -WarthogDemon

19:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I was going to say that - but I blocked and templated the editor first. Also, there should have been a final warning but it was obvious vandalism. LessHeard vanU 20:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

19:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I have unspeedied it, since I found enough Google hits showing some history, with a suggestion to take it to AfD. LessHeard vanU 20:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the review. ThuranX 20:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thijs!bot is a unapproved bot on en.wikipedia. It also vandalized the simple english wikibooks with a similar pattern; make good edits, then vandalize (which it hasn't done yet here). ~ Wikihermit 21:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

My bad, it is approved, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Thijs!bot. ~ Wikihermit 21:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The "robot" at Simple English Wikibooks didn't have the same username. Thijs!bot versus Thjis!bot. — Alex 21:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the nick caught my eye. Just a impersonation it appears (on simple.wikibooks). ~ Wikihermit 21:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Alleged bio includes derogatory and unsubstantiated criticism. Please review for inaccuracies and potential libellous accusations.

S. Wade —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.195.71.193 (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Johnny Rutherford and Johnny Rutherford (baseball) both look fine to me. Could you please clarify? Picaroon (t) 23:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a thing, either. Both articles are pretty much 'career' biographies and nothing else. HalfShadow 23:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

He may have been referring to

John Rutherford (sheriff), specifically to this edit, which sadly lasted for almost two weeks. Someguy1221

00:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparent IP sock

82.83.159.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is blanking userpages of suspected sock puppets of User:Tajik. Mighty suspicous. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks for the alert. — Malcolm (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I've had 9 if I count right separate IP vandals hit my user talk page ( User talk:Georgewilliamherbert ) in the last 9 minutes with various minor and widespread vandalisms. I would guess that there's a site or chat channel somewhere involved; the IPs resolve to Pittsburg, Washington State, Chattanooga, and elsewhere. I would appreciate anyone keeping an eye out for other mischief around my account. Georgewilliamherbert 01:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, I am 1-month blocking the IPs involved. If anyone feels this to be overkill, feel free to discuss here, my talk page (heh), or reduce the time and then let me know. Georgewilliamherbert 01:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, this seems to have started right after this, so logically, that's probably who's responsible; random IPs are literally a dime a dozen. HalfShadow 01:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That guy was quite reasonable, and I just recommended him to get a WP account and keep editing. I think it's more likely any of the many trolls I've been dealing with this weekend... Georgewilliamherbert 01:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not just protect your talk page? Random IP crap go bye-bye. HalfShadow 01:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm attempting to figure out what's going on and find the source; I don't want to put other admins / editors through a whole night of pointless reverts, so at some point in the not too distant future I expect to semi-protect it.

That said, there was a named account which had been here for at least 2 weeks which was one of the vandals, so there's a real chance that it's a longtime troll and that they can keep throwing sleeper account sockpuppets at it for a while if I just do that. So keep an eye out. Georgewilliamherbert 01:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Aha. This edit [69] appears to tie it to Naius (

01:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know how the hell he managed to do that? That wasn't your regular average dynamic IP... that was from all over the place! Gscshoyru 02:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect an IRC channel, or a chat elsewhere; there was a mention of 4chan in passing in one of the edits, but I don't know if that's related or not. Any ideas would be appreciated. The IPs do literally appear to have been all over... Georgewilliamherbert 02:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

So it looks like we had 23 (!) unrelated IPs around the country. I'm in the process of making a list for followup purposes. Georgewilliamherbert 02:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Admin Maxim just semi-protected the page; it was about time, now that we have a suspect. Georgewilliamherbert 02:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

And now the socks are attacking me <super sarcasm>oh what a tradegy</super sarcasm>. Anyways, I'm just block for a month for every vandalism now. Quite simple. Maxim_(talk) 02:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's probably 4chan... no point in collecting IPs, they're actually different people vandalizing the page for fun (or maybe there was a good reason mentioned on the board, but either way it's not some huge sockpuppet effort or anything)... Blocking for 1 month might be a bad idea considering that usually these things are one-time occurrences (i.e. someone makes a post "vandalize this page", a person reads that, vandalizes the page, and forgets about it 5 seconds later), and it's quite possible some of those IPs are dynamic... ugen64 05:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

A numbder of IP editors have been edit warring on this article over the removal of some sort of spam image from an article that is currently AfD. One of the IP's appears to be static and has gone way beyond

01:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected on whatever version was the most recent per The Wrong Version. The IPs seemed dynamic, so blocking would be pointless. —Kurykh 01:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked the user indefinitely for his violation of

04:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. This was an extremely weird account anyway but NLT is a no-brainer. --Irpen 04:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

63.249.108.50 appears to be Steve Yatson V.P. of e-frontier America, Inc. who is erasing all references to competitive products and is promoting himself. ~ Robert Elliott 18:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Report to

AIV. That constitutes as vandalism. -WarthogDemon

18:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually that IP hasn't edited for about 2 weeks now... -WarthogDemon 19:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Warned with my customized high-performance {{coi-stern}} template. The IP is a DSL line but seems to be static, as all of the edits are to the same article for many months. Raymond Arritt 19:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

(argggh, e/c with WarthogDemon then Raymond) Maybe I'm missing something, but AIV isn't really the thing for this, and indeed I don't really get why this is here at ANI at all. (1) IP hasn't edited since August 22, (2) zero warnings (or discussion, or anything) on IP talk page (before Raymond, obviously) or on the talk page of either article, (3) all their edits have already been reverted, and (4) no evidence provided, or (admittedly only looking into it for 5 minutes) visible to me on-wiki, that this is who you say it is. Instead of AIV, might I suggest (1) Continuing to keep an eye on the article, as you are obviously already doing, (2) if they come back, discuss it with them, (3) don't worry about it unless the inappropriate edits come back, and (4) if you have evidence this is a COI, report it to WP:COIN if they come back and talking with them doesn't work. --

barneca (talk

) 19:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I should've looked at that more closely. I do concur with Barneca. My bad, gentlemen. -WarthogDemon 19:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Notice the IP locates to Santa Cruz, California which is -- guess what -- where the corporate headquarters of E-Frontier America is located. The writing style sounds like it was written by the PR dept of the company that makes the program. Putting these two together gave a sufficient score on the

duck test for me to apply the warning. But if the two of you don't think the warning belongs, I won't complain if you remove it. Raymond Arritt

19:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, well at the very least that seems to be enough to warrant an eye or two being kept on that IP. -WarthogDemon 19:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any real problem with the template, although I might have used a customized high-performance {{coi-halfway between gentle and mildly stern, but a little closer to stern I guess}} template, since no one has talked to them before. However, I agree, after seeing your comments above, that a COI of some kind is likely, even if I don't see evidence that the IP is actually the VP of e-frontier America. My comments are more directed at

barneca (talk

) 19:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Note from

Poser Figures to see that the problem has not been fixed. Robert Elliott

12:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

(OK, I'll blink first and de-indent) Robert, you're correct; I saw your edit yesterday to

barneca (talk

) 12:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope this is considered unacceptable

Please look at this diff by user:Jeeny [70]. I sincerely hope Wikipedia does not condone this sort of behavior --Common Sense Prevails 05:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia

does not condone that sort of behaviour. I have taken action by warning the user. Let us hope that the user makes no more comments such as these. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk

07:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

anonymous edit warring over

Legazpi City and Naga City

Involving at least four anonymous editors:

• 62.140.210.158
• 203.131.133.141
• 87.194.3.169
• 121.97.230.61

All of whom have violated 3RR at some point. It has been going on for awhile now. It seems to just be 87.194.3.169 and 62.140.210.158 reverting to one version of the article (which seems to be the more up to date, better quality version) against 203.131.133.141 and 121.97.230.61 reverting to another.

Diffs for Naga City:

• diff for 121.97.230.61.
• diff for 203.131.133.141.
• diff for 87.194.3.169.
• diff for 62.140.210.158.

Diffs for

Legazpi City

:

• diff for 121.97.230.61.
• diff for 203.131.133.141.
• diff for 87.194.3.169.
• diff for 62.140.210.158.

The edit histories of these articles are just a mess. With probably a few good contributions lost in reverting. Little discussion seems to have taken place between the editors. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk|Contribs) 06:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

User:EH101

This guy is making here a campaign defamatory against me extrapolating discussions from other wikipedias and making spamming in user's pages here[[71]], with the clear purpuse to hurt me. Despite i have deleted the parts in question and warmed him to NOT continue in such manner, he continues to do so re-writing the same things as they are untouchables, because he evidently don't accept that a wiki page can be edited from other editors, expecially if personal and denigratory actions are making. This is one of my 'detractrors' in other wikies, and needless to say, his purpuse is to make bad publicity also here, for his own reasons. When i advised him in his talk page he simply (yes, him) had talked about 'personal attacks' because i told him that he should have shame for what he's doing. Cleary he searches to use every occasion to hurt me in every way he can. But after some other stuff already happened, i have really enough of his manners.--Stefanomencarelli 07:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletions

Are users allowed to delete entries from someone else's pages? One user deleted a passage from my personal user's page, and also deleted a message from someone else's talk page. Is this "legal"?

Sardaka 09:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's controversial, sometimes it is, sometimes it is not. But please provide diffs so others could judge the cases in hand. Suva 10:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I looked through the history of your user page and your talk page. I see no recent deletions. IrishGuy ^talk 10:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

MJis AFreak

Resolved

 – with the banhammer. Guy (Help!) 10:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi this is the second time in 2 days that the user MJisAFreak has vandalised my user page, I reported him /her before and it got a warning, now it has to be banned!!![[72]] , when you have taken action would you please let me no on my user page. Cheers. Realist2 09:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Further more he has been making offencive comments on the michael jackson talk page, its clear that his actions are unproductive on wiki.[[73]]. Realist2 09:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC) You might even like to see his edits here [[74]]. Realist2 10:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Resolved?

How is this resolved exactly there doesn`t appear to even be a warning on his user page as of yet. PLEASE let me no. Realist2 10:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a warning at the top of his talk page. If he vandalises again, {{uw-vandalism4}} looks like a good template to use. Though, quite frankly, looking at those edits, I think a block would be better. x42bn6 Talk Mess 10:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No that warning was for the first time he vandalised my page, Im complaining now about the second occurance as well as him comments on the michael jackson talk page, Let me no. Realist2 10:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think it matters, actually. Two sections up, someone indefinitely-blocked him. See this. x42bn6 Talk Mess 10:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh great, its just wierd there isn`t a blocked message on his user page, how are less experienced users like myself ment to no any action has been taken? Realist2 10:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Replied on talk page and User:JzG's userpage. x42bn6 Talk Mess 10:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• TheRightSide (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also blocked as a self-evident sockpuppet of the same idiot. Guy (Help!) 16:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[[75]] CHECK OUT MY USER PAGE BLOCK ALL THESE SOCK PUPPETS PLEASE!!!!Realist2 16:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Please block this stalker

Can somone please block this stalker? 70.222.238.80 "←Created page with 'Sutler. You're a pervert and a disgrace to wiki.'" Thank you.

Δbutler•

10:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Warned up through NPA-4. Further attacks should be blockable now. Georgewilliamherbert 10:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

User:ScottAHudson block evasion

Resolved

Hi.

User:ScottAHudson appears to be evading his block here. Note that he has a history of using multiple IP addresses, though I doubt he does so maliciously or intentionally. Heck, he may not even know that he shouldn't have done it this time. --Maxamegalon2000

13:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked this IP and extended the block on his account. --Chris (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Needing help lifting a block

WP:U, I wanted to unblock him but I am unable to submit the form (probably due to the non latin characters, or the age of the block). Could someone else try to do it please? -- lucasbfr ^talk

14:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you're going to have to get a dev to unblock the user, the same thing happened with User:Daniel Brandt when Jimbo tried to unblock him, it's because the users been blocked for so long. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

a Bureaucrat might suffice, please note my request on

Daniel Tzvi

14:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the user for one second, which should fix the problem, IIRC. --B 14:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

help!!!!!!!!!

Resolved

[[76]] CHECK OUT MY USER PAGE BLOCK ALL THESE SOCK PUPPETS PLEASE!!!!Realist2 16:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Page semi-protected by User:Persian Poet Gal. x42bn6 Talk Mess 16:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Here, SSP, or CU?

Asking for an admin to step in, as I don't want to seem like i'm on a vendetta.

I noticed this edit [77] today, and what concerns me is that it's a first edit that handles an external link with ... do we call taht cover text, or labelling, or what?... whatever it is, perfectly. It supports the website of this user, User:AdamFendelman, who runs that very site(evidence of which was on an article about him). I don't want to pursue this, because I already nominated the article about that user, as a Speedy A7 after trying to clean it up left me with nothing BUT extenal links and peacock terms. To go after him any further would seem like I'm 'after him'; I'm not, but this is sort of foolish stuff. AF has been adding his site in as a reliable site and so on, and been reverted a few times[78] and [79], so this is more than coincidental, I think. Thanks. ThuranX 06:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

AdamFendelman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a COI/spam-only account. Virtually every edit he's ever made has been reference spamming for hollywoodchicago.com, and citing himself. [80] [81][82] This account should be indef blocked.

Itsallthat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has only made one edit [83], spamming that same, obscure, PageRank zero website. This is an obvious sock, so it too should be blocked. - Jehochman ^Talk 06:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The editor has contacted me, and left a note at the article talk, protesting complete confusion about the reverts of his edits, but his talk page has a lengthy litany of warnings and communiques about this sort of thing. I find it hard to believe that when you declare it to be your original content blog, you don't understand, as a journalist, the sort of unverifiable nature of the writings, and the conflicts it sets us up for. ThuranX 06:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Despite asking me on my talk page, and at the article page, for how to cite things correctly, the editor immediately jumped to another article nad did EXACTLY what got him into conflict before. See his contribs here. [84]. While my reply to him came at the exact minute as his First edit to Julie Delpy, he made another right after, which suggests to me that he really is a spam account. ThuranX 06:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an obvious case of a disruption-only account. The user has made virtually zero good faith contributions. Everything is spam and COI. - Jehochman ^Talk 06:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, he readded the link to Julie Delpy, because I just removed it along with another one he added as an inline ref. He knows what he's doing. - KrakatoaKatie 11:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

User continues to act in the same manner, despite my attempts to communicate with him, after posting here and talking to Jehochman. ThuranX 06:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup. I've cleaned up about 50% of the spam, but I have to go to bed. Here's the rest that needs mopping up. - Jehochman ^Talk 07:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Please be patient with the editor and talk to him rather than snap-blocking for this. If that's really his name and his userpage is accurate, he's a legit journalist and this is just a communications gap over what Wikipedia is all about. Try to explain nicely. Georgewilliamherbert 07:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

His actions are not limited to

The Dark Knight. He attempted to add content to Spider-Man 3 back in May 2007, and he was warned by another user and myself, as seen on his talk page. I agree that his contributions do not seem to reflect good faith -- to constantly cite your very own site and pretty much nothing else does not reflect positively on the editor. If the editor's contributions reflect a more varied background of contributions, there may be some argument here, but there is not. —Erik (talk • contrib

) - 10:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

GWH - As mentioned above, I have, in fact, tried a couple times to explain to him that linking to his own blog, especially in the self-promotional manner he does it in, and quoting his own reviews about movies, represents a violation of the COI policy. He keeps asking how he's supposed to link to his blog correctly, and how he's supposed to link to his blog if we don't let him link to his blog. As such, his primary, if not only, concern in all this is getting his blog out there. After being notified of this AN/I thread, and having it explained to him a couple times, he continued to edit to include his blog and his commentaries on the film and actor/-ress pages that his blog had covered. Perhaps hearing from an admin would help? ThuranX 12:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, this editor has made virtually no good faith contribution. He's added dozens of spam-COI links to his own site. That's all he's ever done. If you like talking to a brick wall, fine, but please don't expect the rest of us to assume good faith when there's overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The fellow has received numerous warnings and hasn't stopped. He's not clueless. He knows exactly what he's doing, and he's playing us for fools. This is why it's so damn frustrating for some of us who don't have tools. After we spend the time to investigate and clean up a mess, most admins still want the formulaic four warnings within 7 days. A savvy spammer can run a slow-motion spam campaign and fly below the radar. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to block him for as long as six months, maybe even indef, and also willing to put the domain on the spam blacklist if he spams again. As I said above, he knows what he's doing even while he's feigning innocence. Users like this guy drive me crazy and are our biggest problem, at least as I see it. KrakatoaKatie 11:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The biggest, I don't know, but top 10, definitely. I suport such a long term blocking, although he's sure to rail against it on his blog/newssite. ThuranX 22:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

edit warring, sock, incivility, etc...

59.91.254.20 (talk · contribs), apparently a banned user, edit warring at Romila Thapar with Ankush135 (talk · contribs), apparently a new user. topped with incivilities ... etc. Doldrums 17:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have tagged the user as a suspected sockpuppet since the ip claims he is User:Kuntan and has a similar ip address to his other sockpuppets. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 18:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

59.91.254.20 (talk · contribs) is certainly Kuntan, but it's worth noting that in posts on my talk page he's accusing User:Ankush135 of editing from an open proxy User:203.112.84.138, and also being a sock of User:Bharatveer. I have no idea if either of these things are true, but someone else might want to check it out. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP address for a week. Picaroon (t) 18:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion

DCBMSNB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a sock of the permanently banned Float954 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Skarth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (same SPA topics).

He appears to have made a brief revisit as an anon 'bad hand' 85.74.181.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to repeat nuisance edit pattern of removing tags from a range of Salamis articles (and vandalize the page of the editor who had placed the tags [85]) then come back immediately as DCBMSNB to edit those same articles. See identical edit pattern at Ampelakia, Agios Georgios, Salamis etc.

Does anyone have any ideas on how to handle this long-term? While registered edits can be tackled as and when they appear, the main problem is that this editor is using revolving IP addresses to keep obstructing cleanup on this block of articles. Gordonofcartoon 22:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

User:88.86.31.1

88.86.31.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is clearly a sockpuppet of blocked CoCoWaWa (talk · contribs). The IP has now been blocked three times for a period of 24 hours each time. They've said they'll be returning. Any chance this IP address can be blocked for a longer period of time? Corvus cornix 19:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I extended the block to 1 week and fully protected the CoCoWaWa userpage from editing. Edit: Avraham extended the block even further.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I think the blatantness of the sockpuppet entry called for a longer block. I'm late here because I was asking this to be checked at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. The ISP resolves to Syria while some DNS info is returning Jordan. This may be perfectly fine, but I'd prefer it checked by our experts. -- Avi 19:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Him

This user has been attacking me for no reason making false statements I agreed that I will comprise but they haven't shown any signals of editor editing and making articles more neutral. Also this user falsely makes accusations against other users including me I never edit warred that is not my intention while he states that, please show me where I revert warred. [86] --Hu1lee 23:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• In the whole article he says I edit war I only did this I added it personally. [87] --Hu1lee 23:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Chrismaster1

(cur) (last) 01:00, 4 September 2007 Chrismaster1 (Talk | contribs) (14,350 bytes) (Undid revision 155324121 by Justlettingyouknow6 (talk)do not delete the band i btich slap you) (undo) This is an entry posted by Chrismaster1 on the Northside High School Warner Robins Georgia page. Chrismaster1 uses abusive language and posts information that is inflammatory and not relevent to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.119.239 (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I gave him a notice about

WP:OWN. Mr.Z-man

02:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Wikimachine revealing the e-mail address of a banned user

See User:Good friend100. Why is User:Wikimachine revealing this user's e-mail address on his behalf? Is a banned user not allowed to even edit his own user page?--Endroit 03:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the first part - however to your second question: a banned user can only edit their talk page.--

folsom

03:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, if it looks OK to everyone here, I don't see any problems. I guess they're probably friends with each other.--Endroit 03:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if Wikimachine is revealing the user's email on their behalf, it would indeed suggest they are friends. Perhaps the user was unable to edit their page, and needed a way to give out their email? Either way, I agree, there seem to be no problems. Cheers, Arky ^¡Hablar! 03:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The only issue I see at the moment is Wikimachine's edit history, which shows he seems to be continuing a revert war that

Cowman109^Talk

04:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal rapid transit article, again

User:Avidor is again repeatedly adding the POV tag to the PRT article without specifying any actionable items to fix. I've asked him on the talk page to provide specifics for his concerns, and he refuses to do so, but continues to add the POV tag. This dispute has been going on for almost two years now, we've been through multiple rounds of mediation, and every line in the article has been meticulously battled over. And since I don't know what Avidor's problem is with the article, I couldn't even go to RfC if I wanted to - Avidor is the one who has the complaint but he refuses to fix it or specify what needs to be fixed.

Avidor recently opened two COI cases, neither was judged to have any merit, so he started posting his appeal on admins' talk pages - the last one (Radiant) told him to go to dispute resoution. Avidor didn't do that, and now is warring on the POV tag. I should point out that Avidor is a SPA that has never edited any article other than PRT-related articles.

I've reverted the POV twice, and I've asked him several times for specifics, but he hasn't provided any. I have no issues with the article so I can't even file an RfC, yet I'm hesitant about reverting the tag because of 3RR. Can someone please help? ATren 01:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I did that here That PRT article is full of POV pushing, weasel words, original research and uncited sources. Many of the sources are self-published and unreliable (see discussion on talk page)...Avidor 01:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Which weasel words, and which uncited sources? You've been making the same claim for 20 months without specifics. And I also believe someone told you RfC is the next step, why haven't you filed? I am asking you to stop making vague assertions of POV and please provide specifics, otherwise this is just a never-ending game. ATren 01:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

ATrens User Page: "Full disclosure: I have a blog (written as "A Transportation Enthusiast") called "Weiner Watch"... I really don't think I should have to argue with an anonymous editor who links to an attack blog on me on his user page....Avidor 02:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As an interesting side note, immediately prior to Avidor going on his latest kick, somebody with the IP address 71.222.132.52 tried to delete virtually every Wikipedia reference to PRT that they could find. Curious... 69.114.55.236 02:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That IP appears to be from Albuquerque, NM, and Avidor is located in Minnesota, so it may be just a coincidence that those edits appeared now.... ATren 03:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have posted a detailed answer to all of Avidor's stated complaints on the PRT talk page. It is my conclusion that there is nothing actionable in Avidor's complaint: every concern he raises is either (a) already covered by the article or (b) original research with absolutely no support from reliable sources. I will let this sit for the next day or so, and if nobody objects, I will remove the POV tag until Avidor can provide specific details as to his complaint. I don't wish for this 2-year-old war to be rekindled again, so I would appreciate others' suggestions as to whether this is the best approach, or if there is some other path I should take. ATren 03:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

ATren's user page refers to 'fraudulent claims made by Ken Avidor about PRT'. I suggest that this language on a user page violates policy, and ATren should remove it. Our article says that fraud is a crime, so you can't keep the phrase there without attacking Avidor. EdJohnston 04:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

On rereading what I wrote (a while back) I agree that "fraudulent" may be construed as an attack and so I've removed it. Do you have a comment on the POV tag issue? ATren 06:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'd hate to say this, but if this dispute really has lasted for two years, I'd suggest taking it to the
  ArbCom directly, as other methods are unlikely to help any more. I realize this is at heart a content dispute, but I've seen many allegations of misbehavior, POV-pushing, revert warring, and of general nastiness from both sites. The ArbCom also has the authority to determine conflicts of interest, if any. >Radiant<
  09:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me..also include the

Skytran/Unimodal PRT article, thanks...Avidor

13:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to go to ArbCom if you like. In the meantime, there is the issue of the POV tag on the PRT article - please respond to my questions on the PRT talk page or I will remove the tag.

WP:NPOVD states "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies... Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." You have now applied the POV tag 3 times without giving specifics as to what is wrong, so once again, please either specify actionable items on the talk page, or I will remove the tag. Thanks. ATren

13:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Done that. ATren has vowed on his user page to "defend" this article.

WP:OWN I think it's time for editors with a more neutral opinion of PRT to work on the PRT article...Avidor

14:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no connection to PRT whatsoever, financial, political, or comical. :-) I hadn't even heard of PRT until 2 years ago. For two years, you have been trying to get this page to reflect your well documented view that PRT is a scam, yet you don't provide any sources for your claims; indeed, there is a great deal of reliable evidence to oppose many of your claims. Please see the talk page, where again I have made every effort to address, in detail, each of the concerns you listed. Since your primary actionable complaint seemed to be the Skyloop article, I've added a qualification for that link, and I've removed the POV tag. Please do not edit war on the POV tag, and discuss any further actionable items you may have on the talk page. ATren 15:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Well, since both of you appear still to be in disagreement here, and both of you have stated you find arbitration an acceptable solution, I would suggest that either of you make a request on
  WP:RFAr. I don't think I'm sufficiently familiar with the background of this dispute to explain it to the ArbCom myself. >Radiant<
  09:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom is perfectly acceptable to me, but I'm not going to file it for the simple reason that I don't have a problem with the article. If Avidor does, he can file the case. ATren 09:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No, but you do appear to have a problem with Avidor. And vice versa. >Radiant< 09:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the issue with the POV tag seems to be resolved for now, so feel free to archive this section (if nobody else objects) ATren 09:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Geogre and Peachoid

It's just odd - There is a dead image link on this page that three different editors have removed, but

Shankbone

20:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• With incivility and personal attacks. [88] --David
  Shankbone
  20:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, please don't tell on me! I'm so ashamed. I was found to be unpleasant, and that's just shocking given the 3RR gaming you're doing. Geogre 20:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The personal attacks are continuing, as is the incivility. --David
      Shankbone
      20:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Or

Or, the image people tagged an image and then a bunch of -bots deleted it. -Bots then went to remove the link from articles. I disagreed both with the deletion of the image and the idea that a human being might not be able to find the image with its legitimate source. Since the image (and people never, ever, ever seem to be able to read articles) that was lost showed the artifact at the time of its construction (fruited fields and nothing else) and all others are user-generated photos from the current day (neon parking lots), and since the entire point of the photo was not to illustrate what an article already described quite well, but to demonstrate that folly architecture can have an economic impact, I did not believe that removing the link was fruitful, since its presence reminded me and the two other people who (get this, folks!) actually work on the article to go find a free image or the source of the imperiously deleted image.

Now, has anyone asked me why I wanted a dead link? No. Has anyone brought up the issue on the talk page? Not until today. I received a scolding and arrogant message from the ever-delightful

until today. So, if there are other people who work on the text of the article, how have they been made aware of the issues involved? They haven't! If there is a need to call out for more searches for the original, how have they been made? They haven't! All we have is -bots, then -bot fiends, reverting, and no one discussing anything. "Why would they," DavidShankbone asks. Indeed. Why, on earth, would anyone bother to ask? Why on earth would anyone enter into a discussion with a long time user who happened to write the article?

Oh, that's right: it's what we're supposed to do to prevent edit wars! Until people learn to talk rather than revert, I can and should be as imperious, because I have neither motive nor invitation to be otherwise. Geogre 20:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

---

There are two things wrong here. First that I can see is the inappropriate use of administrator rollback. Second is the wheel warring over the deletion of Image:Peach2.gif.

• 10:24, 1 September 2007 Angr (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Peach2.gif" ‎ (I4 (no source given))
• 21:08, 31 August 2007 Geogre (Talk | contribs) restored "Image:Peach2.gif" ‎ (8 revision(s) and 1 file(s) restored: USgovt PD; Please learn to READ)
• 19:22, 31 August 2007 Angr (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Peach2.gif" ‎ (In category Images with unknown source s of 23 August 2007; no source)
• 02:46, 23 August 2007 Geogre (Talk | contribs) restored "Image:Peach2.gif" ‎ (4 revision(s) and 1 file(s) restored: It HAD licensure, USgovt PD, but those tags got removed in all the bot frenzy; if PEOPLE read these things, it might work out better)
• 15:56, 22 August 2007 Cholmes75 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Peach2.gif" ‎ (In category Images with unknown source as of 14 August 2007; no source)

If this image really has a source, why is it being repeatedly deleted? This needs to be discussed.

21:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does need to be discussed. I would like some time to try to find it. I was not the source of the thing, or we'd never have this issue, but it was editorially important. It is imperative that a shot from a light up parking lot from 2007 not be employed in that spot. Therefore, if people want to play games and try to lock the article, lock it with no image displayed there. I've left it now with the images commented out. They could even be put in comment fields, for all I care, but no one discussed. No one was willing to find out why I wanted that placeholder. No one would extend the slightest bit of faith to someone who has a pretty sterling record in these matters, and I can't help but find that offensive and churlish. Geogre 21:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Keeping a dead link in an article is frankly bizarre. Secretlondon 21:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No one disagrees with that. I want to know why it was being deleted. Does it have a valid source or not? It would be best to settle this and move on so the article can be unprotected.

Burntsauce

21:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it hasn't got a source, that's the whole point. And that's also why Geogre's whole anger is so misguided. Why are people not discussing with him? Because there is nothing to discuss. The image has no source, it must be deleted, period. Why he wants it, why he thinks it's valuable for the article, that's all unfortunately completely irrelevant. The only question - to him - is: what's the source? Once somebody brings that, the issue is solved. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The source appears to be [89]. The image was originally tagged PD-US-Gov, but since there was no source it was a valid deletion. The source makes the PD-US-Gov tag suspect, the site is the Gaffney web site and is copyright noticed to the webmaster I think, works of local governments are not automatically public domain as works of the Federal Government are. It's too bad Geogre didn't try a non-free but fair use rationale based on the fact that this is a photo of the peachoid before development around it and thus can not be replaced with a free version. Wheel-warring, of course, sucks, but Arbcom doesn't seem to care lately.

Thatcher131

21:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that is the source. The Gaffney site has stolen liberally from Wikipedia. I know this because, when I wrote the first draft of the Peachoid, I went to the Gaffney, SC page, and it had almost no illustration. It had a good enough description of the project, and that was my major source, but the image was added by another user, and I liked it precisely because it seemed to show the water tower long before any of the Gaffney photos. Gaffney has now grabbed much from us and copyrighted it (stupidly, because, of course, it is not really copyrighted, but merely the web designer's automatic copyright). This is what has kept me from being able to clear up the provenance of the image. This isn't about the image (this AN/I posting) but about being treated with utmost scorn by people who refuse to discuss matters and insist merely that their -bot overlords must be obeyed. Geogre 21:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Most confusing to me is that the Peachoid article has plenty of images to begin with, so I'm not sure why we need to fret about one that doesn't even have valid sourcing information. Oh well.

Burntsauce

21:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well they are clearly showing different things. Also at least two of the photos have time and date stamps. Secretlondon 21:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The site Thatcher links to includes a disclaimer on the front page that it's "maintained and owned" by a private individual, and not the City of Gaffney. Which suggests even more strongly that this image, should it have originated there, is not a public domain work. --InkSplotch 21:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It isn't about wheel warring or anything else. I have said it and said it: my "anger" is at people not willing to discuss matters. Treated with reverts, I reverted. Geogre 21:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, there are "plenty of images," and absolutely none of them does what is needed in that position. This is my editorial stance. No one even seems to understand what is needed in terms of illustration. It is precisely because the article has gobs of gaudy pictures of cartoonish aspect that it needs a Govt photo of the structure immediately after construction. There is no significance to the Peachoid at all (it's way, way below my standards) except that it had an effect. I do not write articles about things that are just neato. Geogre 21:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Take a deep breath please. You just broke admin policy by revert-warring on a protected page; I'm sure you broke 3RR in the process... there really is no justification for this. The way you're going, you're heading for desysopping. Much as I would hate to see that, believe me. And on the matter itself, I repeat what I said just above: there is nothing to discuss. No source, delete, period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was simply removing the protection which had been applied in contravention of policy. The article was not reverted. Indeed, no one has offered a single rationale for the image that you placed in the lead. Furthermore, there has been no wheel war over the image. Of course the image is gone, and I do hope you're actually reading this exchange. No one has been disputing the presence of the image. The reverting of people who revert without discussion is absolutely not a 3RR violation, and if you believe that there is some kind of sanction, you go ahead. I do ask, though, that you save yourself the bother by disentangling these issues and clearly understanding them.

1. You applied protection without discussion, without listing the page.
2. You reverted to a form of the page that had a particular image in the lead and that removed a dead link.
3. No discussion took place on the talk page to justify this change.
4. To be neutral, I undid your mistaken (I hope) breaking of policy by unprotecting and, to keep anyone from having the upper hand while the matter was being discussed here, commented out both the dead link and the oddly substituted image.
5. This was not a reversion to "my" form. It was a neutral form that simply had no displayed image in the lead.

I remind you that discussion is necessary, and you have not offered a single byte to the discussion before the threat, above. Do, please, take care. Geogre 21:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Geogre, could you please provide the diff where Fut. Perf., "reverted to a form of the page that had a particular image in the lead and that removed a dead link."? And why is discussion necessary before protecting a page over which editors are, for good or ill, revert-warring over? --Iamunknown 21:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Why? You got me. It is the policy, however, because protection is not supposed to be used lightly. Take a look through the history. The dead link was to "Peach2." The one that shouldn't be in the lead is the one from the stupid Fatz parking lot. If there cannot be a meaningful photo that will add to the significance of the object, then there really doesn't need to be a picture at all. We shouldn't be making pages to show off kewel places. Geogre 21:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, from your fourth sentence on, I'm lost. You say that the protection of pages should not be done lightly. I agree. I would argue more, however, that edit warring is even worse than page protection, and that page protection is a necessary evil to attempt to stop edit wars. However, that was blown right out of the water once you edited the protected page, but I digress... --Iamunknown 01:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Geogre must be seriously misreading the edit history there. I made a standard protection on the "wrong version", with no changes except for the standard protection tag. [90]. Geogre then edited, while the page was protected, re-introducing the redlink to his image and thus essentially reverting to his version (while incidentally also deactivating the other image) [91]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• The question is: why does Geogre need a dead link on an article while he tries to find a source? Why is that necessary? --David
  Shankbone
  21:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The question? You want to ask now? I hope we don't weary of your postings to AN/I, then, because you should have been asking long ago. Geogre 21:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • Restored with an appropriate fair use rationale. I would like to think that Geogre had better reasons for wanting a dead link in the article than just making a point about image deletions and license tags and people who overuse templates.
      Thatcher131
      21:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Editors aren't required, or even expected, to ask the motivations of other editors who continue to make questionable edits. It is up to that editor to explain their "motivations". This seems to more about an editor needing attention, than any dispute over adding broken links. Crazysuit 21:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
        • The contact address for http://www.gaffney-sc.com/Waterpeach.htm is gaffney-sc (at) gaffney-sc.com. Would someone like to email them to ask where they obtained their images? Even if they copied the image from us (Wikipedia) initially, we still need to provide a reliable source which documents this image as being in the public domain.
          Burntsauce
          21:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

IMO that isn't a very good fair use rationale. Perhaps this free image could serve the same encyclopedic purpose - that is, show the peachoid in a non-developed location. --Iamunknown 21:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrong peach.

Thatcher131

21:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops! --Iamunknown 21:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If Geogre believes that the image was not originally on the Gaffney web site then it needs to be deleted as no source. I'm not sure why he thinks this image should be exempt from the normal rules.

Thatcher131

21:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't. It's not about the image. I wanted a dead link so that I could go look for the original. By having the dead link, even in a comment field, I could be sure of the file name, so I could not forget what I was looking for. Since it's a low traffic page, and since I am reliable, I figured that I'd give myself about 48 hours to look. If I couldn't find anything by that point, I would take a second look to see what we needed to do. I do not think that a contemporary photo is a good idea, but I was going to (there's that word again) discuss it with the others who have worked on the page to take their temperature. However, none of that would be allowed. Well, revert without discussion, and you're creating conflict. It's that simple, and I should very much like it if the image -bot minders realized it. It's probably a lost cause, globally, but perhaps one on one they might reconsider their bad behavior. I see now that even that was too much to hope for. Wikipedia is not about discussion any more. It's about projects and -bots and templates and tags and hierarchies of obedient little users and the mighty. Geogre 21:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• WTH? I just realised Geogre is an admin?! Personal attacks, edit warring, disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point... how do these people become admins? I would suggest and support the removal of Geogre's admin status , this behavior is bad enough from an editor, but totally unacceptable from an admin. Crazysuit 21:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• • You are entirely uninformed about me, but now you're totally informed about me? Gorsh. Geogre 21:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, people need to take deep breaths here. Thatcher's adding the appropriate fair-use tagging to the image is an important and helpful step that may help move this seeming tempest-in-a-teapot toward a resolution. I see little reason for the level of hostility present in this thread. I agree with Geogre that image-taggers and other editors should discuss their actions when other users express concerns about their actions, but I would also submit that it is in order for an editor with a concern to begin the discussion himself or herself, before bitterly faulting other users for failing to discuss. Newyorkbrad 21:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me as if Geogre has been consistently trying to begin discussion. Several editors have been quite rude here, and Geogre is not one of them. All problems above seem to stem from action without discussion. Purples 22:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it started when Geogre got into a 9-day long revert war with some image removal bots rather than address the problem with the image that was causing the bots to remove it.

Thatcher131

22:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll try and avoid a useless squabble, suffice to say I disagree. Purples 22:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

One thing for future reference is that it is far too easy for Wikipedia's processes to help people steal copyright. One of the steps in the process is images being deleted as unsourced or as "copyvios". When we have unsourced images (or indeed text), we quite rightly demand rigorous sourcing and copyright information. What we must be wary of doing is not requiring others to do the same. The mere claim of copyright on another website is insufficient to demonstrate that that website actually holds the copyright to the text or image. They must be able to demonstrate that they hold the copyright by providing a certain minimum of information (usually the date of the photograph and the identity of the photographer). Failure to do this makes a claim of copyright suspect, and probably unenforceable. I'm not going to comment on the behaviour of the people involved here, as that is distracting from the real issues. Carcharoth 23:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Who cares about what image is used for pubic hair, as long as we don't let the HMOs privatize Wikipedia's health care, I'm feeling alright! El_C 23:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The reverting is truly weird for one reason: the text could easily have been hidden. Use <!--Image, Blah blah--> and nobody sees it. *Shrugs.* Marskell 15:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This user has repeatedly keeps making unproductive/incorrect/down-right wrong edits to articles. Additionally, he has been cited for creating non-notable or nonsensical articles

This is not the first time that this user has come up for for discussion. He/she has been repeatedly asked to refrain from making these edits, but does not respond on his or the article's talk pages.

He has been blocked once and I am afraid that he or she needs to be blocked again for minimum of one month (preferably), permanently if possible.

Thank you for your time in this matter, Jerem43 00:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll monitor the user for now... It's been 4 days since his last deleted article creation, so hopefully, he'd stopped. Recent edits seem to be constructive... --D_arkF_alls ^talk 13:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

-- looks like it won't happen again --Haemo 17:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This

) 01:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing it with them? Viridae^Talk 02:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, he accused you of being a sockpuppet of yourself. The quick revert suggests it was an accident. But yes, talking is always a good idea...Someguy1221 03:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, I didn't put it as a threat or anything at all. --Vonones 03:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Just be very careful next time. An accusation of sock puppetry is a very serious issue and, if unwarranted, can lead to a great deal of stress to both the users involved. Cheers, Arky ^¡Hablar! 03:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok well I don't think accusing him of his self is really going to be a problem ;-) it won't happen again. --Vonones 03:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If I want to go to Arbitration over a case of User Conduct, do I have to go through Formal Mediation first?

Sardaka 07:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Formal mediation does not deal with disputes over user conduct, but rather content disputes. The Arbitration Committee, per

user conduct request for comment be completed before filing a request for arbitration. Cheers, Daniel

09:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You can also take a look at

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration to see what types of cases typically get accepted or not. Arbitration is meant to be the last step in dispute resolution, so I think what they are really looking for is concrete evidence that earlier steps were tried (or in occasional cases, that they couldn't possibly have worked). Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad

12:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just been flicking through the contribs of Bennyboyz3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and it does look like he's been somewhat abusing twinkle. He's tagged a number of pages for speedy deletion using twinkle that quite simply aren't candidates; [94][95][96][97]. He also is abusing the automated reversion part of twinkle, labelling very good faith edits such as removing spam as vandalism; [98][99][100]. Looking at his talk page history[101], he's had plenty of other warnings, and either reverts them using twinkle or clears his talk page to make it look like he's had no problems. I'd like to disable twinkle from his monobook and block him if he tries to re-add it, but thought I'd bring it here for evaluation first. Ryan Postlethwaite 07:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd agree. I've warned him for a couple of his edits recently and for some of his edit summaries. The Rambling Man 08:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Lately I've been in the wrong frame of mind. I don't think a few stray edits in the past week (highly stressful for me) should result in disciplinary action. Take a look at my contributions a bit further back. For anything I've done, I apologize,. None of my edits were done assuming bad faith, it's just easy to click the button :-). I've permanently stopped tagging articles for speedy deletion, as I suck at it. I periodically clear my talk page from everything (see history), not just notices/warnings. Not trying too make excuses, but aren't you coming down a bit harsh? Taking this sort of action won't help the 'pedia. Again, for anything I've done that has offended anyone, I apologize --Ben^complain 08:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC

You said it yourself, it's just one click of a button. That's the problem here, users have to act responsibly if they are allowed to use automated tools. Please tone down on using them, if anything else comes to my attention then I will remove it from your monobook for a period of time. You don't get a free right to use twinkle here, it's a privilige. Ryan Postlethwaite 08:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ryan is right. While I can't talk (my first RFA failed because of misplaced speedy tags), I myself noticed a few articles in

CAT:CSD that shouldn't have been there... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk

08:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't focus on the problems of the 'pedia, don't look to condemn, improve. --Ben^complain 08:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

We're currently discussing whether removing your access to the Twinkle .js would indeed improve the encyclopedia. Daniel 08:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

OK then, I'm outta here 'till I cool off. Obviously I've been out of line lately, and I'm officially off twinkle and on a wikibreak, so I'll be out of contact for a while. Please don't kill me while I'm gone! :-) --Ben^complain 08:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. We won't. If this re-occurs when you come back, though, we'll have no other option other than to rip the script out of your monobook (hey, that beats blocking you). Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 09:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Will someone delete this as a hoax or clean it up per standards? — Moe ε 10:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, not sure which speedy criteria, but it didn't really have a context however the major problem was the formatting - it was like their own personal website! Read like an advert as well. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. — Moe ε 10:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please could somebody keep a watch on the Second Battle Group page? User:Colditz and an annonymous IP editor keep removing sourced infromation from it. I can no longer restore it without breaking the 3RR. Unknown Unknowns 11:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'll see what I can do. Mackensen (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• I've protected the article. Mackensen (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

See

) 12:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Taken care of, as you say, it will probably be speedily rejected, but certainly no harm in letting him try. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

) 14:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone has copy-pasted it to a Dutch language forum. link. User:Krator (t c) 14:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I see nobody has even made any comments to this user on their Talk page. Have you tried discussing this with them? Corvus cornix 16:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I probably should of brought this up a few days ago when it happened, but I didn't have time then. It's about this post. Is the post appropriate? The user in question clearly uses foul language in it. Does the user need to get warned about his attitude towards the FAC or the other user in the post? Davnel03 17:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The same word has been used both as a

WP:NPA. --Mathsci

17:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet another image patroller harassed off the project. I've mostly given up on this myself as well, as the vitriolic attacks (and the blind eye that is frequently turned to them) are just not worth it. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

More than just an image patroler, a very valuable member of the project, this really depresses me. Pete.Hurd 20:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Alas, my admin nominator. Here's hoping he changes his mind, and here's hoping the Foundation will put some teeth into its fair use policies soon. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Could I ask what exactly is this "e-pol" organization which apparently claims some sort of jusrisdiction? I visited their website, but there is nothing there to indicate what, if any, legal status it has. DuncanHill 21:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I sure second that question. Is this organisation for real? I mean, the website e-pol.org is (link now on WP spamlinks list) most certainly is not the website of an international organisation with any sort of jurisdiction and it looks like nothing else than an elaborate hoax. Well actually, not even that elaborate. Pascal.Tesson 21:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I am taking the question to the Humanities refdesk, we have some wonderful people there who may be able to pin this down. DuncanHill 21:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's sort of all under control, if I could get a straight answer out of anybody I'm in contact with. It does appear, at present, that e-pol is part of some organisation called UNOP Liaison EU, there's no information on the internet about them, however, so establishing the validity of them and e-pol is difficult. Nick 21:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Which apparently is tied to this obscure organization www.un-net.org (link now on WP spam links) which as far as I'm concerned looks like the webpage of a bullshit hoax of an organization. Pascal.Tesson 21:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

See also

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_International_development#UNOmbud. I think someone is just fucking with Durin... Pascal.Tesson

21:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

UNOP = United Nations Office for Partnerships. It promotes furtherance of the Millennium Development Goals. Hardly likely to be an investigations arm. Orderinchaos 17:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, he was a great contributor. I hope he comes back... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's fucking ridiculous that Durin left in such circumstances. Maxim_(talk) 23:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

So why doesn't someone file some e-pols against the nutters that file them? like the poor misunderstood copyright violator who was hassling Durin? --Rocksanddirt 00:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, maybe I'm just being hopelessly naive, but this could all be a misunderstanding.

01:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to dissapoint but I'm afraid you're hopelessly naive. Admins should really take the time to go and check the 5 deleted images that were at the root of this nonsense to clear up any doubt they may have had about Vanished user's claims that she was robbed of her precious copyrights. We're talking here about an image of clothes hanging on a clothes line with a funny caption, an image of a dummy witch crashed against a tree with, you guessed it, a funny caption, an image of a funny sign over a road with yet another snarky caption and an image of funny cats (no caption, so not so funny). I just wish Durin had taken the time to tell someone before this got out of hand. Pascal.Tesson 01:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, but I would just like to express my gratitude for all the fair use patrollers out there. While I may disagree with you sometimes, you play an incredibly valuable role, and you get way too much flak. --Haemo 01:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't what Durin did that generated this animosity, it was his/her attitude. I also find it hard to believe e-pol has the power and jurisdiction it claims.Rlevse 01:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's settle that question once and for all. Not only does e-pol have no power and jurisdiction, it also happens to be a phantom organization most likely created as part of some sort of scam. Either Vanished user was too naive to realize that or he/she is actually behind that phantom organization. Not that I want to play detective here, but the website of e-pol.org is pretty clear about this: you should only contact them through your local police (or to be precise your local Data Crime Unit) or through some big international organization. In any case, Vanished user is not welcome here and now the only question left to settle is: how do we get Durin back? Pascal.Tesson 01:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Has the Office been made aware of this situation? I know that they don't usually get involved in garden-variety on-wiki disputes, even when legal threats are involved, but setting up an organization to make such threats and targeting them against people enforcing Foundation policy really is not acceptable and I think counsel should know this is going on. Newyorkbrad 01:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that what actually happened here? Are we sure that e-pol is tied to Vanished user?

If this was a credible threat we would need to involve Mike; as it apparently isn't, we don't, but perhaps Jimmy would want to know.

I've emailed Durin, who is frustrated over several things. We'll see. Georgewilliamherbert 03:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This is creepy, and harrasment in the extreme. I hoep that Durin returns soon. It is a growing trend, and problem, here on WP, that often our best admins and editors are targeted for harrasment by those who have axes to grind, and agendas to war over. frankly, I'm surprised that the rabid extremist groups of the world aren't all putting up attack site pages outing wikipedians left and right for editing in a manner contrary to the extremists on any given subject. ThuranX 04:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I'll miss him too. Though it's sure nice to see at least some moral support for nonfree image patrolling here, sometimes it seems like you're the only one and everyone hates you for it. I wish the Foundation would give some type of clarification on "minimal" here at some point. (Personally, I think German is ahead of the curve, get rid of the damned things altogether, but that's probably not something we could get done here right now.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is at least partially Durin's fault. First, he asked Vanished user to add proper tags to images. When she did that, he accused her of lying, and claimed he had proof that she is not the author.[103] She asked him who claims the copyright,[104] and he replied with this rude statement.[105] Of course I don't know Vanished user's intentions nor if she created the images or not, but Durin is not innocent. He needlessly escalated the conflict. And the legal threat was clearly not against him, Vanished user even asked him for evidence:[106]--SuperElephant 06:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The diff that you give does not show that Durin accused her of lying. He simply said he had verifiable evidence that at least two of the images were not hers, and were not available under a free license. He explained that finding something on the internet and downloading it to your computer does not transfer the copyright to you. And he was not in the least bit rude. Durin has done wonderful work trying to keep Wikipedia a free encyclopaedia, and I very much hope he will be back. ElinorD (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What is e-pol ? and what authority and jurisdiction does it have over Wikipedia ?

I don't know. But it's irrelevant in this case.--SuperElephant 18:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If you go to their website, you will see that it is incredibly uninformative. Legitimate organisations are always prepared to be informative and communicative about their aims and intentions, going to the e-pol website, however, leaves you as uninformed as ever. It is strange that an organisation that claims global jurisdiction should have their website written in bad English.

There must be serious doubts that it is a legitimate organisation. A Google search reveals nothing.

I propose that Wikipedia should set up a committee to look into e-pol and basicly tell them where to get off.

Tovojolo 11:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

An e-mail from the internet service provider basically confirms that they are not a Governmental organisation and should not be treated as one. The contact at the ISP goes onto say that if impersonating a government official or police officer is a criminal offence in your country, contacting the police would be a sensible suggestion. Nick 14:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's servers are based in America, so it is subject to American Law, above all. Impersonating a governmental or police official is definitely an offence in America so Wikipedia should make a complaint in America against e-pol.

We cannot allow any Wikipedians to feel intimidated by such groups as e-pol.

Tovojolo 15:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Assuming there really were such a thing as "e-pol", does anyone not born yesterday really think a police organization would post their planned arrest activities, or whatever, on a public website? Good grief, Charlie Brown.Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}

3 things to say: (1) Durin shouldn't have left during those circumstances. (2) The WMF needs to become more stringent with its FU policies, and (3) Epol.com should probably be put on the spam blacklist... –Animum 16:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I can only help with one of the above, and that's just confirming e-pol.org plus all of the UNOP Liaison EU websites we are aware off have been blacklisted locally. Nick 17:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[deindent] Off topic, but that e-pol.org website has some horrible web design. I can't even read the font, it's that small. —Crazytales (t.) 23:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

E-Pol is definitely not a bona fide organisation.

Look at the company's internet profile E-Pol Internet Profile.

If you look, you'll see that only one organisation links to e-pol – and that's www.bn23hosting.com – which is a Linux web hosting company !!!!!. So this great "regulatory" organisation that's supposed to police the Internet, has, in reality, no internet presence and is hosted on Linux !!!!!! I'm guessing some college kids in Hong Kong set it up – which is where Vanished user who threatened all the legal action comes from.

It would all be so laughable if it hadn't caused so much trouble.

I think someone should tell Durin so that he can come back.

Tovojolo 02:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame he left when he did, as he was in the middle of a debate on the inclusion of fair use images in the

List of Pokémon series of articles (see discussion here). Now no one knows what to do - the Pokemon Wikiproject wants to re-add the images as soon as possible, but as Durin is unable to defend his point, they're understandibly unwilling to do so unilaterally. It's just led to image-warring and inclusion of pointless cruft, which no one on either side wants. Morgan695

06:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This "e-pol.org" website resolves to the same address as "specialdataservices.net" and traceroutes through Amsterdam, Netherlands. When I go to that page I get a web page design effort a high schooler could have bettered, complete with really annoying Flash noises, and isn't even complete and doesn't give a phone number. The website itself, while better designed, tells you nothing, makes vague claims, and uses terrible English. If I were not mistaken I'd say this is a very small company that does some sort of investigations for a fee. It also does not provide a contact telephone number. A random selection of 10 private investigation companies' websites stop short of putting their contact details in lights. Another site (which I just discovered when trying to save is in Wikipedia's spam filter list) is the backup site and also does not provide a phone number, and is also hosted in the Netherlands. On hitting Google, only 3 unique hits, one of which is Vanished user's talk page and another of which is a web designer from New Jersey who claims he worked on it. Factiva, a search engine which indexes newspaper articles from all over the world, does not have even one hit for this organisation. Orderinchaos 17:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. Why was this user blocked? It doesn't look to me as if he was threatening Durin, or Wikipedia, or WMF. The post he left on Durin's talk page is not threatening him. It seems as if he is using e-pol.org to take action against the people elsewhere on the net who are using the images he claims are his, not Durin. He presumably notified Durin of this because Durin was the one who said they were being used elsewhere without Vanished user's consent. i ^said 19:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

New message from the same user

Please have a look at

09:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the diff I think you were referring to, the content has since been removed from your dynamic link above. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yes thanks Chairboy, I was about to post that diff. Seemingly, this is a misunderstanding, but I am still interested in this e-pol. This person said they found out about e pol from "Dean", and since I haven't dug to closely into this, I don't know who that is. The e pol website does look very shady, if they are a genuine organization, which I doubt, they do a terrible job of conveying that. daveh4h 16:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

After doing a little digging, it seems clear to me that e-pol is not a legitimate operation, and is at best a silly hoax, and at worst part of a fraudulent charitable organization. According to PIR whois, epol.org is registered to "UNNET," and lists a contact email at "ns213un.net". That website in question is a mess of poorly obfuscated JavaScript and pseudo-classified-information gobbledygook. un-net.org, which seems to be intended as the main website of this "organization," is the same. I'm not sure what the point of this "organization" is, but it's clear that this user is only citing e-pol.org as a childish scare tactic. --

⟲

20:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This website needs to be reported, nonetheless. Anyone know how we can do that? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

That site (and it's clearly bogus) is trying to suggest a link with the UN, I suspect there legal people would be unimpressed to say the least - not sure what department to contact there... --Fredrick day 23:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, harassment is bad, and this unquestionably was harassment. But when someone asks you for evidence behind your assertions, you can't just ignore it and assume you're right. That is what Durin did, and that is what many of the "image patrollers" do. -Amarkov moo! 23:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that normally, one cannot casually ignore such requests. In this case, however, the editor in violation was uploading standard internet meme images, and now is claiming they are 'his' because he uploaded them here. I recognized, jsut from Durin's description a number of them, includingthe witch into a tree with silly text image, which shows up all over livejournal, myspace, and so on every october. It's at least 4 year old. That this guy seeks to lay such specious claim to such inattributable items isn't really worth the response time. ThuranX 02:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

So what was wrong with Durin responding with what you just said? What you said was more informative than what Durin said. The thing about image enforcers is that they often try to do too much, and get burnt out. If more people helped out, then there would be more people to help explain things to those image uploaders who get upset. If Durin's retirement is permanent (and I hope it is not), then it sets a bad precedent that could encourage some people to think that issuing legal threats is enough to drive people off Wikipedia. Does Wikipedia give advice to people on what to do if they receive off-wiki legal threats regarding their on-wiki activities? Carcharoth 03:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible that E-pol is a primarily Chinese organization, and that the "fraudulent" website is just a poor translation for the benefit of English speakers? That seems most likely to me, seeing as the Dean of Shinsho's college recommended it.

As for who owns the images - unless we can prove that others hold a copyright to these images, it's quite silly to claim that they are not fair-use/public-domain/etc. I'm not an admin, so I can't check the actual images in question, but from the description of events it appears that Durin never actually verified, other than in his own assertions, that these images were copyrighted - even if they are not Shinsho's creation, they could still be used unless copyrighted.

It also seems pretty clear, at least from the message left on Durin's page, that no actual legal threats were made (unless he got some e-mail that he didn't post on wikipedia). Yes, it could be interpreted that way, but that would be by taking it out of context. Shinsho has denied threatening Durin, and unless we get some proof that there is a threat, then all of this hullabaloo (kaneck, kaneck) seems to be a bit retaliatory.

For the copyright bit - Shinsho did ask for them to be removed, which seems in keeping with Durin's wishes, and then asked for the necessary info in order to correct the copyright info - thus allowing for her to fairly re-add the images, which should be in keeping with Durin's wishes. Unless it was in some response that only admins can see, I don't see how this is an unfair request - this should actually be what the whole "image deletion" thing should be about - not deleting non-free images, but replacing them with free ones. Otherwise, we're just anally deteriorating the project.

Basically - for e-pol, that's fine, you guys do your thing. For Shinsho - unless we can prove that those images were copyrighted, and that a legal threat was made, this whole punishment is quite biased, and seems illogical.KrytenKoro 20:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

"Is it possible that E-pol is a primarily Chinese organization" - not really, according to the WHOIS lookup, they use an American for-profit registrar and gave an address in Belgium (also, there were no link to other languages, including Chinese). One of the uploaded pictures (a cartoon) had the author's signature on it. It is highly unlikely that after signing it, the author (who was not Shinsho) would release it under a free license. Finally, none o f them were remotely encyclopedic and could only have been used as userpage decorations. Mr.Z-man 20:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

How can you know that Shinsho wasn't the author?--SuperElephant 21:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me, looking at the whole history, that you can't discount the possibility that it's just a misunderstanding, as some others have said. The user doesn't seem to speak or understand English very well, which may explain the clumsy ineptness with which they expressed themselves, and, while that e-pol organization seems bogus, we don't know that this user has anything to do with it; they may have just stumbled onto it and thought that it could help their problem. The "legal threats" (which are bogus if this is indeed a bogus organization) do seem to be against the (unnamed) other websites that allegedly "stole" the images, not against Durin. The later actions of immediately deleting all efforts by that user to appeal his banning give an impression of unfairness. *Dan T.* 21:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Dan, maybe I'm just a disgruntled, old editor but looking at the edit history of

Vanished user, I'm surprised to discover that he showed a lot of interest in things like Template:User Nice to Newcomer & Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the newcomers without any evidence that he encountered any hostility from other editors. Add to that interest his activity with a WikiProject (whose goal I don't understand), & I can't avoid suspecting that Durin was driven away by a troll. His interest in e-pol.org (whether or not they are a real organization) is just frosting on the cake. -- llywrch

00:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Durin's and Vanished user's first contact seems to have been a disagreement on

Vanished user to explain herself, but meh. Just a whole bunch of very short fuses all around. 166.166.23.212

02:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Fred Bauder wants to unblock Vanished user (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See here. ElinorD (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

He's unblocked now, with suitable warnings, but has not edited at this time. I don't think he actually directed a legal threat at Durin. Fred Bauder 01:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have vacated a previous message here given that it was used for further harassing me.

I have made all that was expected from my side. If harassment continues please don't let me know, I will totally ignore anyone who harasses me, thank you

17:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we please cut the crap. The page that Vanished user just created should be deleted without a further waste of everybody's time. The page is of course full of contradictions:

• it gives the charter of a business, not that of an international not-for-profit organization which e-pol.org claims to be.
• It is patched up from various things, one of them being information on the epol group, a commercial entity.
• It claims that the offices of e-pol were destroyed during 9/11 but, gee, the rest of the Internet doesn't seem to remember.
• Refers to the E-POL 2000 ANNUAL CONFERENCE ON CYBER-TERRORISM & CYBER-CRIME but, hey, seems like that conference never had a website and didn't have any proceedings.
• Is full of small typos and grammatical mistakes which makes a whole lot of sense for a worldwide organization.
• Drags into this well-known law firms such as Serko & Simon which I'm sure will be delighted by that association.
• One particularly funny paragraph is "E-POL initial interactive sites were targeted with multiple cyberattacks and the domain itself hijacked. Since 2007, the domain and site will be exclusively informative. E-POL is not a public service and since it is a constant target of harassment calls and cyberattacks, E-POL has limited its availability to public contacts." That makes a lot of sense, right? And of course, it's only natural that e-pol.org be a constant target of cyberattacks since nobody's ever heard of it despite its contacts with Interpol and the WTA, despite it having centers in Brussels, Malmo, Amsterdam and Geneva.
• Where did Vanished user get that info? I quote: "This info was provided by a friend who is in a senior post in the Ministry of Interior of his country and he said he got it from their contacts with international law enforcement".

Now let's get real, Vanished user should never have been unblocked. Pascal.Tesson 15:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. ElinorD (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please leave me in peace and don't slander, thank you

Vanished user

15:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• I believe that the unblock of
  Vanished user's actions in general at User:Durin/Departure. --Durin
  16:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I also find it disappointing that Durin was not consulted, especially since he had received an email from this e-pol, whatever it is, and no attempt seems to have been made to verify that there is no action against Durin, and that Durin has been made aware that there is no action against him. ElinorD (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• No, it's fine. This is not Durin's first over reaction about "legal threats" (remember Kelly Martin, "slander", and the irc mess from a while ago). And, frankly, if you're going to leave, just leave instead of accusing people and using your "departure" as a vehicle to elicit sympathy and to make polemical statements. As for
  WP:OTRS. If you're genuine, that should shut-up the others. 166.165.134.138
  16:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• You are certainly welcome to your own opinion as to regards to legal threats leveled against you. To accuse me of over reacting when I am the subject of a legal threat is entirely inappropriate. I have every reason to react as I have with regards to this legal threat. You don't take them serious. I do. I respect your own stance. Respect mine. This isn't about you. See third paragraph of User:Durin/Departure#Events_that_followed. --Durin 16:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with others that an unblock was not appropriate while the status of any legal action by e-pol.org is unknown. I'm quite disappointed that an extremely valauble contributor such as Durin no longer wishes to edit due to the accusations and actions of

16:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The unblock was inappropriate, and some admin should reblock until the legal threat is withdrawn. Whether the legal threat is bogus or not, is of no consequence. It has driven away a valuable editor and has left a troll to edit. And anyone tyring to create all this drama about a non-existent governmental organization such as e-pol is a troll. Corvus cornix 17:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd like to point out that Fred Bauder unblocked because the legal threat was not directed at Durin. Sure. However, I'd like to point out once again that the 5 images that form the basis of this whole mess are wholly unencyclopedic and that involving anybody in that dispute is so utterly absurd that I don't see how

Vanished user can be trusted to behave responsibly around here. And at the risk of sounding like a broken record, this whole thing about e-pol.org information being given to her by a high source in government is complete junk. The IP that posted a cease and desist on ANI today was, a few months ago, trying to add external links that ended up being blacklisted as likely scams. Pascal.Tesson

17:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• The IP isn't necessarily being used by the same person -- though that makes it more suspicious, not less, this alleged international organization not having its own IP address. I notice that a variety of IPs tried to re-add the same legal threat here, and they resolved all over the world (Berlin, Czech Republic, Malaysia, The Netherlands). Also, I left a message on the first IPs talk page earlier today -- a little while ago received a somewhat panicky message from an unlogged-in user User:Heltzen ([107] & [108], whom I'm pretty sure is NOT the e-pol "rep". --Calton | Talk 17:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Vanished user posted some curious information about e-pol, she's deleted it now but here it is [109]

Points : If it is legitimate, why did she delete it ?
If e-pol is such a reputable organisation why does it have no internet presence, see above for the e-pol internet profile.
If it was set up in America originally (supposedly headquartered in America at the World Trade Center before September 11) then why is its website so badly designed and written in such poor English ? Americans are capable of better designs than that.
Fred Bauder should publicly explain why he unblocked her.

Tovojolo 17:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think he has already: that he confirmed that

Vanished user did not and did not intend to file legal action against a Wikipedian, nor did they intend to threaten it. Since that was the reason for the block, it was undone (which is what we normally do when someone rescinds a legal threat or clarifies it). Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C

) 19:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Section break

If they did not intend to file legal action, then why did they supply a case number with e-pol.org, even though the site is pretty much a hoax? Personally, the user should be indefblocked until they retract that statement and publicly apologize to Durin. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, another note about how the user is familiar with Wikipedia: they're archiving with Werdnabot. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

She could see it on other user pages.--SuperElephant 19:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

She asked him for evidence.--SuperElephant 19:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note

Vanished user is now soapboxing the user above. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me

) 20:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If e-pol was headquartered at the World Trade Center before September 11 then you would expect that several of its employees would be amongst the victims of the terrorist attack. I have been to several September 11 websites, not one victim is listed as an e-pol employee.

Tovojolo 19:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That, and it's not in the list of clients that we have on Wikipedia. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been reading the discussion about this, and it seems as though some administrators are bordering on harassment. The user has said repeatedly that she did not hurl any legal threats, yet a few administrators keep insisting that she did (even though the record shows otherwise). And Durin is certainly grandstanding by making the biggest stink possible out of his "retirement."

Reading this thread will reassert many people's beliefs that long-time Wikipedians are hostle toward newcomers. --YellowTapedR 21:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• I reject, again, any assertion that I am grandstanding. You are welcome to your own opinions regarding threats that are leveled against you. Attempting to evaluate my concerns using your own metrics is inappropriate. The legal threat remains open, as there is no independent verification that I will not be involved in the future regarding this case that was filed with e-pol.org, only that I am not currently involved. Further, this is not the only reason that I have left Wikipedia. See User:Durin/Departure. Also note the further attempt at suspicious undertakings, as noted at [110]. --Durin 21:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Creating a lengthy article about your retirement and insisting that the user be banned even after she explained over and over there was not threat, I'd call that grandstanding. And, I'm sorry, but by anyone's standards you are overreacting. There is no international court that will put you in jail or in debt for tagging images on Wikipedia. So, the user should just be left alone already.--YellowTapedR 22:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• I take legal threats seriously. It's fine that you do not. It's not fine that you verbally assault me as over reacting for having my own stance with regards to legal threats. See third paragraph of User:Durin/Departure#Events_that_followed. I *do* take this threat seriously. --Durin 22:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not "verbally assault" you. The user certainly did act inappropriately before your retirement, but so did you afterward. By that, I mean overdramatizing the situation seemingly to keep the user banned, refusing to assume good faith and to consider the possibility it was a misunderstanding and using irrelevant details about your relative's situation to gain sympathy. --YellowTapedR 23:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• I strongly support Durin here. The user's attempt was to silence criticism by trying to make her claim out to be some sort of international tribune with judicial authority. That's a leagl threat. The block was proper, and should be restored until she provides evidence that she has rescinded her request with the supposed website. Corvus cornix 22:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see, none of the (probably bogus) threats were aimed at Durin; what we have here is either a rather bizarre troll, or a frustrated newbie with poor communications skills. Either way, there's nothing that seems like a threat aimed at Durin; it's either a confused attempt to find out what other site is pirating that user's images, or part of a convoluted scam to promote an alleged international organization, but it's not a legal threat. But the reaction to it here once again shows the general attitude I've been observing a lot, where soothing the feelings and shielding the tender egos of long-time users takes enormous precedence over trying to be fair and reasonable to newcomers, assume good faith of them, and take actions not way out of proportion to the offenses they're targeted to. While this particular user might be trolling, spamming, or scamming (it's kind of hard to tell for sure), he/she is probably harmless if you leave him/her alone; but the sort of action being taken against him/her is of the sort that's likely to sometimes screw other newbies having a genuine misunderstanding, or who do momentarily silly things when frustrated. We're not supposed to bite newbies. *Dan T.* 23:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Anonymising proxy blocks

I have hardblocked the following anonymising proxy IPs, in light of our No Open Proxies policy:

• 213.133.97.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), PTR dark.lastunicorn.info [111], privacy.li's German server [112]
• 87.236.198.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), resolves to www.privacy.li, privacy.li's Bear server in the Czech Republic
• 202.67.154.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), RDNS grizzly.ns666.com [113], privacy.li's Hong Kong server [114]
• 193.16.154.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), RDNS protector.freedomhub.eu, located in a colo, some kind of privacy service [115], possibly privacy.li's Holland server
• 203.223.152.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), located in a colo, possibly privacy.li's Malaysian server

These IPs are all involved in the Durin thing above. Please review. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have confirmed the second, third, and fourth have open proxies. The first doesn't want to talk to me. The fifth has something on port 80 but it isn't public. Given the history in this thread, the blocks seem reasonable to me. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 22:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if it is a closed subscription-only anonymous proxy it should be blocked.

Thatcher131

02:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Allgoodnamesalreadytaken: Abuse of Warning Templates, Stalking

I made a SSP case against User:Allgoodnamesalreadytaken, and as part of following the instructions, put an SSP tag on the relevant pages. He called that vandalism and slapped a vandalism tag on my Talk page. I restored SSP tag, and requested that he follow WP policy of leaving it there for 10 days. I gave a link to the relevant policy if you are suspected in sockpuppetry. He slapped another vandalism tag on my Talk page (and deleted the SSP tag). I tried one more time, and he put another vandalism tag on my Talk page. I now have 3 vandalism tags on my Talk page from this user, even though I committed no vandalism, and actually just tried to follow the WP instructions.

He is also stalking me. I added a comment to an incident report here about

05:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

On the SSP case, it was closed with

"Gtadoc and Allgoodnamesalreadytaken say they know each other in real life, and Allgoodnamesalreadytaken states in this very case that Gtadoc asked him to comment on an article. These are exactly the sorts of circumstances that point to a violation of Wikipedia policy on meatpuppets (if not sockpuppets), but I don't see any evidence of an actual violation--for instance, there's no evidence of joint participation in AfDs or other types of "voting". Therefore, there's no reason to block either account."

Therefore, there's no use to add the tag on the userpage, as Akhilleus had already commented and closed it. As for the wikistalking, it might be best for you to just ignore him. For the vandalism warnings, feel free to remove them or archive them. Cheers. —D_arkF_alls ^talk 11:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to ignore the vandalism tags and the stalking. I want it to stop. What is the point of WP having rules against disruptive behavior if the rules are ignored? False accusations of vandalism are personal attacks; wikistalking is disruptive. The behavior here is repetitive and disruptive. Does WP have a way of handling it or not? What happens if everybody engages in this sort of behavior? Hm?

Bsharvy

21:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

An important thing to remember is that the best way to stop personal attacks is to ignore them. The vandalism tags are meaningless; you have committed no vandalism. Remove them, but do not say to the other user "I have removed your vandalism tags because they're false", as this will only further the debate's progress toward a nasty end. Remember, the other user is not a sockpuppeteer or a sock puppet. They have not used multiple accounts abusively, and have not had other accounts maliciously side with them in any debate. What they have done is lashed out because they felt offended by you placing SSP tags in their userspace. I am not saying you were wrong in doing this, just that not interacting with the user in any way is the best possible way to move this forward. Hope this helps, Arky ^¡Hablar! 21:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You can't ignore them if they are the result of following WP procedure. I put the SSP tags on his page because the steps for filing a SSP report said to do so, and as a result he put vandalism tags on my page. Your advice may be good in most cases, but when the abuse comes from trying to follow a mandated WP policy, it is more serious. There were two choices: ignore WP policy about SSP tags, or follow it and received vandalism tags. Is that OK with admins? Also, the user is very defiitely a sock-puppet. I have probably spent hours dealing with him (and the puppet) in a controversial topic, so I'm sure I know the case better than the admin who closed it.

Bsharvy

04:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It may not be clear, but the SSP tags can be removed if the SSP case has been rejected or closed with the user proven innocent; the former being the case. The SSP steps are not policy. merely a set of guideline about what to do when a user is suspected. It needs to be acted alongside common sense. Also, vandalism warnings are not a golden ticket for blocking, they are used to notify users of suspected wrongdoing. If there is no wrongdoing, a user just removes the warnings and ignores. If you are convinced of sockpuppetry take the case to WP:RFCU. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 06:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course they can be removed if the conclusion is that there is no sockpuppetry (but, the user was not "proven" innocent; an admin decided the case didn't warrant blocking, and showed no interest in anything else). I'm not sure what you are saying. The steps to be followed were instructions. Whether instructions are technically policy seems unimportant. I will rephrase the problem, see if it changes the problem... "There were two choices: ignore WP instructions, or follow them and receive vandalism tags." Is that acceptable to WP?

Bsharvy

08:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

All sockpuppets are to be blocked under

WP:BLOCK#Disruption, and if they were not blocked, then it is safe to conclude that the admin did not feel that there was sockpuppetry. --D_arkF_alls ^talk

09:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There was clearly sockpuppetry according to WP policy. The admin stated that only types of double-voting counted as a violation. There is a break between written policy and what is actually applied. Feel free to read the case. This is somewhat separate from the topic of this complaint, however. You follow WP instructions, you get vandalism tags. Is that considered acceptable?

Bsharvy

22:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've notified the closing admin. In the meantime, please

assume good faith about Akhilleus' close. As a further note, may I strongly stress the fact that a vandalism tag is not law, and they may not apply to you. --D_arkF_alls ^talk

06:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

23:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely IfD shouldn't have jurisdiction over editorial decisions over usage of non free images? That should be a question for something like Wikipedia:Media copyright questions? I thought there was a specific place to discuss usage of non free pics (as opposed to deletion of such pics), but couldn't find it. Carcharoth 00:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That's part of the problem.

WP:FUR is the closest we have that I know of, but it's really just a place for people to ask questions about non-free media use, and doesn't have any authority to make binding decisions. IfD has, in the past, made decisions on restricting usages of particular images as opposed to simply deleting them, I don't think that's been controversial until now. (In the same way that AfD might direct a merge, or a change to a disambig or redirect, as opposed to article deletion.) Videmus Omnia ^Talk

00:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) For an example of this type of IfD closure, see Image:John Cleese.jpg. I think it's appropriate when some usages of an image comply with policy, and some don't. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I like that. Maybe that kind of process should be standardised into policy? What happens though when circumstances change? How would such a decision be reviewed? Carcharoth 00:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:FUR is what I was thinking of, thanks. As for your AfD example, AfD may direct a merge, disambig, or redirect, but in reality those are all editorial decisions. What AfD does is say "keep the title, let the editors decide what happens to the text under the title", and discussion then continues back at the talk page of the article. This is a well-established principle at AfD. Carcharoth

00:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

IfDs are generally populated by people who are very active in image cleanup and have a good understanding of the image policy. Article talk pages are populated by people interested in a particular article, who may or may not know or care a lot about image policy. (In the case of this article, a fair use image of a living person had been there for a while, with no protests from the regular editors, fair use images had been added to the article talk page, and when it was pointed out that they should be linked, not displayed, the person who added them said he disagreed with that, but wouldn't object if someone else changed them to links, and finally, the editor who added them had a draft of the article in his own user space for a few weeks, with the fair use images.) It's perfectly normal that the article editors protest against the removal of the images. I've seen it happen in numerous articles. This case was unusual, because the editor who originally added a fair use disputed tag to the images was reverted repeatedly by article editors, so he nominated them for deletion instead. However, he didn't actually think they should be deleted; he just wanted them removed from the articles where he felt (and most of the "regulars" in image work felt) that they didn't fulfil

WP:NFCC#8

. So he nominated them for deletion, stating that what he really wanted was to nominate them from "removal" from the articles where they didn't belong. Interestingly, another one that he nominated was only in intelligent design, so, even though lots of intelligent design editors voted to keep, the closing admin gave more weight to the arguments that it didn't fulfil NFCC#8, and deleted. There was no wheelwarring. But when the closing admin in the case of images that were to be removed and not deleted removed the images from the article, he was reverted.

See the following:

• Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#Intelligent_design
• Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_August_21#Image:Darwin_on_Trial.jpg
• Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_August_21#Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg
• Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_August_19#Image:Time_evolution_wars.jpg

ElinorD (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Another image in the same bag is Image:Pandas and ppl.jpg, which wasn't IfD'd simply because the "fair use disputed" tag wasn't removed until recently. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

True, but deciding whether an image should be used in an article is a content dispute, not an XfD issue. It seems like something like dispute resolution is needed here. This is edit warring over the inclusion or not of an image, regardless of the reason for the dispute. Carcharoth 00:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Panda image is in the same bag. I believe it's quite normal to nominate an image for deletion based on the fact (or opinion) that it doesn't fulfil

WP:NFCC (particularly no. 8). However, normally if the closing admin deletes, that's it, unless there's a bit of wheelwarring. Or perhaps it goes to deletion review. In this case, the closing admin did not delete, because it was felt that the images were valid fair use in the articles about the books. So the image still exists, and the admin who closed the IfD is now being reverted when he removes the images from articles. ElinorD (talk)

01:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Great, now the closing admin has been templated by User:Orangemarlin. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

And do I feel good about it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

New derived rule for this kind of conflict: if there's a conflict between actual editors on a page, and some central point, the actual editors "on the ground" win, or at least get the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not simply making this up, by the way. It's a simple logical conclusion from the existence of both

.

Except that it is a bureaucray headed by an oligarchical element that lords its mere opinions over other under the pretense that these opinions are sound, logical and factual. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

--Kim Bruning 01:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC) in summary: Encyclopedian beats bureaucrat O:-)

Even if it goes against the Foundation's policy and

our own? Local consensus doesn't overrule the broader consensus of policy. Striking digression, this is about whether an admin's decision should be ignored (or possibly wheel-warred, I'm unclear if any reverters are admins. Videmus Omnia ^Talk

01:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It's fun when people quote your own words! :-) This is exactly true. So even though the folks at Intelligent Design might win out against IFD, they still might not win out against the codification written by Mindspillage and Eloquence. <scratches head> Perhaps the compromise here is that some discussion can be held on the article talk page, to find replacement images? <ducks> --Kim Bruning 01:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Striking response to digression. If someone is not using their admin tools, they are acting as a normal editor (so no wheel-war is possible). If a normal editor gets reverted, then their changes were not well liked, and they should take special care. --Kim Bruning 01:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Until and unless we beef up

WP:FUR to a process with "binding" authority, the application of Fair Use is an editorial decision and should be decided the same way that we solve all our editorial disputes - through discussion on the appropriate Talk page. In this case, I could see arguments for both the article's Talk page or the image's Talk page but when this has come up before, the image's talk page tended to gather more informed opinions. Only if that discussion reaches an impasse (or reaches a conclusion that is blatantly in violation of applicable law) should we have to worry about escalation. Rossami (talk)

01:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A review of the discussions at [{WP:FUR]], the IfD discussions, and the article talk page show about as clear of an example of an impasse as is possible to see. An admin had to make the call whether the images were a violation of policy, and he did so, amply backed up by precedent. This type of non-free image usage is normally nuked on sight, the difference here was the high-profile status of the article. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Also perhaps the high-profile status of the editors. Some of the editors active in that article are well-respected, established editors; some are admins. They've done fantastic work on the article. However, I've come to recognise names of people that I "bump into" when I'm doing image cleanup, and none of the Intelligent design editors seem active in that area. The removal of these images seems completely in keeping with precedent, as I have witnessed in numerous other articles. ElinorD (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well said, ElinorD.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding precedent: This comes up regularly. The editors active in deletion debates have become increasingly polarised, and the administrators have remained mostly in favour of deletion. (I apologize if I am oversimplifying or marginalizing anyone.) Thus deletions which would normally have been done without comment in months past now are subject for bitter controversy and allegations of administrator abuse. It is becoming tiresome. Consensus on Wikipedia has never been so bitterly contested, in my view, than in relation to non-free content.

Stare decisis

means nothing. Every day, more images are nominated, and each deletion debate is equally bitter. Then, when an administrator closes a debate as "delete", it is contested at WP:DRV, or in this case is edit warred over; or when an administrator closes a debate as "keep", it may likely be nominated again in the future. And no one ever changes their opinion.

There. My rant.  :-) I could probably continue, but I will spare this board any further off-topic rant. --Iamunknown 01:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm officially on wikibreak, so I'm not going to wade into this right now... but I noticed that Nv8200p, after edit warring over this, protected the article Phillip E. Johnson on his preferred version. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

His action was correct, I believe. I wouldn't characterize his actions as an "edit war",

WP:3RR allows an exception for reverts to remove clear violations of the copyright, spamming or non-free content policies (emphasis mine). Videmus Omnia ^Talk

02:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thus missing the point. An admin cannot protect a page on which he is editing, especially after reverting to his "preferred" version. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on the talk page, discussion and closure by an uninvolved admin followed by deletion review, or something else - we need to decide how disputed fair use is going to be handled, and enforce the decision. Otherwise these divisive arguments will continue, disputes will be won by whoever can edit war most effectively, and the only rule enforced will be 3rr. I thought we had some mechanism for discussion, closure, and review. People need to respect that and take this to deletion review, not bully the closing admin, or wiki-lawyer to get around the decision, or sling 3rr templates. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Althoug edit-warring over the

03:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be overlooking the fact that

User:Nv8200p entered the situation as an uninvolved admin, in his closure of the IfD discussion. And reversion to uphold policy is not "edit-warring". Videmus Omnia ^Talk

03:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Since you're involved as well, your removal of his protection could be interpreted as wheel warring. Especially given this comment on Nv8200p's talk page. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"You seem to be overlooking the fact that

User:Nv8200p entered the situation as an uninvolved admin" - yeah, someone who protects the page after reverting it three times is an "uninvolved admin"? Nope. He's an edit-warrior. Please familiarise yourself with the page protection policy. Guettarda

06:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I made a slew of mistakes handling this issue and would like to apologize for them all.-

talk

16:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

BASICS: Please note the following:

First, please re-read

WP:DGFA

With respect to Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg, an IfD was brought by User:Videmus Omnia here. The terms of the IfD were as follows:

*Remove from usage on

WP:NFCC#8

- removal of the image from those articles would have a negligible impact on the reader's understanding of either of those topics. [[User:Videmus Omnia|Videmus Omnia]] [[User talk:Videmus Omnia| ^Talk ]] 20:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Some 12 users expressed their preferred outcome as explicit "keep". One of them,

, but also overruled a clear consensus to keep the image in these two articles.

With respect to Image:Darwin_on_Trial.jpg, an IfD was brought by User:Videmus Omnia here. The terms of the IfD were as follows:

I am actually proposing that this image be removed from its usages on

WP:NFCC#8

in that omission of the image from those articles would cause negligible detriment to the reader's understanding of the topic. I know this isn't the ideal forum for this, but the 'fair use disputed' tags keep getting deleted and there is no better forum to which to take this. [[User:Videmus Omnia|Videmus Omnia]] [[User talk:Videmus Omnia| ^Talk ]] 13:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Some 16 users expressed their preferred outcome as explicit "keep". Five users explicitly expressed a preference to "delete" or "remove" from articles other than the article on

, but also overruled a clear consensus to keep the image in these two articles.

... Kenosis 03:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like an argument for deletion review. Why isn't it there? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It may sound like it to someone who's never seen a duck before. What it has become, unfortunately, is a review of the appropriate range of administrative discretion that can properly be exercised in this type of situation. The terms of

WP:ATA, an opinion piece, are quite vague and, well, merely an opinion, though quite frequently cited when users sense the possibility that an administrative override of consensus may result in their preferred outcome. Thus, I'd speculate there is some work to do to clarify these kinds of issues. If WP needs to be increasingly an oligarchy of sorts, then let's not beat around the bush, and be much more straightfoward about it than has recently been the case in many, many instances. If not, let's by all means get administrative range-of-discretion back within the agreed bounds. ... Kenosis

04:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, take it to deletion review. If something fails policy, and the use on that article has been deemed inappropriate, edit warring over it and claiming "local consensus" is not the way to go about it. If you disagree with the deletion, take it to

WP:DRV. --Haemo

04:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to take it to deletion review. The images are still there. The consensus having overwhelmingly been to keep each of the two images in all three articles in which each has, respectively, long been displayed, this is a matter for the local consensus at the relevant articles. There's no DrV in need of pursuing here. ... Kenosis 04:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no deletion to review. There's a "ruling" on fair use, made with no reference to the deletion debate. No one has "deemed" the usage inappropriate. One editor simply expressed hin opinion when closing an IfD. Nothing more. Guettarda 06:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

As a deletion review regular, I'll say that there is no deletion review case here. So long as the image page is not deleted, no deletion has occurred. Deletion review does not normally involve itself in the differences between keep, merge, and redirect for articles, and our advice in such cases is to take it to the talk page of the article (or target article after a merge/redirect). Analagously for IFD cases, so long as the image is kept, deletion review would say to take it to the talk page of the place where the image is being used. I remind everyone about the policy

13:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If fair use is going to be whatever a majority on the talk page says it is, then have the not-a-vote on the talk page and move on. Make whatever changes are needed on the policy pages. If there is some other way to handle disputed fair use, then take it to review. There's no point with saying we do one thing, but really doing another. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Tom, one little clarification, if I may. The often-cited "not a vote" is, AFAIK, a widely used takeoff on "Not just a vote" from the essay

WP:ATA

. What it typically is, in practice, is an argument by one or more users for giving the decision over to the closing admin, or in some cases for ignoring consensus outright, or in cases that are divided, for ignoring the majority preference for the outcome in favor of the arguments of a minority. The statement above in this thread that "each deletion debate is equally bitter" is simply incorrect. The vast majority of IfDs go either uncontested or only moderately contested. In cases that are substantially contested by the local participants, we tend to see a clustering of deletion advocates and references to "not a vote".

Among the

WP:CFSD

and skip the discussion, notify the participants in the article that it's been deleted and go ahead and remove it.

Contrary to my prior perception, this discussion here would now not appear to be concluded quite yet, as is evidenced by the current discussion at

User_talk:Nv8200p#re:_Irreducible_complexity. I would not suggest archiving this discussion quite yet. ... Kenosis

02:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not going to be solved at this noticeboard, I'm afraid. It's a fundamental disagreement over interpretation of policy/consensus that is most likely insoluble by DR or Mediation, based on the absolutely inflexible nature of the discussion over the past couple of weeks in various forums. I think the ArbCom is the only body that can move this forward at this point. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)