Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Removal of RS sources

After I have a complaint about removal of RS sources from Wikipedia article to an admin (see here) including my intention to use wiki process to resolve the conflict he then began a process of removing sources from articles that I have created (see here), (see here), (see here), (See here), (see here)

There are genuinely differences of opinion about this source in Wikipedia. For example uninviolved neutral user was quoted when confronted with the RS sources of Tamilnet.

“ Comment: Yes. While recognizing that the Sri Lankan-Tamil civil war is a longstanding and viciously contested dispute, I decline to take notice of pissing matches between the various factions as to which source is supposedly discredited by its alleged adherence to one side or another. Fox TV is commonly presumed to be a biased mouthpiece for right-wing ideologues, but I don't think you'd get very far claiming it doesn't qualify as a reliable source on that count. RGTraynor 17:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC) ”

[1]

Then on Sri Lankan reconciliation project the following compromise was reached about the source see here

When such diverse opinion is out there about this source for admin to refuse to follow wiki process that has been suggested is uncalled for and will only lead to edit wars as I am sure more people will revert his edits. Some other uninvolved admin needs to get involved to resolve this issue. Thanks Taprobanus 13:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, RGTraynor also suggested that perhaps Sinhalese and Tamil people recuse themselves. Are you going to do so? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that includes you because although you claim what ever you are to be, your edits parralel edit with other very specific minded Indian editors shows that one does not have to be an Indian or Sri Lankan to be part of a partisan camp. Thanks Taprobanus 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. So you tell us Taprobanus that there was a consensus reached here at the WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation. Well, has Blnguyen been invited to participate? Has he done it in case he was invited? If you say that you have reached a consensus about TamilNet being a qualified source (QS) than why aren't you using an explicit attribution (TamilNet reports that...)? Maybe Blnguyen was reverting on the grounds that it was used as a reliable source (RS)? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

He was not part of the decision, but not every wikipedian can be part of such decisions any way. As the reconciliation decision is not a formal wikipedia decision such as a result of mediation or arbitration. It is as binding as suggestion:)

Now if he agrees with the suggestion, (now that he knows about) he can edit using it. But If I am not mistaken he did remove Tamilnet from a statement which explicitly stated as pro-rebel (see here). That means he is not all amenable to any use of Tamilnet in Wikipedia. His point of view is just one point of view.See here for history of involvement in Sri Lanka related articles in the past.

User:RGTraynor another experienced non involved third party (that is not a Sri Lankan or Indian who has an axe to grind in this conflict including me and Blnguyen)said very clearly that he will accept Tamilnet as a RS source.[2] So we have diverse opinion here about this source.

Already Blnguyen edit patterns which went after many articles that I created has resulted in an edit war where there was non for a long time. These were stable articles including an AFD that went through with minimal content deletion including sources. That is a lot of neutral non involved third party editors looked at them and decided that they were written from a neutral point of view with reputable sources. So how do we solve this problem? when we have editors such as myself and Blnguyen who potentially have conflict of interest because of our backrounds who say have such opposite views about this source and yet others who are non involved say it is a RS source. (I will post here other explicit statements supporting this point from number of non involved third paties here) What is the next step ? Mediation and what is the final step ? Arbitration ? I am sick and tired of wikipedians indulging in vicious edit wars based on one source. If we decide it is not RS, then it is not RS. If we decide that it is RS then it canbe used. If we decide is QS then it QS. What ever it is I want more than a mere suggestion. Thanks Taprobanus 17:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not Indian, I am of Vietnamese ethnicity, and RGTraynor did not declare Tamilnet to be an RS. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

We can claim to be what ever we are in the internet. I suppose the French colonials were very fond of the game of Cricket in Vietnam:)) Seriously just like I am a Canadian, similarly you are Vietnamese but your edit patterns in parallel with other very specific minded Indian editors shows that you have very strong conflict of interest in Dravidian and Tamil related subject matters as was noted during many entanglements with now banned User:WikiRaja. So lets us not go there about ethnicities here and lets us stick to the discussion about Tamilnet. Thanks Taprobanus 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiRaja was a two-bit troll, intent on promoting clouded ethocentric agenda, and racist myths. WikiRaja was an anti-Brahmin also intent in working to denigrate the contributions of Iyers to Tamil culture. Might I remind you that Sarathambal would not be off limits to his ire?Bakaman 03:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because you've used Tamilnet and other such patently partisan and non-RS on scores of articles doesnt mean they become reliable sources. These sites are avowed sympathisers of the militant outfits and in some cases just the 'media arm' of the militant outfits. They dont stand a remote chance of making it past WP:RS. Any dispassionate editor, editing in good faith wouldnt use these sources, especially since there is no dearth of bonafide reliable sources like BBC or the mainstream Indian media(print and internet) etc.,. This is not some conflict raging in some 'unexplored, unknown to the modern world' corner of the globe. It is happening in SriLanka, a member nation of the UN and the entire world is watching. So, there is absolutely no dearth of reliable sources(and non-partisan ones at that). Of course, if you adhered strictly to WP:RS, you may not be able to keep a score of every gunshot and every loss of limb as you're doing now, but it will leave wikipedia in better encyclopedic shape.

And what do you mean by - "...when we have editors such as myself and Blnguyen who potentially have conflict of interest because of our backrounds..."? Are you suggesting that you have a conflict of interest here? If that is the case, I'd request you to stop editing these articles. You really shouldnt be editing these articles in the best interests of the 'pedia. And as for insinuating that Blnguyen or 'Indian editors' have a COI going here, I'd suggest that you think twice before throwing around such accusations.

And please read WP:RS, WP:EL and related policies once before you infest the references and EL sections with links to google videos, random geocities, tripod sites, blogs, or a random site of some Tamil 'sangam' in some corner of the world etc.. apart from the staple tamilnet, tamilnation cruft. Thanks. Sarvagnya 21:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a simple question, will you stop editing Tamil related article because of your Bangalorean Tamil backround. Seriously, you have been noted by many editors many times in the ANI. So let us talk about Tamilnet then. Thanks—The preceding unsigned comment was added by notbakaman (talk • contribs).

Blnguyen is vietnamese. He is interested in India (india is one sixth of the worlds population, a lot of people are), and I fail to see a conflict of interest. As for tamilnet, it isnt neutral but not unreliable. The views on it are divided with some calling it LTTE and some calling it slightly biased. Tamilnet shouldn't be, however, the principal source for which notability is established. As for the fighting between editors, Taprobanus has been willing to discuss instead of reverting to trolling like 213.181.56.12 (talk · contribs) who we are led to believe is a Tamil in Iraq (via traceroute). As if the plight of Tamils is the most important worry in Iraq. Back to the subject, the analogy to FOX is interesting and demands some further discussion.Bakaman 22:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to give my 2¢ here. Partisan websites of any nature or background cannot be automatically classified at not reliable. As per Bakaman, it isn't neutral but not unreliable. I also agree w/ Bakaman in that no article should rely on one disputed source. One thing that i noticed and may not have appeared to you is that after classifying it as a qualified source, it has been inserted as a reliable source. As i said above, if it has to be used, than obviously wording should be like TamilNet reports that.... -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am more than willing to follow Fayssal's suggestion. Thanks Taprobanus 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I get the feeling that Bakaman and Fayssal are confusing 'notability' and 'reliability'. 'Notability' is perhaps all that we can concede to Tamilnet and that is why we have a TamilNet on wikipedia. However, just being 'notable' doesnt make them 'RS'. That they have a rather lopsided militant view of the situation doesnt help either. Sarvagnya 01:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The analogy to FOX is ridiculous. FOX is a professionally run media house owned by News corp., which is listed on various exchanges and subject to routine and professional audits by the best in the business. I am sure it is affiliated to any/all "official" press regulatory bodies that count. It has an editor with rather impeccable professional credentials who has the moral courage to attach his name to a story. If anybody feels that FOX has a slant(to right or left or whatever), then it is their POV. Tamilnet otoh hand is, for all we know run by some journalistic quack who takes his blogging rather seriously. Sorry. The FOX analogy just wont cut it. Try something else. Sarvagnya 01:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Your personal opinion or do you have serious citation for what are you saying. I have listed reserach papers others your comments are just WP:SOAP. Thanks Taprobanus 14:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Can i ask a simple question Sarvagnya? What if TamilNet announces and acknowledges a terrorist attack via their website? Would we use it as a primary reference? Would it be considered as a reliable source as well? IMHO, if you have reached a consensus in which TamilNet would be considered as a qualified source (everything but a reliable source) than why not all parties try to use the appropriate wording when using TN as a QS?

Whatever is the case, i am still not convinced that you have to sort out this issue in this board. What about an RfC? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether TamilNet acknowledges something one way or the other is besides the point. Also, I was not part of any consensus where a patently non-RS source has been decorated with a "QS" tag. What is "QS" anyway? Are there similar precedents elsewhere on wikipedia? It is not upto any random Wikiproject to get together and hammer out a 'consensus' on matters like this. And I dont see where there has been any consensus regarding this and other similar sources. A quick look at some of the talk pages will tell you that editors have always been against these sources. I can only say that these sources have been used in bad faith. Sarvagnya 02:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe admins can do something. It is a dispute regarding the reliability of a website. You have some few days to discuss it again before the article is unprotected. If not than obviously a RfC is just next door. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer not using FOX either if it was at all possible, or LankaWeb, or Tamilnation or Tamilcanadian. This conflict is very famous, and each time there is an air strike or a suicide bombing, it is covered on BBC, CNN, AP, etc etc, so we can use those if necessary. If it is only noticed by a few small ethnocentric sources, then I would be skeptical. FOX is a proper news source although it is very biased, but I have not seen people say that they present false data and such. It does contain strong editorial bias and such, but when you use a source you should not import the bias from the newspaper and just say "described by .... as "the best" ". But in any case, if BBC or CNN have the same data, it's better to just use them instead. There are many times where a proper newspaper like Sydney Morning Herald and the tabloid Adelaide Advertiser say the same facts, in which case, I would just source the SMH since it would look better. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Can the TamilNet refs be replaced by BBC/CNN ones? If yes than the problem is sorted out. I haven't checked if TamilNet references are unique (i.e. no one else covered it...) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not most of the time see my comments below specifically about Sarathambal case Taprobanus 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If no non-partisan media are willing to cover such details of a conflict which is on the news all around the world each time there is a skirmish, then I would doubt that they are at all neutral. In any case, see things like The mission statement of Tamilcanadian "Our humble attempt is to broadcast to the world our struggle to preserve and save our culture from the Sri Lankan government's campaign of genocide against the Tamil people." and Tamil Nation] to see what their agenda is. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a the WP:SLR community reached a vote to name many sources as "RS", "anti-rebel" , "Pro-rebel" and "UnRs". The problem is that most srilanka related articles do not follow thse branding of articles. If you take a good look at many other articles there are lots of "anti-rebel" sources being used as RS. So if the community is saying that we cannot use tamilnet then why is the same community keeping quite on the other side of the story-using anti rebel sources. Is there something thats missing ? Or has the community not seen these articles ? Anyway if we are going to allow the anti rebel sources then we MUST allow the pro rebel sources so that in the end we will have a neutral article. However, if one is taken out the other should also be taken out to again have a neutral article. Watchdogb 12:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am also the same view after the WP:SLR community has reached a vote to name as "RS", "anti-rebel", "Pro-rebel" and "UnRs", still there are articles which have been sourced using anti-rebel sources as WP:RS. Those who are willing to remove Tamil-Centric souces using as WP:RS for the events purported by the State Terrorism in Sri Lanka in the Tamil areas where the International Press is in total isolation, are keeping silent to the usage of anti-rebel sources as WP:RS in various articles. Whether Blnguyen has failed to see those articles or he has biased view towards the persecution of the Tamil community in the Sri Lanka to be exposed to the world is not still clear. But his vesak wishes to his friends [3][4] who are adamantly against the view there is a State Terrorism in Sri Lanka, is giving some view of his biased nature and will only lead to a RFC against him subsequently.Lustead 13:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

“ Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view. ”

None of the articles from which I questioned the TNet, TNat, TC websites: Mylanthanai massacre, 1990 Batticaloa massacre, Akkaraipattu massacre, Eastern University massacre, Kokkadichcholai massacre, Sarathambal, Ilayathambi Tharsini or Krishanti Kumaraswamy had Sinhalese groups' references to anywhere the same extent as the Tamil ones, contrary to what RS says. And it says that these sources are only good for presenting the POV of the said groups, not for rock solid statistics etc. It is you who is the single topic editor here. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If you declared yourself Buddhist and made come into contact with me previously, I would have given you a message as well.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Tamilnet does not file false data, there are serious non Indian and Sri Lankan researchers such as from the United States and Australia who have studied this news site. For example for archived version of the research paper on this see this. Read it in full before making any comments. I can provide more such research papers. I am not arguing that Tamicanadian is a RS source, so let us not confuse the matter here. The discussion here is only about Tamilnet as I said I will take it all the way because I am sure we will prevail at the end when neutral uninvolved Wikipedians see the arguments on both sides not any one belonging to a cabal or faction with and axe to grind.

Tamilnet passes RS because

• 1. It has an editorial board
• 2. It has an editor
• 3. It reviews its news reports for accuracy
• 4. It is used as a primary source by notable media

organizations such as BBC and CNN (just to name a few) to report on information that is generally censored information in Sri Lanka.

5. It is used as a source by notable Human Rights groups such as Asian Human Rights Commission and HRW (just to name a few)

To arbitrarily remove very important information that is particularly important for Sri Lanka conflicted is tantamount censoring information in Wikipedia. By claiming most information is covered by BBC and CNN.because it is not true at all.

For example in the Sarathambal rape and murder case, some one arbitrarily removed Tamilnet source which says that number of important dignitaries including number of majority Sinhalese attended her funeral. That information is not available in BBC or CNN. But that piece information humanizes the Sinhalese people that although it was a Sinhalese person who is suspected of raping and murdering this minority Tamil women other Sinhalese were equally upset about. That piece of information makes the article neutral other wise the article will be completely one sided. To remove Tamilnet from that article now makes it a non neutral one from a neutral stable article.

Then there was a claim that it was a blog ? There was a claim that it was a partisan website ? That it was a lobby group ? Now all this is personal opinion without any credible citations.

I think people simply jump to conclusions without doing serious research. Let us continue this discussion to its logical conclusion. Thanks Taprobanus 13:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

They weren't neutral anyway. Some of those articles were 80% TN sourced and the rest mostly HRW or AI. Yes, that tripod site is a random website. and the Socialist News is clearly self-declared as partisan. Just because something is a primary source doesn't mean it is reliable. A political journalist gets info from politicians and bureaucrats speaking anonymously. Does that mean that rumours spread by a politician's secretary become RS and can be taken as real statistics? And you are talking about people with an axe to grind when you know full well my ethnicity and the fact that you are an activist.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there any source to back up the allegation that Tamilnet is not a reliable source? Partisan view can never be a parameter in deciding RS. For example, there are hundreds of articles in wikipedia which uses *karnataka* web sites which present kannad-centric views and obviously very partisan. Let's not get into the quality of these websites. Anyways, a simple search in google provided me with these sources.

A PHD thesis of Kasun Ubayasiri, Central Queensland University covers extensively Tamilnet. This is the conclusion that it derives.

"It can also be argued the Tamilnet success as internet based news service has been largely attributed to a unique position it has created as the only ‘independent’ provider of a reliable alternative view in the Sri Lankan theatre, one designed to counter the states rudimentary propaganda machine. Tamilnet has also adopted a reportage style closely resembling a wire service feed identified by western media practitioners as viable and reliable media. The prompt coverage of news both in the government controlled regions and those under the LTTE control has placed the a Tamilnet in the unique position of the being a news service with the widest coverage – a defining attribute in a media theatre dominated by Colombo and south centric media.Therefore it can be argued that Tamilnet’s strategy of providing pro-Eelamist news without any overt LTTE connections has yielded results and coupled with its reporting style and content, paved the way significantly wider coverage in both the internet and through international mainstream media, when compared with any other web based media Sri Lankan media product." here is the link

Same goes for Tamilnation.org. A simple search in google shows that tamilnation website is used as references in conference papers and other research papers. Associate press & BBC uses these websites as reference too. Praveen 15:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

May I point out that Kasun Ubayasiri is an Australian of Sri Lankan majority Sinhalese extraction which makes his point of view even more credible. His reaserch papers have appread in may scholarly jourmnals. Thanks 15:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

<deindent>I can't believe that any editor would even suggest that Taminet is a reliable source. Plain and simple, every single news organization that refers to a report from Tamilnet, Reuters [5], AP [6], Xinhua [7], AFP [8] etc etc all call Tamilnet a pro-LTTE website. So does even the BBC [9] ("Tamilnet, the pro-Tamil Tiger website"). The only reason reports from Tamilnet are quoted in international media is that Tamilnet is considered the official news website of the LTTE[10], just like reports by Baghdad Bob were widely quoted by international media.

To give a few examples, Tamilnet sometimes reports incidents before they actually "happened" [11]. Two weeks ago Tamilnet published a bogus news item containing material from an alleged "interview" with the Bishop of Jaffna, one of the highest ranking religious leaders in Sri Lanka. The Bishop later completely denied he even spoke to Tamilnet, saying "Hence I deny totally the report ascribed to me by the Tamil Net"[12].

I simply don't see any reason for this argument to continue. No one - apart from the LTTE and it's supports - consider Tamilnet a credible news agency. Regarding it as a RS for Wikipedia articles would be simply ridiculous, and there should be no two ways about that. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 16:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No one - apart from the LTTE and it's supports - consider Tamilnet a credible news agency Admins please take note ofthe above WP:ATTACK on wikipedia editors who are trying resolve this matter by amicable discussion. Thanks Taprobanus 16:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because these news sites call Tamilnet a pro rebel website does not mean that the website fail RS. Also I can remember many protests against BBC for giving one sided information on the LTTE. So if you want to look at it that way then I guess that BBC also a unreliable source. For example- BBC reported that they had credible evidence that shows that the LTTE was running the credit card fraud in UK. However, they failed to show the "Credible" evidence. Furthermore the UK police them self have said that they have NO evidence linking LTTE to these fraud. Does this mean the BBC is not to be used in the SL related articles ? Does that mean that BBC is not a RS ? This argument brings about 2 debates. 1) Since the BBC has made false news blaming LTTE then how can we take their word on Tamilnet being pro rebel. 2) Since BBC has done this sort of biased coverage they can be considred Biased against the LTTE. So does that mean that BBC should not be used as RS ? Also as I have said above other sources have been crammed into wikipedia which are considred Anti rebel. So if thats sites are allowed to be used then why not Tamilnet (playing the devil's advocate) even if its pro rebel ? - watchdogb

Also the story about Bishop of Jaffna is not exactly as Snowulf puts it. Their title was wrong but the story is right. A close associate of the bishop told Tamilnet these stories. Tamilnet went on to say that they made a mistake and that they will change the title. They even made a article on this.

Section break

I believe i've had heard enough arguments from both sides and at at least i can have my own judgment now. I see that TamilNet respects our policy on RS. These are my reasons:

• TamilNet has been cited and used as a reference in both notable media outlets such as BBC, CNN and news agencies such as the notable Reuters. It has also been used in academic papers and still being used in government websites such as the Canadian immigration and refugee board website. (based on the links provided by participants above)
• Saying a pro-X is biased and unreliable is just like saying that opponent pro-X is biased and unreliable. Defence.lk reporting on TamilNet having lied is not a totally unbiased reporting. They are both partisan websites. In our case here, we only have one partisan side having a say in wikipedia. It is against our core policy NPOV. The article should be balanced. You are talking about "state terrorism in Srilanka" but the main accuser is silenced. Please read the next point.
• Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view. (source: RS/Examples).
• The argument that says that TamilNet lied once is just not a perfect one. In the list of journalism scandals you'd find almost every universally notable media. Who doesn't remember the Sorry..We were hoaxed story about the fake abuse photos of prisoners in Iraq? Daily Mirror is still considered notable. Newspapers and media in general sometimes lie intentionally and sometimes unintentionally. You can't be sure about that.
• I am a Moroccan and i use to edit Western Sahara related articles and i've never attempted to claim that the pro-Polisario (the Saharaoui separatist group)arso.org website is unreliable. We use it as a reference in many related articles. Is it biased? Have they lied? Yes, definetely but who and which is not? Many times and the lies have been mainly reported by foreign and NGO media. Has Moroccan newpapers lied? Yes, of course and in many occasions. THEY ALL LIE sometimes, if not all the time. Let me add this to you. Recently Morocco blocked access to YouTube. I was the one who first added the information to [Human rights in Morocco] article. Why it has been blocked? Well, one of the speculations is that Morocco didn't want some videos about abusing rights of some Saharawi students to be available for Moroccan public. Ummm!!!! Than which side is unreliable here? The state owned media or the partisan media who could publish videos of the abuses on YouTube? I am sorry but in this case i SHOULD consider YouTube as reliable and kick the garbage of the other side out of my scope.
• I used also to work on the article about ETA, the Basque separatist group. Everyone knows about the group but only a few would know about Gara. Well, Gara in simple words is the loudly mouth of ETA. Gara newspaper has had the habitof publish/announcing terrorist attacks executed by ETA hours before they occur. It is not only considered biased but it considered to be part of ETA, and therefore a terrorist newspaper according to their opponents (mainly the Spanish gov't) though nothing is sure or otherwise it would have been shut down as they did w/ Egin. Still, we use it as a reliable source in Wikipedia as media outlets around the word do. Do we have any dispute tag on the ETA-related articles? No. Are they protected? No.
• NPOV = Work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources. And, when available, give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • These Tamil sites are obviously politically motivated and do not qualify as WP:RS. The New York Times is RS. I cannot believe we're having so much discussion about something so obvious. -- Y not? 00:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

COI of Taprobanus

Taprobanus used to contribute under "RaveenS". In his old sandbox, he declares himself to be RaveenS. In his self bio, it shows that he contributes to Tamil Canadian and some other Tamil websites. A google brings up things like this on TamilCanadian and TamilNation. I believe this constitutes a conflict of interest. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Cannot come with a comprehensive argument so go after the contributer, shows the caliber of argument. I have contributed to both sides of the conflict in Sri Lankan conflict. Tamilcanadian, Sangam.org for the pro-Tamil side and Asian Tribune and The Island newspaper for the pro Sri Lankan government side. Infact my biggest contributions have been to the Asian Tribune news website which is very much anti-LTTE news site. The editor himself is good friend of mine and was dissapointed because I stopped contributing after sI began to contribute to Wikipedia. So just because I have a minor history of contribution to both sides of the conflict (which has been ignored by User:Blnguyen in his arguments) I have a COI ? Although effort has been made to confuse what we are discussing, I need to point out that we are not talking about Tamilcanadian here. The argument is about Tamilnet. I am encouraged by the comments

Tamilnet.org got closed just as I was browsing through it. Perhaps some of their verifiable comments can be taken into account

by Nearly Headless Nick ^{C}. That shows when really neutral non involved editors take a look at this newssite, including editors of BBC, CNN and other major organizations, they decide to use it as it publishes verfiable information. Again we have come to a conclusion about Tamilnet in this ANI. Thanks Taprobanus 23:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Also considering that he's been pushing for these sources(Tamilcanadian, tamilnation etc) in scores of articles he's edited makes it an even more acute case of COI. Also in his message to me here, he admits to being emotionally invested in these articles. He claims that he hasnt let it seep into his editing and that nobody has ever complained, but a look at this discussion and the talk pages of several articles and editors suggests otherwise. Not to mention, he himself has admitted to 'COI' earlier in this very discussion. Sarvagnya 10:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It is because he has written a few articles doesn't make him to view, he has some Conflict of Interest over those on-line media until otherwise he is trying to use his own articles as WP:RS or have some Editorial Capacity in those media and bring them as WP:RS.Lustead 14:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Raveen's exact words were

"Before his addiction to Wikipedia, he used to contribute to Asian Tribune.com, Sangam.org and Tamilnet.com among other e-magazines and Blogs, but since then he has stopped contributing."

Misquoting to suit one's needs?

Please do not use COI to gain upper hand in POV disputes. Thanks. Praveen 15:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If you must, please take it to COI notice board. Praveen 16:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Now we all know why some people are so insisting having racist crap sites like, tamil nation,tamil net,tamil canadian as WP:RS here. First I thought people are just kidding as even a small kid reading those crap sites would know its merely comical to have them here in Wikipedia. But I guess its not, for the contributors to those sites.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 03:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Iwazaki, i am afraid to disagree w/ your opinion. My reason is that when someone says racist crap, s/he should back h/is allegations w/ fatcs. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fayssal my good Moroccan friend,here in this case there are no evidence, that's the sad truth. Just go through those web-sites , then you would know how childish are those sites. How racists are those web-sites. And that's exactly why all the media which quote from those sites explicitly say tamil net is pro-LTTTE !! I am not sure how that makes tamil net a neutral source. And for user.raveen, we don not know whether he is contributing to those sites even now, but evidence shows that probability is quite high .And thats may be why, he wants to have those as valid sources here.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 01:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I just can't be unfair to anyone. "No evidence is needed" is alarming. Please, just get some. If there are none, then there are none. If we are going to focus on bold text then i have this: denense.lk is pro-x gov't!!. Nick has just said that the website was censured while he was browsing. Who blocked the access to the site? I am a Moroccan and when i talked about my youtube story (including the censorship of my own gov't) i was rational. It just happened yesterday to Nick. Does the Srilankan gov't follow this thread? If yes, then i shall give them my satute. In wikipedia, we got BALANCE. Somewhere else? i just don't care. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fayssal ,I don't think you fathom what I said, or may be I should have been more coherent. There are tons of evidences to show they are pro-tamil pro-LTTE.. Check out every media,CNN BBC or whatever, they call these web-sites PRO-LTTE.. And why they call them like that? Because that's what they are, extremely pro-LTTE sites !! I was saying no-evidence to refer counter arguments against tamil net.Let me be clear this time, there are no evidence to prove tamil net(or other tamil something sites) are neutral. These are inherently bias sites, nothing else!And how do you know the site got censored by the GOSL ? A site can be temporarily closed for various reasons, I have no doubt that you also aware of this. There is actually no need to censor those sites as they have done enough harm by engaging extrme pro-LTTE stance.To keep a good balance in Wikipedia we need valid,good sources, not some pro-LTTE crap sites like tamil net.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 06:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

IF tamilnet is not considred as a NPOV site it does not matter. Why ? According to wikipedia rules you have to give the same weight to all sources. I have seen editors used Asian Trubune is anti rebel site in many article. They have also used South Asiah Terrorist portal is anti rebel. These sources do not even have an editorial board. I think those sites fail WP:RS badly yet they are here on wikipedia. Since these sources have allready been used in wikipedia then why not use Tamilnet ? Do you want to have POV articles ? Watchdogb 13:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

A cursory look at these websites acertains that they are advocacy websites of some kind. Tamilnet.org got closed just as I was browsing through it. Perhaps some of their verifiable comments can be taken into account, while giving due respect to WP:UNDUE; otherwise, most of them look like propoganda sheets. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 06:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

So whats your thought about users using sites like SATP and Asian Tribune ? If Tamilnet fails RS then SATP and Asian Tribune would fail RS 2times as hard. So before talking nonsence go take a close look at the contribs you have made with those sites. Also its not propaganda sheet. Please do some real rescarch on tamilnet and if you would like go ahead and read the article thats allready here on wikipedia. Watchdogb 12:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I couldn’t see the following media as propaganda machinery as they are covering wide variety of news coverage,

• TamilNet

• Tamilnation

and by giving importance to Dravidian Art, Architecture,Culture, Dance and Music.

If some one wants to say randomly they are propaganda sheets, he or she should discuss here in detail.

Note: Beacaue they are covering Tamil Eelam news doesn’t make them propaganda sheets.Lustead 14:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Violation of privacy and endagengering my life

As the civil conflict in Sri Lankak got worse during the last 1 year I have progressively requested Wikipedia admins to change my user name from RaveenS to Taprobanus for privacy reason. I also asked a Wikipedia admin to delete contents in the User page RaveenS that showd my full name because of privacy concerns. Both were done, to retrive these information must be misuse of admin authority? People in Sri Lanka or those who visit Sri Lanka are killed regularly for having an opinion that may be considred to be different than the government. This has been documented by Amnesty International, RSF and Human Rights Watch. User:Blnguyen beacuse of his conflict with me has now published information that may lead to my death because of my contribution to Wikipedia that may be offensive to the government of Sri lanka. I want wikipedia admins to take a good look at his behaviour based on this simple violation of privacy as well as putting the life of a fellow Wikipedian in danger.

Also as these sources indicate[13],[14] most of the Journalists in Sri Lanka contribute under duress when their views are different from who ever is in power. Many internationally known contributers such as Taraki, Mylvaganam Nimalrajan and Richard De Soyza have been murdered by government proxies. RSFsee here has documented countless other murders of anyone suspected of being a Journalist with a different point of view during the last 20 years of civil conflict. All this evidence put together and the flippant decision by an admin to out me, my personal information when I had done everything to remove such information from wikipedia has to be investigated. Thanks Taprobanus 17:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any violation of privacy here. Blnguyen got the info from your subpage. If you want him to stop then you only have to delete that subpage. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not a computer expert, this sub page used to be the starting point for my personal page which I requested to be deleted the comment was too much personal information. Then I blanked the sub page thinking the information is gone. So my intentions are very clear, to protect myself from privacy concenrs. Then I changed my name from RaveenS to Tapbrobanus again the comment was wanting to remove too much information associted with real name. All pointing a wikipedian wanting to be able to contribute without being associated with real name. The intentions are very clear. The admin in question because I requested to him to discuss with me via wiki process how we can resolve the difference of opinion he had with me regarding one source Tamilnet began a pattern of going after articles that I have created, it sort of stopped with the ANI finding. Now he is going after some pictures I uploaded and marking them with various violations (they are legitimate) but he is not informing me of all his findings in my talk page as the template requets. He has now shown to be fishing for personal information about me by going through my sandbox very many levels below where they are all indicating WP:STALK very least if not other violations. This is issue is not black and white as to whether the information was out there or not. There is some Grey involved as I am not a computer expert and I have made my intention to remain private known to Wikipedia as an instituition. This is potentially a life and death issue for me because my intentions were very clear as I changed my name and deleted my user page information that has been fished out by a Wikipedia Admin. Thanks Taprobanus 23:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not mean to put your life in danger. I believed that since you posted a very detailed account of yourself with all your achievements etc, on your userpage, that you wanted people to know about your life accomplishments. I am not stalking you. The fact is that you only edit LTTE-Sinhalese related things, so it happens that the pages where you used TamilNet, also had copyright violations. I am adamant they are copyvios and a liability to WIkipedia to say the least. I did notify you on your talk page. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I posted a very detailed version of myself in my user page then I deleted it using an admin’s help. The sandbaox that I used create that user page, I blanked it number of times thinking it is gone. But you had to fish for that information at number of levels below where that Sanbox was to find information that I erroneously left behind. As an admin and a senior Wikipedia editor that is uncalled for just to make WP:POINT.

I am more than willing to accept for face value that you did not mean to put my life in danger although that's what you did with your actions. At minimum for this issue to go away you should apologize so we understand that you really understood what you have done. Otherwise this will follow the wiki process. When I came to your talk page to talk about Tamilnet, I said I believed 100% in the wiki process and I am more than willing to follow it through to rfa, but not even in my dreams did I think that instead of Tamilnet we will be talking about an rfa about your conduct. But this madness can stop with a simple apology.

Further don’t belittle my contributions as only related LTTE-Sinhalese stuff. Just like you are interested in English game of Cricket for a Vietnamese citizen, I am interested in Human Rights in Sri Lanka and the world at large, my user box says that. If WP:NOTABLE incidents happen in Sri Lanka whether the perpetrator is the government or the LTTE, I will write about it.

About the pictures you tagged, you tagged 5 pictures that I uploaded since this discussion began but only informed me about 1. Why ? Thanks Taprobanus 15:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason for your user name change is obvious.. You wanted to cover all your contributions which you made to those racists pro-LTTE web sites. Because that would enable you to play an innocent role here in Wikipedia. But luckily Thanks to great Wikipedians we all know who you are and why you are here.We do not need to go far to see your anti-Government hypocrisies. They were clearly shown by you with your creation of dubious templates(which got deleted) and lots of other non-sense stuff esp you added to Sri Lankan related articles.You have before even collaborated with other users, exchanging pass words to push your anti-government pro-tamil agendas, even calling some of your friends not-pro tamil enough !! And here you are shamelessly trying to play the victims role by accusing probably one of the best Wikipedians we have now. I have told you many times not to tell stories, stories are for kids NOT for adult Wikipedians. And here you came up with another stories. I don't think anyone in the world take what you say seriously.. Death threats ?? You must be kidding here. Why dould anyone want to threaten a person like you ? I have never heard a person got threaten in SL just because he is pro-LTTE..Some members of TNA make comments supporting LTTE in the parliament ,and even call LTTE , we, but still live in peace among the Sinhalese with of course protection of GOSL . There are many tamils openly criticizing Sinhalese people,GOSL and live in peace in Colombo. And why should people take some one like you,who may have not probably visited my country for years,and live 1000 miles apart ?? The whole tirade made by yoou is simply disgusting.ESP because it comes from sone who has no idea about whats going on in Sri Lankan, probably find info by reading those racist tamil web-sites !! Anyway, finally we all know who you are and why you are here. And we even know why you have put your self to such a low position some time.Its all to defend your POV, your bias towards a certain section, your hatred of GOSL, and probably your hatred of the country call Sri Lanka. Iam sorry, I don't think people like you deserve to stay in Wikipedia. Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 01:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It is well documented fact that people journalists ,political workers and people from all of walks have been killed this includes Tamils,Sinhalese and everyone particurly after 1983 both in North and East and also in the south during the War against the JVP.It is sad fact that journalists are killed in Sri Lanka just for there views by all the sides in the conflict.Paramilitary backing the Sri LAnkan Army ,LTTE and no one is above it.If he wants maintain his privacy as most people do so in the internet it is fine.I do not think anyone can question it .Most chat rooms people avoid giving there real identity to strnagers as it is dangerous.Taprobanus may feel his life is at risk this is true .Not a single sinhalese government staff want to work in the North except the Army in the south Tamils do not want to go to certain parts.This is sad reality of Sri Lanka. Harlowraman 02:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to note to iwazaki that he is just as unabashedly partisan as taprobanus. He is correct that many tamils live in sri lanka and enjoy comfortable lives in a sinhala majority. Another major point is that not all tamils support the LTTE, infact some for religious reasons are more apt to support the sinhala. A prime example is Subramaniam Swamy. This conflict sticks its branches into South Indian politics as well, its not just relegated to Sri Lanka.Bakaman 02:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Not 'South' Indian politics... may be just the Dravidian politics of Tamil Nadu. Which is understandable, given the extreme tamil ideological stance that these parties and the ltte share. But it has little to do with any religious ideology, least of all 'Hindutva'. Anyway, thats besides the point. The point here is that Taprobanus has a conflict of interest which not only his subpage, but also his comment on my talk page and his comment early on in this discussion prove. His alarmist pitch now is yet another bad faith mudslinging at one of the most respected and useful wikipedians we have. Anybody, half as concerned about their privacy as Taprobanus claims he is about his, wouldnt even put up their bio anywhere on the internet, let alone on a high traffic site like wikipedia. How very convenient of him now to claim that his life is in danger! All this lawyering for what patently are advocacy sites and propaganda tabloids is now starting to spill over into WP:POINT. Sarvagnya 03:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Our "comrades" seem to have connections as well.Bakaman 03:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

'Comrades' have agendas and 'connections' in every corner of the globe :) Sarvagnya 04:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Taprobanus' concern is correct. Many people who stand up against the GoSL have been killed when they step into Sri Lanka. While it is true that many tamil live happily beside sinhalese and other yet how many of these people speak against the GoSL ? Not many at all. The ones who do speak against the GoSl don't enjoy peaceful life. Now with the bashing aside. This is a serious issue. Taprobanus is really scared for his life. I bet the person who brought his real name up here has a hidden agenda. Every one knows he changed his name for a reason... Why breach his privacy? Most editors allready know who he is (sl related anyway). So I kindly ask the admin to take proper measures not only to hide Taprobanus' real identity but to make sure this type of act will not be followed by any users. Watchdogb 13:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have already advice raveen not to tell stories and not to attack good/established Wikipedians. And regarding his bogus fear for life, Why would anyone even think of harming him ? When, from what I have seen here, he can be easily out-smarted and out-witted by anyone. The only reason he changed his profile was to cover his contribution to those racists tamil crap sites. Obviously he knew that was going to harm his future in Wikipedia and give him a black mark. After all who on earth take people who write to those crap pro-LTTE sites seriously ? And finally in case you haven't noticed,TNA MP's regularly praised LTTE and live in the comfort of the GOSL.Please at least read news ,if you are serious about contributing to SL'an related stuff here.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 14:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

WOW IWAZAKI... TNA MP's Praise LTTE and live in peace ? Hmm what happend to Nadaraj (mind you in the tight security zone of SLA controlled area) ? Very comical comment by you. Plus your the one who constantly attack other wikipedians so I think its best to take your own advise. Your argument are pretts nonsence. What does his fear of life have to do with him being outsmarted ? Also how can you say he changed his profile to cover his contribution to those racists tamil crap sites. Who are you to say what he was thinking ? You got proof ? Why can't you take it as it is. He didn't want his real identity to be shown on wikipedia and as he has just shown he is scared for his life. Besides many people (such as yourself) don't even put their real name on wikipeida. Does that mean that you want to hide something from the racist Sinhala sites ? Does that mean that you don't want to have a black mark in wikipedia because you (might) contribute to Asian Tribune? I don't get your point.... So its ok for you to remain unknown but its not ok for someone else to be unknown ? Wonder why that is... It's not proper for a admin of wikipedia to violate someone's privacy. Its even worst when the admin does not take his real name off of the discussion even when the said user is scared for his life. Is this how wikipedia admins their admin ? Watchdogb 15:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

We are NOT interested in your content dispute. We cannot, personally, fix the dispute in Sri Lanka. Could you all take this somewhere else? Secretlondon 15:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The revealing of a user's ID after that user pursued anonimity should be taken seriously. There seems to be a small group of editors who regularly show up here on AN/I on both sides of issues and problems here. Blnguyen and bakaman are both well aware of how to act here, and Blnguyen's comment, and actions, are highly inappropriate for a user of his experience. As for Iwazaki, such blatant bigotry for someone whose politics don't match yours do not belong on wikipedia. Your message essentially amounts to 'I hope they catch and kill you, because you're Pro-tamil and LTTE.' As an otherwise uninvolved editor, I'd definitely hope that if Iwazaki has any more such comments here, he receive a cool-off break. Blnguyen knew not to reveal it, too. He's not so dumb as to think that this user really meant to leave his ID behind, and almost certainly exploited the user's error to gain advantage in the content dispute. He ought to be blocked substantially, IMHO. ThuranX 22:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please improve your reading comprehension skills. I have not said anything like that at all. All I said this was, this whole I am in danger drama was created to take attention away from the main issue. Credibility of some one who writes to tamilnet tamilnation or tamil something sites is in question here. His true desire to have web-sites for which he contribute, as Wp:RS, is in question here. I am not sure how these crocodile tears going to take the focus away from the real issues here.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 15:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Boy.. hold it. Its not like Raveen abandoned his former id or something. Even now, User:RaveenS redirects to User:Taprobanus. And there is no content dispute here which involves Blnguyen with Taprobanus. There are only two issues here - one is the usage of advocacy sites and propaganda sheets by Raveen as sources in dozens of articles which goes against WP:RS. The other is COI(to which Raveen himself confesses). And on both counts, Raveen is caught on the wrong foot. And just because he's been caught on the wrong foot, very funnily, he pulls out the ridiculous "my life is in danger" card out of nowhere and tries to mudsling at respected editors. If his alarmist pitch is really true, the commonsense thing to do would have been to WP:VANISH and probably come back after some time with a new account or something or just vanish from Wikipedia for good. But given that he hasnt done any such thing, I am forced to give more credence to Iwaziki's theory that he just wants to whitewash his true colours and act all innocent and naive on wikipedia. If anything, it is Taprobanus who should be 'blocked substantially'(in your words) for circumventing wikipedia and disrupting. Sarvagnya 01:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As you are good friend of User:Blnguyen, you should leave it to neutral people to decide this vexing issue. Thanks Taprobanus 03:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean? Can you be more specific? Sarvagnya 03:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

To make my stance clear to everyone at the outset: I'm Indian, but largely apolitical, and have no strong views regarding the LTTE situation. However, I believe it is unfair to accuse Blnguyen of inappropriate behaviour. He has given many proofs throughout his time here that he is completely trustworthy and respectful of others' privacy. I do not believe Taprobanus is overreacting - I will not be so cavalier as to brush off someone's fear for their life, nor call them an alarmist - but I believe he needs to take a giant step back and think about whether contributing here under an identifiable username is a good idea at all. I respectfully recommend that he read WP:VANISH and consider whether editing about a subject which is obviously very close to his heart is going to end up with the result we all want: a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia.

As an aside... we still haven't solved the problem of sources. Riana ⁂ 04:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

User:ThuranX correctly said - "The revealing of a user's ID after that user pursued anonimity should be taken seriously". It is something like revealing the penname of a reporter who is handling the issues of State Terrorism / Terrorism or an officer’s identity who was dealing with French Connection. Though the comments of User:Riana are neutral, other than her comment about User:Blnguyen at this incident - "However, I believe it is unfair to accuse User:Blnguyen of inappropriate behaviour. He has given many proofs throughout his time here that he is completely trustworthy and respectful of others' privacy". I don’t believe the open testimoney of some Indian or Pakistani wikipedians, declaring themselves as neutral on Kashmir issue and then commenting on. The same will applicable to the issues related to wikipedians as well. The Vesak wishes of User:Blnguyen to User:Iwazaki of This and User:Snowolfd4 This and then revealing the ID of User:Taprobanus who is differing the views who those received his Vesak wishes and then the actions of User:Blnguyen going after some pictures which have been uploaded by User:Taprobanus and marking them with various violations (when they are considered as legitimate according to the User) without informing him, are highly inappropriate for a user of his experience and making others to suspect whether he is over-estimated his Admin. powers and misusing it or in a state of mental-imbalance. Lustead 07:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not used my admin powers. I am not mentally ill. I gave Vesak wishes to whoever I had come across on-wiki and who declared themselves to be Buddhist. You and your friends are not declared Buddhists, so I didn't send them to you. I gave out many of the Vesak greetings on May 31. If you are saying that Indians and Pakistanis are not to be trusted on Kashmir, then why are you here if you are a member of the "involved ethnicities"? The fact is that I saw the copyright pictures on the pages with the TamilNet website and they were clearly not acceptable. Nothing more nothing less. If those pictures are acceptable, which they are not, then they will stay. As they are, they don't pass WP:FUC #8. I would not have revealed Taprobanus' were it not for the fact that he still preserved it in his possession at the time. The fact that you guys only edit one very small focused topic with dubious website s and not academic textbooks says more about why you are here.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you guys only edit one very small focused topic with dubious website s and not academic textbooks says more about why you are here What you mean, you guys ? and what reason do to assign to these guys. Assume good faith per WP:AGF and dont no personal attack of fellow wikipedians. I think you may be loosing your cool ever since I posted a simple statement in your talk page that I am more than willing to discuss per wiki process with you as to how to resolve a vexing problem about a source called Tamilnet. Now that source issue is resolved at the ANI level all what you had to do is move on to cricket or what ever you like rather than linger on and make all of us South Asians centric editors look like petty quarrelsome lot unable to accept the wiki process for what it is. Without following the wiki process, we will have chaos and edit warring like what you precipitated in number of articles that only stopped after the ANI findings by a neutral admin then you started it allover again by removing Tamilnet yet again showing a loack of respect for wiki process. I have a job to do, family to take care of and number of notable raped and murdered women, massacres and involuntary disappearances to write about in Wikipedia when I have time. So let us all move on. Thanks Taprobanus 15:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You have the freedom to wish anyone you want in wikipedia or elsewhere by sending Vesak, Christmas, Diwali and Ramadan wishes. But the coincidence of your wishes and your controversial edits alarmed other wikipedians.

I should add one more ethnicty, the Chinese also on Kashmir issue, I don’t trust anyone other than Kashmiri wikipedians whether they are Buddists, Hindus, Muslims or Sikhs and any neutral wikipedians. Kashmir or Tibet can’t be a center for regional powers to show their supremacy at the expense of natives of those regions.

Coming to the point, you are saying - "TamilNet website and they were clearly not acceptable. Nothing more nothing less". But another well reputed wikipedian User:FayssalF, a Moroccan nationality, he qualifies more than you to WP:NPOV is concerned, differing from your view point by accepting TamilNet is meeting the WP:RS. I excerpted here some of his views[15]–"I see that TamilNet respects our policy on RS. These are my reasons: TamilNet has been cited and used as a reference in both notable media outlets such as BBC, CNN and news agencies such as the notable Reuters. It has also been used in academic papers and still being used in government websites such as the Canadian immigration and refugee board website. (based on the links provided by participants above)". So his answer will clear your doubt which you posed – "The fact that you guys only edit one very small focused topic with dubious websites and not academic textbooks says more about why you are here". Lustead 13:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Riana, tamilnation.org is run by the guy who served as lawyer for one of the terrorist leaders. On the site, he says that he 'bows his head humbly' to these 'leaders'. In his view, SriLanka is perpetrating a genocide which curiously none of the mainstream press like BBC or the Indian media etc., have reported. In other words, these sites are foisting hoaxes and only a bad faith editor with a COI would be using those sites as sources on wikipedia. Also, tell me what are the credentials of these sites and the people who run it? Are they affiliated to any offical press bodies in any country, for that matter? For many of these sites, we dont even know who's running it. Who the editor is, who the reporters are. In short a benami site. No checks. No balances. Pretty much free to write what they want.

For purposes of Wikipedia, how are these sites different from driveling blogs all over the net? Like I've already argued above, the parallels with FOX etc., is invalid. Even if the likes of FOX or timesofindia or The Hindu or CNN etc., are biased, we have WP:NPOV which takes care of it. But you cant use non-RS sources and argue that you are bringing NPOV to wikipedia. NPOV has to be established only from RS sources. And as far as the affairs of Tamil goes, it is not as if there is a paucity of RS sources. There are more than enough RS sources. There is even a BBC Tamil version. The Indian press covers it widely. Where is the need to even use these propaganda sheets, except to push POV? Sarvagnya 07:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely WRONG. Take a good look dude. Our issue here is about tamilnet and not tamilnation.org. So get your facts stright. No, BBC has many times shown bias against the LTTE. So again I ask does this mean that we should not use BBC ? Ofcourse we use BBC. Also last time I check any of the SL articles they are allready filled with POV sources from the GoSL friendly websites. So may I ask Sarvagnya why you would stick with those sources ? Watchdogb 13:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Its a tough choice, which is more crappier, tamilnet or tamilnation ? Could be either of them..What do you think ?Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 15:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Here we go. User:Sarvagnya is bringing his crap arguments once again. He has written the same non-sense in the portions above and received a verdict from a neutral editor contrary to his stand (That Tamilnet is a RS). Now his bad faith attempts to accuse Tamilnet as an equivalent to blog (once again) shows his difficulty to understand simple English. I suggest neutral editors/admins to please read the arguments & evidence given in above portion which clearly demonstrates Tamilnet's reliability. Thanks Praveen 13:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Instead of calling other peoples comments, craps, could you please go through what he has said here and point out what is crappy about it? And I prefer simple English, too..Thank you

Please, let's not discuss privacy related issues in this highly visible place. I think there is a chance to move on. — Sebastian 17:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no privacy violation here. If anything all the details revealed are highly necessary to carry out this debate. It is now pretty obvious why some elements wanted to have crap bias tamil something sites as WP:RS. How can we take someone as a neutral editor, when it is obviously clear that he contribute to pro-tamil pro-LTTE sites ? Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 15:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It is because, he has contributed to pro-tamil, pro-LTTE and also anti-rebel (according to his statement) sites, doesn't make any sense in wikipedia where each other is known by their User names and a few other details. If you don't mind, why you a few pro-Sri Lankan Government/Singhala - Centric Wikipedians can't be from the Sri Lankan Foreign / Defense Ministries or from the Military. Lustead 07:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Moving on

On the top of this page, it says: "This page is not part of our Dispute Resolution process." I believe this page gets cluttered too easily, and this section is a case in point - it has grown far beyond proportion.

I think we can boil it down to two issues:

1. Reliability of Sri-Lanka related sources
2. Privacy violation

I propose we discuss the Reliability of Sri-Lanka related sources on WT:RS. As for the privacy violation, naturally it is not a good idea to discuss this publicly. Since I have experience as a mediator and since I am very sad to see two good and respected contributors locked in this sort of conflict, I offer to do informal mediation. I will contact both parties and see what comes from that. — Sebastian 17:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment I am amazed that such politically motivated web sites are being used to provide data and citations to wikipedia. A casual read (need to dig in a bit) on "Tamilnation.org" clearly shows how anti-Kannada and Kannadiga it is. On top of all this we now have COI !! I have seen a growing need on the part of some people to use this media source (wikipedia) for political gains, ethnocentric attitudes and blind exclusiveism. This needs to be weeded out before wikipedia no longer remains an encyclopedia. This link is just one among many political propaganda material on Taminnation.org.[16]. One look at Tamilnet.com makes it clear what the main intention here is-Eelam. Dineshkannambadi 11:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Support -->blacklisting these two sites "Tamilnation.org" and "Tamilnet.com".Dineshkannambadi 12:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, right.... You keep using a Kannad-centric 'history' book by Kamat (Who is a Kannad) and scores of *kannad* websites as 'references' as if there are no neutral history books and now here you are arguing about the quality of Tamilnation etc... Do you have any proof for your allegation that Tamilnation is anti-kannad or is it one more of home-cooked theory by Kamat et al?

Support -->blacklisting of 'history' book by Kamat & "kannad* websites. Praveen 13:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Good luck trying to make a case that Kamat and Kamath are not RS. A certain troll did try in the past but ended up like this, this and this. Hoping for some similar entertainment from you too. Thanks. Sarvagnya 16:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment First of all, there's no point arguing over whether Taprobanus has a COI or not. Even if he does, that alone is not a reason to tell him not to edit Tamil articles. What matters is whether those articles have a NPOV tone and have reliable citations. I believe the NPOV issue will get taken care of eventually since there's so much interest on these articles. The reliable source part is what needs to be scrutinized and if you scroll up a bit, you will see that it has. Since the neutral admin above has given an unambiguous verdict on the reliability of tamilnet.com, I don't see what the fuss is about. If there are other websites that people are concerned about, they should bring up the issue here, with their reasoning of why the said sites are unreliable. Remember, a source can be partisan and still be reliable. this is an unsigned comment. not nishkid's Support --> Keep the websites tamilnation.org and tamilcanadian.org as RS. -- this is an unsigned comment. not nishkid's

Comment I have been a reader of Tamilnet for quite a while. I've always had an interest in the actions of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka. Anyway, now that you know my background, I wish to give my whole take on Tamilnet being a reliable source. Personally, I don't think if neutral reputable sources such as Reuters and Associated Press label Tamilnet as "pro-LTTE", then the site should not be used as a reliable source. Given that the website itself is called Tamilnet, and only reports on news regarding Tamil people and LTTE, I think there will sometimes be a COI in the news material the website publishes (which can be seen in some of the material the news website publishes). With a COI and a reputation of being a pro-LTTE news website, I would disapprove of Tamilnet being kept as a reliable source in these articles. Neutral sources that are not biased should be best used in these type of situations. I think the fact that there has been so much discussion about this speaks for itself. Not everyone agrees that the website is a reliable source, and given its controversial nature, we should avoid using it as a source. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't understand the logic of your initial support and then speaking of the controversial nature and telling to avoid the sources. After all you are an Indian Sub-Conntinnent wikipedian and what you should do in these type of situations is to leave other wikipedians to speak of, who are less interest in the region based on their previous edits in wikipedia. Lustead 06:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not an Indian sub-continent Wikipedian. I live in the United States. I also rarely edit India-related articles (actually, the only one I really edited was Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale). Given that I have no history of participation with Tamil-related articles or India-related articles for the most part, then I don't see why my opinion is not valued. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, the intention of those who want to use these sites when BBC and Reuters and Hindu and Times of India and CNN are covering this conflict is apparent. Sarvagnya 21:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Jimbo Wales

Resolved

 – Page semi-protected for 25 hours, thread removed. -N 16:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There's currently a full scale edit war going on at User talk:Jimbo Wales between two anons. One is claiming to be a German Wikipedia admin, and another is claiming their privacy is being violated. I can't make much sense of it because it's all posted in German. I posted at WP:RFPP but nobody's gotten to it yet. -N 15:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi protected for 25 hours (because I pressed 5 instead of 4 and now don't feel like changing it). You should be able to just remove the squabbles now. Neil ╦ 16:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the thread entirely from the page. Carrying over disputes from another project to here is inappropriate. -N 16:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with that, since this is where Jimmy's User page and Talk page are. However, I do believe that conversations in any language other than English are not appropriate. Corvus cornix 20:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe that people still have beliefs like that. ExtraDry 22:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There is another problem 2 topics below about use of a language other than English! Template anyone!Feddhicks 22:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Posting crap people can't understand involving disputes on another project is bad form. It has nothing to do with bad "beliefs". -N 22:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about "However, I do believe that conversations in any language other than English are not appropriate." ExtraDry 09:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure he forgot to say (because he thought it was self-evident) "on en.wikipedia.org". -N 23:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User:M.V.E.i.

Resolved

 – indefinitely blocked

User M.V.E.i. has been repeatedly accusing me of vandalism, inserting false information and "talking lies". I have asked him to provide evidence (up to a point where I linked my contributions and article history for him) or stop that. Yet that has had no effect, either he ignores my request completely or insists "it is all there". Accusing someone of vandalism is perhaps strongest and harshest thing to say to another Wikipedian - yet I did not want to "bite a newbie" (his first edits are from April 20th) and just warned him repeatedly. However, now that is grown to a point where I believe that his actions can be called stalking.

Instances when has accused me of vandalism, trolling and/or lies:

• [17]
• [18]
• [19]
• [20]
• [21]
• [22]
• [23]
• [24]
• [25]
• [26]

He has been repeatedly asked to behave civilly, not only by other users but by administrators as well ([27], [28], [29], [30]). That has had no effect whatsoever.

• He has been repeatedly insulting not only me ([31], [32]), but also other users, such as administrator Sandstein (who has been beyond patient with him): [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]).

• Deleting material/references from Wikipedia: [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]

• Racist and ethnic slurs: [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71]

I am unsure what to do about him. Temporary blocks have no effect, he feels that he is fully just in his edits. Apparently he even doesn't realize that he is insulting other nationalities or editors. DLX 06:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Way, way over the line. Indefinitely blocked. Neil ╦ 07:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You could AT LEAST learn the case, i can find you a few that belive that DLX should be blocked for vandalizing articles and starting Edit-Wars. I gave hin exemples of lies he said and he couldn't denie them. M.V.E.i.

IP blocked. Sigh. Neil ╦ 16:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Neil and other admins. I don’t think 24 minutes is enough to make such a drastic decision. Thus, I’d like to clarify some points here. First, DLX is from a group of Estonian nationalist editors, who try to clean up corresponding articles so that the Estonian History would look “ok” [72]. They presumably collude and take active part in frequent edit wars: (only some) instances of such actions can be found in their recent checkuser cases [73] and [74]. (Wars with dropping relevant materials from articles, for instance, [75], is definitely “vandalism”. So I see no problem with this term used by M.V.E.i.). Selected additional evidence of their misbehavior is presented on a special page [76], where some more facts about DLX are also included. (I think enough evidence to block those editors, and DLX in particular, for long or forever will be collected sooner or later. But this is another story.)

Another side of their strategy is to talk an opponent to death or to provoke him somehow (see example [77]) so that he becomes angered and then impolite. And M.V.E.i. case is typical in this respect. Look at the talk page of this new editor. I found 17 lenthy messages from Baltic users, though M.V.E.i. didn’t want the discussion. What was the question of this discussion? DLX stressed many times here and there that “none of Jews were killed by Estonian SS legioners” (e.g., [78]). That was definitely incorrect claim. Even the Estonian official source [79] admits that “the Estonian Legion and a number of Estonian police battalions were actively involved in the rounding up and shooting of Jews in at least one town in Belarus (Novogrudok); in guard duties in at least four towns in Poland (Lodz, Przemysl, Rzeszow, and Tarnopol); in guard duties at a number of camps in Estonia and elsewhere”. I believe such a claim by DLX is nothing else but a kind of Holocaust denialism (thus, “liar” was, yes, harsh, but actually correct name). What thing could anger Israeli citizen, M.V.E.i., more than Holocast denialism? In this context, his claim that DLX is a pro-Nazi is at least understandable, though not fully justifiable.

Finally, I took a deeper look at the DLX accusations (skipping their personal clash [80], etc.). As to cases where “He has been repeatedly asked to behave civilly, not only by other users but by administrators as well”(DLX), [81] and [82], they were successfully resolved without external intervention. Concerning “Deleting material/references from Wikipedia”(DLX): accusations [83], [84] and [85] are taken out of context and thus baseless. Also, I don’t think there are “Racist and ethnic slurs”(DLX) in [86], [87] (this case was quoted twice by DLX), [88], [89], [90], [91].

To summarize, I believe that M.V.E.i. doesn’t deserve such a strong punishment. I’d like to add also that, in a very short period, he created and did constructive contributions to several good articles. I ask admins to shorten his block.

Best, Beatle Fab Four 11:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You might want to review WP:BLOCK. Most importantly, blocking is not a punitive measure; it's a preventive measure. It's not that M.V.E.i. is being punished for being obnoxious; it is that he has shown consistent unability to help with the Project, and thus, he is being prevented from harming it. Digwuren 14:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The message above is a typical example of how they apply their strategy. Beatle Fab Four 14:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Than why don't you block DLX for harming the project? Me harming the project?? I for a shurt time created a few articles, added unformation to others. THAT's cheap demagogy! M.V.E.i.

As Beatle Fab Four asks people all ower Wikipedia to comment on this, I would like to express my opinion as well. From what I have seen, I fully endorse the block. Colchicum 14:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Here we go again. I asked Neil to check my edit history for vandalism here. And I ask anyone else interested to do that - and if I have vandalized articles, then give me appropriate warnings or blocks. Oh, and by the way, BFF, for [92], read at least a lead from an article about Lord Voldemort and try to understand what I said... DLX 15:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Just in case this is a reply to my reply, I have nothing against you, I endorse the block of M.V.E.i. Colchicum 15:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry - that was a reply to BFF, I just left my message to the bottom. DLX 16:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see that User:Beatle Fab Four, who has a history of being blocked twice in a time of an hour [93], [94] has suddenly become so polite [/sarcasm]. But the truth is that this M.V.E.i.'s racial prejudices far extend insulting "Baltic nationalists" - e.g. see these two [95] [96]. Quercus schnobur 16:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't miss [97], [98], [99], [100] DLX 16:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Given facts ([101]) presented in my statement, it is interesting to read this [102] by Quercus schnobur Beatle Fab Four 17:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

_{(edit conflict)}You may want to re-read that and your sources. We were talking about murder of Estonian Jews by Nazis. SS-Legion was created after Estonia was declared judenfrei. But this discussion has been going round and round enough - and this is not the place for it. Discuss it on my user talk page, if you want - user pages are available for anyone, as long as they remain civil. DLX 17:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

About Beatle Fab Four who currently tries to protect M.V.E.i. we should not forget that edit summary[103].--Staberinde 17:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Neil, Colchium and almost everybody else that M.V.E.i.'s behavior deserves a longish block for incivility. On the other hand we usually use escalating blocks then we deal with incivility and personal attacks. Before this block M.V.E.i had received two blocks for 31 and 48 h, both related to his conflict with Estonian users over the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn article. I have looked into the history of M.V.E.i contributions and can not say that Estonia is his main field of interest. He mostly is interested in music from Rachmaninoff to some obscure "progressive rock" groups. Cannot see any civility-related problems there. I suggest changing the block durations to two weeks-one month. For once it is the natural progression of the escalating blocks. Secondly, the conflict over the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn that seems to be settling both in real life and in Wikipedia would be much settled to the end of the block and would not disturb M.V.E.i Alex Bakharev 22:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I am unsure about this. In his messages after the block, M.V.E.i. has shown no remorse or understood why he was blocked - so, very likely he will continue the same behavior after he is unblocked. He does not realize that his actions are racist (perhaps good example would be edit summary here,1. It's a known fact that Russian Protestans are Baptists, the Lutherans in Russian are Germans and Balts. 2. Dont put two groups in the same sentence.) or that he is insulting other editors.

Perhaps reduction of the block to one month would be appropriate, if he is not allowed to edit any articles (or resp. talk pages) related to Estonia, Russia, Ukraine or other nationalities/ethnic groups - and an administrator reviews his edits on daily basis. And, to make sure he understands that next racist slur or personal attack will result an indefinite block - and that following Wikipedia rules is not optional. DLX 05:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure the information of the edit is true but I fail to see what is racist about it. One month block looks appropriate. Proposed article ban may require an Arbcom decision to implement Alex Bakharev 07:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That he expresses his disgust at mention of Russians together with Germans and "Balts" in same sentence? DLX 07:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

DLX YOU ARE A LIAR. I know i'm blocked, but i couldn't take the lying anymore!!! When i have said in the Russians article don't put them in the saim group, i meet Old Belivers and Protestants. Because those are different groups. Its like writing:70% of Russians are Orthodox and Deists. There should be seperation. About the Baptists, i said that we should mention Baptizm because there are no Russiuan Lutherans, the Lutherans in Russia are Balts. M.V.E.i.

NOW EVERYONE HAVE SEEN IT. DLX is trying to provocate me by saying lies. The case was about the Template Box for Russians, i wanted to mension about the Russian protestants that they are Baptists, so this argument was so we would mention it. The two froups i wanted to seprrate are Baptists and Old Belivers. Instead of There are some Russians who are protestants and Old Belivers, i wrote Some Russians are Old Believers (a relatively small group of Orthodox Christians). Small minority of Russians are Protestants. My grand-grandgather was Baptists Russian peasant (thought he was born Orthodox). SO DLX, stop lying just to do me harm. M.V.E.i.

Looks like his, M.V.E.i., claim is a true fact. Anyway, he opposes Russians to other nations you know why? Look at the name of the article. "Russians"? Surprise, surprise! DLX is again wrong. Beatle Fab Four 11:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah... showing your true colors finally here as well. Seems that you missed his edit summary again, though. And, it really doesn't matter. We have more then 25 cases of racism above - and I did not go through all his edits, far from it. And article name Russians does not imply that it is forbidden to mention other nationalities - or that it is OK to be a racist, for that matter. DLX 13:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You guessed right about my true colors. I don't like liars Beatle Fab Four 13:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You must hate yourself very badly then. DLX 15:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are wrong. Don't troll the discussion with silly provocations. Beatle Fab Four 15:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to count to three, children. If you don't stop bickering by then, I'll send you into your corners for a timeout. I don't care who started it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

DLX YOU ARE A LIAR. I know i'm blocked, but i couldn't take the lying anymore!!! When i have said in the Russians article don't put them in the saim group, i meet Old Belivers and Protestants. Because those are different groups. Its like writing:70% of Russians are Orthodox and Deists. There should be seperation. About the Baptists, i said that we should mention Baptizm because there are no Russiuan Lutherans, the Lutherans in Russia are Balts. M.V.E.i.

NOW EVERYONE HAVE SEEN IT. DLX is trying to provocate me by saying lies. The case was about the Template Box for Russians, i wanted to mension about the Russian protestants that they are Baptists, so this argument was so we would mention it. The two froups i wanted to seprrate are Baptists and Old Belivers. Instead of There are some Russians who are protestants and Old Belivers, i wrote Some Russians are Old Believers (a relatively small group of Orthodox Christians). Small minority of Russians are Protestants. My grand-grandgather was Baptists Russian peasant (thought he was born Orthodox). SO DLX, stop lying just to do me harm. M.V.E.i.

M.V.E.i., editing wikipedia articles(i dont mean talk pages but article Russians) while you are blocked [104] is block evasion.--Staberinde 18:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice coallition against me. NEVERTHELESS, a user wrote that there are two million Russians in the USA, which is not correct, because those are Jews from Russia while the article is about Ethnic Russians, so i returned the previous version. I think that for Wikipedia it is importent to have correct information isn't it? I belive it is so. M.V.E.i.

BetacommandBot/Bookcover image deletion

I'm confused by BetacommandBot tagging Image:Evolution and the Theory of Games.jpg with the {{non-free use disputed}} template. The image was tagged as {{Non-free book cover}}, since it is used in an article Evolution and the Theory of Games, which discusses the book in question. Is this not sufficient to meet the fair use criteria? It doesn't seem to feel like any of the Wikipedia:Non-free content#Examples of unacceptable use. Pete.Hurd 07:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read the second paragraph of the {{Non-free book cover}}; it begins with "To the uploader" in bold. --ElKevbo 08:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Good grief! Better just delete it so that Cambridge University Press doesn't sue for using an image of a cover of a book in the article about the book. Can't we just make a template for this, maybe call it {{Non-free book cover + the "used in article" rationale}}? Maybe Betacommand could write a bot to fill in the needed couple of fields of boiler plate. I'm not going to. I'm done with this. Pete.Hurd 08:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed that one. Personally, I believe this hamfisted new rule about a boilerplate not being sufficient to assert fair use is retarded and an appalling waste of everyone's time, but what do I know? Neil ╦ 09:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a new requirement, the fact that some think it is just demonstrates how lax we've been in enforcing it. The template has stated the requirement since 31 Jan 2006, the policy I would guess older than that. --pgk 09:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think most have only noticed it since it started being enforced by bots. Being in place for almost 2 years doesn't mean a rule is a good one (in my opinion, of course). Neil ╦ 09:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of us have enforced it when seen for quite some time, the bot is merely uncovering the rather large amount which have been missed. I personally find it much more of a problem that we have lots of people uploading images etc. without taking the time to understand the basic policies, adding tags to indicate a status without reading those tags (how do they know it really is the correct thing if they never bother to read it?). Realistically if people had taken the time to actually read and act on the tags message when they uploaded it, we'd have no problems now. (By act I mean either simply do it, or try and discuss/understand the requirement and if tweaks can be made). --pgk 10:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently very little (and yeah, you set yourself up for that one). --Cyde Weys 03:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

<deindent> Yeah, it's pretty stupid that boilerplates can't be used as FUR's, but it's policy anyway and it takes you what, 20 seconds to write up a FUR? —Crazytales (public computer) ^{(talk) (main)} 15:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

But if the boilerplates are not sufficient, why do we still have them? What is their point, other than luring the newer editors (or ones that have uploaded so many images they don't read the boilerplates any more) into uploading images that get deleted? It's as silly and as wasteful of everyone's times as allowing people to upload with templates that immediately tag the image for speedy deletion. Neil ╦ 16:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Their point is to record and display coherent and sufficient information on the license of the image, not its fair use rationale. There's are different boilerplates for that. Get with the program, man! --Spike Wilbury 17:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Why have both? Why not have one boilerplate that accomplishes both requirements? Neil ╦ 20:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

For the same reason Betacommand can't set up his bot to simply add the rationales on these - because it allegedly doesn't provide enough information. Yes, it's beyond asinine, but that's where paranoia gets you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The templates are there primarily for categorisation. I really think they should be abandoned and plain old categories used instead, since there seems to be an endless stream of users who get confused and think that the boilerplate is all they need to add to the description page. --bainer (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• I see no reason why templates couldn't be used for book covers that are used only on the article for the corresponding book. The reason, both legal and in terms of Wikipedia policy, for using Image:Greenmile.jpg on The Green Mile (novel) is no different than for using Image:Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.jpg on Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. (I picked these two at random; there are probably thousands of book covers that could all use identical rationales.) Rather than have people write their own rationales in each case - some of which may be badly written or flawed - why not use a boilerplate for {{Fair-use book cover for book article}}? The same also applies to album cover images to identify an album, video game boxes to identify that video game, and so forth. Yes, additional rationales would need to be added in some specific cases where it's used on other articles, but that is a minority. Right now we have a bunch of images that need fair use rationales and using something like this is the best possible way. *** Crotalus *** 01:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Second thing is though, you need to demonstrate why the useage is needed. Do we really need a picture of the book cover, does it do anymore then decorate the infobox 90% of the time? I mean for most uses, we could get away with free images of say, the author, or of fan art or something (as long as the fan art is free). It can and should be explained in each rational why we really need to use the image. Most of them are "so we can put it in an infobox". Infoboxes do not provide critical commentary of the book cover itself. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 03:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

First editions are relevant. The cover of Dianetics is in Xenu for good reason, but not in Dianetics itself for some reason ... - David Gerard 17:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

How on Earth would fan art be more encyclopedic? --GentlemanGhost 19:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You also have the need to help the user identify the item. This is important in the case of record covers (the best example being that album by Led Zeppelin) & business/product logos. Humans remember images better than words. Unfortunately, Betacommand's bot does not observe any exceptions, nor does Betacommand. -- llywrch 20:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Captain scarlet and microformats

With reference to this recent edit by the above user (Captain scarlet (talk · contribs)) where they say that "This user's contributions now solely consist on removing as many Microformats as posible to maintain quality on Wikipedia." Could this be considered an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point? They have made their dislike for Microformats clear yet fail to justify the reasons for removing it on a large number of occasions as can be seen by looking at Special:Contributions/Captain_scarlet. Comments from this editor on this issue tend to be similar to this where they plainly dismiss the addition of microformats with other editors without considering the possible benefits of the change on the appearance of pages for our readers. It is clear that the user and the main editor behind microformats, User:Pigsonthewing have had numerous disagreements in the past and I feel that Captain scarlet's dislike for microformats and revert campaign against them may have more to do with this than actually writing an encyclopaedia.

Please note that previous attempts to discuss my concerns with this editor have led to the demand that I do not communicate with him via his talk page (diff) following his comment that "Whatever you tell me will be delete and ignored whatever its content". For this reason I will not be informing Captain scarlet of this. Adambro 11:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again... Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 13:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"Please note that previous attempts to discuss my concerns with this editor have led to the demand that I do not communicate with him via his talk page" - likewise. Andy Mabbett 13:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The particular edit on his userpage is just trolling, and you'd probably do well to ignore it, since he hasn't actually created any disruptive microformats. That said, diffs like this one seem like a more significant problem. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Rampant incivility is pretty much the norm whenever User:Captain scarlet and User:Pigsonthewing find there way to the same talkpage.--Isotope23 13:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. And it's not from me. Andy Mabbett 13:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

<Cynical mode>Oh my god you're serious</cynical mode> No further comment. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 15:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No-one has suggested that he is creating microformats of any sort. far from it; he is repeatedly removing templates which happen to include microformats, without apparently any reason for doing so, or being willing to enter into reasoned discussion. Indeed, his last 50 edits alone include 13 such reverts, to just three articles: [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116] and [117]. Andy Mabbett 13:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles you and Adambro didn't revert either... [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131]

These reverts were made after Pigsonthewing ignored any comments left on talk pages, other users suggestions and compromises; Talk:Tinsley_Viaduct, Talk:Tinsley_Viaduct/coordinates, [[132]]. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 15:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have ignored no meaningful comments and have worked towards compromises. Andy Mabbett 15:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If you haven't ignored anything, then I haven't either and this time consuming nonsense is nothing more than a comment on your own behaviour. Fact is you canot accuse me of doing anything more than what you do. Criticising me is nothing more than criticising yourself, if you're ready to talk, do so. You have done nothing of the sort except using vitriolous comments against me and anyone else who disagree with you, with a support of an administrator... If my edits now consist only on reverting the inclusion of Micrpoformats is because I view Microformats as nothing more than a useless gadget and because I have no desire to spend time adding valuable content thanks to you. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 22:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"you canot (sic) accuse me of doing anything more than what you do" Quite clearly I - and others can; and do. Andy Mabbett 08:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Which supports my comments and show unwilling to cooperate with others you are. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 17:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You try an RFC on whether to use Microformats on the pages in question yet? I took a quick look at the list and didn't see one, but I might've missed it. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There's this Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Microformats where no-one objected to their inclusion. Andy Mabbett 15:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

In which case, Captain Scarlet should probably add a brief and cogent summary of his concerns to that section, and then we can see whether his arguments are able to convince anybody else. The consensus on that page seems to be in favor of microformats, but the discussion isn't exactly extensive, so it wouldn't hurt to hash out the pros and cons in more detail. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I just have, taking care to put as much detail as Pigsonthewing. All in all, it seems Pigsonthewing is wasting his time and trying to implement something that has not yet been widely accept. That's just what's been said on the contested tlak pages like... So long Pigsonthewing doesn't shout concensus after two comments though. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 17:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with HBWS on this. Until I saw this discussion, I had never heard of Microformats, let alone knew they existed; I doubt that am I the only one on Wikipedia. (Yes, I have followed the links, read the articles, & they seem to be mostly harmless.) Being intolerant about something the rest of us have never heard about does not build consensus; explaining why they are bad might. -- llywrch 21:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

your comment isn't really acceptable since you qualify my comments as intolerent. My history with Pigsonthewing is that Pigsonthewing makes intolerant and narrowminded comments, you are keen to forget that and believe Pigsonthewing's query by word alone. I don't particularly have to justify why I'm against, Pigsonthewing does however have to argue why they are such an asset to the plain reader. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 17:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Repeated Deletions and Harrassment by user Evrik

Archived. No cause for urgent admin intervention. Encouraged to follow dispute resolution. Another admin can reopen this if they feel there is more to be said. MastCell ^Talk 22:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This user refuses to agree on simple matters and abide by the direction given by an Admin. We have tried DS before to no avail, hence I have come here. Examples:

• #1: [133] Removed category Fugitives. Ms. Arellano has an outstanding order for Deporation by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and they have publicly stated she is a "fugitive."

• #2: [134] Removed category Mexican Criminals. Ms. Arellano has been convicted of using a counterfeit Social Security card which is a felony in the United States.

• #3: [135] Restored deleted Mexican American link under "See Also". Ms. Arellano is a Mexican national only and does not fit the description of the category, only the looser defined project. Admin Will Beback specifically stated she does not belong to the category on the Talk page. Not sure why then a link to the Mexican American article is required since she fails the description set forth in the first line of that article, "citizens of the United States of Mexican descent." Seems misleading to readers not familiar with the Arellano article.

• #4: [136] Inserted category Mexican American Leaders. If, as per admin Will Beback Ms. Arellano does not fall under the category Mexican Americans, why then should she fall under the category Mexican American Leaders? Seems like basically trying to revert Mexican American category.

I mean if a Mexican national who has a felony conviction and hid in a church to avoid an outstanding warrant for deportation cannot be tagged with the categories "Mexican criminals" and "Fugitives," what does that really say about the intellectual integrity of Wikipedia?

Furthermore, Admin Will Beback clearly directed that Ms. Arellano does not fall under the category Mexican Americans. User Evrik is basically trying to get around the spirit if not the letter of that admin's wording.

Additionally, user Evrik has repeatedly used the "highly discouraged" Single Purpose Account tag after my asking him several times not to do so. I have explained myself to him but he is unwilling to bend. I consider this a personal attack and harrassment and ask that the article be reverted to my last revision, user Evrik be blocked and that he be made to delete the SPA tags anywhere he has placed them on me. Sorry to dump all this here but frankly, I don't know what else to do :-( 18:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LordPathogen (talk • contribs).

Hmmm... with a brief glance at your history, I see edit-warring, a couple of recent 3RR blocks, and the clear use of sockpuppetry to continue edit-warring and evade 3RR. Your complaints appear to boil down to a content dispute, and I'd recommend you take it back to the article talk pages, without further edit-warring, sockpuppetry, etc. Alternately, you can pursue dispute resolution. I do agree that Template:Spa shouldn't be used in this context, and I'll ask Evrik not to do so. But there's nothing requiring immediate administrative intervention here. MastCell ^Talk 19:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, there has been edit warring. Users Ramsey2006 and Evrik frequently tag-team on this article. Other users have been blocked as well here. I have tried to avoid edit wars since my second 3RR which is evident by my postings on the 3RR notice board recently. As for sock puppetry, I still dispute that but nothing I can do about it. I firmly believe that this is far more than a simple content dispute. Evrik seems very personally involved. As I have stated, we have tried DS before to no avail. I requested a Third Opinion. I made a Request for Comments. No effect. Someone who is convicted of a felony is a criminal. How can that be up for dispute and if it is, how do you resolve something so fundamental? Finally, he is ignoring the ruling by another Admin. Why is that allowed to stand? Thanks LordPathogen 19:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This user is geting increasingly out of control: "Don't think I didn't notice that you tried to report me for 3RR (and had to be shown what the real policy was." Some assistance would be appreciated. I have tried all the relevent options I can think of... 19:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LordPathogen (talk • contribs).

Umm... looking at that talk page, I see you harassing User:Evrik (about the Wikimedia elections) and engaging in incvility and personal attacks. I don't see the diff you cite above as particularly "out of control". You're not helping your case. I'd suggest pursuing the steps outlined in dispute resolution; this isn't the complaints department and I don't see that User:Evrik has done anything actionable. I'll ask him to stop using the SPA template. MastCell ^Talk 19:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

User Evrik created a whole section on the talk page devoted to me and that is not harrassment? Please also note that 1. I created my header after he did his and 2. I removed his name when he stated it was a personal attack. LordPathogen 19:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Just checking in. --evrik ^(talk) 19:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be going well. ^(H) 19:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

So what does this mean, the fix was in? LordPathogen 20:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Just for the record, if you look at this summary:

you'll see almost no edits outside Elvira Arellano. You'll also see that all the other edits are related to Elvira Arellano (except maybe for unsuccessfully reporting me for 3RR). LordPathogen is being disruptive and using the process to disrupt the article. --evrik ^(talk) 20:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, you will see that Evrik is still ignoring your request since he user the SPA tag even here... And with editors like Evrik, it is little wonder I have time for other articles, now is it? ;-) And as for using the process, kindly note it is I, not you Evrik, who have recently asked for a Request for Comments... I ask you MastCell to read the edits I made adding data from the legal brief and decide for yourself if they are "disruptive" or is there perhaps someone who shall not be named that is gaming the system here...LordPathogen 20:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As long as we're adding things to the record

This little gem as emailed to me last week while LP was blocked:

email removed ·:·Will Beback ·:· 19:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

--evrik ^(talk) 21:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No apologies. I think both these editors Ramsey2006 and Evrik are extreme POV and for some reason, this one in particular is treated with kid gloves by Administrators. I guess because he must be high up the wiki food chain. I don't think that is good for Wikipedia and frankly, it is frustrating as my email surely depicts. The email was also not a secret. No one emails secrets... LordPathogen 21:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah...that looks virtually identical to the email that I got from User:LordPathogen. This whole thing is getting rather annoying.--Ramsey2006 21:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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

• Is it appropriate for private emails to be posted here? If not, the above should be removed. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 19:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Threat

Resolved

 – Pretty serious, it would seem. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how serious this threat is, but I thought I would bring it to everyone's attention. IrishGuy ^talk 23:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Was indef blocked by Yamamoto. bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 00:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Indef block doesn't notify the school. ThuranX 02:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've sent a short email with a link to the diff to the email address on the school website. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I sent this one to CheckUser. It could possibly be that someone is trying to ruin someone else's name, because the threat included someone's name in it. Once the cops get the IP address used, the cops can use this as evidence to send the death threat maker to the detention home and clear up a possible case of identity theft, because the death threat issuer stated either his name or the name of a person he or she wanted ruined. Jesse Viviano 23:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a thorough job, thanks to Zman and Jesse Viviano for their follow up! ThuranX 23:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

GFDL

The recent spate of BJAODN deletions got me thinking. If copy-and-paste moves violate the attribution requirement of the GFDL, and BJAODN violates the GFDL, doesn't using subst on a template also violate the GFDL? After all, it just shows the text as if it had been copied and pasted, with no attribution. *** Crotalus *** 02:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Archives of stuff like AN/I and user talk pages are also technically GFDL violations by the logic that got BAJODN deleted, since they're accomplished just by copy and pasting. --W.marsh 02:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

True, but with talk page archives, the comments are generally signed and dated, and the antecedent diffs are preserved in the history of the main talk page. As for template substitution, I guess you could say that templates aren't content, rather they are shortcuts used for navigation, categorization and maintenance, so if you write {{subst:whatever}} it's as if you bothered to write the entire code. There are a few templates, such as Prod, which indicate the antecedent in the subst'ed code. That being said, there will always be examples where Wikipedia technically violates the GFDL. Perfection is impossible. I think the Wikimedia Foundation will shut down the site for lack of funds before they complain about the GFDL compliance of template substitution. But it's an interesting topic to think about. Placeholder account 02:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The signing provides the attribution needed to be in compliance with the GFDL.-M^ask? 05:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

How exactly do signatures "Preserve the section Entitled "History""? Kotepho 05:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It shows exactly when and who made a particular edit to the page. For example, Kotepho an edit here on 05:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC), and Ryulong is making an edit here at 05:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC) —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing in the GFDL about "preserving a section entitled history". All there is in the GFDL is a requirement that work is attributed, and signatures on every comment are the perfect way to accomplish that. --Cyde Weys 05:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you eat paint chips as a kid? Kotepho 05:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I. Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence.

Sigs do exactly that. the new authors, and date of the publishing of that copy, and the statement of modification (the comment). The section marked as historical is split into 2, one for the history of that copy, in the history tab, and one for the publishing history, contained in the work itself. -M^ask? 05:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There can only be one section entitled History and you can't just put it somewhere else and call something else History. Kotepho 06:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

A section "Entitled XYZ" means a named subunit of the Document whose title either is precisely XYZ or contains XYZ in parentheses following text that translates XYZ in another language. (Here XYZ stands for a specific section name mentioned below, such as "Acknowledgements", "Dedications", "Endorsements", or "History".) To "Preserve the Title" of such a section when you modify the Document means that it remains a section "Entitled XYZ" according to this definition.

Sure you can, we contain an invariant section on history, the history of that particular copy. We contain the history of the overall work in the comments them selves. It makes sense within the construct of the GFDL. -M^ask? 06:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The History section is not an invariant section, but an append only section essentially. You can add to it, but you can't change anything else and you certainly cannot remove it or call it something else and make a new one. That would make the requirement to keep it useless and the only real attribution left would be the copyright notices (which you also can only add to and not remove). One could make the argument that signatures might qualify under a board definition of the spirit of the GFDL, but it is certainly, explicitly against the letter. Kotepho 06:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this comment had two parts, you should've kept them together, but since you responded to the more relevant portion below, Im assuming you realize how dumb this argument is, considering I was being intentionally absurdist.-M^ask? 07:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

(just realized since you still are replying, you may not have gotten it. Im being sarcastic, mostly because of the over-the-top 'did you eat paintchips?' line. The use of invariant sections is widely viewed by the FSF themselves as a mistake, and is being fixed in the next version of the GFDL)-M^ask? 06:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Given all of the stupid and clearly wrong statements about the GFDL (such as the one above where I quote from it and someone says it says nothing of the sort) I have seen in the last week it has made it abundantly clear to me that probably a half dozen people have actually read the GFDL and not teal deer'd it, it is impossible to discern someone being sarcastic or trolling versus a serious statement (c.f. arguments involving creationism and conservatism online). Kotepho 06:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Is Citizendium in compliance with the attribution requirements? Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• No. Citizendium does not transwikify articles correctly. Uncle G 09:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Neither does Answers.com or any other mirror I can think of... so they are in good company. (The one that comes to mind as being the closest to correct is Wikitruth.) Kotepho 09:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Citizendium is in bad company. That bad company includes Wikitruth, which is nowhere near being correctly compliant with the GFDL. Good company, in stark contrast, would be the likes of Totally Explained or the Unification Encyclopedia Project. Uncle G 12:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Wikitruth provides page histories in much the same way we deal with transwiking (which is not perfect), not just links. Example: Joel Leyden history They seem to be missing the talk page histories, and the histories of a few templates they copied from Wikipedia or copy of the GFDL that I saw (well, some of it). If I say TELL THE WIKITRUTH, do you think they will fix these issues to fufill whatever requirements needed to meet 'High' in this list? I would note that I did not say that wikitruth was perfect, and neither of the sites you use as an example are complying with the GFDL either (links to history don't cut it). Kotepho 13:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Getting back on track, I'm not sure if most of our templates would qualify for a copyright, as many of them are just basic wikitable formatting. -- Ned Scott 06:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Many of them contain significant prose (at least the user warning ones that are regular subst'd). Even non-subst'd templates and images present serious problems (see the section "5. COMBINING DOCUMENTS"). Putting a GFDL template and image in an article undoubtably fails under this section. Kotepho 06:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

One possible solution would be to require that template edits be released into the public domain, or using some type of free license that doesn't require attribution. Images wouldn't be an issue since they are always linked by filename to their description page. I'm simply puzzled as to why various other practices apparently violate the GFDL, but using subst on templates does not, since it seems functionally identical. *** Crotalus *** 07:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

subst: is a problem, but if you go with a board spirit idea of the GFDL it can be covered with including an HTML comment that says where it is from (many of them do this). It is a little late to make the template namespace public domain (especially given that many of them started before there was a template namespace). Some of the MediaWiki namespace is a complete mess too. Starting out as GPL and then edited and released under the GFDL (wtf? you can't do that!) and then distributed without any attribution (think .css/.js, blockedtext). All of this without getting into the complete lack of compliance with 4.A-C too. Kotepho 07:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

So in a nutshell, we should have written a better free content license before we started? --tjstrf talk 07:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are plenty of other better free content licenses if you ask me (MIT/two or three clause BSD/ISC/etc... but I know I'm in the minority there), but better software, forethought, and reading the licenses would have certainly helped. Kotepho 07:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

When Wikipedia was started, the GFDL was the only free-content license suitable for documents. The licenses you cite are designed around the needs of software, not of text. --Carnildo 08:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Which parts exactly of the GFDL which make it 'suitable for documents' does Wikipedia use?　We don't use cover texts, endorsements, acknoweldgements for example. Documentation is not that different from software. Kotepho 09:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

For a lot of stuff the only attribution is an edit summary, or a note on the talk page, but is that enough? I would think it would be, since the edit history is also were we look for direct contributions, and the talk page is, well, the talk page, a basic "notes" document attached to each article. -- Ned Scott 19:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and another thought. A lot of templates do insert text like "this was added from Template:blah blah" as a hidden note, but how feasible/practical would it be to make such a hidden note appear automatically whenever a template is subst'ed? -- Ned Scott 20:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I just posted at VP/A asking about article splitting and GFDL. Specifically, what is required in terms of attributions? Flyguy649^talk_contribs 20:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Trolling by User:71.235.81.39

Hello, user User:71.235.81.39 has a history of Trolling talk pages relating to Boston, Connecticut or New England in general. He leaves comments such as this one 1, refering to anything to which he disagrees with as propaganda.

Other examples of this are: 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Plus others which I don't have time to lists.

He has been warned about these postings many times on his Talk Page, but he seems to ignore them. I recently posted this warning on his talk page. He then responded with this message on my user page.

Since these posting by User:71.235.81.39, are a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT, I would like an administrator to consider blocking this user.

Thanks For Your Time: BH (Talk) 03:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Telling the truth with PROOF in TALK pages should be no problem. That is what they are there for. Just because someone may not like the facts that I write does not mean that they should have the right to harass and delete my words simply because it goes against their POV propaganda. This guy and two others have been on my case. Is this site about their thoughts or everyone's? Some so-called editors need to be banned. The site needs to stop letting editors pick the topic because they clearly pick the topic with the thoughts and actions of spreading their vision of the topic. People like me only come to correct the BS with the truth. Do you want a site full of lies of the truth?--71.235.81.39 04:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The above statement is a near perfect match of the tone the user uses to express his POV. It is also a piece of irrefutable evidence against its author. BH (Talk) 04:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia disruptive editing extinguisher #1: Verifiability not truth. —Kurykh 04:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. BH (Talk) 04:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Accusing him of trolling only inflames the dispute. Please remember wikipedia:civility. That said, Kurykh is correct: debating truth on talk pages isn't helpful - just back up statements in articles with verifiable sources. Rhobite 04:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It means that Wikipedia is here to publish verifiable facts that have been written by others, not to stand as a light against the darkness, the one source of shining truth. In other words, if 71.* can come up with independently-published sources that state New England doesn't exist and that there is a pro-Boston bias out there, then we can include his info. If he does not have sources to that effect, we cannot. Meanwhile, there are a lot of sources that he feels are propaganda, which in this case is tough cookies for him. It's happened to me, too. --Masamage ♫ 04:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that he was warned not to refer anyone as a propagandist (1) here, or he would be blocked for violating WP:CIVIL. And he has never brought up any sources other than using a weather map centered on NYC. BH (Talk) 04:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I generally confirm Black Harry's account and complaints. Though I believe the anonymous user may have intended contributions rather than disruption for its own sake, the result of all discussions with him have been replies of a personal inflammatory nature rather than calmly articulated reasoning with sources. I advised user [137] that continuing to post on indignant anger would not be prudent, and that any well-reasoned civil remarks would be considered and discussed by his putative antagonists. This did not aid the situation.--Loodog 04:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

And of course, if the diffs didn't prove the point that this user has been making uncivil, disruptive comments to advance his agenda, the user actually posted a comment on this thread, in which he accuses us (me and Loodog) of writing "POV propoganda". He then suggests that "Some so-called editors need to be banned". not blocked mind you, but banned by the wikimedia foundation and/or Jimbo Wales himself. Then, he finishes his defense of his actions by saying "People like me (him) only come to correct the BS with the truth. Do you want a site full of lies of the truth? (sic)". What else do you need for proof? BH (Talk) 05:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

See, this is an example of lies. I did not submit a weather map centered around NYC, I submitted a local news WEBSITE that deals with NY/NJ/CT. This shows and PROVES that CT is not into this NEw England thing as purported in the article. CT is a part of the NY/NJ/CT Tri-state area which that site is proof of. I don't have to prove that CT is not New England, I am just proving that CT is in the NYC area and NOT a part of this Boston/New England frame of thought. The New England article would lead a reader to think that CT is like those others state in seeing Boston as it's capital and making readers believe or think that CT has the same culture, geography and speech as those states. It also implies that New England means easy transportation between states and that every state is connected to Boston and receives their media which is totally not true for CT. In that regard, we get everything New York as we should being so close to it. Those New England state love Boston because it is the only major city up there. Here in CT, we are right next to NY and a lot closer, so why would you think that we would have Boston on our minds?

Here is the link that they claim is just a 'weather map.' [138], [139]. These show how WE view and see ourselves. Not that Boston and New England are no where to be found...--71.235.81.39 17:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's people like you that cause problems. If you don't like what I write - tough! Don't harass me and try to get me blocked just because my truths do not fit your fiction. The fact that you have to try so hard to convince others goes to show your bias and desperation to stop the truth about this New England/Boston propaganda.--71.235.81.39 17:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the sacred truth that Wikipedia must protect! Sorry, we don't do that. We don't document truth, we document facts. —Kurykh 00:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A local weather map for southwest CT is obviously going to venture into NY and NJ and stay away from MA, since... well... they're closer to southwest CT. It says nothing about the way "the people identify with Boston." I could refute your point with a map of northeast CT that includes much of RI and MA while excluding NY. It would be pointless. You need sources, not your opinions, and refrain from saying "we" and meaning "all of southeast CT" -- because you can only speak for yourself. Leebo ^T/C 01:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to carry the argument into this page, which I don't think is the intention of ANI, I feel obliged to cite merriam-webster's definition. The editor did not accept the dictionary as true enough, thinking that dictionaries aren't updated. I told him that I cannot argue with someone who won't accept the dictionary because all rules are off and you can redefine any word to mean whatever supports your argument. Now, assuming editor has understood Kurykh's statements concerning wikipedia, I see no further reason to continue this intervention.--Loodog 02:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Æthelbert of Kent and User:Hel Hufflepuff

• In Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Uncontroversial_proposals I found this entry:-

  Ethelbert of Kent → Æthelbert of Kent — Per recent discussions for Æthelbald of Mercia and Ælle of Sussex, it appears that ligature is agreed to be the best way to name these articles on Anglo-Saxon kings. This is another. —Mike Christie (talk) 03:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Accordingly I made the move. But, afterwards, as I cleared up the resulting double-redirects, User:Hel Hufflepuff came after me reverting all those resulting edits to redirect pages. (An example is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aethelbert_of_Kent&action=history .)

I complained on User talk:Hel Hufflepuff.

User:Hel Hufflepuff tagged User talk:Hel Hufflepuff with {{db-vandalism}}. I added {{hangon}} to it.

User:Hel Hufflepuff then deleted a line from User talk:Anthony Appleyard for no good reason;and then did the same again.

As:-

1. User_talk:Gryffindor has already been involved in difficulties (see User_talk:Gryffindor#Merano);
2. Gryffindor and Hufflepuff are both founders and houses of the fictional Hogwarts School;

Is there any chance of sockpuppetry here? Anthony Appleyard 05:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• I've reverted some of user:Hel Hufflepuff's changes. Most look odd. I'm done for the night, though. If someone could check the others? Flyguy649^talk_contribs 05:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the edit summeries, however, you will find that every edit of Hel Hufflepuff has the edit summery of [[WP:IAR]] or [[WP:IAR|rvv]]. I don't see any of this thing with Gryffindor. In addition, since the summery rvv seems to suggest reverts, I checked whether these were actually reverts. The result is that every one of these edits which I checked seems to be a revert of either Anthony Appleyard or of Naconkantari, or tagging a page created by them with {{db-vandal}}. Od Mishehu 07:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

While looking through the block log, I found 1 account which does look similar, although it was blocked sooner. This is the Row Ravenclaw account, which seems to follow the same pattern as Hel Hufflepuff:

1. The Hogwarts connection mentioned above - Rowena Ravenclaw and Helga Hufflepuff (bolding the first 3 letters - matches the user names) are both among the founders of Hogwarts. Very likely there are 2 more intended usernames - although neither of them seems to exist - Godric Gryffindor (God Gryffindor (talk · contribs · account creation) and Salazar Slytherin (Sal Slytherin (talk · contribs · account creation)).
2. Edit summeries - Both use a link to WP:IAR as the basis for their summeries.
3. Their edits are completely reverts of some other user.

Od Mishehu 07:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• User:Sal Slytherin has arived, and is monkeying about tagging pages. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sal_Slytherin . Anthony Appleyard 16:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Request "speedy keep" for Steve Gilliard

Resolved

I am arguing for a speedy keep for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Gilliard. None of the four justifications for speedy keep are applicable here, so, yes, this is a bold request. Steve Gilliard passed away on June 2nd and a page was created the same day (not by me). User:Naconkantari, a respected and diligent admins, deleted the page. Upon request, he restored the article and sent it to AfD (see here). My concern is this does not follow wp guidelines, which I quote:

Before nominating an article for AFD, please ... first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the {{notability}} template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. Notability is not subjective. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.

User:Naconkantari explanation for the AfD is: "Non-notable blogger" and that is all. I have twice queried the admins about this matter with no response (see here). Today, Sarah Wheaton of the New York Time's "The Caucus" described Gilliard "a blogger’s blogger who had the attention of some of the most influential on the scene, and he was also considered to be one of its most important black voices."[140] The AfD includes copious evidence of his significance. So, why not wait the five days until the inevitable "keep" decision? Isn't the existence of an AfD template harmless? In this case, I disagree. First, this page will get a lot of traffic now due to his death and the mention in the NYT (apparently, it is possible that even a NYT obit will be written [141]). Having this template on the page serves to deligitimize Gilliard. Secondly, it can't help but cool the interests of editors working under this cloud. Although this harm may not be great, in light of the (arguably) incorrect procedure for including the article in AfD when using the notability template was the better alternative, I am requesting that this matter be settled now. I would be so bold as to do this myself ("Although closing AfD discussions that end with an outcome of "keep" can be done by non-admins, it is recommended that only administrators close discussions as speedy-keeps"), I have voted for keep, so I have a conflict of interest.  ∴ Therefore  talk   06:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No opinion on the substance of the matter, but checking the bot counter, the "score" is 39 keeps versus 5 deletes. I know it's not a vote, and Wikipedia is not a democracy, but I have never seen an article deleted against such a lopsided consensus. You have nothing to worry about. Placeholder account 07:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily mean it will get WP:SNOWBALLed though. nadav (talk) 07:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If I were to close, I would probably strike out a good half of the "keeps" for being from new visitors to Wikipedia (it is strange how so many new user's first edit is to an AFD), but even then, it's not getting deleted. Neil ╦ 08:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

In the end I think this will be a Keep, but in the interim the AfD is just a forum for vitriol and User:Naconkantari-bashing. A speedy keep resolution of the AfD will (hopefully) lead to editors' constructive work on the Steve Gilliard article, instead of just talking about it. Lipsticked Pig 08:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

either a lot of socks or meatpuppets in that AFD. I wouldn't use speedy in such a case. --Fredrick day 09:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Looks to me as if someone you like died, his fans dashed over to Wikipedia to create a memorial and you don't like the fact that this was not viewed with universal approval. Fie on you, sir. Delegitimize my arse. Guy (Help!) 10:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your considered, thoughtful opinions on this matter and your characterization of my motives. To clarify, I did not know of Gilliard until I read about his death and, as is my habit, I came to wp to find out further details. I was surprised that there was an AfD after an immediate delete. I made no attack on Biruitorul. I did point out that after he SPAed many posters (some with months of edits) that he neglected to do the same to the deletes -- two of which were single or dual edits. A fair observation, I thought. And I apologize if, as a "normal user", I pointed out that the admins didn't follow the proper wp stated guidelines that required research and demonstration of which before reflexively deleting a page. The proper procedures was to use the notable template. My intent was not to step on anyone's authority.  ∴ Therefore  talk   19:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Just as a general observation, it's sometimes easiest to create/update an article right after the death of the article's subject, since the subject will receive media attention and retrospective coverage as a result (which can then be used to expand/source). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Kudos to Biruitorul for remaining civil in that discussion in the face of personal attacks from -asx- (talk · contribs) and Milton Stanley (talk · contribs), both of whom have been around long enough that they should know better. The latter's repeated pointing to Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks are especially ironic, not least because they follow perfectly civil comments that aren't personal in any way, and because of this edit.

  Kudos to Lipsticked Pig, too.

  And yes, the evidence of a swarm of new users suddenly appearing in order to try to stuff the ballot, when there is no ballot to stuff, and without rationales that have any foundation at all in our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, when those are the only rationales that would actually make a case that holds water, abounds in that discussion. The holders of the new accounts (and, indeed, several editors of long standing whose rationales are also not based in policy) would do well to learn from Capitalistroadster's contribution to the discussion. Uncle G 13:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• AFD closed as Keep. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Mass deletion of television articles by TTN

User has been notified of this action through a message at User talk:TTN
TTN has engaged in a one-person crusade to delete literally thousands of television episode articles, representing tens of thousands of hours of work by Wikipedia editors. TTN is replacing the articles with simple redirects to "List of episode" pages. There is no assessment of the articles, not is there any attempt at adding the deleted information to the aforementioned "list" pages. (TTN's "notification" consists of a single message left on each series' "List of episodes" page - which is not necessarily on the watchlist of editors who contribute to the affected articles.) The resultant cleanup, on a massive scale, is being dumped on the editors of the affected pages. All of this is under the guise of the WP:EPISODE guideline.

TTN is also unwilling to engage in any meaningful discussion of these actions. Efforts to reason with TTN are met with dismissive replies, as per the following examples:

"People who disagree with all episodes being removed do not count." (here)

"Who really cares if people don't agree with what I do? Anyone that does disagree is a major inclusionist like yourself or a fan. Frankly, their opinions do not matter." (here)

"It doesn't really matter if people are grumpy as long as I'm removing useless information." (here)

"People disagree with me, big whoop. They can only use false arguments most of the time anyways." (here)

Regardless of where one stands on the issue, the manner in which it is being handled is completely unacceptable. At the very least, there should be some sort of discussion regarding WP:EPISODE. A crusade like this, especially with no attempt at discussion, is divisive and will only damage the Wikipedia community. This is *not* how Wikipedia should operate. Sincerely, Ckatz^chat_spy 08:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

They'll come back on summer reruns though. --MichaelLinnear 08:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

TTN has been pretty much spot on with his deletions though. Empty articles written using a standard template and containing about two lines of useful text being redirected to a main episode list page is policy. Nick 08:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems excessive, and from a cursory glance, heavy-handed and likely to cause more trouble than it's worth. En mass changes of that magnitude should have undergone centralized discussion. That is, beyond a guideline page I never heard of. El_C 09:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

He's following guidelines. Problem is, no one has ever noticed this, so it's just been growing bigger. That's why you're objecting, right? Because of the size. I assume those dismissive comments are merely a result of him referring to the same policy over and over again for a number of months. - Zero1328 _Talk? 09:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The messages are presented in a cynical way, but they're absolutely truthful. All comments about this are placed from a personal level rather than one backed by any sort of policy or guideline. They're either grumpy that the episodes are gone or they feel insulted from a lack of discussion (which they don't end up bothering with). I am perfectly willing to participate in a constructive discussion that will bring about good sources. The problem is most people are fine with the current condition of the articles, so they somehow avoid actually finding any. Only one person/group has really done anything, and I have no idea how it has gone this past month. TTN 10:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

To El C: This has already undergone a centralized discussion that lead to that guideline, so now it is up to users to find sources for their single series. Further attempts at more discussion leads to nothing more than rambling, paranoia, and yelling. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kept Man for why this needs to be done away from things like that. TTN 10:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

TTN, the job you're doing is one that needs to be done, but some of the above quotes show you could perhaps be a little kinder? Neil ╦ 12:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Kinder, perhaps, but experience shows that fans will not accept anything less than an article per episode, so sometimes being blunt just saves time. Guy (Help!) 14:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless if server memory is an issue, I see no good reason not to have articles that obviously a good segment of the community finds interesting or useful. As long as they are referenced and even a handful think they are encyclopedic, deleting them only turns off many readers. We should not be exclusive or elitist. --24.154.173.243 17:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I took a look myself at this guideline and I would have to say I disagree with the how the episode was dealt with the critics, since a great number of shows would not have this kind of information and I feel that this alone is unneccessary, adding in a plot summary that is not too minor or too detailed with any available data for key members of the production crew, and any avaiable cultrual reference or notable trivia and sources are found. However, the problem with sourcing is that their are hardly any episode books on the market and many of the only worthwhile links come from fansites which would fail Wikipedia's established link policy because it is a fansite with questionable source material. Me thinks that the whole episode policy needs to be re-evaluated and decide which shows should have their own episode page and which one should have a list instead. -24.20.180.73 15:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that there is a concensus on which shows should be allowed to have their own specific episode articles? -Adv193 15:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Other helpful links for this discussion:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Kim_Possible_episodes#removal

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Ocean_Hunter#Deletion_of_useful.2C_relevant.2C_and_interesting_information

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TTN#Ahem

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TTN#Your_behaviour

5. User talk:TTN#Episode pages

6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Using_Wikipedia:Television_episodes

7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Mario_character_merges

8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TTN#Your_edits_to_List_of_Weeds_episodes

9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Ocean_Hunter#3rd_opinion

I obviously think that it isn't right for so much work done by other editors to be needlessly erased in such a fashion. --24.154.173.243 16:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment

I'll preface my remarks by saying that AN/I probably isn't the place for a discussion over Wikipedia guidelines. With that in mind, however, the way TTN is proceeding - and the scale of it - should not be permitted until a consensus on the larger issue can be achieved. Whether consciously or not, the Wikipedia community has permitted the creation of these articles, and allowed them to develop and grow - not for days, or weeks, but for *years*. This is not a question of a few random pages that don't meet guidelines - we're talking about literally thousands of pages, and tens of thousands of hours of work by good, solid contributors. We're talking about the Television project, dozens of related sub-projects, and all the rules, guidelines, and procedures developed within those structures with the goal of standardizing content and creating professional product. We're talking about editors who - on a daily basis - struggle to maintain a strong body of pop-culture content. Not only are they having to weed out the constant onslaught of speculation, trivia, and fan-boy debris, but they are also having to work within a community that, to some degree, "looks down" on their efforts as being "less than worthy". (See this note from TheDJ) TTN says "go to TV.com and Wikia" - but that is *not* the same thing. Speaking for myself, if I wanted speculation, fan theories, and "what if" scenarios, sure, I'd go to those sites. That, however, is *not* what I want out of an article, and not what I want to work on. Whether you like pop-culture articles or not shouldn't be the issue here - it should be about showing a certain degree of respect for your fellow Wikipedians. TTN's actions, I'm sorry to say, do not meet that mark. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There already is a larger consensus: WP:EPISODE. Just because single editors don't want the articles that they work on to be gone, it doesn't mean this it isn't valid. They all miserably fail that, WP:N, WP:V, and various other combinations of things like WP:NOR and WP:NOT depending on the single articles. Something needed to be done, so I'm doing it. Otherwise, we'll just be sitting around and twiddling our thumbs, all while having an idle discussion that will get nowhere. Plus, the comments that you quoted were not towards editors trying to keep a single series. They were towards people saying that I should not continue just because people disagree with me or people suggesting that I bother with single discussions for every single one (though few are ever responded to). TTN 17:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's hard for episodes to not fail anything if they are deleted before editors even have a chance to finish expanding them. Clearly there is NOT a consensus on this matter by any means. --24.154.173.243 17:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of these have existed for well over a year. Time has nothing to do with it. People stop editing after the plot summary is up. Only a little tweaking here and there and the addition of trivia follows. TTN 17:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

So, how is having articles that obviously a number of editors and readers find helpful somehow detrimental to this website? If you or others do not like these articles, why not just ignore them or work on other projects than destroy what others have worked on and what others do find helpful? Are we running out of memory or something? --24.154.173.243 17:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't keep articles because they're "helpful." This site is based upon building a source of information with encyclopedic and verifiable information. If it is impossible to do that with a subject, it doesn't belong (no matter how "helpful or interesting" it may be). TTN 17:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, by your own post then, the articles should be kept, because a) episode information can be easily verified and b) by the definition of encylopedia provided on Wikipedia, they are encylcopedic as they are examples of "general" knowledge "containing articles on topics in every field." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedic#The_term --24.154.173.243 18:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I led myself right into that one. Verifiable by this sites standards (published sources), not just from the primary source. It has to be notable in that way, or it is just unencyclopedic. General means general, not in-depth. The general overview is the episode list, not the specific articles. TTN 18:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Then, why not just put some kind of request for sources tag on the articles? It shouldn't be too hard for people to add a source for each episode. --24.154.173.243 18:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The tags aren't magic. Sources have to exist and people have to be willing to work on them. The reason they're being redirected is because both of those aren't met. TTN 18:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources exist on such websites as Tv.com and even on the network websites for the shows. With thousands of editors and an ever growing community, you'd have to think that more and more people will eventually be willing and able to meet such standards. --24.154.173.243 18:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Those aren't good enough to build articles (tv.com, for example, is not a reliable source). Trust me, sources don't exist for most episodes, and users don't care for their quality. They just want a place to write summaries. If what you are suggesting was possible, I would be doing that rather than redirecting. You're going down the same exact road as the rest of the people that are trying to keep these, and it's a dead end. TTN 18:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Bzz Wrong, this conflict will never be over as long as there are a massive amount of editors that fight for what they believe in, ignoring the rules, and some such as myself who believe that such rules or styles on Episode pages can still be changed. -168.156.153.175 18:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

In a very literal sense, this conflict is dividing editors up into two armed camps, one that follows their beliefs vs. those that follow policies and tend to stubbornly stick it out, and both are refusing to give up until they can achieve victory.-168.156.154.155 18:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

While the standards TTN is working for aren't rules (they're Wikipedia guidelines, which are more like loose standards), this conflict has brought out far more- there have been not only lots of hurt feelings, [142] administrative misconduct (admin engages in revert warring [143] then blocks the opposing side[144]), insults[145], and even admissions that some editors are even afraid to confront TTN[146]. It's obvious that this quest has had widespread ramifications beyond a simple content dispute, and I fear without some actual discussion beyond what's currently here, that it will only get worse. 76.28.138.83 18:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

TTN's actions mirror those of the Admins that were removing all of the non-free images on Wikipedia that did not meet the criteria that was established. All those "list of episodes" pages that had tons of screencaptures had them all removed. The reason it mirrors that, is because all of these articles have been in "stub" hell for months, if not years, and they've only been allowed because people said "they can be expanded". This never happened. Why? Because "plots" do not equate to "expanding" and article, and fluffing it up with other unencyclopedic information doesn't equate to that either. "Featured music", "quotes", "trivia". This still doesn't go on film articles, why would you put it on an episode article? Here's some tips if you want the episode articles to exist. Find relevant, real world information. We have a Wikiquote, so listing quotes is not only unencyclopedic, but irrelevant when we have a place for it. "Featured music" is not encyclopedic, because it isn't an "album" or a "single", it's just sampled music here and there in an article. If you can find out why those songs were chosen then that can be used, but listing a bunch of songs falls into listing trivia. Speaking of, all experienced editors should the rule of thumb when it comes to trivia. Most importantly, and what seems to be the biggest problem, plots are supposed to summarize an episode, not substitute for watching it. Remember, plots are "non-free" information, and we have to establish an encyclopedic right to use them, because they do fall under the republication of copyrighted material. The words may be yours, but the story, and the events are copyrighted by that particular studio. Good examples are Pilot (House), Pilot (Smallville), and Aquaman (TV program). This is what episode articles should strive for, but, as hard as it may be to hear, all cannot attain. 80-90% of these articles will never have that information, why, because it would take too much time for a director to sit down with every episode and commentate, or interview about them. These guys get a few months out of the year for breaks, and then spend the rest working on the next episode. The episodes being redirected, like all those non-free images, do not meet the criteria for an episode article and their existence has been allowed for far too long. TTN's actions may seem drastic (I am actually doing a merge discussion, but that's because I am only concerned about 1 television series, and not about the whole, as TTN is) but he's doing what should have been done long ago. He probably could have handled it differently, and alerted the community, but that's like saying someone should have told you that if you swim with sharks you're going to get bit. Everyone that works on television articles a lot, knows the guidelines for how to handle these episode articles. They even specifically say that not every episode will warrant an article, yet people are creating all 100+ episodes for a given series without even stopping to think if they should.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I know, I mean I personally reverted that insult and that I my preference is to find a fair negotiation rather than be insulting, since I am noticing it is less likely that leaving the pages the way they are will not work otherwise this debate could happen again. -Adv193 21:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Update

This is getting completely out of hand - now TTN is gutting series articles without even announcing what is happening. The entire Weeds series of articles has been redirected, without so much as an announcement on either the main page or the "List of Weeds episodes" talk pages. There's only a cryptic "Cut links" edit summary; other than that, TTN appears to have no presence whatsoever on either page. The same things just happened for the series Undeclared. Can't someone do something about this? --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That's the way that I have been doing it. I've only posted a message on thirty or so articles. Only eight of those garnered any sort of attention. There is no point if nobody is going to respond. Any discussion can happen afterwards. TTN 20:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that by mass deleting the work of many other editors and even ignoring the compromise element of the third opinion you requested for the Ocean Hunter article, TTN is effectively alienating and turning off other editors. Look at what happened with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ralf_Loire. Check out the conclusion that editor came to at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=136039811. What is he talking about in regards to users giving him a hard time and all, well why not see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TTN#Ahem in response to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ralf_Loire&diff=prev&oldid=135667240

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ralf_Loire&diff=prev&oldid=135703440

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ralf_Loire&diff=prev&oldid=135704475

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ralf_Loire&diff=prev&oldid=135705411

So, how is causing editors to want to disappear a good thing?

TTN requests a 3rd opinion for Ocean Hunter and Bjelleklang replies, "What about creating a List of bosses in The Ocean Hunter article?" Amatulic offers, "If there's a site describing the bosses, go ahead and link to it in an External Links section." How does TTN respond? "We do neither" and "Both of those examples don't help anything." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Ocean_Hunter#3rd_opinion for the full discussion. He asked for a third opinion and when two individuals offer ideas that were not the full answers TTN as hoping for, he disregards them and deletes the material without accepting these compromise elements of the two third opinions offered. This is really distressing. Wikipedians should not alienate other editors or only selectively listen to 3rd opinions when it suits them. --164.107.222.23 16:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The real issue at hand

The discussion is all getting rather heated here, and is complicated by the fact people are concerned about two issues. The first is what does or does not constitute a good episode article. This is best discussed at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes, or Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Television (ie. rather than expounding at length here your reasons why episode pages should exist). The second is the pertinent issue, which is best considered on its merits alone (ie. not clouded by whether you agree with his/her motives): Is the behaviour of TTN overstepping the mark? The complaint against him/her is:

• TTN is redirecting episode pages for a vast number of television programmes, and:
  1. is doing so with little or no constructive discussion on talk pages or warning of his/her intentions
  2. is doing it as such speed he/she cannot be assessing the articles critically
  3. is choosing to redirect rather than merge (ie. makes no effort to salvage appropriate content for the main series page)
  4. is choosing to redirect rather than flag an article for improvement (eg clean-up or source tags)
  5. is not taking editorial responsibility for his redirects (eg. following broken links)
  6. is carrying on these actions even while aware they are inflammatory and appears to show no interest in reaching a compromise
• Evidence:
  1. a quick view of TTN's contributions will display speed;
  2. discussion above shows TTN’s own admission he/she does not bother with talk pages.
  3. Example of uncritical redirect (ie a redirect without considering potential of episode pages): Yes Minister series. See Yes Minister page for example of references and sources possible regarding this series. Example episode: The Moral Dimension see diff. Note also the only explanation given! This episode would not yet rate as a good article, but it could be brought up to such a standard with critical comment and sources (which are available). TTN is fond of quoting WP:EPISODE. I feel this example (ie all Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister episodes), comes under the following:

Note: Stubs are allowed on Wikipedia and many articles are stubs. It may be inappropriate to merge or redirect an article about a television episode just because it is a stub. Before executing a merge, ask yourself: Will the merge reduce the quality or coherence of the target article? Also do some basic looking for additional source material that could be used to improve the article. Are more sources available? If the answer to either of these questions is 'yes', it is probably better to forgo merging or redirecting. Instead, leave the article as it is or consider improving it.

In summary: Many of the episode pages TTN has redirected may be unworthy of having their own pages, but the manner in which TTN is editing is unacceptable, and interferes with legitimate discussion and due process. Gwinva 21:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there was any "warning" for all the removals of non-free images. There was one large discussion and it was decided that they shouldn't be included at all if they cannot satify the criteria for them. Well, the debate about television articles has long since past, and the result of that is the basis for the criteria of creating them now. TTN doesn't have to "warn" anyone, or "discuss" this with anyone. If someone challenges a particular episodes redirection then that is one thing, but as a whole, the vast majority are unchallengeable. Articles with plot summaries longer than featured film articles? If someone thinks they can expand the articles, then work on it and then un-redirect them. The whole problem has been that they were all created under the guise that they could/would be expanded, when the sad fact is that most can't/won't be expanded. I've sat and gawked at an episode page that has only grown in words toward the plot for months upon months, until a year goes by. When you can't update something, don't continue to argue for its inclusion when you know it's a lost cause. There are thousands of episode articles on Wikipedia right now (which isn't hard to believe, just think about the average number of episodes for a series and start multiplying). How many are GA status? How many are FA status? How many are even close to fulfilling encyclopedic guidelines? That's thousands of articles that should not have been created in the first place. There is a system to how one should go about creating these articles, and people are ignoring it in favor of the fact that they are fans of a show and the redundant argument of "well others are doing it".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The first cannot be done most of the time. It happens when necessary. The second only requires a quick glance for real sources. I may miss a couple here and there, but it won't be substantial. With the third, there is nothing to merge. Plot summaries are a dime a dozen. They don't need to be salvaged. The fourth is just impossible. Flagging only works if people to work on them and sources exist. What are you talking about with five? Double redirects? Bots take care of those. General links to the episodes? That's what redirects are for. And with six, there is no compromise. They either meet the site's standards with sources, or they are removed.

My editing speed is not too quick to ignore good sources. The example you show details nothing but one small development source. The Yes Minister editors have not provided me with one possible source, only stating that "they're good enough." If someone can provide them, I'm fine. Stubs are allowed if they can improve, once they have shown that ability, they're fine. TTN 22:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

TTN very much *does* need to discuss this matter first. It is called "common courtesy" - and it would go a lot farther toward achieving his/her goal than the current method. As for the comparison to the non-free image issue, it is a very different matter and as such not relevant to this discussion. Finally, Bignole said that "the debate about television articles has long since past." Well, by allowing the television projects to exist, to grow, and to foster these articles *for such a long time*, the community as a whole is now responsible for having a fair and reasonable discussion as to how to address the issue *after the fact*. You can't just say "Oh, you should have known better, you naughty TV people. Now you have to learn your lesson." If the house is getting cluttered, you don't just dump it all in a bin and put it out by the curb. That doesn't make sense. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Pretending to discuss for the sake of discussing is useless. If something useful can come out of it, I will push to discuss. Otherwise, it is easier to let a discussion come to me. It isn't worth it to place messages when only one out of ten is replied to, and nobody actually wants to discuss. It's either "Leave them alone. They're fine" or "Leave them alone. They have sources. You go find them." (without showing them). That isn't productive, but I'll still talk with people like I have been. Again, we have WP:EPISODE to address the issue. They need to meet it or say goodbye. It's better to dump the trash rather than make pointless decorations that only eccentric people find useful. TTN 22:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It maybe courtest, but it was discussed awhile ago. It's something the regular editors of the pages should have imparted on all the new editors before they created the articles. I agree, if TTN had let people know it would have smoothed the process, but then he would have spent even more time dealing with those that cryout over something that should have been down before...oh wait, they are crying out. I guess TTN was damned if he did, damned if he didn't. The idea of episode articles has been touchy, and always will because people forget what Wikipedia is, that's an encyclopedia. This is not IMDb.com, or TV.com, or some fansite. Sorry, but the idea of non-free image is relevant. Why were the non-free images removed? Because they failed the criteria that was set forth a long time ago, but was never really acted on until some Admins said "this is enough". Episode articles that don't meet the criteria were redirected because of that. It wasn't like they didn't have the chance to be expanded with relevant information. Also, what's this "naughty television people". In case you hadn't noticed, I am one of those television people. Of the three articles I listed as examples above (Smallville, House, and Aquaman), I expanded two of them. I'm currently working on a new format for season pages that will allow for the expansion of information regarding episodes, until one gets to the point that it should be split off to its own article. Sorry to dissapoint, but I am one of those "television people", I simply understand the criteria that was established previously for this type of stuff. The fact that it was left without consequences doesn't mean that it should be re-evaluated. What needs to be evaluated is the fact that people have consistently ignored the proper channels of creation. What has TTN removed? Overly long plots? Copyright violations avoided in my opinion? Removal of "list of quotes"? More copyright violations avoided. A list of guest stars? That can all be compiled on a season page, or on a "List of minor characters" page that follows a format similar to List of Harry Potter films cast members. Trivia? I think we all know what is supposed to happen to trivia. The unverified information that has existed in the article since it was created? I believe the rule on that is the burden of evidence falls on the person adding it, and not on any other editor and can by removed on site when there is not source to accompany the information. People say "the episode is the source". Most information that uses an episode as a source is probably original research. Unless you are referring to a commentary, which has its own template for citation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

A look at TTN's so-called "Contributions" demonstrates that that page itself should be redirected to "Deletions". I can see nothing on it that has constructively improved Wikipedia and a raft of behaviour bordering on sheer arrogance (almost as if he/she "owns" Wikipedia) that has left nothing but division and bad feeling in its wake. TTN, have you ever created an article? Your excuse is you "don't have the time" to improve existing ones, yet you seem to have an overabundance of it when there are pages out there that don't meet your personal view of what Wikipedia should be. I say it's better to keep things that "only eccentric people find useful" instead of discarding what only the narrow-minded find objectionable. Chris 42 23:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

These articles have had ample time by the regular editors to be improved. But, when do they do anything regarding them? when someone comes to redirect them. Even then, the only thing done is either a revert or a complain that they were redirected. Have you taken the time to expand any of these articles that were redirected Chris? The door swings both ways. Instead of complaining, people could actually work to find relevant, real world, reliable, verifiable information to expand these articles. Instead, I see lists of trivia copied from IMDb, original research, and overly long plots.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well in any case I do have to point out that my idea is that for shows that do deserve their own episode pages is to work on just expanding simple episode summaries that are not too small or too broad since this definitly not TV.com. Besides people can watch the show or collect the DVD's to know the entire plot to an episode, so no need for so many episode pages. This is my idea of a compromise since it will follow standards and still provide a simple summary for people to read, the only difference is that the fans are going to have to learn that on Wikipedia they can't always get what they want. -Adv193 23:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a flaw in how Wikipedia works, that you get used to having or making episode articles only to have someone come along and tell you no. I know how it feels to just be so pissed, because you worked so hard on all that content, just to have it pulled from under you. The problem, however, gets so big that we can't realistically stop and hold everyone's hand. It's a bad formula. Hopefully we'll be able to improve how we get guidelines to editors before they invest all that time and effort. -- Ned Scott 05:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting thread, so I'll offer my two-bits. There are endless TV show episodes and to have an article on each one of them is absurd. The WP:EPISODE guideline seems to address this and TTN seems to be doing something about it. Of course fans will object, but if their not liking it is their only argument, users trying to address a real problem can not be blamed for being a bit brusque. In the same vein as the above comment, there is a flaw in how Wikipedia works: articles on popular shite abound while more serious articles are thin, biased or missing. Fanaticism has no place in an encyclopaedia. --Jack Merridew 08:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to add something quickly. While the guidelines that currently exist are in line with what TTN is doing, I don't believe they'll remain so for long when high-traffic articles such as Lost and Simpsons are redirected, and a broader section of Wikipedia users are allowed to contribute to the discussion. Yes, yes, I know you guys all think that because you're better at wikipedia than the average user, your consensus in these out of the way pages is more important than what 90% of Wikipedia users want, but that's not really the case. Sure, most of those episode articles are useless to me, but some of them I look up from time to time if I'm curious about what that song was, or who that character was again - that's why Wikipedia is here. You could say, "look up TV.com instead", but then, you wouldn't tell someone interested in an article on the Soviet Union to go look up their library or Jstor instead. Unless this issue is tackled head on it's going to drag on and on, and after this discussion is over a week or two will pass, he (or someone else) will delete ten more series, and then another one will start. When you can quote the founder of Wikipedia saying he envisaged articles on individual TV shows, and when most users would probably prefer to have them, you have to wonder at what stage do these thing become against the rules? There seems to be this sneaky behind the scenes ruling of Wikipedia happening, and the worst thing is, I have no idea what it's trying to accomplish? Are you trying to save bandwidth? Uphold prestige? Gain popularity with other page-deleters? The encyclopedia is created for the users, not for the contributors.

• Finally, and more to the point, most of the episodes redirected are there after the information from the episode lists was removed because it grew too big. When they are redirected the summaries on the episode lists are either blank or very minor, without any notes on the episode, and so editors who had worked on the articles have to go back and redo every single episode summary. I think, personally, it's wreckless to redirect the episodes without either transferring any important information (if any) from the episode articles, or asking on the talk pages for people to do so before editors have to start trying to access histories for pages that have been redirected.Conor 10:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT for plot summaries: instead of creating separate articles because the plot summaries got too long, they should just have been drastically reduced. Retelling the plot of every episode is excessive in-universe detail. Fram 11:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, granted. But the people who created the articles obviously weren't aware of that. My point is that there is a middle ground between an overly long summary and nothing at all, or a one-line one. That is, it seems, what should be on the List of Episodes page, and what probably was before the episode pages were created. There are also details like guest-stars, etc. After the episodes have been redirected however, there are usually no details at all left on the List of Episodes pages. And please stop linking to policies, I've seen them.Conor 11:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fram, separate articles for television episodes contain not only the plot summaries but also valuable information about writers, producers, directors, cast, music, etc All of which, unfortunately, cannot possibly be included on the list of episodes. Peacent 15:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Plea for attention by impartial admin

It's happening again: everyone is being distracted by 'episode page rationale' arguments. This leads to conclusions such as "TTN must be a bad editor because he is reverting episode pages which I think are worthwhile" or the ends-justifies-the-means contingent "episode pages are a waste of time, so TTN is doing the right thing". The point of this discussion here (surely) is because Ckatz requested admin arbitration for TTN's bullying and inappropriate editing. Is there any admin with no particular view one way or another regarding the existence of episode pages who might pass some judgement on TTN's behaviour? If it's appropriate, then a precedent is set, and this discussion serves no purpose: take the episode-page issue to the guideline forums, and stop hassling TTN. If TTN's behaviour is inappropriate, then that needs to be resolved. complaint one: TTN is editing recklessly and without due process... see particularly #The real issue at hand. complaint two TTN's manner is bullying... see throughout this discussion, but also Goodies talk, User talk: Matthew, User talk:Angie_Y. I am sure others have encountered many more examples. (Please note, TTN is not the only 'aggressor' in these debates, of course). So I might make my bias clear, I don't feel strongly about episode pages, and concede that TTN has legitimate concerns about their validity. But I do find his/her methods aggressive, and found myself annoyed by his/her actions on pages I only had a passing interest in (I soon calmed down, however!), so I can believe he/she is stirring up great anger amongst the passionate contributors. I consider his/her manner of editing is creating divisions and inhibiting any consensus on best practice...compromise could be reached (I am sure) if tempers on all sides were allowed to calm down.Gwinva 09:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

addit.:This dispute needs some resolution before it escalates uncontrollably. See TTN's concerns posted below at: #User:Matthew. Gwinva 10:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I see no problem with his edits, and only some mild incivility which is understandable when you have to deal with the same mostly baseless complaints over and over again. Most episodes will never have a decent article, and even the ones that perhaps could, like the Yes, Minister example you give, don't have any good sources now. I have no problem with anyone making it a redlink, just like I have no problem with anyone restoring it in a decently sourced version explaining why that particular episode is notable. Take "The Bishop's Gambit": why do we have this article? I haven't got a clue, but TTN's correct redirect (with a good reason given in the edit summary) was undone in seven hours time (without a reason, discussion or improvements to the article). I don't think that the problem lies with TTN... Fram 11:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Gwinva. It is the — dare I say — 'fanatical' way that TTN has gone about this that has rocked the boat. There are more Wiki guidelines that TTN has ignored than followed. In addition, it is the dictatorial, bullying attitude ('source them or else') that makes people think that TTN is not the sort of person who is capable of a mature and considered discussion on the matter, and so don't wish to engage in one. I am perfectly willing to add to articles as and when I can or wish to: after all, it's a hobby, not a job, so why should I be pressured to improve them on one person's say so? If TTN wishes people to respect his/her views then he/she must earn that respect in the first place. Recommended reading for TTN: How to Win Friends and Influence People (sorry it's unsourced). Chris 42 11:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fram: the reason I gave The Moral Dimension as an example of unnecessary reverting is not because it is well sourced now, but because the WP:EPISODE guideline TTN is quoting to legitimise his redirects expressly states such an article should not be redirected. Quote: Are more sources available? If the answer to either of these questions is 'yes', it is probably better to forgo merging or redirecting. Instead, leave the article as it is or consider improving it. The main Yes Minister page demonstrates the wealth of possible sources available to the editors of its episode pages. To blank and redirect an article beacuse it is as yet incomplete and unsourced is a nonsense... most articles on Wikipedia are in that state. For the redirect to be reverted immediately is not a wrong action, but trying to correct what was perceived to be a hasty action. Nowhere on Wikipedia is it required for an article to be well-sourced and compliant to every guideline before it is displayed in public space (ie not lost somewhere in an edit history of a redirect page). I have never written or contributed to a Yes Minister article, and will have little cause to read them, but I have no doubt most of them have the potential to be brought up to GA status (and commited editors who are likely to work towards that with encouragement) and I am strongly of the opinion that blanket redirection of such articles is unfair, inappropriate and contrary to due procedure. NO guideline is in place to vindicate such actions.Gwinva 13:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've been following the discussion and thought, as an impartial spectator, I would add to the discussion. The main issues that people seem to have a problem is (A.) The way that TTN is doing things and (B.) What TTN is doing. As someone said above, these issues need to be completely separated in order to reach any sort of resolve. My personal opinion about issue A, is that TTN's attitude is slightly inappropriate and I'm quite sure that if I was having a debate with s/he, the comments used may have stung, and therefore this problem could be addressed if TTN regained civility. I'm not trying to say that all it needs is a magic patch and everything will be alright though. If I was TTN, I'd be frustrated that my attempts at discussion were either being ignored or simply complained about. My opinion of issue B, is that TTN is doing a good job at weeding out problem articles which are copyright violations due to the intense amount of plot and storyline in them. I agree wholeheartedly with Bignole that most of these articles need more than a plot summary to qualify for their own articles; reception and production are areas which make good articles, not fan trivia. I would also like to point out that I love TV! Wikipedia is not a fansite though.

To chris 42: "Recommended reading for TTN: How to Win Friends and Influence People (sorry it's unsourced)." wasn't helpful. If you want to keep respect in this discussion, you should treat all users how you would want to be treated.

Seraphim Whipp 14:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I myself can't really comment on the overall edits of everything TTN's done, but what I CAN say is that I think most people who are upset are that way because of the attitudes and actions of the users involved, not so much the edits themselves. I think that seems to really be the catalyst here. By making such widespread changes, TTN should have EXPECTED some users to disagree with him and try to discuss it on his talk page. But instead, he's tried to intimidate people and eliminate discussion about the edits he's made. It's not helpful, for example, to tell people to "go away" when they are trying to talk to you, nor does it benefit the encyclopedia to tell someone that "frankly, their opinions do not matter". The above noted examples of an administrator hopping into the fray and creating a clear conflict of interest are also concerning. The most amazing thing is that this is all happening over a Guideline, something that's not even an official Wikipedia rule! Look, like I said before, I'm sure that TTN's done some good by cleaning out the cruft. I don't have an issue with that. But what needs to be addressed is the ignoring of other editors, the intimidation, the violations en masse of Wikipedia's civility policies, and the administrator stuff. It's getting out of hand. 76.28.138.83 14:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm still wondering why the people that are complaining aren't working on their episode articles. There are some neutral people that find this iffy, but the rest have some sort of connection to a series. Instead of complaining, people should be finding sources, and working on the articles. People can find my method to be crude, but that doesn't mean that the episodes have gained a right to exist. Most that have been reverted haven't even been touched.

Now on to my methods, are they really that bad? I redirect a series. If there are no complaints, it's fine. It's just as if a discussion was formed but nobody replied. If someone does complain, a discussion can be held, which is the same as forming a discussion in the first place. How are those really any different? Then we have my attitude. People just need to suck it up. I don't recall being more blunt than necessary. When I ask "where are the sources?", people should be able to reply instead of going off on tangents about how bad this is in general. I understand that people would rather have a nice discussion, but that becomes impossible after repeating "Do you have sources?" for the fifth time. Discussion requires people to actually discuss; that doesn't happen.

And if an admin reads this, can someone look into #User:Matthew? It was closed for being a discussion, but it is still legitimate. TTN 17:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

TTN, as I mentioned above, I don't have any particular issue with the articles you've edited. I can't say whether or not your changes were warranted- that's for the individual authors and you to work out. But what DOES concern me stems from what was raised earlier regarding civility and conflicts of interest. Wiki's "Guidelines" aren't strict rules, but the policies on civility are. Telling people to "go away" or that their "opinions don't matter" really are extremely uncivil things. Wikipedia invites EVERYONE to constructively edit, and all opinions matter equally, no matter who the opinion belongs to. The admin's edit warring wasn't your doing, so you aren't responsible for that. But any and all occurrences of incivility, edit warring, intimidation and such should be looked into very closely, on all sides of the discussion. 76.28.138.83 17:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, User:Matthew is doing nothing wrong and is in fact doing good work. --164.107.222.23 17:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

TTN, for your first query, I think your move is unpleasant because you act based on your own will without holding a discussion beforehand. This isn't appropriate especially when your interpretation of the guideline goes against that of many other editors. Also, for your second query "How are those really any different?". The difference lies in your negative approach to the matter. It is always helpful to consider seeking consensus before taking a contentious action, the fact that nobody replied is not an excuse. You should at least do people the courtesy of notifying them of what you intend to do before actually doing it. I doubt if anyone will complain if you actually start a discussion before mass deleting everything. About the thread User:Matthew below, well, an administrator might take a look at it for you (I'm not sure), but in my humble opinion, if you're being bold, please accept that others may revert you (WP:BRD). As I gather from this whole thread and some debates elsewhere, there's no sign of consensus on the matter, which makes it entirely understandable if your edits are reverted. Peacent 17:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

(reply to TTN - adjusting indent for clarity) TTN: yes, your methods *are* that bad. (Sorry, but it is true.) To be quite honest, that was the primary reason we ended up on this page. Look, I can appreciate that you obviously feel quite strongly about what you are doing, and that you think you are right. (We'll have to agree to disagree about that, but let's put that aside for now.) The thing is, it appears to me that you have failed to take into account the hundreds (thousands?) of other editors who created the work you are removing. You might feel it shouldn't be there, but that does not change the fact that real people spent real time and effort to create it. That alone should dictate a certain sensitivity in how you approach the matter. Yes, it might mean a lot of discussion, but it would be the right thing to do.

Beyond that, your edits suggest a "brute force" methodology, in that you just redirect *every* article rather than actually examining each one on its own merits. Yes, it might also take more time, but it is again the right thing to do. Finally, you are not incorporating any of the material into the pages you redirect to. Easier, yes, but it means that the arduous task of retrieving relevant information is left for others to do. That is not always an easy task; not every editor knows how to retrieve information from the history, and for that matter material on the now-redirected pages gets "lost" in the system. (How do you find an article that has been redirected when you don't know what the page name is?)

What I don't understand is why you can't approach this differently. Why not tag the articles with a notice regarding WP:EPISODE, announcing that you intend to redirect them in, say, 60 days? That gets the message across, allows a reasonable amount of time for the page editors to a) become aware of the tag and b) act on it. It also means that the community can have a real discussion about the matter - either to reaffirm the policy or to change it, whichever best suits consensus. The current "out of the blue" mass redirects are only going to create needles anger and frustration. What do you think? --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL! That is the funniest thing I've read. 60 days? These articles have been in existence for far longer than that, and not been touched. Try more like 14 days, or 10 days. I say, if you can prove you can expand the articles to actually meet all the guidelines on Wikipedia (verifiability, reliable sources, out-of-universe content, plots kept in check, etc), then we can talk. Granted, unless there are hundreds of editors, you won't get all episodes of a series expanded within a week, but if you can prove that it can be done (e.g. actually get a couple of them expanded) then people can step aside and say "ok, finish it up and I'll leave it alone for the time being". But you are asking everyone to bend while there's no give in the other direction. How about, if it's clear an episode isn't going to contain more than a plot (i.e. like Be Thou for the People) and some random trivia, with no verifiable, reliable sources, then you should take the initiative and merge the article. Wikipedia is not IMDb, or TV.com, it's an encyclopedia. Don't let the "not a paper encyclopedia" fool you, we still have to develop relevant content. This isn't a place for fanboys, it's a place for encyclopedic information. Then you say "maybe the policy can change"? What, try and convince the community that plots are just fine by themselves?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI, cast and crew material is undoubtedly suitable and encyclopedic, and of course it is verifiable Peacent 17:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but saying "he star, he directed, he wrote", and then having a 1400 word plot and nothing else is not suitable.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but information on writers, producers, directors, soundtracks, etc is fully appropriate. The fact that a list of episodes cannot possibly contain all this material means a need for separate articles, as you can see, they are not all about plot summaries. Peacent 18:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Smallville episodes, that seems to contain the writers and directors just fine. A soundtrack is a soundtrack, but a "featured music" doesn't hold encyclopedic value. If you are just listing a song because it appeared in an episode, that holds no value. Now, if you have real world content with that, like what that song was chosen, then it does. If you have information on why the director was chosen for the episode, and what the director did explicitly for that episode, then it does. The same for the writer. But an infobox that lists a director and a writer, with the rest of the article containing nothing but a plot? that isn't. That can easily be merged. A "List of episodes" article, with a couple lines describing the premise of the episode, with the director, writer, airdate, episode number listed is just fine. In fact, I believe we have a few FLs that are set up that way.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You have to give a reasonable amount of time for people to act. 10 to 14 is unreasonably short - not everyone has that much free time for what is a big job. The point that is being ignored, as well, is that there is no analysis being done - articles are just being redirected en masse. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

14 days isn't unreasonably short. That's plenty of time to expand 1 or 2 articles. No one said they had to reach FA status immediately. But 60 days? That's unreasonably long. They get 2 months to do potentially nothing? When you force people to act sooner you get the results necessary. This isn't about having them be perfect, it's asking people to prove it can be done. The idea is that you have 2 weeks to prove you can actually get some of these episodes to fit the criteria, then there is reason to extend or remove any "ultimatum" of redirecting.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Guideline <- The operative word, all that page is really is just that: a guideline, to provide guidance -- firstly they are not set in stone and secondly are supposed to be treated with common sense. The fact remains that there has been severe opposition to TTN's actions... and frankly he's not handled it well. I've personally refrained from making any serious conversation with this user, principally due to the guideline wonkery that is going on. We are here to create an encyclopaedia of knowledge, that extends to "pop culture" as well, even if it isn't desires by a group of editors -- one must remember that in order to live in harmony editors must work together, or we will fail.

Point in fact everybody has their own cruft, be it Star Trek, Naruto, trains, cars, buildings or even adult entertainment stars... and I imagine most would be willing to go to the extremes to defend "their" articles. Consensus is one of the principle components to Wikipedia -- it's how Wikipedia works and it's how we must come to conclusion in this debacle. My own behaviour in the situation has been shameful, but that's me, on the other hand so has TTN's and other users -- I would personally like TTN to cease redirecting articles and to enter into discussion so that we, as civilised human beings and Wikipedia editors may come to consensus, and conclusion. I personally take no enjoyment in having to edit war, and would also make no more reverts edits, it's my hope other users would also stop and enter into a civil discussion. Matthew 17:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that people have ignored guidelines doesn't make them irrelevant. Just because they are not policy doesn't make them less, nor does it say you can ignore them completely. How many articles have you seen promoted to any status that failed any "guideline"? I bet you can count on one hand, probably on a hand with no fingers. Guidelines are there to guide, yes, but they guide for a reason. Encyclopedic content about pop culture doesn't give us the right to ignore the principles of Wikipedia. How long did people ignore the policy regarding non-free images? They didn't change the policy because of that, the enforced what had not been enforced prior. It's like the kid that misbehaves for so long that when the parent disciplines him he thinks the rules should change because it didn't happen sooner. Just because we are "bad parents", so to speak, doesn't mean the rules were not good ones to begin with. And no, i'm not saying that creating an article makes you a "bad child that misbehaves" (it's an analogy), but most people were aware of the guidelines for how to handle the "splitting" of episodes to their own articles, but chose to ignore it on the basis that "others are doing it this way and no one said anything to them". We should all already know that most people don't care so much about the entertainment section of wikipedia, and the smaller you go in the forms of entertainment the less people care.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Bignole makes a really weak argument here. Taking the minimalist approach to Wikipedia just turns away readers and editors. Why destroy work that obviously a good segment finds useful, when those doing the destroying or supporting the destroying could just ignore this stuff? Why should we limit ourselves to what paper encyclopedias contain? We have an opportunity to catalog more human knowledge than ever before and we should encourage people to do so. --164.107.222.23 18:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for the personal attack. Turns away readers? Why, because we aren't a substitution for watching a show? That isn't for your benefit, that's for Wikipedia's. Shows are copyrighted. Wikipedia isn't IMDb? I don't really hold your opinion too high, you won't even register, nor do you probably have the slightest idea of any policies and guidelines on this website. Your "arugment" is that we include everything possible no matter how irrelevant it is? Riiight.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Bignole seems to be the one launching the personal attack. The other guy criticised your argument, not you personally and they way you went after a new guy just proves his point of discouraging new editors. As history has shown, being exclusive is a bad thing . . . --140.254.69.123 18:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You can't claim that "most people were aware" of WP:EPISODE. In the year-and-a-half I've been here, I can't recall coming across it until this issue came up - and I'm one of those people who actually goes out of my way to read through a lot of the guideline pages. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If you didn't know about then you don't frequent the Wikipedia:WikiProject Television#Individual episodes page. It's there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Bignole: We're not a travel guide either, that won't stop us from having pictures of buildings/etc. I've not to this day seen an article that could potentially replace an episode (and I've seen a lot of them!) Matthew 18:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You're arguing the semantics of "replacing" an episode. Sorry, but 1400 words for a 22 minutes show...that's virtual replacement. Yeah sure, I don't get the visual medium, but I know everything that happens. And see if that argument would hold up in court. "But your honor, it isn't a real "replacement", it's just words that describe what happens in the episode". That didn't work in the lawsuit against the gent that was simply quoting things from Seinfeld in his book.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Did nobody read Nick's closing of this thread? If you have a legitimate issue that requires an admin's attention, great. If you are interested in continuing to bicker about episode articles, take it to one of your talkpages.--Isotope23 18:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That was a different thread, if I'm not mistaken. Beyond that, the real issue at hand still has not been addressed - that is, the manner in which TTN is approaching this issue. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Requesting an IP Ban on 70.89.228.65

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.89.228.65

If you take a look at his "edits" you'll find that he's nothing more than a repeat vandal on Wikipedia. His vadalism has ranged from the page on Nathaniel Hawthorne in 2005 all the way to his most recent "work" on the SOCOM: Confrontation page--both and all pages in between have been re-edited and fixed.

As a frequent user and editing member of Wikipedia, I would highly advise the IP Ban of this individual. --Hisashi 0080 10:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Borg Queen had blocked for a week - considering the IP address has registered nothing but vandalism to the same articles, over and over, for three years(!), I have extended this, and softblocked it for six months. Neil ╦ 10:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a school. a block summary like no useful edits in three years ignores the fact that we don't know how many good registered users might edit from there. I have noted {{schoolblock}} on the talk page. Thatcher131 14:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher, that is why I softblocked it. Neil ╦ 22:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least in the checkuser time frame, the answer is zero. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There's reason to ask the Foundation to ask the school to investigate. I doubt all the kids sitting at the same workstation for 3 years only vandalise.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 15:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

As a member of the counter-vandalism team, you'd be surprised. 80-90% of what comes from schools is pure WP:GAY vandalism. The Evil Spartan 17:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN yet again

Sj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just restored all BJAODN pages without any form of discussion, other than a remark that "This is ridiculous. The articles should be restored asap", and telling other people to "discuss before wheel warring". Can anyone give me a good reason not to block him for blatant wheel warring, or should this be taken directly to the ArbCom? >Radiant< 14:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Outrageous. Should be taken to ArbCom. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Either one would be lovely. Sean William @ 14:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Radiant - I can see no reason for you not to block him. Nick 14:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh leave the man alone. Seriously. Yell at him, don't arbcom him. We've been over-litigious lately. -- Y not? 14:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Litigation has nothing to do with it. If someone lacks the self-control to avoid wheel warring, that casts severe doubts upon his suitability as an administrator. >Radiant< 14:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't blow it out of proportion. It's one act of wheel-warring, committed 50 times. One act. Compared to years(?) of faithful service! Don't be so quick to decapitate. -- Y not? 14:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You use the word "decapitate" and tell me to not blow it out of proportion? Funny. >Radiant< 15:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

We're too keen to start wars of attrition in order to keep or delete things. It's a continual cycle of deletion, DRV, AfD, DRV until people get the result they're after. In this case, it's wheel war after wheel war. ArbCom is too harsh, an enforced forty winks would be fine. Nick 14:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Just ridiculous. Block or ArbCom, one of the two. Probably ArbCom. Then again, you have my blessings on the block button as well. Moreschi ^Talk 14:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur... there is every reason to block for disruption given all the time that has been spent discussing these pages; a unilateral restore on top of the unilateral delete is in no way helpful (and for the record I'm a big fan of BJAODN). I don't know if ARBCOM would even take this case, but that might be what is needed here.--Isotope23 14:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you do, don't waste the ArbCom's time over something as trivial as whether deleted nonsense is visible or invisible. Kusma (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of why this would go to ARBCOM would be more about an admin engaging in WP:WHEEL while asking other admins not to revert him than the question of whether or not we should have BJAODN.--Isotope23 15:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't support a block - he stopped hours ago - it's certainly not protective, at least try disucssing it with him first. Not sure on the merits of ArbCom - possibly. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fifty three actions of admin-wheelwarring. I support a block. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

But non for 6 hours - that's why I think it's punative and should go to ArbCom instead. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

53? I count about 90. >Radiant< 15:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Stupid, but not worth over-reacting. The whole festering pile of excrement should of course be nuked, but if people want to make a genuine attempt to fix the less fatuous bits I suppose it's no big deal. I suggest we give people 14 days to fix the GFDL issues and remove any entries which are not fixed after that time, deleting pages which have no remaining fixed entries as empty or under G12. That should satisfy the process wonks and "ZOMG! Evil hu o[u]rless bastards!" objections. Guy (Help!) 14:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. GFDL is copyright, we can't throw that to one side because we like it. Where does that stop?--Doc^g 14:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Apparently (enforcement of the GFDL) stops with talk pages archives and templates, among other things, which are technical violations of the GFDL as much as BJAODN was. See the above thread... there's lots of examples of selective enforcement cropping up. Not condoning the wheel warring though, that anyone would waste admin actions on a collection of jokes is... well... not something I'd do. --W.marsh 15:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • This is a legal issue and perhaps the Arbitration Committee with aid from legal counsel would be able to deal with the matter in a much appropriate manner. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • As the above thread pointed out, talk page archives are not a GFDL violation. The GFDL requires attribution and the signature provides that. The GFDL doesn't require that attribution has to be done via the Wikipedia page history. That is simply the only way we have to do it with article content. With talk signatures, we don't need the history as we have the signatures. Also, for subst templates, it is a pain, but the attribution can be reconstructed by using the article history to determine what date the template was subst'd and going to the template history to find the history. The only time attribution would be lost is if a template was deleted after being subst'd. -- JLaTondre 15:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Attribution for BJAODN can be found too, but it's also a "pain". Nevertheless I haven't seen anyone really show that the GFDL spells out degree of difficulty in tracking down attribution, so they're all in the same boat. --W.marsh 15:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
          • No, some (at least) of BJAODN can't be tracked to where it was cut and paste from, some although we know the article the revisions have been deleted. In the latter case admins can perhaps find the attribution, but an average user who wishes to reuse it couldn't (or an author checking compliance). It's a very messy area though (since not everyone needs to be attributed....) --pgk 18:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see some sort of explanation from Sj about this as to how he feels such an action was justified. The fact that the deletions are being discussed extensively at DRV et al, the fact that more people than not want it deleted (at least to my knowledge), and the fact that these were restored despite his knowledge of all of the above troubles me. -Pilotguy hold short 15:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Plus, that he wheel wars while telling other people not to wheel war. >Radiant< 15:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's the bit that really gets me. --Masamage ♫ 15:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Is it wheel warring for an admin to revert something once? The whole point of admin actions being reversible is that outrageous actions can be reverted. Jeffrey reverted a second time, which is what I meant by 'wheel warring'. I was supporting cunctator's initial revert (which also seems reasonable to me in such a blatant situation). I certainly won't revert a second time if someone other than J.O.G. thinks these pages should remain deleted while we discuss their status. +sj + 22:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• I said this before on this very page, not 2 days ago. I'll say it again:

  I suggest that editors who want to have articles in BJAODN stop griping and wheel warring, and show instead, after three years' notice of the copyright violations here and many "I'll work on this." offers on this noticeboard dating from three months ago that have not been followed up with any action, that they are actually willing to back their talk up with effort to actually fix the problem. There's a to-do table at Wikipedia talk:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense#List of deleted articles to be undeleted and renamed to sub-pages, if they satisfy several checks. I've started you off. Work on it. Uncle G 15:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• I also love the out-of-process undeletion of random Images like Image:Governor william preston lane jr of maryland.jpg. There better be a damn good explanation for that one.. — Moe ε 15:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  See my comment on the image page. +sj +

A few details

Sj has barely edited at all in the last month. This morning, he basically logged in, undeleted ~90 pages, and logged out again. Before doing so, he commented in the ongoing deletion review [147] and accused Jeff Gustafson of disruption [148].

The undeletions include several pages unrelated to BJAODN, such as an old pool (note related deletion debates), and some images lacking fair use rationales [149] [150].

Finally, he has set up what appears to be a to-do list in his userspace (User:Sj/BJAODN) (which links to mailing list argument on the same topic), and a quick glance over BJAODN shows that not all of its subpages have been undeleted yet [151].

All this indicates to me that he was fully aware of the ongoing discussions, decided to ignore those discussions and instead wheel war to undelete these pages, has offered no explanation for all this, and gives no indication that he won't simply continue tonight. >Radiant< 16:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if it's a compromised account? If it isn't, blocking is probably a bad idea because from experience any block of an admin except by Arbcom tends to end up with even more AN discussion than would have happened anyway, a short wheel-war, and finally ends up at Arbcom anyway (generally speaking most of these events shouldn't happen, but will do anyway). --ais523 16:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

As we don't know any of this, and he hasn't deleted the main page - let's wait and see? Secretlondon 16:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Highly doubt it's compromised. Admin's passwords were made stronger recently. If it was compromised, it wouldn't have just undeleted BJAODN, it would have probably blocked Jimbo and deleted the Main Page. Although his behavior is really suspicious, it's not vandal-like behavior. — Moe ε 17:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, Sj made a very cogent argument why they should be undeleted here ("Restore. The idea that BJAODN articles should be deleted on GFDL grounds is ridiculous. We quote, cut and paste materials from sources and across Wikipedia articles all the time without elaborate editor tracking....") I would take that as explanation. -- phoebe/(talk) 20:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't block, not least because you would also want to block User:The Cunctator and User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson, who have also wheel warred over this. Take it to ArbCom if you feel it's that important. I know that undoing another admin's actions is considered by some to be the ultimate crime, but it's really not an inappropriate response to something as catastrophically lame as deleting BJAODN. — Matt Crypto 17:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI Jeff's already been blocked by request. -Pilotguy hold short 17:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Why was he blocked? That's a pity; he was only doing what he thought was right. +sj + 22:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Kudos to User:Sj! That's what WP:IAR was intended for. He needs a barnstar, not a block.  Grue  19:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, his actions are getting praised on the mailing list and elsewhere; there is certainly no consensus that this is a bad thing. Many people wanted the pages undeleted; Sj was being no bolder than Jeffrey Gustafson was in the first place. See: BJAODN timeline -- he is aware of the issues involved, probably better than many people commenting. -- phoebe/(talk) 19:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There is certainly a consensus that wheel warring is a bad thing. That people happen to like the result does not excuse wheel warring. -Amarkov moo! 00:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

a quick note

A lot of admins have been making claims about BJAODN content that is hard to assess without access to the original pages and edit history. Please leave them publicly viewable to facilitate a better discussion.

I'm not sure myself whether some of the pages should stay or go -- but some of the pages that were deleted in Jeffrey's swath were clearly a) not copyvios, b) placed in good faith, c) actively preserved by numerous editors, and d) edited dozens of times. In all, he deleted around 10,000 edits by others, which is a pretty ridiculous thing to do without broad discussion. Since half of the follow up discussion took the form of "might have been a bad idea, but is gone now, so let it be gone", or "this cruft should have been deleted anyway", it was apparently difficult to have even a simple evaluation of the validity of deletion of 'GFDL' grounds -- something that is needed. I don't think most people engaging the ensuing debates understood how much effort have gone into these pages. We may decide that this effort was misguided and should no longer be preserved, but I hope that will b ethrough a reasoned communit ydecision, and not in haste.

The current DRV discussion doesn't seem general enough to link to from all the BJAODN pages, but it seems like the right thing to do to put some sort of tag on top of the pages letting readers know there is a discussion going on, to get everyone together to discuss in one place. It seems that the group discussion the deletions is different from the group discussing them a month ago, and different again from the group that contributes to the BJAODN files. +sj + 22:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• And how does that justify you ignoring all those group discussions and instead immediately implementing the version you prefer? >Radiant< 08:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  • 

    Excuse me? I read those discussions carefully. There wasn't much content there; a number of discussions were shut down with speedy closures; and there is no focused discussion at the moment (even this thread is all over the place and hardly counts). I did try to avoid the Wrong Version, but couldn't find a magnetic monopole or a cat with buttered bread strapped to its back... +sj +
    • Nice wikilawyering, but the point is that you ignore several ongoing discussions. And wheel warring, of course. Do you know the meaning of the word "consensensus"? >Radiant< 12:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

GFDL misconceptions

There seem to be a few misconceptions about GFDL floating around. We technically contravene the GFDL every time we perform a cut-and-paste merge (leaving a redirect in place) without carefully merging the edit histories. Technically, the presence of the redirect, plus adequate edit summaries saying on the one page where the removed material is being moved to, and on the the other page saying where the incoming material has come from, is enough for someone to trace the edit history and comply with the GFDL. But in practice the chain of evidence sometimes gets broken. Also, GFDL is contravened with pages in the Category namespace, as the content explaining the category pages (which include many of my edits released under the GFDL) are cut and pasted when categories are renamed. Also, redirects from merges should be labelled as such, to avoid them being deleted and losing the edit history of the text, but this rarely happens in practice, and sometimes redirects are redirected again, or turned into new articles or disambiguation pages. See Talk:Ægyptus and Talk:Ptolemaic Egypt for examples. A very large chunk of the edit histories for the text at those articles is at History of Greek and Roman Egypt. If that ever gets deleted without separate preservation of the edit history, then the GFDL is most definitely being contravened. In my opinion, as long as the edit summaries for additions to BJAODN stated where the material was cut and pasted from, then that is sufficient to comply with the GFDL in as much as similar practice in article namespace. Carcharoth 17:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

But most edit summaries for addition of material do not give such information. ^(H) 17:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Admin

Hello can an admin talk to me on my page please, i need a little assistance with dealing with some insecure idiot strutting about thinking hes right when infact he is not... I dont want to explain here becuase its too long. (trust me)Aarandir 15:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please... can i have some help... can anyone spare me minute or two??Aarandir 15:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You're going to have to be more specific, because I can't find any "insecure idiots" on your talk page. --Masamage ♫ 15:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Provide diffs. We're not here to look for problems, we're here to take care of problems when they are reported to us (and they warrant administrator intervention). If you can't be bothered to inform us of why you need assistance, why should we bother? EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You've devoted an entire section to arguments that you have won, and call others morons. Um... Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Check out this piece of work, and this. --Masamage ♫ 00:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Aarandir is an incivil troll whose main purpose here apparently is to win debates. It has been explained to him by several editors that he may not add original research to articles, however amusing it may be. His proclamation on his userpage that "I know admins on wikipedia are extremely stingent, stubborn and pedantic in upholding some rather pointless rules, which leads to conflict with me who will challenge such rules," and then calling those who point out the rules insecure, childish, morons, idiots and twats. If I was not involved (I am the butt of much of his of wrath), I'd block him pronto. -Ezeu 00:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm in that same situation. If he had said to anyone else what he said to me (linked above) it'd be at most one warning before blocking. As it is, I don't know what to do. --Masamage ♫ 00:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Ipaat

User:Ipaat has uploaded a number of images to WP and has a gallery of his uploads on his user page. Trouble is, several of them are fair use images which cannot be used on user pages pursuant to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria exemptions. The user was warned about this one hundred times prior to my involvement -- 98 by a bot and twice by User:Jay32183 here and here. I came across the page while I was tagging images and noted that nonfree images were still present. In light of all the warnings, I removed the entire image gallery with a note on the user's talk page that the gallery could be restored as long as the fair use images were not included. The user restored the entire gallery, including fair use images. We went one more round of reverts, so I'm bringing it here. I suspect that this may be a language problem, as the user appears to be a native speaker of Russian with only basic English ability. Perhaps someone can get through to him in Russian? In any event, nonfree images cannot remain on the user page. Thanks! --Butseriouslyfolks 17:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No, not a language problem: look at contributions and user page. He understands fine, he's just obstinate. Quite frankly, this user needs to be blocked for a short time: he's had warning aplenty. The Evil Spartan 18:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Ezhiki has explained things to him in Russian. We'll see now whether he's going to play fair. --Butseriouslyfolks 19:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox impersonating admin / admin powers

Resolved

As can be seen from the big red marker here, SqueakBox impersonated an administrator on my talk page, or at least deluded himself as to having administrative powers (which his long career should have convinced him was not true).

I suggest that some action is taken against this user, for his generally threatening, rude and disruptive behaviour (or at the very least, for this incident alone) (f a b i a n) 17:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Uhh...that would be him giving you a vandalism warning which any user can give. Only an administrator can block you, but SqueakBox can warn you for vandalism and then report you to an admin if you continue. Nothing to see here against SqueakBox but your own edits do seem to warrant administrative investigation. Metros 18:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh how beautiful: Fabian appears to be a pro-pedophilia edit-warrior. The Evil Spartan 18:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

How exactly does SqueakBox know that I will be blocked, and how exactly do you justify your apparent agreement with him, that my edits were vandalism? You might like to check out WP:VAN, which clearly states that moving content to more appropriate locations is not vandalism (f a b i a n) 18:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Because Squeakbox knows the policies under which you will find yourself blocked under if you don't head his warnings. He know what he is talking about, so you should listen. ^(H) 18:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with H because you are a step or two away from the wrong side of a lengthy disruption block. Uhh, nevermind, he was just blocked as I wa typing that. Metros 18:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This trolling account has been blocked indefinitely (not by me). Endorse block, obvious socking troll, no need to waste more tears. (Beside, I just love it when the trolls announce themselves on ANI. Classy). Moreschi ^Talk 18:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. ^(H) 18:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually have a template on my talk page making clear I am not an admin, SqueakBox 18:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse block by User:El C. Good call. Pro-pedophilia POV-pushing / filing vexatious 3RR & ANI reports / WP:SPA / censoring of talk page comments, etc, etc - Alison ☺ 18:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Ditto. This guy is obviously some banned editor returning to troll. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 18:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess SqueakBox's prediction that he would be blocked was accurate. Amazing! SqueakBox, will I ever find true love? Will a Democrat win the US presidency? Who puked the hairball on my floor? -FisherQueen (Talk)

That last one was me. Kitty 18:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

lol :-) FloNight 18:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It could have been User:White Cat, you know? Kitty shouldn't be just taking responsibility for everything. (: —Crazytales (public computer) ^{(talk) (main)} 19:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I just want it on the record that I also endorse this block. Good call, I would have done it if I had seen this earlier.--Jersey Devil 20:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well that was a interesting (and humorous) read. *chuckle* (endorse block, by the way) Nishkid64 (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Im with nishkid. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User uploading PD images from NASA as PD-self

Resolved

User:1981willy is uploading NASA images (which are public domain, or sometimes attribution) licensed as {{pd-self}} I told him to knock it off -- but this is a weird scenario I'm not sure exactly how to handle, so I'm soliciting advice. WilyD 18:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Fix the tag and warn him not to do it again, and that he's making a mess for others to clean up? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• What Night Gyr said. Point him to Template:PD-USGov-NASA; the complete list of image tags might also be helpful. If he keeps doing it, sterner warnings might be required. If stern warnings fail to get the point across, then we talk about blocking. Taking credit for public domain material isn't a copyright violation, but it is plagiarism. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, there are a bunch and I can't be sure of all the sources (if they're pic of the day or something, they may actually be copyrighted). WilyD 18:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I think there's only one solution, and it requires a lot of work unfortunately. Check all the user's uploads for sources and copyright. IME, if one misattributed image is caught, then it should be treated as if all the images are misattributed, just to be very careful. —Crazytales (public computer) ^{(talk) (main)} 19:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I've already tracked down several that were copyright violations - most of the rest I know to be NASA public domain releases (though I don't have links), one I'm still not sure about. Arg. WilyD 19:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Fuck, that was a lot of work. Half a dozen turned out to be copyvios, half a dozen were NASA images, which are now correctly tagged. WilyD 20:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks against me regarding Brianna Rieffel article

Yesterday, I got into a real heated debate with several editors here in regards to an article I wrote about singer Brianna Rieffel. It started out civil, then quickly escalated into a big argument. They then began to personally attack me, Brianna and her mom Sharon. They made me out to be an idiot and have (and will) come up with every excuse in the book to discredit me. I believed that I followed all the rules, policies and criteria in creating this article and the one about the Country Tonite Theatre. I used, in my personal opinion, reliable sources and even got help in doing it. Yet, these people think otherwise.

I worked with Nikki311 to cleanup the Nora Greenwald article up after Nora herself asked me if I could take some stuff out that she didn't want there. The article was cleaned up and we worked everything out in a civil manner.

These are the people to watch out for: SarekOfVulcan (who started this whole mess), RGTraynor, Fredrick day, NawlinWiki, and Daniel J. Leivick. All of whom personally attacked me, Brianna and her mom (who's Breezee95 which I helped her with).

Closenplay and ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ tried to be civil about it, too. I should've listen to him/her. But everyone else just called me names like "big mouth" and "big baby" which totally goes against the civility rules here at Wikipedia. To view this heated argument, click on the link below. Yes, I even got a little angry because I did take it personally as did her mom, but I was only sticking up for her when she got disrespected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brianna_Rieffel_(second_nomination)

I ask that you either reprimand or banned these editors from Wikipedia. But I will live with whatever decision you make. I've been attacked long enough and it's time for it to stop. Summers95926 18:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you have a personal axe to grind over this girl and Wikipedia. There are policies that Wikipedia follows. Please review them. Corvus cornix 18:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

And Mike Summers appears to be the webmaster for Brianna Rieffel's website, which makes all of his comments (very incivil comments, to be sure) WP:COI violations. Corvus cornix 19:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I will review the policies again, but this about me being attacked personally. Summers95926 19:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I see very little in way of personal attacks directed against you, but very many directed from you at other editors. --Haemo 19:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Point out some more clear examples. So far all I see is an anonymous user calling you a "big baby"... Sasquatch t|c 19:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking over the AfD, I see nothing that would qualify as a personal attack. I do notice some other editors getting a little short with you, probably because of your consistantly uncivil behavior and your obvious conflict of interest. Is there something specific you have in mind that we aren't seeing? Pastordavid 19:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

What I see is various personal attacks made by User:Summers95926 directed towards other users. They have encompassed that entire afd and it is going to be a pain for the closing admin to read through. This is your official warning any further such personal attacks or continued incivility will result in a 48hr block. Any other users please feel free to contact me on my talk page if this conduct continues. I will also address this issue on the user's talk page. Thank you, this issue is resolved.--Jersey Devil 19:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

COI? check out the chatbox on the site. That frankly goes a bit further than a conflict of interest (we get a mention if you scroll down the page). --Fredrick day 19:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The comments from presumed Wikipdians in that chat box are disgusting, and do not leave Wikipedia in a good light. Corvus cornix 20:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• What I see from wandering in and checking this issue and the AfD is a combination of the owner of the subject's fan site and the subject's mother (massive conflict of interest issues before I say anything further) screeching 'How dare these peons disagree with me! Off with their heads!', and getting more and more shrill with each edit. Nawlin is an admin who has a far better grasp of the guidelines than I do, and is a well-respected member of the community. I truly only see two editors here who have done anything worthy of a block. DarkAudit 20:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing this issue further I have decided to indefinitely block this account as an account used solely for promotional purposes. I agree with Fredrick that this is a major breach of COI. The user has solicited for afd votes outside of Wikipedia and has used various personal attacks against users on that afd. Other administrators feel free to add your comments regarding my block.--Jersey Devil 19:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I'm an involved party. I disagree that this is a promo-only account: he's worked on other articles, like Mickey Mouse Club, Roller Games, and Wink Martindale. --SarekOfVulcan 20:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Posting of email

Resolved

Above at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#As long as we're adding things to the record an email was posted onto this noticeboard by Evrik (talk · contribs). I'm not positive but I believe that it is inappropriate to post email in this manner, especially without consent. I honestly don't know who is right or wrong in the dispute, and frankly don't much care, but if this is inappropriate I feel that it should be taken down. Since I made my original post, I have been contacted by the author of that email requesting that it be taken down. This is the first time I've been involved in an email being posted, so I would appreciate another opinion. If another admin concurs, will they please do so, and possibly consider removing it from the history as well? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any need for the email. It's a general principle of modern life that posting private emails without permission is not a good idea. OTOH, I don't see a need to remove it from the history, as there's nothing especially private or harmful that I see. I'll just edit it out. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 19:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Dailykos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I added this to UAA, but it's been sitting for a while and nobody seems to know exactly how to handle it, so I figured that maybe I should leave a report here to open up some discussion. This user, who registered in November of '05 and has edited occasionally since then, has a username that is substantially identical to that of Daily Kos, a well-known political website. In an edit made earlier today, the account claimed to be Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, the founder of the Daily Kos site. It seems to me that we should attempt to verify his identity, to eliminate the possibility of an impostor (and make open any COI issues, since the account has edited both Daily Kos and Markos Moulitsas Zúniga). Does anyone know the right way to ask for verification, and is that the right course to pursue here? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Block and get them to post on their site stating that the WP user is the same person is the usual procedure. --GDonato (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have The Tools, so if he should be blocked, someone else needs to do it. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's now moot, since he's just confirmed to me, via e-mail, that he is in fact who he says he is. Should I file this anywhere (send a copy to the foundation, maybe)? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Resolved

 – Content dispute--Jersey Devil 20:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Much too often user:Dbachmann thinks himself qualified to insert his point of view, pretending some kind of undisputed truth or "generally accepted" wisdom without bothering to source. He keeps vandalizing my edits on Nordwestblock on the pretext that he wants to keep Wikipedia "clean from fantastic speculation", even though he comes up with fantastic speculations of himself. Indeed, he deleted a {{Fact}} tag and inserted his OR instead: [152]. I already addressed his inclination to come up with statement of his own, even to contradict scholars inserting unsourced personal views and comments as if he was qualified to do so on equal terms. To get an impression I refer to my extensive admonitions at Talk of the Runic alphabet: [153]. He does not seem to like that I mention scholars that cast doubt on what he likes to prevail as the one and only truth (like the validity of the Kurgan hypothesis or assumed early Germanic invasions originating from Scandinavia) and just keep on contradicting sourced information, and now he violates WP:AGF by reverting edits on the pretext of my alleged "agenda" - thus showing a mere personal grudge against my contributions. The only agenda I have is to contradict unsourced statements taken for granted - such as many of the statements DBachmann is used to impose on Wikipedia. Insisting on obsolete views without bothering to source is WP:OR. Worse, to delete any suggestion of contradictory information is a serious violation of the Wikipedia policy of neutrality. The extreme effort DBachmann invests in Wikipedia are no justification for "not giving a hoot" about the efforts of others to supply valuable information. Please read this argument of DBachmann for reverting my edit, where he admits not to give a hoot and still insists his ideas (of Chatti and Cherusci not being Germanic and instead dominated by a Germanic superstratum) to be "undisputed": utterly untrue, since such ideas are disputed, and his "rectification" is without any sourcing: [154]. His other reverts of this article are disruptive in the sense they intend to destroy perfectly valid contextual information, like here: [155]. I think this kind of behaviour deserves to be addressed. Rokus01 20:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Why does this require administrator attention? Content disputes are best addressed through dispute resolution. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider this a simple content dispute. Dbachmann takes the habit of abusing the Wikipedia policies I mentioned on a personal basis and on a large scale. Rokus01 21:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a dispute on content. We don't settle content disputes on AN/I, you might want to check out WP:Resolving disputes to see how to deal with this issue.--Jersey Devil 20:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I must say in Dbachmann's defense that he is doing some great work fighting to keep local patriotic OR out of the Nordwestblock article. Rokus01 is writing about the pre-historic Nordwestblock by referring to a late Dutch mythology and the genetics of modern Dutchmen.--Berig 20:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This are the words of a Scandinavian patriot, waging edit wars on obsolete "out of Scandinavia" information concerning the Germanic origin. This is also one of the NPOV views Dbachmann adheres to. Both administrators have an habit in deleting information that would be in aparent contradiction to those views. Also, previously Dbachmann did not show any scruples in defending the nationalists of "Greater Iran".Rokus01 21:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't use this page to pursue your content dispute, go through dispute resolution instead. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you please specify why you think this is a content dispute? This suggests you assume the dispute on content is more important to me than my denunciation of the violation of Wikipedia policies mentioned above. I don't ask different views on content to be addressed, but the way how simple rules are are disobeyed. According to what I know violation of WP rules is an incident. Rokus01 22:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit war at Nissan 300ZX

While on RC patrol last night I discovered an edit war at Nissan 300ZX between User:RedBeauty84ZX, User:Crackedplastic, and User:131.225.22.189, which I believe is a sock of Crackedplastic. The argument, which has been raging since May 30, is about photos of the cars. I warned them last night and they've kept reverting anyway, so a cooldown is in order. The page may need protection too since socks seem to be involved. (Am I correct?) - KrakatoaKatie 20:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Check out the page history... There's 1RR, there's 3RR, and then there's this!! -- Flyguy649^talk_contribs 20:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Both users blocked for 24 hours. I'll keep an eye on the page and apply semi-protection if it becomes necessary. Shadow1 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm also leaving a note RedBeauty84ZX's talk page regarding Image:BobSharpZ31.JPG. The image was previously deleted under CSD I3 because of its tagging. The user now tagged it as his own work, but has said that he has permission to use the image.[156] Nishkid64 (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've seen much worse. Kotepho 21:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Raybuffer needs guidance

User:Raybuffer has spent the past 24 hours finding ingenious ways to use Wikipedia to promote himself and his documentary, perhaps somebody better at explaining things than me would like to just point out to him that some of this is not really what Wikipedia is about? I'd rather not just keep tagging and reverting without somebody else taking a look at it. Thank you --Zeraeph 20:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried warning him on his talk page? -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

blimey check those contributions - he's a one man spam machine. --Fredrick day 21:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't warned him yet cos he is SO FAST, and I wasn't exactly sure HOW severe his level of misguidance actually is (also, ok if I compete in the tact event in next Olympics I am not likely to bring home gold :o( )--Zeraeph 21:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted Ray Buffer. See deletion log for more. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

NOW I have put a nice little note on User Talk:Raybuffer.--Zeraeph 21:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Is Rats & Bullies : The Dawn-Marie Wesley Story related? x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It is, what he is doing is, after dropping links everywhere to the documentary website, making an article Rats & Bullies : The Dawn-Marie Wesley Story which is maybe at least half ok (or at any rate, not speedy delete), then making all these permutations of the name to redirect to it, then starting a series of article on the cast, crew and everything involved in documentary...and so it goes on. He has even "hang on" tagged at least one empty redirect Rats & Bullies --Zeraeph 22:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

{{db}}'ed the article above. I think this one needs an indefinite block as a spam-only account. x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, though I would be in favor of just keeping Dawn-Marie Wesley that he set up in October? --Zeraeph 02:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A block for a MascotGuy sock

Resolved

Bigfoot's Curse of the Wild (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) editing style fits the editing style mentioned at WP:LTA/MG. The username is also difficult to comprehend and the account edited the userpages of other MascotGuy sockpuppets. Pants^(T) 21:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I used to edit blocked/banned user's userpages, and, actually, I did get accused of sockpuppetry a few times, but just because I edited the blocked/banned user's page (looked like the user you are accusing was correcting templates, like I used to do) doesn't necessarily mean I am a sockpuppet of the blocked/banned user. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 21:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... Well, after taking a closer look, the editing style does kind of fit the style provided on WP:LTA. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 21:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User is blocked. Naconkantari 21:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Jugglemuggler

Resolved

 – we can keep this up as long as he can

Jugglemuggler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another probable sockpuppet of User:Danny Daniel. The user recreated Theatre Trash, an article that was previously created by indefinitely blocked sockpuppet User:Sugarkisser. Also see User:Squirepants101/Danny Daniel and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloody Ghost. Pants^(T) 22:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Has a checkuser ever been run on these accounts? There may be an underlying IP to block. Natalie 06:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot broken?

Resolved

 – It's not a bug, it's a feature! No, seriously. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that User:BetacommandBot has now taken to putting image warnings on talk pages (example: Talk:List_of_pigs_over_1000_pounds). Shouldn't this info be put onto user pages rather than talk pages of the article? Kinda a moot point if the uploader can't address the issue when the warning is in a place he or she might never venture into.--293.xx.xxx.xx 22:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

that is not a bug, its a feature request. It notifies both the article's talkpage and the uploading user. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 22:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nope, it's not broken, it's putting warnings on article talk pages that images are displayed on to let regular editors know that the image is going to be deleted. By the looks of things, it's leaving messages on the uploaders as well. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• And I just want to say that I am very appreciative that Betacommand made this change. It allows not only the uploader, but anyone watching article to see that an image needs its source. This has been most useful in allowing me to track down and fix the source and FU criteria for several sports logos. Resolute 22:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Seconded. I have Citizen Kane on my watchlist, and the message on the talk page alerted me that some images there needed help. With a little help from the crew on #wikipedia, I was able to get proper fair use rationales on the poster images. DarkAudit 23:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Agreed, this is a very useful feature. Though I still completely and utterly loathe the way the FU purge is being handled, this makes it much more fair for those who would like to keep the images. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Double agreed. This approach was recommended as a means of enabling all of an article's editors the opportunity to address the issue of the impending loss of an image within the grace period – as opposed to only the uploading editor who might be on vacation, wikibreak, or long since gone. A definite step in the right direction, and I commend BetacommandBot for adopting it! Askari Mark (Talk) 02:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per EVula ;-) Very useful, even I have ventured into the image namespace to give a few fair use rationales now (and I normally stay very clear of it). Fram 11:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Witton Albion F.C.

The Witton Albion F.C. article is under attack from IP accounts and sockpuppets. They seem to want to alter the seating capacity in the infobox and are removing a sourced number with one they put in completely unsourced. The sockpuppets Eir Witt, Noon went, and Then real have all been blocked. The latter two are sleeper accounts created in April. I have no personal opinion about the article but was alerted to it by this AIV report a few days ago. I have it on my watchlist but some more eyes would be nice. IrishGuy ^talk 22:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw about this on RFPP about a week ago, and hoped adding a hopefully correct sourced figure would help, but clearly not. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It hasn't got enough edits for protection, but I've watchlisted it - I've seen them play a couple of time, not sure why anyone thinks they're worth vandalising..... Ryan Postlethwaite 22:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I threw on basic protection for new users and IPs...and that is when the sleeper accounts began arriving. IrishGuy ^talk 22:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so you did, well lets hope no more come out of the bag. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Herostratus threatening disruption over image on Lolicon

"I'll continue to delete it until I get blocked or desysopped"[157]. Now that the image is on commons and he's no longer capable of deleting it, he seems to be gearing up for an edit war instead.

Would somebody please tell him to pursue a more productive dispute resolution channel? --tjstrf talk 00:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• His objection to this image seems perfectly reasonable to me as does his removing it from Lolicon (not commenting either way on the diff comment though), SqueakBox 00:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• As far as I can tell, it's a sexualized drawing of a Wikipedia mascot as a child. I think dispute resolution is going to return it as grossly inappropriate, no matter what. --Haemo 00:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Jimbo has said "We will not let our agenda be set by pedophile trolls." There is no reason to insist that the Foundation's tradmarked puzzle pieces, associated with Wikipi-tan, be included in softcore kiddie cheescake pics except to have some fun at the expense of ptentially harming or embarrassing the Foundation. Which is trollery. So do your worst. Herostratus
  • It's relevant to the article, encyclopedic, and free content. Hardly "trollery". Your confrontational attitude isn't helping anything either. --tjstrf talk 00:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • In your opinion but not that of others. I dont see how this image helps the article or the encyclopedia though I can easily see how it hinders the project, SqueakBox 00:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Uh, deliberately linking an entity like Wikipedia to pedophilia is seriously inappropriate. We don't have pictures of Aunt Jemima in cheesecake poses on pornography, so why would we accept this? --Haemo 00:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Major WP:BEANS alert... =/ Krimpet (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

EC'd twice and I will comment on the comment in question, it isnt PA and I found it useful as I believe did others at PAW, SqueakBox 00:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• I, for one, don't know what any of those acronyms mean. Oh, wait, the first one is probably Edit Conflict. --Masamage ♫ 00:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so here's the thing... If these pictures are presented specifically for the purpose of illustrating sexual depictions of minors... then doesn't that make it the sexual depiction of a minor? I mean... it's a binary choice here. Either it is a sexual depiction of a child, in which case it should be removed. Or it isn't, in which case it doesn't belong in the article, and should be removed. Am I missing something obvious here? Bladestorm 00:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipe-tan at the seashore. The article could just as easily use the pic to the right as it would be considered "lolicon" by some. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, but the point is that an article on lolicon should clearly illustrate what it is - "lolicon" does not incorporate all images of child which some people could consider sexual. The Sears catalog would qualify in such a case. --Haemo 00:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • That's the image ja.wiki uses, actually. --tjstrf talk 00:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
      • That's a highly misleading statement. Up until roughly a fortnight ago, when the image was changed to the very same image whose introduction is the subject of dispute here, the Japanese Wikipedia article used Image:Wikipe-tan the Library of Babel.png. Uncle G 09:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
        • That's impossible. The image under dispute here did not exist a fortnight ago. --tjstrf talk 09:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
          • The actual edit says that it is possible. Uncle G 11:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That's not sexualized; actually, it's about as modest as girls' swimming suits get. But I think a lot of people would have problems with using any picture of Wikipe-tan on the Lolicon article just because it's sort of...well...libelous. Against ourselves. --Masamage ♫ 00:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Yep, but I don't agree with them; honestly, I would rather it had no images at all! --Haemo 00:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I've not commented on this subject or article or clip...I don't see Herostratus's as doing anything wrong here. The objection to the use of the image is reasonable and clearly explained. The image adds nothing to articles and is a gross and sexually inappropriate image. I commend Herostratus's diligence. I view the image as promoting pedophilia...not ok here. No image would be best DPeterson^talk 00:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
        • You are being too sensitive. - !Malomeat 00:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Yeah, it's not like it's associating the encyclopedia with a vile and criminal act or anything...wait... --Haemo 00:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Won't somebody please think of the drawings!!!? --tjstrf talk 01:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Because it´s sooooo illegal amirite? - !Malomeat 01:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
              • Sexual acts with children are still illegal, and showing a Wikipedia mascot engaged in them associates the encyclopedia with pedophilia - that's all I said here. I don't know why you assumed I was saying the material on the page was illegal. --Haemo 02:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that particular image at all sexual. Not in the slightest. Exploding Boy 00:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Of all articles, this is surely one where we'd think very carefully before illustrating it. --Tony Sidaway 01:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that Shock site would be more of an issue.Geni 01:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure people have tried but Shock site is currently Goatse (or anything) free. --MichaelLinnear 01:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Goatse is not under a free licesence (although I think I deleted about 3 times).Geni 01:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

For posterity: Exploding Boy here is presumably talking about the beachwear picture that used to be at the right. --Masamage ♫ 01:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Can I also point out this wasn´t even sexual? - !Malomeat 01:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Herostratus is right, this is a silly dispute. ^(H) 01:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• I think it's sexual, and I'm not even attracted to little girls. I mean, it was drawn specifically for the purpose of illustrating what Lolicon looks like; that should tell you something. --Masamage ♫ 01:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Glad to here it, SqueakBox 01:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • But as long as it shows no nudity, it is not porn. - !Malomeat 01:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure that's true, but it's irrelevant. No one said it was porn. --Masamage ♫ 01:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
      • It is being referred to as lolicon. I believe you were all calling it porn. - !Malomeat 01:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
      • People were saying that there is no good reason to illustrate "sexual artwork involving childlike female characters." that also "refers to an attraction to girls below the age of consent." Not everything needs a picture. --MichaelLinnear 01:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
        • This whole thread is irrelevant and should be closed, SqueakBox 01:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Agree with both of you. --Masamage ♫ 01:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Why?Geni 01:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
              • With Michael, because that's the sort of thing I was getting at. With SqueakBox because it's turned into too open-ended an opinion-faced. Now that I'm faced with it, though, I'm also perfectly okay with it staying open in case anything useful gets decided. --Masamage ♫ 01:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
                • I am amused at this Moral panic - !Malomeat 01:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
                  • Well, heaven forbid you should take people's concerns seriously. --Masamage ♫ 01:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
                    • There's a difference between taking people's concerns seriously and arriving at the same conclusion. This is a silly argument between silly people and should have been ended a long time ago according to WP:NOT#CENSOR. Unless a solid argument can be made showing that the image in question is illegal, there's no reason for it to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.8.30 (talk • contribs)
                      • That's all sound reasoning. But I was responding to his demeaning expression of amusement at us little ants who disagree with him. --Masamage ♫ 01:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
                        • You didn´t disagree with me. You disagreed with WP:NOT#CENSOR, Wikipedia, and common sense. - !Malomeat 01:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
                          • When you post the diff where I said "that image should be removed," I will say your accusation is justified. Meanwhile, I'll inform you that I have no intention of voting either way on the subject. I find it distasteful, and I restated other people's concerns (clearly marked as such); I never said it has no place here. --Masamage ♫ 02:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
                      • (deindent) You can't just appeal to "Wikipedia is not censored" for all your concerns. The problem is not that this is being removed out of any concern over the material (the lolipop one is worse), but rather that it is:
                        1. Associating the Encyclopedia with pedophilia, something which is has never condoned, and is inappropriate.
                        2. Does not properly illustrate the article in question.
                      • Given that there are many images which could do (2) properly, without doing (1), there is no compelling reason to keep this image in the article. --Haemo 02:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
                • While it may be the case that not everything needs a picture it would be odd to have an art style without one. At present .ast .ca .de .es .fr .zh-classical .ko .id .it .no .pl .ru .sv and.zh all have pics.Geni 01:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
                  • Don't read too much into that. All of the other language Wikipedias have this image. But that is because all of those images were added by a single person, 87.64.23.34 (talk · contribs), at approximately 2007-06-03T03:20, with the single exception of ja:ロリータ・コンプレックス, where the image was added at 2007-05-18T13:14:39 by ja:User:The Side, replacing the earlier ja:Image:Wikipe-tan the Library of Babel.png. Uncle G 09:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to the beachwear image. It's not at all sexual. This image, however, does strike me as sexual. Ditto the one with the lollipop and the bikini. Exploding Boy 01:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

So that makes it okay to edit talk pages? - !Malomeat 01:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it fair to include this, and not the image in question?|left|thumb (The image i refer to below, click to see.)

The image which was in this section, and which some prudish editors have imprudently removed, brings up an important point. Does Wikipedia have a guideline for what's classic art, and what's likely to provoke reactions of 'It's sexual!'. I realize that since WP is NOT censored, such a concern can be dismissed by invoking that policy, but I'd rather not do so. I'd rather either find a proper reference for the editors who insist on 'desexualizing' an article about sexualization of minors in the name of 'think of the children'. Because Wikipedia's policy is 'we aren't censored', we can examine these controversial topics with greater depth and freedom, but having a guideline which again reinforces that might be significantly useful. Finally, the image, which I will next restore, was from the home of a Pope. ThuranX 01:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes while it is undoubtedly a time-honored piece of art, of the like only seen in the palaces of emperors, there is no good reason for it to be here, showing two boys "enjoying" each other on a discussion page that is unrelated. If you got to the relevant page you have an expectation of possibly seeing "noncensored" content, if you go to an administrative page you shouldn't. --MichaelLinnear 02:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Censored or not, Wikipedia does have a very important pertinent guideline: Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Adding a picture of boys maturbating, classical or not, to a discussion does nothing but rile things up further. Stay civil, and do not add this picture again. Krimpet (talk) 02:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

(ECx2)Excuse you. I re-added once, someone else converted to a click on link, and I addressed the issue at hand. Focus on the topic I brought up, instead of throwing POINT out. that's as craptastic as throwing AGF out left and right. ThuranX 02:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh actualy it's fairly trivial US obscenity laws allow exception for artistic works.Geni 02:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we close this? The image is not appropriate and every article doesn't even need an image...so lets all get back to improving articles, and let this go...It is not serving any purpose at this point. Close the incident now!! DPeterson^talk 02:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The swimsuit image was inappropriate because it was Wikipe-tan. I would have no objection to a similarly non-sexual image that wasn't her. Exploding Boy 02:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

(ECx2)I'm ok with not using the WIki-logos in inappropriate ways, but since WIki isnt' censored, how is that determined? IF the puzzle logo is the foundatiosn, and a freely held copyrighted logo, then that part is open and shut, remove it and replace. but the larger question of a clear guideline about judgemetns for inclusion of images is still needed, as it's clear that Herostratus' motivations weren't based in the logo issue but the sexualization of the girl that he percieved, and thus he ignored the WP:NOT#CENSOR to achieve HIS version of a Bowdlerized wikipedia. ThuranX 02:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

are you offering to draw one?Geni 02:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No. Where did you get that idea? Exploding Boy 02:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Then given the low numbers of such pictures under a free license we are not in a position to object to the suject matter.Geni 02:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Erm. What? Exploding Boy 02:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

beggers canb't be chosers.Geni 02:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* And here I thought Wikipedia was not censured. --Farix (Talk) 02:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well dont let this disillusion you, SqueakBox 02:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so the main dispute is the new image with Wikipe-chan. So why not roll it back to Image:Final Solution-chan.jpg? Granted the artwork is not very good, but that's not reason to remove it from the article. --Farix (Talk) 02:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Though I could care less about the image, I must point out that "not being censored" does have anything to do with allowing derogatory images. There is a reason it is preferable to use an animated image of fellatio instead of a "free" image of someone actually performing it. It's called taste, and this IS an encyclopedia. If the rules state that Wiki shall not be associated in a deragatory manner by someone's drawing then so be it. I don't know, but it bothers me that people will cite "no censor" when it has nothing to do with censoring. Censoring would be removing the word "fuck" out of an article because you don't like it. From what I gather about this Admin's actions, he/she believes this has to do with Wikipedia's image in society. It isn't about censoring, it's about not defaming a name. One wouldn't create some Lolicon of Cameron Diaz, and place that on her page, or any page. It's libelous. So, this isn't about censorship, this is about determing if the image itself causes problems.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Where is the ban on "derogatory" images, especially when used in the context of an article? If there is such a ban, it is contrary to WP:NOT#CENSURE. Unless, that is, you are implying that there are somethings that should be censured regardless of the policy. If so, then we have a case of systemic bias. --Farix (Talk) 02:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Psst: The word is 'censor'. 'Censure' means something totally different, and in fact Wikipedia is censured on a daily basis. --Masamage ♫ 02:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected on the vocabulary. By the way, where you the one who fixed my goof with the FS-chan? --Farix (Talk) 02:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, since I was in here anyway. I make that mistake all the time. --Masamage ♫ 02:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I never said there was a "ban" on anything, and libelous images would need to be removed if it is determined that that was what they are. It has nothing to do with censoring. From Hero's comments, it doesn't appear to be something that is being removed because it is "offensive" to look at (which is the idea behind no censorship), but because "we do not include elements from the Foundation logos in kiddie cheescake pics". From his comments, it appears to be more of a copyright problem of authenticity, and has nothing to do with censorship. I think another statement he made, "For purely political reasons if nothing else, we cannot have kiddie cheescake pictures which include elements of the Wikipedia logo," shows it has nothing to do with censorship.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

I think that's exactly the issue, yeah. Well said. --Masamage ♫ 03:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Given the fuss Wikimedia makes about protecting its logos ("This image is copyrighted by the Wikimedia foundation. It is one of the official logos or designs used by the Wikimedia foundation or by one of its projects. Notwithstanding any other statement on this page this image has not been licensed under the GFDL. © & ™ All rights reserved, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.."), isn't every Wikipe-tan image a blatant copyright violation, irrespective of the sad and seedy images created with the character? Does the creator of the images have express permission from the copyright holder to create each individual image? I would imagine it would - rightly - be refused for the sexual images. I am tempted to tag them all as copyvios. Neil ╦ 09:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

They do not incorporate the Wikipedia logo. --tjstrf talk 09:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Elements of it. Neil ╦ 10:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's my understanding that those puzzle pieces are not trademarked or copyrighted by the foundation. It's simply reminiscent of the Wikipedia logo. --tjstrf talk 10:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless I miss my guess: the globe is copyrighted; the puzzle pieces are trademarks. That is, they are de facto marks of Wikipedia, and I don't think they have to be registered to be so. Herostratus 10:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Herostratus, would you oppose a similar picture with no puzzle pieces, serving the same purpose?--0rrAvenger 11:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I would assume that would work. To Neil, if they take elements that are clearly someone elses then it is a violation. If someone made BELL their logo, but tilted the "E" like DELL does, that would infringement on copyrights. So, using a globe that was clearly Wiki's, or puzzle pieces would infringe on the trademarks of the Foundation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Folks, WP:IFD is -> that way. Or rather, COM:DEL, where this can be sorted out. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ip User:70.55.88.157

Resolved

 – IP blocked for spamming.

User behind ip address User:70.55.88.157 ignore warnings and talks [158] and simple continue with his own way of editing and spamming. He has been already warned 3 times in total from 3 editors [159]? Thanks --Graciella 01:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This user has not received a final warning yet. So, it is not worthy of WP:AIV yet. If the user(s) behind that IP does it again, then report that IP to WP:AIV. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 01:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for spam. There is no reason to waste time on counting warning templates before blocking in this case. Naconkantari 03:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Herostratus Deleting comments on talk pages

Resolved

 – Seemed like it might be trolling to me. In any case, this is clearly unfit for this noticeboard. Grandmasterka 05:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Like such - !Malomeat 01:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• "This user is a Wikipedian and checks his opinions and ideologies at the door. He trusts that you do, too." hahahaha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.45.54 (talk • contribs)
• It's a very common and accepted practice to remove comments from talk pages that can be clearly seen as trolling. You may disagree with whether or not that was trolling (and so do I; I would not have removed it myself), but it would be better etiquette to take that directly to the user you disagree with. Certainly before posting a new thread at ANI, which is for issues that actually require admin intervention. --Masamage ♫ 01:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

that was clearly NOT trolling, but a message of image support, and I agree with his comment. THis is Herostratus' on a personal campaign. He needs to stop, let this resolve here before continuing his repetitive edits, especially in light if his comments to never stop, no matter what. ThuranX 02:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Seems like have a go at Herostratus night, SqueakBox 02:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This has the feel of retailiation and harrassment. He is entitled to edit his talk page and him comments as he sees fit. This "incident" should be closed now...This is just plain silly, a waste of time, and plain bad form!!! DPeterson^talk 02:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

this incident was lableled resolved by the editor backing up Hero in the OTHER thread here, above. Come on. When did this become 'Save my buddy-Pedia'? Let's keep the Admins uninvolved, eh? and once again, we're seeing that the issues at hand are being ignored.ThuranX 02:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

By all means! Keep the admins entirely uninvolved in the "Administrators' noticeboard"! Bladestorm 02:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Pretty sure that's not what he meant. X) --Masamage ♫ 02:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You'd be right. Krimpet got on me in the previous thread for bringing up a point made by an anon, and instead of discussing it, invoked POINT. Then he came here and closed this thread. Let's let an uninvolved admin address it. ThuranX 02:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Possible misuse of userpage?

Resolved

 – Good faith inquiry, but general consensus is that it's not a problem. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Alkivar. Isn't that a violation of WP:UP#NOT? Too much personal information, as well as advertising for himself, what with that big picture and the styles of music he plays?--0rrAvenger 02:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

He could tone it down, but a rather smaller fraction would be fine. Try mentioning it to him personally on his talk page; he might not be aware. --Masamage ♫ 02:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks thoroughly appropriate to me, he even includes his biases, SqueakBox 02:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be advertising, and it's just a (relatively) brief biography of himself. I don't think this is inappropriate, based on my understanding. --Haemo 02:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input everyone. Also, I just noticed he has spoofed the page title to link to his commercial website. Is that allowed?--0rrAvenger 02:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The layout makes it look like there's a lot more text than there actually is, I think. As for the link, I don't see anything in WP:UP#NOT that disallows that. I didn't even notice it was a link until you mentioned anything. --Hemlock Martinis 02:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's permissible to have a link to your personal website. This guy is clearly a prolific contributor, so I don't think we need to worry about him being here just to advertise himself. --Masamage ♫ 02:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to pile on, but I've checked a lot of userpages and I know a "MySpace page" when I see one. Given Alkivar's contribution history, and the relevance of much of the userpage content to Wikipedia, it's totally okay. Placeholder account 04:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

He can give away as much personal information as he likes; he's over the age of 18. Neil ╦ 09:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Havesmite and User:Onlykeys - sockpuppetry?

Recently, Havesmite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) signed up and began reverting articles about fancruft related to Xenosaga, in defiance of a consensus made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terms in Xenosaga and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terms in Xenosaga (2nd nomination), claiming there was no discussion for the redirects. Yesterday, he was blocked for 31 hours for reverting the changes and attempting to recreate some of the pages, but almost immediately Onlykeys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) signed up and began reverting the same articles Havesmite was trying to restore. Looks like an obvious block-evading sock to me, but I want to see what the folks with the tools think. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The place to report this is at WP:SSP. Od Mishehu 14:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Restoration of other's user page after owner blanked it while IFD ongoing.

Resolved

 – protected. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Oh_yEs_itS_caRly said she was leaving wikipedia and blanked her page in response to about 15 images of herself being speedy templated then listed at IFD. User:N keeps restoring a previous version before the page was blanked by its owner.

I do have a dog in this fight. I support deletion of the images in question and I have also made my feelings known in this comment. I think everyone involved could have been more civil. I had a talk with N on my talk page but he just called me daft. I will not edit the page in question anymoer as I have said my peace. Thanks -- Diletante 03:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Just as a comment. I do not want this discussion to evolve into conflict regarding my legit edits. I ask that any admin involved in the dispute please recuse yourself from passing any final judgment. The argument is not about your actions, but those of N (talk · contribs) in this case. Cheers, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

N (talk · contribs), your attitude could be a lot better [160]. The three admins did not condemn my legit IFDs, just that it may have been construed as too harsh. At any rate, the user has left Wikipedia; the images were IFDed for UE, and now they are orphaned. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Protected. If she wants to blank her userpage, let her. Don't edit war in her own user space over her removal of her page. You've already driven her away.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

cite reason in afd result

Notice to admins: Even if full consensus is reached in afd, dont forget to mention reason for the result, be the result be either keep or delete. It will avoid confusion and saves time.

Kindly mention criteria with link in case of delete. also in case of keep mention what were the criteria under contention.

recently in many afd's they have written "result was keep" or "result was delete" in short(i dont wish to cite those here). Please avoid this. thanks Racky pt 04:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

According to user page "It is suspected that this user is a sock puppet of Vinay412.

Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Vinay412 for evidence." As for what this is about, you got me. But it doesn't belong here. Someone can just archive template this section please. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why? I mean, if it's obvious, and the consensus is overwhelmingly clear, and the commenters are, for the most part, following policy, then I don't see a reason to write more than the one word result. I'm probably the wordiest admin when it comes to closing these, though I haven't done it for a while (see this for my finest example of wordiness) but I think there's nothing wrong with one-word results in most cases. Grandmasterka 04:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

@ User:Swatjester I dont wish to mess up my own thing here.
My point is when someone reviews a closed archived afd, if he gets summary in first line it will save time. And another point is for someone not familiar with afds it is difficult for him to know what exactly were the criteria under contention. Link like deleted under Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G5 will help a lot. Or like result was keep, criteria under contention were wp:notability and wp:verifiable. Comments maynot cite the exact policy no. anywhere.
and mentioning criteria wont be of much trouble for you people i think. Racky pt 05:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, a speedy deletion will have a tag, and will be cited. Secondly, the elements under consideration should be clear from the nomination. --Haemo 06:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) After EdwinCasadoBaez was blocked [161] He came back under another IP address 69.120.74.120 and 69.119.127.181 . Less than 2 hours later. [162] [163] . He has admitted to this and basically refuses to abide by the block. [164] YoSoyGuapo 10:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC) He was given a severe warning and told to observe his block. [165]

He is now back again with over 15 edits on a talk page being extremely disruptive. [166] as well as removed sockpuppet warnings [167] as well as other irrational arguments [168] YoSoyGuapo 06:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

IP blocked, original block extended. Grandmasterka 15:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Trojani

Following a breach of 3RR at Illyrians that led to a block by Sam Blacketer, Trojani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) tried to evade it on six different ocassions using IPs at that same article. After receiving separate warnings and resets of said block, and following his latest attempt to circumvent it that took place just minutes ago, I've proceeded to block him indefinitely. Further evidence of his behavior and the IPs he used to that effect can be found at his talk page. Please feel free to review. Regards, Phaedriel - 07:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

75.4.23.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Less than a minute after I mentioned the name of User:Artaxiad on Talk:Armenia, Subartu And Sumer, a likely sock of this permabanned user started trolling and revert warring in the article with claims along the lines of "most" western sources now reveal Armenians have been in the Armenian Highland well over four thousand years", an assertion which has been instantly debunked on Talk:Armenia. Please investigate. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka

User:Blnguyen and User:Sarvagnya have started their WP:POV motivated edits of the following

[169][170][171][172]

[173]

Please take immediate action. Still the consensus is not reached on WP:RS.Lustead 08:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Their action is fully appropriate. Your attempts at forum shopping are not. If you care to scroll up, you will see the page explicitly says that it is not part of our dispute resolution procedures. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Auto-revert, User:80.34.17.209

Resolved

 – for now. Natalie 12:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the correct area but here goes:

Persistently inserting mention of Barry Ley (determined non notable as in the archives of deleted article Barry Ley) in Dalton, Richmondshire, North Yorkshire, including the freewebs site of Barry Ley

Malicious/spiteful and pointless reverts of user Nate1481: Special:Contributions/Auto-revert

appears to be same person as confirmed sockpuppeteer banned user DrParkes: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/DrParkes who is almost certainly Barry Ley himself

Persistently reverting Brazilian Jiu-jitsu to the factually unsupported versions of banned user DrParkes

obvious sockpuppetry and malicious intent in general, including creation of obvious attempts at bot impersonation with User:Helpbot and User:Assist-bot (also check editing histories of those against those of IP listed, Auto-revert, and the banned sockpuppet accounts of DrParkes)

Intervention requested. FlowWTG 08:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Only just got on of would have brought this myself, a large proportion of the reverted edits are of me using AWB to change Martial Arts to Martial arts & other bits while working through. The added freewebs link shows Barry Ley as a blue belt in BJJ the second rank so inherently not notable without somthing more. There are also some comments on the Dalton talk page.--Nate1481(^talk/_contribs) 08:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Also note User:88.17.108.158 following the same pattern. FlowWTG 08:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked User:Auto-revert for being (or posing as) a bot created without express permission of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, causing deliberate disruption aimed to harrass selected users. I do not believe an account created solely to revert war is of any benefit to Wikipedia. Both IPs softblocked for a few months. Neil ╦ 09:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:PostrevertHas just done exactly the same, including the misleading summaries, on the Dalton page --Nate1481(^talk/_contribs) 11:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Postrevert indef blocked, userpages of all of the above deleted (WP:DENY) and some pages watchlisted. Sigh. Natalie 12:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Add User:Undo-edit to that list as well. Natalie 14:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:88.17.112.11 is also following the same pattern Kaly99 17:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Lord Hume of Berwick

Please could an admin urgently look at the arguments going on with this page. One editor is clearly attempting to push an untested claim to this barony on behalf of a family which is clearly POV. Admin User:BrownHairedGirl has previously looked at it, but that is all and is now away. She suggests another admin (see too her Talk Page). David Lauder 08:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Administrators are not magical content deciderers. You need Wikipedia:Request for comment. Neil ╦ 09:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Hiddensonyvaio and User:JoeBender

Both of these users have been very busy vandals tonight. Sheep81 09:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Neil ╦ 09:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Matthew

Please don't come here just to argue. Try using your own talk pages, the WP:EPISODE talk page or an RFC. Thanks Nick 10:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

For the second time, Matthew has mass reverted episodes I have redirected (see #Mass deletion of television articles by TTN) per that a open consensus is required. He is extremely biased in his actions, yet he seems to believe that he is acting as some sort of mediator. He doesn't seem to care if there were open discussions or not either. Both Talk:List of Entourage episodes#Single episodes and Talk:List of Drake & Josh episodes#Single episodes were open for days with no response (the IP in the first one was just going from list to list with another generic message), but he still reverted them. This obviously doesn't fall under Matthew objecting to the redirects, but rather him objecting to WP:EPISODE. It would be nice if someone could ask him to back off from this, and instead pursue changing the guideline like he should be doing. TTN 10:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should cease disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, clearly you are also biased (so I'm not sure how that adds any weight to your argument). You've been told by many people to stop what you are doing, people not being aware of a section on a talk page isn't good enough reason to proceed when you've faced mass opposition. Remember (and this is the key word): guideline. That's all it is, even if it did support you. Matthew 10:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You're seriously saying that I should bring in outside people to get these redirected? That is the only possible way a "consensus" by your standards is going to happen. I also fail to see any sort of policy requiring a consensus. I get some people pushing for a discussion beforehand, but this is on the side of ridiculous. I am not making a point; I am trying follow the style that the guideline has given instead of blindly looking the other way. I would be pushing a point if this was all because someone redirected "my" episode articles. Methinks one stating that all articles should exist regardless of verifiability and notability is the one pushing the point here. TTN 10:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Boy, you should to buckle up your 'tude.

Wikipedia:Consensus, "When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus", your actions have been vehemently opposed, "If we find that a particular consensus happens often, we write it down as a guideline", we have one see WP:EPISODE... if you wish to propose a change to make it more stringent to support you then do it. Please also have a look over Wikipedia:Consensus#Reasonable consensus-building. Matthew 10:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yet, there are no disagreements; there's only you. You cannot decide that there is a disagreement over those single episodes; you need to let the single editors do that. Your disagreement is with WP:EPISODE, not with single series. Each one needs to be done on its own, yet you're lumping it up. And again, where is it saying that a discussed consensus is required? How are single messages not enough? TTN 10:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks on Talk:Hippie

Mombas (talk · contribs) keeps using Talk:Hippie to post personal attacks against me instead of discussing the article. His current attacks consist of repeatedly telling me that I am a "control freak" and advising me to "better serve your time by returning to your former role as a member of the cheer squad for the pro-Zionist hecklers", and is now using the talk page to wage a campaign of "either blocking or censoring User:Viriditas".[174] [175] [176] [177] [178] He has also made a large number of false accusations against me, inferring that I am engaging in "persistent vandalism; persistent gross incivility; persistent harassment; persistently posting unsourced or poorly sourced contentious biographical material about living persons; persistent spamming; edit warring or revert warring; and breaching the sock puppetry policy." In response to these persistent attacks, I have asked Mombas to stop twice [179][180]. In response, he has begun claiming that I am making personal attacks and has waged a harassment campaign on my talk page replete with a continued barrage of false personal attack warnings [181] [182] [183] [184] [185] [186] [187] [188] which is quite bizarre. I am requesting administrative intervention by a neutral party. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 10:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed speedy template

User:Eurovision+rain=sad removed a Template:nonsense template that I placed on his article Simon Mistry [189], which I suspect was created in violation of WP:POINT after a I marked an article about his band as not notable. The Simon Mistry article is about one of the band members.

Paul Carpenter 10:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Article deleted, user warned for remvoing speedy tags - I'll keep an eye on him. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Micronations

In response to the recent controversies with respect to micronations and cleanup or removal of articles about them, Gene Poole has now set up a wikiproject on the topic. Of course there's nothing wrong with that per se - but the first act of this project is to try and enforce certain naming conventions and infoboxes through voting on them. That sounds like a bad idea; I'd appreciate it if some other people would take a look as well. Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Micronations rather than here. >Radiant< 11:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Jamez21

James21 seems to be a 14 year old kid that wants to create a webpage about his pal. Unfortunately the kid is not notable. Joshua Denis and Joshua denis have been deleted repeatedly, but he keeps recreating the page which is essentially a copy of Origami. Valentinian ^{T / C} 11:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

this needs flushing as well. --Fredrick day 11:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

CSD tag added to the latter, I don't have the technical ability to delete, so if an admin would... thanks in advance, Navou 12:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sanitycheck (talk · contribs), Jerusalem

I'm apprehensive about blocking Sanitycheck (talk · contribs) as I'm sure someone's going to say "I'm involved" and that "this is a content dispute", but this user has been merely the latest in a string of editors whose primary agenda is eliminating the fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel without so much as leaving a word on the talk page. The semi-protection has been helpful, keeping the majority of these issues confined to the talk page, especially with a Muslim extremist site directing people to this article, but there are always a few that get through. There was a temporary reprieve from 3RR for editors reverting such edits while this article was today's featured article (May 23), but I'm not sure if that exemption still applies. Is it vandalism or a "content dispute" that falls under the guise of the three-revert rule? I'm weary about reverting again... -- tariqabjotu 13:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Wassermann's extended block

Wassermann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (previous name: WassermannNYC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has a persistent history of incivility and personal attacks. He was reported on AN/I several times[190][191] and was blocked twice (see also under his previous user name), including his current extended block.[192][193][194] His main and persistent problem is a repeated pattern of calling other editors 'vandals' or 'censors', or their edits 'idiotic', often in capitalized edit summaries, if they disagree with and undo his own edits. He has also set up a special section in his user page proclaiming 'censorship' by various WP admins, and using a derogatory term 'adminsTraitors' in an image caption. Before his last 1 week block expired, he started editing from an IP address (which he openly admits). I received a complaint about this[195] and extended his block indefinitely, pending clarification of his actions. I then posted on his Talk page,[196] asking him to clarify that he understands what actual 'vandalism' is according to WP:VAN (an intent to harm WP), and that he should not accuse established editors with 'vandalism' when he disagrees with their edits. He keeps claiming that he has no way of reading other editors' minds so he does not know their intent, and since their edits seem to harm WP in his mind, they are vandals. He also keeps insisting that using an anon IP to edit WP while blocked is OK, since he was not editing the same topics or doing anything contentious. My main problem with this editor is that he seems to steadfastly refuse to accept any responsibility for his actions. His behavior pattern resumed shortly after his previous block, and at this point it seems virtually certain to resume if he were unblocked, as he simply refuses to understand and accept our rules. His latest response indicates he would like a wider scrutiny of his block, so I am presenting the case here for review. Thanks, Crum375 14:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't see any reason to overturn the block. He appears to be in possession of The Truth, and convinced that policies/guidelines like WP:IAR, WP:VANDAL, and WP:BOLD mean he can do what he likes. He's apparently been given quite a bit of rope, and made use of it. As far as the IP, if an indef-blocked user starts editing quietly and law-abidingly with a new account or IP we may never even know, nor care... but if an IP is clearly being used to circumvent a block, as in this case, then blocking the IP is appropriate. My 2 cents. MastCell ^Talk 15:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Juro reincarnation

Svetovid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a very disruptive editor, revert warrer (always playing out the 3RR) [197] [198], has a strong anti-Hungarian sentiment [199], deletes every hungarian words/aliases, despite that those villages/towns have hungarian majority and they are officially bilingual places, very agressive, and constant POV pusher (kinda "slovakia über alles" style). User constantly moves english articles to it's slovak names [200], despite this is english and not slovak wikipedia, deletes every Hungarian stuff from them [201], calling them lies, whoever puts them back, are called ireedentist/nationalist/racist whatever, you know, guess what else. This behave perfectly fits to indefinite banned user, User:Juro, who's behave, style, POV pushing, and deleting of Hungarian names in Hungary-related articles (with the reason given also) are perfectly the same as Juro. Note also, that Juro is a notorious sock puppeter [202], and ban evader [203], [204], and edits from dinamic IPs and proxys, so he managed to use some of his sockpuppets almost half year! He also impersonated other users, user:VinceB [205]. I am absolutely sure, these two are the same, even if IP does not match, Svetovid acts like Juro, speaks like Juro, same POV edits he does, accuses the same with every hungarian users, also deletes hungarian names from bilingual towns and villages as Juro, and also moves articles from english to their Slovak names, as Juro. If these two aren't the same, than they are twins. --193.224.247.34 14:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Requesting block of user MGlosenger for vandalism

User MGlosenger has made it his personal mission to vandalise the Spectra-Morphic page by deleting all of the content and replacing it with information on Australian football coach William Lang. Everytime I restore the content, he replaces all of it minutes later. Spectra-Morphic was a legitimate sound technique used in the 1960s and 1970s, and I'm not sure why MGlosenger has taken it upon himself to call it a hoax and replace the content numerous times each day. Any help would be appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SoundGeek (talk • contribs).

Edits like these ([206], [207], [208], [209]) by MGlosenger (talk · contribs) do seem a little WP:POINTy. However, his point seems valid - without any evidence that "Spectra-Morphic" actually exists (in the form of reliable sources), the article should be speedily deleted as a hoax. I can't get any Google hits for it, but if you can find sources the article could be re-created. I'm going to recuse myself from taking any administrative action here, however, since User:MGlosenger recently managed to bait me into a discussion at Talk:Ephedra. MastCell ^Talk 15:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I warned the user, and told him to take it to AFD if he think it should be deleted. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 15:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Bjelleklang. First off, hoaxes are not speedy deletion candidates unless they can qualify as "pure vandalism". Second, lack of ghits is not that convincing to me: this is supposed to be a sound processing technique from the 1960s, I'm not surprised it's not easy to find on the internet. If MGlosenger wants the article deleted, he should go to AfD, not vandalize the article. Mangojuice^talk 15:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

MGlosner (talk · contribs) dumping the William Lang text into the article is disruptive, so a warning is totally appropriate. That said, Spectra-Morphic is setting off my hoax detectors; there are a lot of red flags here. Mango may be correct that given the date on this it's probably not going to oozing ghits, but if it doesn't get sourcing sometime soon it will probably end up on AFD.--Isotope23 16:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User Sal Slytherin

As predicted in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Æthelbert of Kent and User:Hel Hufflepuff, User:Sal Slytherin has appeared and is making vandalistic edits like his two Hogwarts-named associates or sockpuppets. Anthony Appleyard 16:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think they are trying to open the chamber on Wikipedia. NK has blocked him. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 16:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

RUReady2Testify (talk · contribs · logs)

New editor from Estonia seeks expert help and guidance, particularly interested in learning more about WP:NPOV and WP:OWN. User:DLX and myself have interacted extensively with him, but he now feels he is being bullied. I left a message for an uninvolved admin to review the situation, but it seems he is off-line. Any help and/or guidance gratefully accepted. --John 17:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Juiced_lemon (talk · contribs · logs) and WP:Point

Western Sahara articles I would like some assistance; this editor is disrupting Wikipedia by insisting that a particular issue is POV without resorting to talk or mediation. For instance, he insists on changing a flag template to include a map, thereby breaking its functionality. If you see his edits, he is doing a similar thing on several templates, breaking their functions and creating redundancies in articles. I would be happy to discuss the issue at the appropriate venue with this editor (i.e. Talk:Flag of Western Sahara, and consider mediation/arbitration, but all these template edits are basically a proxy for this one dispute as best as I can tell. Please assist. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Impostor

This user is using my name and posing as me, spamming/vandalizing articles that I post at in an effort to blame me. I suspect he's the same vandal that has been dealt with by me at Wookieepedia. I would appreciate it if he could be blocked. Kuralyov 18:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User is gone. Naconkantari 18:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

129.133.124.xxx, second request for admin review

Can an admin please review the edits of 129.133.124.195 (talk · contribs)? Along with this look at 129.133.124.194 (talk · contribs), 129.133.124.199 (talk · contribs), 129.133.124.203 (talk · contribs), 129.133.124.204 (talk · contribs), and 129.133.124.217 (talk · contribs) -- edit patterns show this almost certainly to be one editor. In my opinion, there's a block-worthy history of trolling and incivility there. Posted previously here but no admin has responded and there continue to be more unproductive edits and (what looks to me like) trolling from these IPs. -- Rbellin|Talk 18:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Makalp

I am having problems with Makalp (talk · contribs). This user is in a constant state of edit war and prefers to carry out discussions in the edit summary (which never actually say what the user is doing). What is more, the user seems to focus on the removal of Armenian or Kurdish comments from articles, stating that they are biased, without realising that bias can work both ways. In the end, this user just feels they have the right to assert their own opinion on articles without discussing or working with others. I have been warred against by this user on various articles — Başkale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Diyarbakır (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Muş Province (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) lately. I am too involved with the articles to use my admin powers. — Gareth Hughes 18:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

He has a long history of doing that, usually with misleading edit summaries ("typos", "corrections", "cleanup" etc).--Ploutarchos 18:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)