Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive211

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Notice of backlog[edit]

Just a heads up, WP:REQMOVE is getting pretty backed up. -- œ 06:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Category:Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

When this whole hoopla started, I didn't say a great deal. I figured everyone was too worked up to really listen anyways. I imagined that once everyone got into the category, got their hands dirty so to speak, they would realize what I had understood solely due to my experience wading through these backlogs: That the articles in this category are by and large innocuous. That everyone would come to understand that this category is not helping them find the problematic articles on living people that they initially believed it would and that everyone would move on to the real priorities. That didn't happen. Groupthink seems to have painted some irresistible illusion where this category is seen as the "must address" backlog for enforcing the policy on problematic articles about living people. This impression, however, is false. The fact is that the above category contains articles on living people which may or may not be accurate, which may or may not be neutral, yet have merely been tagged as lacking sources. I do understand why people are uneasy about this category being as old as it is. I do not understand why people prioritize it over the really problematic categories which have a similar age. I for one imagine that the priority would naturally fall on articles which are tagged as lacking accuracy or lacking neutrality rather than lacking sources. That the articles which may or may not be accurate or neutral would be dealt with after those which have been identified as inaccurate or non-neutral. We have amazing work being done on Category:Unreferenced BLPs. Yet people are threatening the work being done these with dis-heartening out-of-process deletions in the name of "prioritizing the BLP policy". The idea that Category:Unreferenced BLPs has anything to do "prioritizing the BLP policy" is utter hogwash. Prioritizing the BLP policy would mean addressing articles which may or may not contain sources, which may or may not be accurate, but are identified as lacking neutrality or else articles which may or may not contain sources, which may or may not be neutral, but are identified as lacking accuracy. Since these categories are not sorted by living people, I have made a partial list on a subpage of articles on living people I found within these categories. I only sorted out those backlogged from before March 2008, so remember there is another two years worth of backlog where these came from. If anyone foolishly pushes ahead with deleting those non-contentious articles in Category:Unreferenced BLPs outside of process while these contentious articles on living people are still sitting unresolved after years and years, I will personally dispute the deletions. If anyone wants to continue to hold the moral high ground, it stands over with the identified contentious articles. Once they are taken care of I will concede the the priority must then fall to those that are merely unsourced and I will not dispute such steps taken to deal with them at that time.--BirgitteSB 07:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Just like I created the Unsourced BLP cat as a subcat of the (extremely large) unsourced articles cat, I am willing to create and populate BLPsubcats for other tag categories as well (well, those requiring more attention for BLPs than for other kinds of articles, not things like "wikify" or "orphan"). Fram (talk) 10:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I would support the creation of more specific categories to be used to sort articles according to more precise issues (and more important ones, too) as described by BirgitteSB. I think it's far more important to deal with articles that actually have urgent and important issues such as POV, accuracy, etc., than to spend so much time hand-wringing over articles which are basically innocuous but which happen to have no sources for the innocuous information in them. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
There are articles that are known or at least thought to have actual problems in terms of NPOV or other BLP provisions, and also those that only might possibly have such problems, but have never really been examined. The first group must get the priority. The articles requiring priority for consideration are those that either are widely seen, or are known to have the most serious problems. There is a difference between unsourced negative statements, and unsourced statements that someone might conceivably claim to be negative, but which nobody has. Of course we should look at them all. Of course we should have seen to the sourcing problem much earlier. But the worst dirt --especially the most dangerous dirt--is what gets the first cleanup. Why dust the hidden corners first, when there's filth lying right in plain view? DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Roman Russi[edit]

Can someone please redirect the "Roman Russi" page to The page seems to be blacklisted.

thanks --Sreifa (talk) 10:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done You could have done that yourself though, the page just needed to be created.--Atlan (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ch. Vasantha Rao[edit]

Resolved: Closed by myself. NW (Talk) 18:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Would an admin please close this AfD? It has run for a full week and there is a veritable SPA/sock fest going on there turning the AfD into a bit of a circus. Nsk92 (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Nsk92 (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Pretty far-reaching proposal[edit]

There's a proposal cooking over at WP:VPT (and by extension: this page) that has some pretty wide-reaching implications for blocking policy. Thought it could use some wider community attention. ^demon[omg plz] 13:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Motions regarding Trusilver and Arbitration Enforcement[edit]

Per motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case:

1) The unblock of User:Brews ohare by User:Trusilver was done without the explicit written consent of the Arbitration Committee, or a full and active community discussion as required. The Arbitration Committee explicitly rejects Trusilver's defense of WP:IAR in this situation. However, since the block has since expired, it will not be reapplied. For misuse of his administrator tools, User:Trusilver's administrator rights are revoked. He may regain them through a new WP:RfA or through a request to the Arbitration Committee.

2) The Arbitration Committee modifies the Restriction on arbitration enforcement activity as follows:

Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except:

(a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or
(b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page.

Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee.

Administrators who consistently make questionable enforcement administrative actions, or whose actions are consistently overturned by community or Arbitration Committee discussions may be asked to cease performing such activities or be formally restricted from taking such activities.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (utc) 03:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this
Since this decision is so important for Admins, I think all Admins should be notified by email about this. Count Iblis (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
If admins can't or won't keep up with Wikipedia:AN#Motions_regarding_Trusilver_and_Arbitration_Enforcement, they should be desysoped, not coddled. Hipocrite (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This resolution on prohibition of overturning is long on brutal enforcement, and very short on any explanation about arbitration of a proposed overturn. The emphasis upon forced support for an action instead of reasoned arbitration of a considered overturn is poor practice. Brews ohare (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

A bit of an explanation on this issue (without taking sides in the case):
Arbitration is the final resort on dispute resolution (Jimbo Wales almost never changes rulings). RFAR is intended to end the conduct issues in a dispute. Cases come to RFAR because neither the community can resolve them, nor the admin team. Sometimes matters get to RFAR because admins are unilaterally acting to overturn each other already. Allowing RFAR overturns as a norm would allow the same kind of actions that prevented dispute resolution in the first place, and changes AC rulings from a final resort into a mere loop-around into the same old mêlée. Given the effort everyone goes to to get a matter resolved, and fails before hitting RFAR, that's very rarely a good idea. If overturning AE were something any admin might to do freely, then the entire wishes of those seeking Arbcom's help to end a dispute, and the entire structure of dispute resolution that says we aim to end disputes not enact them perennially, would fail.
AE back-stops the entire of dispute resolution, and cases reaching AE have inevitably already had wikilawyering, gaming and attempts at unilateral action. So AE is itself backstopped with rigid measures. Administrators may respect AC rulings or let others deal with them, but they should not disrupt them. The method of review is by proper conduct not unilateral decision: review by Arbcom, or a very clear, cogent, consensus, for those reasons. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Likewise I have no opinion on the original issue, but I welcome the strong action by arbcom which is fully justified from the simple observation that there has to be an ultimate appeal process that must be respected (the alternative would be to replace the encyclopedia with an open-door forum). If admin X claims to be acting for AE and admin Y disagrees, Y must take up the matter with arbcom or the community, rather than contributing another chapter to the original dispute. Johnuniq (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Using terms like "brutal" is profoundly unhelpful. If you would like to propose an alternative to the arbitration committee as a way of finally settling tenacious disputed then you are free to do so, in the mean time it's all we have and the process must be respected. I note that you have (at last) made the proper request n the proper fashion for removal of the topic ban extension. Hopefully this time your fanclub will not take the opportunity to try to refight the arbitration and will instead focus on the specific issue. Guy (Help!) 09:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I originally raised this issue in the Sandstein/Trusilver case. I am writing this out of a sense of responsibility to help out here, to do the best I can, but I don't see any hope for the future. I don't see a path leading to reform.
Yes, it's obvious why people naively think that AE needs special rules "You're inviting anarchy otherwise!" But in fact there was no real anarchy before this policy was implemented. Admins generally will not help out vandals. There was one case, involving SlimVirgin, maybe a few others, where admins showed questionable judgement. Instead of making a general rule, the right thing to do is to act in those cases without making a general rule. Not every decision needs a general rule. In fact, most should not. The saying in law is that prominent cases make bad policy, because they are always exceptional, and policy should deal with the ordinary not with the exceptions.
The fear of anarchy is overblown--- if Arbs feel strongly about some overturned AE action, they can go and personally overturn any AE block themselves, or ask somebody to do it for them. If the unblock is bad, there should be no shortage of willing re-blockers. There is no need of a special rule for AE, just an unspoken agreement. A rigid rule prevents admins from doing the right thing in those rare cases where AE is done badly.
The real reason this policy was implemented was to make AE an attractive job. Nobody wanted to do it before. But if there is nobody who is interested in enforcing a ban, maybe that ban is not useful? A person who really is causing trouble will make enough enemies that they should be able to find at least one admin willing to act. If not, perhaps ArbCom should just deal some bans just not getting enforced. That's not anarchy--- thats selective prosecution, a mainstay of every legal system. It makes things go better when rules are not enforced rigidly.
It is also reprehensible to punish people for principled actions. Sometimes when someone violates a rule in a principled way, the right thing to do is to respect the violation, since it isn't done for selfish reasons. The IAR rule is there for a reason, but IAR is the only rule that Arbs ignore.Likebox (talk) 10:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Request to split Diabetes in cats and dogs page[edit]

Resolved: Not an administrative issue.

Durova412 03:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is becoming more and more diffcult to edit because many times, the information for cats is very different from that for dealing with canine diabetes. The last 2 talk page entries have also expressed the same thing.

Am willing to work with a Diabetes in dogs wikipedia page; would like to bring some of the contributed material from the Diabetes in cats and dogs page to it to get started. Would like to do it without creating any problems for Wikipedia or others.

What's the answer?


We hope (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a purely editorial matter and not an issue for the administrators' noticeboard. Please consider bringing this up at the article's talkpage, or if you feel capable of making a reasonable split between the two articles, consider being WP:BOLD and just doing it. Shereth 22:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
[1]. Now where's the mind bleach? Guy (Help!) 00:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Bircham International University[edit]

Apologies, long tale of woe follows.

User Bircham, aka William Martin, is the owner of Bircham International University. Bircham is an unaccredited provider of distance education which has engaged in several practices I personally consider red flags, including claiming accreditation from bodies not qualified to give it, claiming that registration with the local Chamber of Trade represents some form of academic endorsement, removing all critical material from their Wikipedia article, writing blatantly hagiographic articles elsewhere (e.g., see[2]) and so on. No reputable qualified source has ever been provided for this being a legitimate educational institution.

User Bircham has waged a years-long campaign to water down the Wikipedia article. This has involved repeated complaints to OTRS and the Foundation (see [3] and [4]), emails and letters direct to me, repeated requests escalating to demands for changes to the article to remove or "balance" the documented lack of accreditation, persuading another to take up the case on their behalf via OTRS (the complainant was very civil and accepted that the current version is accurate and compliant with policy) and so on.

Some history:

User Bircham has now contacted me yet again demanding unblocking so he can "correct" his article. As I have told him many times he is free to suggest on his user talk page any provable errors of fact in the article. As before, his demand is founded on the fact that Mike Godwin told him to take it up with the community and {{sofixit}}, but of course every time he's been near the article we've had stuff like [5], [6] and so on so he's indefinitely blocked (by me). This has been explained before more than once, he has been invited more than once to propose changes on his talk page (e.g. [7]). Obviously it's not enough, what he wants is to be able to get to the article, or at least the talk page, and promote his side of the story, as we see in [8] and [9].

This email is not materially different from several previous ones to which I and others have responded similarly. He states:

We incorrectly understood that we could delete what we consider inaccurate or false provided the fact that we support our arguments with reliable links.

This is false and he has been told so several times, we do not and never will offer editorial control to article subjects. He also writes:

It is not clearly explained that we can not delete or modified anything within the article but we have the right to add or incorporate any comments that are supported by the appropriate links. I think that this right to talk about ourselves in an article about ourselves has been confused with whitewashing.

This, too, is false, the situation has been explained more than once, the judgment of what goes in or out is the community's not his and if he wants changes he needs to suggest them on his talk page. Few of these suggestions have been usable since most of them start by changing the lede so as to obscure the consensus among qualified sources that this is a questionable institution. It's also clear to me that Mike Godwin's response of 2008 was in large part formulaic, a point I addressed before more than once when he made the same point.

Bircham's edits under that account and various IPs have served always and only to promote it and obscure or contradict its lack of recognised accreditation. The latest letters are very poorly spelled, I don't recall this being a feature of previous communications from this user. I wonder if the persona is in fact a role account and there is no such person as "William Martin". But I could be entirely wrong about that, maybe he was just having an off day.

Engagement with this user is a time-sink and will, if you are identifiable off Wikipedia, get you personally identified and involved. He will not give up until we give him what he wants and sadly what he wants appears to me to be in direct conflict with our core goals, so we are doomed to spend our lives patiently demonstrating that while we are sympathetic to his travails Wikipedia cannot fix the fact that the world (or at least that small part of it that would know Bircham from a hole in the ground) thinks his company is a diploma mill. To be fair he may genuinely be trying to become a legitimate institution but the tenacity with which he has asserted legitimacy in the face of evidence to the contrary rather suggests not. By engaging with him and to giving him what he wants you will become part of the problem and open yourself to legal threats, veiled or otherwise.

This needs tact, persistence, OTRS access and probably admin tools (past sockpuppetry and perhaps even some brave soul willing to unblock despite the ongoing legal posturing). Anybody qualified and curious can look through the OTRS archives and see just how persistent and repetitive this is. I would not unblock this user even if I could and it's also long past the time when I am motivated to even try to help him. Someone on the OTRS team has just told him that edits will not be made on his behalf from OTRS; as an OTRS volunteer in the past I incorporated some comments which were provable errors or not supported by sources but the main point of contention is, and always was, about accreditation and the many sources describing the place as substandard or even illegal. Or of course you might just throw up your hands and walk away, as I just have, and I can't really blame you. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Goodness, if the text of the letter on User talk:Bircham is an example of what they think good business writing is, then they've got a lot to answer for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Apart from the spelling it is representative of their standard approach. And obviously they only hear what they want to hear. Guy (Help!) 08:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

RPP backlog[edit]

If anyone else is around, could they give me a hand clearing the 30+ backlog at RPP and RUP? Thanks. GedUK  08:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Cleared now. GedUK  09:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

User: Robert LeBlanc[edit]

This user continues to add categories without supporting sources to articles despite having past accounts blocked for doing so. Can a sysop take a look? (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Pre-emptive indefinite semi-protection of John Laws[edit]


I would like to draw your attention to a case of pre-emptive indefinite semi-protection that I find unjustified.

The protecting admin has been challenged about it. Only after the issue was reported to WP:RUP did they come up with something resembling an explanation, which was accepted by the investigating admin. The justification was in my opinion extremely flimsy: "there has been in the last varying degrees of speculation in tabloid press and elsewhere".

As you may remember, pre-emptive semi-protections were recently rejected (scroll down) due to an evident lack of consensus. Not only that, but this justification falls even short of that proposal, since it's not clear to me how unreferenced "speculation in tabloid press and elsewhere" is a "high-profile event that has a history of drawing vandalism".

I would appreciate your views on the matter. Thank you. (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The IP editor canvassed 5 editors about this concern, unaware of the guidelines frowning on the practice. A couple of us pointed him here, and I've notified Casliber about the thread. As much as I can understand the rationale for it, I have to admit I see no support in policy for such pre-emptive semi-protection. Indeed, there was a very long argument on a Village Pump before the Super Bowl where it was cleary established that there is no consensus support for pre-emptive protection over the fears that the article might be vandalized. In fact, there had been no vandalism on this particular article for five months, and very little over the last two years at least. While I'm not opposed to a policy change permitting pre-emptive protection for BLPs where there is a credible expectation of vandalism forthcoming, I can't support this unilateral reinvention of the protection policy as it lacks justification in my view. Resolute 23:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I have also been looking at semi-protections recently and making a few challenges, and I think that some admins are really bending the rules on protections more than they should.
Personally I think probably that pre-emptive semi-protection of notable BLP's is OK if a consensus is found to change the rules so this kind of protection is allowed under the rules (though I haven't looked in detail at this specific case). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
If you _had_ looked in detail at this specific case, then you would be able to add your informed opinion here, because that's what we are discussing. You would also understand why such a relaxation would be a bad idea. (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree about a discussion on looking at adding preemptive protection to the current policy. If anyone wishes to take the responsibility for unprotecting any BLPs I have preemptively protected, they are welcome to do so, as long as they are mindful of the fact that google can sometimes pick up cached versions within minutes (if vandalism is uncorrected). The ip above has been quite terse and evasive in discussion on my talk page, so I was disinclined to accede. I still think that BLP (as are several others I have protected) at risk of some serious vandalism. Remember, anyone can still edit them as long as they make an account and take responsibility for their edits. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
PS: The proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy/Archive_11#pre-emptive_measures needed some better structure. I'd not go so far as to say evident lack of consensus actually. I think it needs a proper formatting, structure and input from more than a handful of editors. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
That is an interesting point about google. I've noticed are picking up Wikipedia changes much faster than they used to. They might even be using a realtime wikipedia feed (I know some other entities are using those). Either way, the faster update rate means not only do they pick up bad stuff sooner, they also get rid of it sooner. (talk) 10:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Right let's do this properly this time...[edit]

OK - Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy#Proposal_redux_-_addition_of_preemptive_protection_in_BLPs_at_risk_to_semiprotection_rationale - 'nuff said here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion as to the propriety of using 'hat' templates to bring closure to discussions[edit]

There is an ongoing discussion at Template talk:Hidden archive top#merge discussion: arbitrary break as to whether the language used on the {{hat}} template (often used to to close disputes) is appropriate. More opinions are requested. –xenotalk 14:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Now an RFC - would definitely appreciate some additional commentary as the debate is just back-and-forth between three of us right now. –xenotalk 16:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

CSD backlog[edit]

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion has nearly 160 pages in it, and over 60 images. Would an admin mind clearing it out? The Thing // Talk // Contribs 00:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Help is mostly needed in the image / copyvio area. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
From the peanut gallery - I would, but I can't  :( -FASTILYsock(TALK) 05:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I took care of about 15 images. I have to go now, though. -- Flyguy649 talk 06:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
That doesn't even count the routine work of Category:Wikipedia files on Wikimedia Commons (8,414 items), Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons (5,853 items) and Category:Rescaled fairuse images more than 7 days old (2,453 items). I understand why human review is needed for those first two, but is there any reason we can't have a bot take care of the third? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
about 1 in 20 of these is not good, over reduced, or uselessly reduced (by 1 pixel perhaps), so the human has to pick. I am getting rid of pictures. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense. And that's a pity. :/ I knocked off a few of those and am working on the general images at CSD before moving on with my usual copyright work. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
160 pages is nothing to worry about. Attack pages are taken care of quickly no matter how long the backlog and the rest can wait a few hours. Once it's 500+ pages, you might consider alerting some admins. Face-wink.svg Regards SoWhy 11:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll have to say that proposed deletion has been getting really backlogged lately. The past couple of days I've had to clean up dozens of expired prods a whole day after they expired. I've never had to do that before. -- Atama 17:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Block review requested[edit]

Last night/this morning, I blocked Fanoftheworld (talk · contribs) for 1 week for blanking a section of Bösendorfer to make a WP:POINT about a similar section in Steinway & Sons being blanked, as well as for general tendentious editing. In retrospect, I'm questioning whether I was too involved to impose that block myself. Could someone review his recent edits, with special attention to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 12 and Talk:Steinway & Sons, and see if that block needs to be reversed? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I support it, on the heels of this discussion, where I had suggested that Fanoftheworld's clear POV-pushing might warrant a ban from any piano-related article. I think this just reinforces that idea. -- Atama 17:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I support it as well. Looking over Fanoftheworld's talk page, the editor is clearly disruptive and has a history of not working well with others. AniMate 17:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

hi; photo edit[edit]

hello there good admins. I just edited the template Template:Feeding, to replace the photo [[:File:Hawk eating prey cropped.jpg]] with the photo File:Cebus albifrons edit.jpg. sound good? thought someone here might find that interesting. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

hey, how do you post a link to a photo file, without displaying the photo itself? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
[[:File:Example.jpg]]. Why are you posting this here though?--Jac16888Talk 16:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
well actually, i felt the photo choice related kind of basically to our scope as an encyclopedia. I felt a little editorial choice and notification was in order, just to help us head off similar issues in the future. so i just wanted to kind of mention it in some sort of general forum, where it wouldn't set off a whole set of needless debate. so this seemed like a good forum for that. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe leave an explanatory note at Template talk:Feeding? – ukexpat (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm a little concerned about this, since that image was being used just last week to vandalize Pakistan-related articles. I'm sure this is just a coincidence. Woogee (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
It's a featured picture and it's easy to find as it's used a lot. The 117.x vandal just found it like that, don't think there's anything to be concerned on that front. —SpacemanSpiff 18:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
errrm, yeah. you mean the monkey is in trouble for something around here??!?!?!!! Sheesh, some days you just can't win!!!! :-) LOL! (all kidding aside, I chose this only for its helpful subject matter.) --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: Hi. As expected, some people are arguing to restore the photo of the eagle eating the bloody head of a mouse. can anyone here please stop by and offer some guidance? I will of course yield to the community consensus on this. I personally believe Wikipedia should not be using pictures which are gratuitously and needlessly gruesome. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia isn't censored. We don't use unsettling photos just for shock value, but if an image has any encyclopedic value and helps an article, we'll include it, even if it is violent, contains nudity, or might seem otherwise disgusting to you. As the policy states, "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article." -- Atama 17:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

AIV is backlogged[edit]

WP:AIV currently has a backlog of reports. 3 are tagged for possible removal. Thanks! Hamtechperson 03:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I left two of those tags, 1 about 3 minutes ago and the other an hour ago. They'll get removed. The idea is that the person that filed the reports needs to have time to see them. -- Flyguy649 talk 03:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Another Backlog... Same place. Hamtechperson 16:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Cleared Hamtechperson 16:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hetoum I[edit]

Resolved: blocked and tagged confirmed socks and sockmaster. IP's still being checked. JodyB talk 11:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I? The CU returned positive results on the accounts listed, and an admin intervention is required to stop disruption by the banned user. Thanks. Grandmaster 07:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/[edit]

  • This article was deleted days ago, so the discussion needs to be closed. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I've done that. Just for future reference, this would've been an appropriate time to WP:NAC. –xenotalk 18:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Appeal by Matthead[edit]

Resolved: closing this; evidently no consensus to overturn block, and rapidly becoming moot since the block will have run out in a few hours. Fut.Perf. 20:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Matthead. NW (Talk) 03:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Appealing user
Matthead (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) –  Matthead  Discuß   00:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed
48h block, see above and [10]
Editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction
Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that editor
The appealing editor is asked to notify the editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise.
Great, a bullet-proof catch22 for blocked users. Cunning. Whats the point of filling out this bureaucratic form here anyway? -- Matthead  Discuß   00:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Matthead
As stated on Sandsteins talk after requested to comment, I am the victim of repeated provocations by User:Loosmark, including Loosmark bringing up "Nazi-Germany did (like for example murdering 6 millions Jews" at a talk page about Olympic medals, which violates Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Editors_warned, which was ignored by Sandstein. Sandstein should have sanctioned Loosmark, not me, or at least have recused himself for his frequent involvement with Digwuren and EEML topics, blocks and bans, including in regard to Loosmark, as logged on Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#2009. This is the second lopsided act by Sandstein against me, as he in May 2009 sanctioned me, but not Radeskz, who later turned out to have been active in the EEML, where acts against me were coordinated at the time (and later, too). While it might have been a bad luck judgment by Sandstein in 2009, his current block of mine is inexcusable and biased, as Ignorance is no excuse this time. -- Matthead  Discuß   00:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Sandstein

The reason for the block is this edit in which Wikipedia is treated as a battleground for nationalist conflict (WP:DIGWUREN#Wikipedia is not a battleground). The reaction by Matthead in his statement here and on my talk page is typical for such cases, in which the battleground editor continues to attack other editors instead of addressing his own conduct. I do not quite understand why Matthead believes I may not sanction him merely because I have previously sanctioned other people in this area of conflict, including Loosmark, who is Matthead's opponent in this instance and who I previously topic-banned for six months. As an administrator active in WP:AE I have had the occasion to sanction editors on all sides of the various Eastern Europe-related conflicts.

As regards the perceived uneven treatment of Matthead's and Loosmark's grievances, I normally prefer such matters to be raised and discussed in an open forum. So I normally refer editors to the appropriate noticeboards if the alleged problem is not immediately evident from the provided diffs and would need closer examination. But admins are expected to help the community with their tools upon request and not to be overly formalistic, so I do at times take direct action if it is requested on my talk page in cases where a problem is evident without the need for extended investigation. However, if the community prefers that AE requests should be raised on WP:AE in all cases, to prevent perceived admin-shopping and backroom dealing, then I would be very happy to refer all AE requests made directly to me to the noticeboard from now on. This would hopefully reduce the number of time-consuming inquiries I get from editors who want me to sanction their opponents (see currently [11] and following sections), which tends to make a nationalist battlefield of my talk page.  Sandstein  06:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, Matthead's initial unblock request was made with the edit summary "Siëch, elendr", presumably intended to mean Siech, elender in some German dialect, which translates roughly to "miserable wretch".  Sandstein  06:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the appeal by Matthead
  • Um, is [12] this really block worthy? At first sight it doesn't seem that OTT but maybe there is a subtext here I am missing. Spartaz Humbug! 03:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I would say that it is entirely block-worthy. Pretty much classic battleground language on a topic covered by the Digwuren arbitration case. Matthead's appeal statement doesn't even try to defend it, taking instead a line that others should have been blocked as well. CIreland (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Provocation tends to be considered a mitigating factor in any sensible community; whether or not Loosmark's comment(s) rose to the level of provocation is a separate question. But if another user should have been blocked as well, then I'm not seeing why only one is being blocked. The block log indicates that uneven enforcement has been a problem in the past too.
  • I'm uncomfortable with this block being made by the blocking admin due to a couple of inconsistencies. Sandstein previously acknowledged that Loosmark breached a restriction, but did not block Loosmark on the grounds of his not being active in AE. [13] However, this request for enforcement was not made at AE, but again was made on Sandstein's talk page (and this time was made by Loosmark against someone else) - Sandstein actioned it but in response to concerns raised about Loosmark said "If there are further problems involving Loosmark they should be reported, with diffs, on the appropriate noticeboard". I'm not seeing a reason as to why Loosmark was not instructed to take his concerns to an appropriate noticeboard like everyone else. Some clarification would be useful here.
  • At this point, I neither support or oppose lifting the block as I still would need to investigate more. But regardless, if we were to block any users on this, I'm not comfortable with the idea of Sandstein making such blocks, particularly due to the concerns raised about the EEML and the way this request was raised in the first place. Note, I am open to being persuaded otherwise, but I see no basis at the moment. I feel that some old wounds may have needlessly been opened due to the way this was handled. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC) updated. 13:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • It's not necessary to direct all matters to a noticeboard, but where there is (even a real likelihood of) inappropriate conduct on both sides, it's better to have it discussed where more uninvolved input can be found (including input on what sanctions are going to be imposed). I appreciate that an egregious individual edit that is blockworthy (and not stale) may be hard to find on the other side; but really, not everything can be a textbook example, and we are experienced enough to address more complex issues. Our assessments seem to agree on the fact that there is some pattern of problematic conduct on the part of the other party; what appears to be in dispute is whether that precludes the use of tools for such behavior. I say that so long as we discussed this further on a noticebard, such behavior could've (and still can) be addressed with sanctions of their own. That is better than the alternative; letting the history continue where one editor's (perhaps more sophisticated) misconduct sadly go stale rather than being remedied; Loosmark's block log speaks for itself. Why is ArbCom or the community going to be reluctant to extend the Eastern Europe restrictions to cover West Germany if problematic conduct is occurring there (or has shifted from EE topics)? Even in the event that such restrictions don't pass, we can still propose (and use) ordinary community sanctions if it means getting it right; that is the best way to dispel any negative perceptions that arise from such situations. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • My block log speaks for itself? May I ask what the hell are you talking about? My block log is completely empty [14]. And for comparison here is Matthead's block log: [15], he was already blocked 8 times. So instead of trying to sell Alice in wonderland theories about "provocation" and "concerns about the EEML" or trying to get a sanction for myself for a perfectly valid and good faith edit I think you should rather try to figure out how to stop the behavior as exhibited in the edit which led to his latest block.  Dr. Loosmark  14:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • "What the hell are you talking about": this is a good example of why you need to re-read WP:CIVIL. "So instead of trying to sell Alice in wonderland theories ... you should": this is a superb example of why you need to re-read WP:AGF. Is it that you are utter unaware of these policies or do you just think that they don't apply to you? Varsovian (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Given the edit summaries you use to reverted users you disagree with [16] i think you are the latest person who can give morals about WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. edit conflict: Anyway true I should have not reacted like that, I am just stressed by continued attacks in the past 2 days. I apology to Ncmvocalist and everybody else on this board.  Dr. Loosmark  15:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
To quote Sandstein, "The reaction by Matthead in his statement here and on my talk page is typical for such cases, in which the battleground editor continues to attack other editors instead of addressing his own conduct." You attack me instead of looking at your own conduct. If you feel I should address my conduct, please post on my talk page the summaries you object to and outline why you feel they are inappropriate. Varsovian (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
To answer Loosmark's questions (which were parcelled with inappropriate decorum), if you took the time to read my comment, it would make sense - when misconduct goes stale rather than being remedied, this can mean an empty block log. I'm not sure what theories you are referring to unless you were foolishly taking my comments out of context or not reading them in full. The behavior certainly cannot be stopped if you continue to edit in that area. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
What misconduct exactly do you mean? I reverted one edit which I disagreed with and no one has yet demonstrated that my edit was anything but perfectly valid. If that can be now considered a provocation then well I am being constantly provoked all over wikipedia. I don't see any reason why I shouldn't edit West Germany anymore but anyway to address any possible concern I am ready to stay away from that article for 6 months and not make any comments on the topic of whether or not West Germany and modern Germany are the same State or not, for the same period of time. I hope that Matthead will also be ready to take some steps but I will leave that to him.  Dr. Loosmark  06:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is talking about one single revert or edit for that matter. In any case, that assurance sounds good. I too hope that Matthead would take some steps. I'd be fine with a voluntary restriction that is substantially shorter if you can make an assurance that you will totally avoid the areas you've specified for that period (meaning you won't follow what is happening on the article/pages either - it has to be a complete break that is self-imposed, otherwise 6 months would sound sensible to get rid of the frustration that you feel). Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I see no compelling reason for overturning this block. I had considered doing some block myself, but then decided I was too busy and wouldn't bother. It seems well within the reasonable discretion of an admin in Eastern Europe enforcement. Whether or not the specific things Matthead said in that post rise to the level of blockworthy personal attacks, fact is that posting to somebody's talk page with no other purpose than to make accusations of that type is almost always an unconstructive, WP:DICK-ish move, and as such part of the overall battlefield atmosphere, to which Matthead has undoubtedly a long history of contributing. As for Loosmark, his overall belligerent conduct is certainly testing the limits too, although I can't place my fingers on any individual edit that I find clearly blockworthy. He does need to watch his revert limitation though. His revert of Matthead would be a violation, if it wasn't for the fact that I've earlier argued on a different occasion that edits related to the "Western Germany" issue don't fall under the scope of "Eastern Europe" sanctions; his earlier edit to Sněžka [17] clearly was a violation, but is stale now. Fut.Perf. 07:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • No objection to any sanction against Loosmark on my part. From what I've seen on my talk page I agree with the "overall belligerent conduct" assessment, though I haven't investigated that in any depth and, like you, haven't seen any individual edit that clearly crosses a line.  Sandstein  07:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • "I can't place my fingers on any individual edit that I find clearly blockworthy" How about: a blatant accusation of bad faith editing "your edit is nothing but a provocation." [18]); repeated accusations of POV pushing ("You have POV-pushed the following text into the article" [19] and "as you try to POV push into article" [20]); or lying about another editor's posts ("you have stop claiming that Frederic Chopin was a "bastard"" [21], my statement is at [22])?
    Alternatively, how about repeated accusations of an editor making racist comments ([23] and [24]) before again repeating the accusation and challenging the other editor "So what are (you) going to do now?" [25] Varsovian (talk) 09:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Soon after I have reported Matthead to Sandstein, Varsovian appeared and wrote the above attacks. I have not yet replied because Sandstein advised Varsovian to take issue to AE. In my opinion Varsovian's description of events represent a gross misrepresentation of facts worthy of a block. I ask guidance by Admins whether I should reply to Varsovian's points above here now or will this be moved to AE? I ask because what he writes above has nothing to do with Matthead's block and his appeal but I am ready to reply here if allowed. Please advise.  Dr. Loosmark  10:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
"the above attacks"? That is precisely the kind of language which starts problems! My point was that your behaviour has contributed to Matthead's actions and now you display precisely the kind of attitude which suggests that you either don't know about or don't care about WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. As for "a gross misrepresentation of facts worthy of a block", do you deny making any of the above statements? As for AE, I said I'd take a couple of days to think about reporting it and I will. Varsovian (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
You accused me of telling lies, how would you describe that if not an attack? And no, my alleged "behavior" in the discussion with you has in no way contributed to Matthead's "actions". Matthead showed no interest in our disagreement nor has he mentioned anything about it. Anyway I will reply to all of your accusations as soon as the Admins indicate me where should I do so.  Dr. Loosmark  11:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Not lies, lie. Not accusation, simply a statement of fact (unless you would like to give a diff showing me claiming "that Frederic Chopin was a "bastard" "). You behaviour towards me and the editor you accused of making racist commentsis probably much like your behaviour towards Matthead, i.e. not what is required by WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Varsovian (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Loosmark

Just a couple of brief comments, I totally reject the accusations that I have "provoked" Matthead. I simply disagree with his POV and if anybody would care to check I have expressed so on the talk page in the past. Basically Matthead seems to think that "West Germany" does not exist (which IMO is very nonsensical, the very existence of that article proves that the community consensus thinks otherwise) but instead of proposing the article for a merger with Germany or for a deletion or whatever he removes the parts he doesn't like and engages in battlefield behavior if somebody dares to oppose him. If anything I consider the block imposed by Sandstein to be very mild considering that he also reverted me by misusing the edit description: "Reverted 1 edit by Loosmark identified as vandalism to last revision by Matthead"[26]. So I am a vandal now? Thanks a lot... The case here is very simple, I reverted an edit by Matthead because I disagreed with it and as I response I got accused of: 1) vandalism, 2) accused of being on a warpath 3) accused of stalking him 4) accused that my edit was recommended(sic) by my Polish buddies on the EEML (when everything else fails this one always works and who cares i had nothing to do with the EEML) 5) "advised" me to retire. If this would be a normal place such a tirado of insults against a respected editor like myself would result in an indef until he withdraws them but of course this is wikipedia so here we are already discussing possible sanctions against myself. Here Future Perfect: I will voluntary avoid reverting Matthead for the next 6 months and I will avoid editing any article which he edits unless I have previously edited the same article myself.  Dr. Loosmark  10:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Matthead

Closing this with no action – evidently no consensus to overturn, and the block will have run its course in a few hours anyway. Fut.Perf. 20:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Nobody[edit]

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case:

This case is accepted, but will not be opened unless and until A Nobody (talk · contribs) returns to Wikipedia. If A Nobody does so under any account or I.P., he/she is required to notify the Committee.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (utc) 23:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this


Melesse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Hi. You earlier had a report on this user here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive602#User:Melesse

She recently deleted a photo I'd uploaded and she doesn't restore it (don't know if admins can). I told her about it here [27] and then she deleted another one of my photos ([28]) which I had disputed on that photos talk page (can't find it anymore). She didnt reply at all so I'm bringing it up here. Sandman888 (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You should probably take requests to have the deletion reviewed directly to WP:Deletion Review. -- Flyguy649 talk 16:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
-sigh- not again. This hasn't been the first time Melesse has been making questionable deletes. Not long ago she was prematurely cleaning out C:CSD#Dated deletion categories based on her own time zone, a practice which went unchallenged for months. -FASTILYsock(TALK) 05:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
File deleted in error

File:BBC_World_Service_Big_Ben_1-1-2009.ogg was deleted in error. Reason given for deletion was CSD#F7, but this states "... may be deleted after two days, if no justification is given for the claim of irreplaceability." Justification was given using {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}; justification was "The BBC World Service will always be copyright of the BBC." Also, the file should not have been tagged for deletion in the first place as the file can never be replaced by a freely licensed alternative. This is because, in general, anything recorded from the radio is copyright. Finally, the administrator who deleted the file was the same one who tagged it. I don't know the guidelines on this, but this seems wrong as it does not allow a second pair of eyes to review the decision. Anyway, could we have this file back please? HairyWombat (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Normally, you would contact the deleting admin first -- that's Melesse (talk · contribs). However, since Melesse was both the nominator and deleter, you should probably take this directly to WP:Deletion Review. -- Flyguy649 talk 16:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that's probably best. The file as a whole certainly isn't technically replaceable, but it's probably not supportable under WP:NFCC either. It would be easy to get a free recording of the Big Ben chimes for use in January 1, and I don't see how the sample is really necessary in BBC World Service either. It fails WP:NFCC#8, as far as I can see. Black Kite 19:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that's fairly inappropriate. If you nominate something for deletion, and another editor disputes the nomination and adds the appropriate tag to it, you really shouldn't be the one deciding it. This seems to be a fairly common practice of this admin, and it needs to stop. –xenotalk 23:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Note that there's another thread on WP:AN about user:Melesse (here). Also, Melesse had not been notified about this thread; I have now done so. -- Flyguy649 talk 06:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The reporting user did inform Melesse of the therad, here. –xenotalk 13:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I have merged the two threads. –xenotalk 13:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • It's a little disappointing that the user has not taken the time to respond to either of these threads, but found the time to delete 283 pages this morning (including at least three out of process). –xenotalk 14:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, we have disruptive editing, misuse of admin tools, and refusal to communicate when asked to. I appreciate that admins are expected to behave to lower standards than are required of non-admins, but surely a block would now be in order? DuncanHill (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't know about a block, it would seem a little punitive at this point, but from what I can see, if Melesse won't communicate, it might be time to involve ArbCom. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully ArbCom is not necessary at this point. I left them a warning. –xenotalk 14:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm having some difficulty following exactly what this thread is about. If you think it's inappropriate that I delete files that I've nominated for deletion, then I won't do it anymore. I have never refused to communicate, I looked at this thread yesterday and saw that other people had responded to the initial questions asked and figured my additional input wasn't necessary. Melesse (talk) 04:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I think you need to re-read the CSD criteria and ensure you are following the proper procedures, not just with respect to disputed fair use, but ensuring that proper notfiications have been done and the appropriate time has elapsed. –xenotalk 12:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, will do. Melesse (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I too have been involved in a recent image issue with Melesse and I was given no notice to an impending deletion. It wasn't until I impressed upon her that the image could be fixed that the image was restored. Comments about other images potentially in the same predicament were given the "ignore" treatment. — BQZip01 — talk 07:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it odd you're singling me out for "ignoring" you because any willing administrator can fill an undelete request, would you also say that every administrator is ignoring you? Melesse (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
The only thing I'm singling you out for is the fact that you will not restore them. Other admins are not willing to get in a "Wheel War" over these deletions. It's obvious that both admins and general editors, have issues with the way you've done deletions. If you'd just fix the problems and say, "Oops, my bad," I think everyone here would just say, "Oh ok." and just walk away. We should want any/all encyclopedic images on Wikipedia/Commons as long as they meet our criteria. If the sole reason an image was removed is an administrative error and that error can be fixed, why are you unwilling to restore them for a limited time (i.e. w days) so those corrections can be made? — BQZip01 — talk 17:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm willing to restore any images that a user feels were deleted out of process or to allow them to bypass the reason for the deletion. It will not be wheel warring because it's still only the 2nd action. Just give me a list. Generally agree that a deleting admin should do so as well without question and take it to FFD if there's still concerns. –xenotalk 17:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC) annoted. 18:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe all the images you inquired about were missing license and/or source information (and contrary to what you seem to believe, public domain images do still need to cite a source) and I don't believe they were deleted out of administrator error, so I'm not willing to restore them, but perhaps xeno will be willing. Melesse (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Restoring an image isn't necessarily admitting it was deleted in error, it's giving the user a chance to fix the omission or problem that lead to the deletion. If they don't fix it, then it can be speedied again, or sent to FFD. Refusing to give them a chance is just being needlessly difficult. –xenotalk 18:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Fine. Melesse (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Now how do I get the images she deleted back on? Must this case be presented elsewhere aswell? Sandman888 (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Flyguy649 suggested WP:Deletion Review above. Melesse (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
But you could easily restore them? Sandman888 (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Can you give me a list and I'll take a look? There is no need for WP:DRV if the problem is easily solved. –xenotalk 20:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I restored File:CesarRodriguez.jpg because the subject is deceased, and the deleting admin was also the nominator of a rfu that was disputed (no prejudice to WP:FFD). File:Nunez.jpg may be replaceable as the subject is not deceased. There was no FUR statement. The deletion was out-of-process because the nominator was not notified 48 hours prior to the deletion, but I think the end result is probably appropriate. Willing to consider arguments otherwise, however. –xenotalk 20:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Xeno, I think this is the first time you and are are 100% on the same page...look out for four horsemen...
Re: "...contrary to what you seem to believe, public domain images do still need to cite a source..." I find nothing in policy about this supposed requirement. If I were claiming it was PD because the author released it, I would certainly concur that proof of said release would be apropos, but in this case, the image itself cannot retain copyright as it was declared PD in 1923 by the US government. A faithful 2D reproduction of said 2D work cannot gain copyright in the U.S. and, ergo, is PD. Would such a description on the page be useful instead? — BQZip01 — talk 03:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm curious where in the policy you're reading that no source is necessary for public domain images, a source is what indicates whether an image is public domain or not. And here and here both indicate that copyright holder info is necessary. In this case of 3d art (I don't even really want to get into that, you're already in a discussion with some people on your talk page about it) with an unknown artist, that would fall to whoever snapped the photo, and there's absolutely no indication of who that is. Melesse (talk) 06:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Re: sources you provided: #1 doesn't state that a source is required it merely states how to show a source. #2 Simply shows how to annotate a compatible license. Your last assertion in the first sentence is false. We can determine what is PD and what is not in many cases without a source: example: this image, even without a source, is PD. — BQZip01 — talk 08:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Um, it says on there that the source is you, so... And besides that, it's not the same. I know designs made purely of text are generally agreed to be ineligible for copyright because they're deemed "not original enough," and could be theoretically recreated by just about anybody. Do you think that tile painting is unoriginal enough to be recreated by just about anybody? What about paintings by Piet Mondrian? Melesse (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
My comments were a general comment that your assertion is both wrong and not backed up in policy. My comment regarding the 2D image is that it is still PD no matter who took it. While I would like to give credit to the person who took it and the place it came from, it is still a PD image without that information. — BQZip01 — talk 05:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

IP Block - Cuba[edit]

I would expect that:

  • we have few editors from Cuba
  • there are few ISP's emanating from Cuba

this appears to come from one. It appears to be blocked as a sock, but I'm not overly sure that all the problems are from actual socks. I fully agree with anon-blocks on this one, but with the limited ISP's, is blocking account creation a good idea? Note, I'm not questioning the actions based on the activity of the IP, I'm merely looking at overall policy based on the situation and stimulating discussion ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

If there was a good amount of evidence from a sockpuppet investigation that showed many users doing this, then I would suggest Account Creation Block. Also, if Account creation is blocked, they can still go to the account creation team and an account creator can create the account. Just my 2 cents worth. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 14:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

User:B-Wuuu: Return of blocked sockfarmer[edit]

Moved here from AN/I, due to a lack of a specific incident. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

B-Wuuu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

On January 27, 2010, five accounts associated with a single sockmaster were blocked -- User:Cubert, User:Smokefree, User:2Misters, User:Somaterc, and User:Filmsnoir -- and a sixth, User:Helicon Arts Cooperative, had previously been blocked. None of these blocks has been lifted. Earlier today, a new account was created, User:B-Wuuu, by a user claiming to be the editor behind the blocked socks. I can find no sign that the user went through any appropriate process regarding a return to good standing, making this unilateral block evasion. All of the blocked sock user and talk pages have been redirectd to the new account's user/talk page, substantially sanitizing the user's history, which went back several years.
Given the user's history of dishonesty and disruptive editing, I am also concerned that the conspicuous self-identification on the new user page (name and photograph) may not be reliable, but instead may be intended to harass the person named/pictured there, and that the identifying content should not be allowed unless it is properly verified through OTRS. Second, given the blocked user's long and singular campaign of harassment of me, marked by extreme incivility and repeated bad faith accusations of homophobia and misconduct (eg [29] [30] [31]), I believe that if this editor is allowd to resume editing, he should be placed under restrictions prohibiting him from any interaction with/comments on any of the editors involved in his previous conflicts, as well as topic bans covering the articles he previously disrupted. I don't see any justification, frankly, for allowing the unblocking, given the short span of time since the blocks were imposed and the failure of the user to "come clean" or to demonstrate any commitment to editing appropriately, or to apologize to the several editors inconvenienced (or worse) by his horrid behavior. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The sockpuppet report regarding these accounts is here. It may also be relevant that User:Stifle handled an OTRS request Ticket:2010022310001371 concerning Helicon Arts Cooperative. Prior to HW filing this report, I had posted about this situation to User:Nuclearwarfare, the blocking admin, and Stifle, because of the OTRS ticket, but I don't believe either admin has been around since then. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd alsonote that in the process of redirecting the user and user talk pages of these accounts, the block notices have been deleted, as well as the sockpuppet category. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Unless I have missed something this is a block evading sock of an indefinitely restricted account that was very disruptive only a month or so ago, he should be blocked, tagged and ignored and his redirects and edits reverted. Off2riorob (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • If the user is indeed willing to edit productively, I see no reason not to let him do so. The user should be warned that he is on a strict leash though, and that any reversion to previous behavior (or even editing the same articles) will be handled through blocks and reversions. NW (Talk) 18:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Nothing of any relevance has come up in the OTRS ticket; I haven't heard anything or taken any action since the last time it came up. Stifle (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, NW. I'm happy to stay on a strict leash, and have no intention of editing destructively. I know things have gotten heated in the past but I do not believe my edit history will reveal any "destructive" edits. I want to point out, despite Ken and Hullaballoo's accusations, that I have never been found guilty of anything other than sockpuppetry, which is the same thing that Ken was found guilty of. He was allowed a fresh start, and to simply redirect his other usernames, so that's all I'm doing here. I apologize if there is a policy against that. Ken's other allegations against me were dismissed as baseless on the admin boards, despite his attempts to re-start them. Ken also has a history of attempting to (inaccurately) out me, which is a very severe violation of Wiki policy. I also suggest that he should be considered to be Wikihounding me, as he almost always visits each page I edit shortly after I do so, and either reverts my edits or makes unrelated edits himself. This edit is particularly telling of his bias; he erased information about a particular production of a play because "its acclaim was unsourced," while simultaneously leaving a paragraph right above it about another production that says it was "critically well received" but provides no source for this either. This is a pretty clear example of his pattern of contempt for particular filmmakers and actors which I like, and while he's entitled to his opinions, his opinions are clearly affecting his neutrality, objectivity, and ability to edit productively. If anything, I would suggest that all three of us be put on short leashes and prohibited from interacting with each other. B-Wuuu (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
B-Wuuu's charge of bias against me has no merit, however, after some consideration I believe he does have a point concerning my removal from the The History of Cardenio article of the information about director James Kerwin's production. I removed it because it was highly promotional in tone, and the source provided (Kerwin's website) did not support the specific claims made. I did not notice at the time the similarly unsourced information about the production in Evanston, Illinois B-Wuuu referred to above. To amend this, I have removed the language about "critical acclaim" about the Evanston production from the article, and I have also restored the basic information about the Kerwin production, sans the promotionalism. The director's website is sufficient as a citation to show the existence of the production, so it, too, has been restored.

This, of course, has no bearing whatever on whether B-Wuuu should be allowed to continue editing or should be blocked for blatant block evasion as the sockmaster behind 5 blocked accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I point out that BMK is still Wikihounding me; I recently made minor edits on two pages (Adam and Steve and Adam & Yves) that Ken had never edited before; immediately afterward, he visited these pages and edited them as well, which has been his MO for quite a while. I understand that this current discussion involves me and not him; however, because of his obvious personal COI in all matters regarding myself as evidenced by this stalking, I would submit to the admins that his participation in this discussion be restricted. B-Wuuu (talk) 23:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I would like to add that if I am restricted from editing any articles in which I have been previously engaged in wars or sockpuppetry, then Ken should be as well. B-Wuuu (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, gee, I wondered when this argument was going to show up -- and here it is! In point of fact, there are more differences than similarities in our situations:
  • I did indeed use several accounts to edit, but not at the same time, with the single exception of 8 housekeeping edits in the userspace of my original account. Although "abusing multiple accounts" is the reason given on the blocks of my earlier accounts, in fact what I did would more precisely be called "using serial accounts". I was undergoing some wikihounding which I felt was not and would not (or could not) be handled through policy, so in an attempt to edit without harrasement, I dropped one account and started editing with another.
  • I never used my accounts at the same time, as you did.
  • I never used my accounts to have "conversations" with myself to influence an AfD, or move a talk page discussion to a conclusion I wanted, as you did on several occasions.
  • I did not try, as you did, to totally dominate and control a specific subject area, as you did with the film Yesterday Was a Lie and the articles about the people associated with it. I edit a large range of articles, around 10 or 11 thousand different ones at this point, and have contributed in numerous subject areas.
  • My accounts were not blocked at the time that I created a new identity, as you have just done while your five accounts were blocked.
  • And, most importantly, when my activities were discovered, I took part in a discussion, on AN, in which the community decided that I could continue editing. I did not unilaterally decide that I was due a "fresh start", the community decided that my activities, while in breach of the rules, had not been harmful.
I am very grateful for the chance I have been given to continue contributing to this project, perhaps the community will do the same for you, but, please, do not equate our situations, which are not in any way comparable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I neglected to mention that while your attempt to turn the spotlight on me and off of you is understandable, this is not about me, it's about you, your behavior, your activities, your relations with other editors, and whether you should be allowed another chance. As my opinion on that matter is probably clear to all, I don't have anything in particular to add, and don't plan to participate in this discussion again. I certainly won't respond to any further attempt at deflection on your part. Good luck. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I think B-Wuuu's comments here demonstrate why allowing him to resume editing would be extremely imprudent. He refuses to acknowledge -- in fact, actively denies -- his extensive history of misconduct, including his repeated, deliberate efforts to insert false information into the Chase Masterson article, and his extensive posting and cross-posting of uncivil personal attacks such as describing me as a "homophobic assdog" [32]. I also note that this editor has significantly misrepresented the nature of the BMK edit which he cites as an example of bias; the "reference" used was a self-serving, self-published promotional page, although the text misleadingly described it as a "programme note," which it obviously is not.
B-Wuuu is a blocked editor. Rather than making an appropriate unblock request, he has created a block-evading account; when caught, he insists he be shown the same leniency the community, after extended discussion provided to BMK -- even though none of the rationales for that leniency are in any way applicable. Unrepentently misbehaving editors should neither expect nor demand clemency. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
If I may clarify: In the BMK edit I was using as an example of his bias, I did not suggest that the paragraph he deleted should have been retained. I am pointing out that the reason he gave for deleting it also applied equally to other sections of the article, which he left intact, demonstrating that his intent was likely biased. (At the same time, I should point out that the reference cited re: the production's acclaim appears to contain easily researchable quotes from newspapers and magazines. It seems that the most productive thing for BMK to have done would have been for him to have simply changed the citation to reflect those original sources. Instead, he stated in his edit summary that the production's acclaim was "totally unsourced," which could have been an honest mistake, but considering his history it seems more likely that it was intentionally dishonest. Had I gone in there and re-instated the paragraph with more accurate citations, you can bet he would have edit-warred and accused me of COI.)
As for my "deflecting blame," I am doing no such thing. I am to be blamed for my previous rule breaking, absolutely. But another sockpuppeteer, edit-warrer, and attempted outer has no place throwing stones.
Bottom line: I could have easily just set up this new account, not linked the previous ones, and gone my merry way editing, with no one the wiser. Or I could have done the honest thing, and redirected the old accounts. I chose honesty. B-Wuuu (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Current events/Calendar[edit]

Where is the odd text at the top of Portal:Current events/Calendar coming from, and why isn't it protected? Woogee (talk) 04:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I found it. But Calendar pages should be protected, hm? Woogee (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
That specific page is protected to autoconfirmed users, and this code is producing the template: <noinclude>{{Template:Intricate portal subpage}}</noinclude> -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 14:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
This is the page in question. Reverting it was as simple as clicking on the IP, checking their contributions, and reverting. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it was that simple. And how was I supposed to know which IP made the edit? I had to dig through all of the templates in Portal:Current events to try to figure out which of the transcluded pages was the page with the problem, then I had to figure out which of the pages transcluded on Portal:Current events/Calendar was the one which had been fiddled with. Unless you're a mind reader and somehow know by osmosis what editor had made the change, how is one supposed to know? Woogee (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I just made an educated guess based on the fact that he advertised his vandalism. I don't know of editors who would write another editor into their vandalism. I didn't mean to make that insulting, I was just suprised no one figured that way of doing it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
????? What advertising? The editor I reverted had only made the one edit. Xiamenb2c04 (talk · contribs) Woogee (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I recorded an IP vandalizing the calander page. Check my contributions, and that should confirm it. Maybe we found two editors vandalizing simultaneously. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible Masters of the Universe controversy of mergers and deletions[edit]

I am trying to avoid controversy and have accusations of hating articles if I nominate them for deletion or try to merge. I believe that as I stated on Wiki Television Project.

I really believe some of these issues need resolving and discussion these are my ideas I thought I better ask otherwise it will likely go into an edit war again.

I feel that Horde Trooper and Horde Prime should be merged into Evil Horde. Tung Lashor, Snake Face, Sssqueeze into Snake Men (Masters of the Universe) and Double Trouble (She-Ra) and a few others into List of She-Ra: Princess of Power characters and episodes such as Teela's Quest should be merged into List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe episodes I feel also some other characters should be merged or deleted.

I have discussed infinitely but nothing seems to done or resolved [33] [34] Dwanyewest (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I spot-checked a few of the articles and saw merge tags sitting for months without much response. If you don't mind waiting a day or two, I'll check all the articles and suggest a course of action. If you're in a rush, you could go ahead with the ones I saw per WP:Be bold and WP:Silence and consensus, but I recommend just waiting a few days. Flatscan (talk) 05:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Flatscan I will leave it in your capable hands. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I am discussing with the user at his talk page. Flatscan (talk) 06:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

File:ADS logo.png[edit]


I have no idea what the back story on File:ADS logo.png may be (nor do I really care), but for whatever reason User:J Milburn transwikied it from commons to here, and then fully protected the page(!), back in June 2009. The image does still exist on commons (See: commons:File:ADS logo.png).

Since there's a big note on J Milburn's talk page that he'll be away for the rest of the month, and I couldn't think of a more appropriate place to turn to for help, I'm here to ask that someone simply delete the image & page off of en.wikipedia. Myself and Ohms Law Bot would really appreciate it. Thanks!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

As explained here, J Milburn uploaded and protected the image because it appeared on the main page. It was accidentally retained because it wasn't tagged with the {{c-uploaded}} template. I've deleted it. —David Levy 04:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Cool, thanks David. (The silver lining is, Ohms Law Bot now coolly and silently deals with trying to edit protected pages, so this was actually a good thing! Face-smile.svg)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Review of indefinite rangeblocks[edit]

Resolved: I'm going to go ahead and mark this tentatively resolved, as we've made a good dent in the number of indefinite rangeblocks. Some lingering questions remain as to whether the {{AOLblock}}'s are still necessary and whether the ones from 2006/7 are they still open proxies-perhaps someone can take a look and unblock if not. Thanks to all for the input. –xenotalk 15:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like some input on the following indefinite rangeblocks found through WP:INDEFIP. Are they supported by WP:IPBLENGTH ("IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked")/WP:RANGEBLOCK ("make them as brief as possible")? Should some be lifted? (Please note the purpose of this thread is not to admonish any of the blocking admins, but to determine if the blocks are still necessary. I notified the ones who are still active as their input would be appreciated.)xenotalk 17:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked ranges

No. ↑ IP ↓ Admin ↓ Timestamp ↓ Reason ↓

44		Nlu	20061027155527	Kellen Company's spamming initiative ban
45	Alphachimp	20061110044107	Heavy range-wide spamming from Amazon affiliates.
50	Can't sleep, clown will eat me	20061122204929	{{AOLblock}}
68		Pilotguy	20061222160306	{{AOLblock}}
70		Mangojuice	20061228131829	open prox - web hosting company, reblocking anon-only
139		Drini	20070124210432	spamming coming from several ips in the range
145		Dmcdevit	20070127063027	Select Solutions hoting company, used for anonymous abuse
146		Dmcdevit	20070127063110	Select Solutions hoting company, used for anonymous abuse
193		Dmcdevit	20070204013144	change to anon-only
224		Ryulong	20070220221231	Hosting range for Abacus America
234		Ryulong	20070311030913 network
261	Can't sleep, clown will eat me	20070419221308	{{AOLblock}} 
262	Can't sleep, clown will eat me	20070419221618	{{AOLblock}} 
291		Voice of All	20070615030202	anon only
303		Ryulong	20070713085312	{{AOLblock}}
336		Yamla	20071016173957	Conflict-of-interest edits to Fellowship of Friends. Please have your network administrator contact me. See User talk:
339		AzaToth	20071108192610	Spamming links to external sites: spambot network
348		Krimpet	20071211073120	{{anonblock}}
349		Krimpet	20071211141035	{{anonblock}}
364		Thatcher	20080201034238	Hosting company, see User:Thatcher/Ev1
365		Thatcher	20080201034505	Hosting company, see User:Thatcher/Ev1
368		Yamla	20080205151758	Static address range allocated to PR firm engaging in inappropriate marketing, sockpuppetry, and spam
386		Mr.Z-man	20080402171920	This network has recently been used abusively. If you are affected, please e-mail using the instructions provided on the block screen.
389	Ckatz	20080405071354	Abusing multiple accounts: Known current IPs for User:EverybodyHatesChris; no other non-EHC users in past year
401		Ryulong	20080530234428	These IPs belong to the Best Buy store chain's in-store computers.
413		Ryulong	20081010025354	Vandalism: Long term abuser
423	Od Mishehu	20081203154509	Reduce to anon-only - the reason for this block doesn't justify blocking registered users. Not an endorsement of the original block.
435	Versageek	20090307212923	{{anonblock}}: {{DynamicIP sidekick}}
464		Jake Wartenberg	20091104003416	GoDaddy software servers (going back to hardblock, gave IPBE instead)
I went ahead and unblocked some of the non-proxy ones. I would leave the proxy ranges blocked unless the IP range no longer belongs to proxy servers. Nakon 17:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

For the two I blocked (well, downgraded from hard to soft, Jpgordon made the original indefinite blocks) on this list, and, see this AN discussion from 2007. Fran Rogers 17:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That was one of the ones in particular I thought should be lifted. Just because the ISP is free doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to edit? –xenotalk 17:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to the block being lifted, personally. The community seemed to want at least a soft block at the time, but it's probably worth revisiting, especially since the technical measures in place to curb abuse have greatly improved since. Fran Rogers 17:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I just took a look at both those ranges. I'd think that if the block had been causing any issues for non-registered users, there would have been at least one request on one IP talk page, but there haven't been any in the admittedly brief checkuser time span, and there are no undeleted contributions from either range, period. (It appears to me that Special:DeletedContributions doesn't know CIDR lookup, since I just deleted the only contribution within checkuser time, a rather bizarre personal attack page against Lee Iacocca.) I'm just as biased against proxies as I was when I made my original comment regarding loosening these blocks; and just as ambivalent about this particular situation as I was then. --jpgordon::==( o ) 17:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm a little confused what lead to the blocking of which my tool apparently shows no edits from - was it because vandal accounts were being created from the range? And on the other hand, the actually showed a fairly disproportionate (from personal experience) amount of positive edits from anons when they were able to. –xenotalk 18:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't remember anymore. I imagine it seemed like a good idea at the time. Perhaps I saw something nasty in the woodshed. --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
K... Thanks for the input - I'm going to go ahead and lift these two and we'll see how it plays out (can always reblock if the wiki starts falling apart =) –xenotalk 18:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

<- was soft blocked because it (a mobile gateway range), was being used to create multiple batches of new accounts which were then used for vandalism. I have no strong opinions on whether or not it stays blocked. --Versageek 18:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think needs (edit) account creation to remain blocked's been over a year. Swarm(Talk) 19:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I've unblocked this one as well, no prejudice to reblocking if mass-creation of vandal accounts resumes. (This may be covered by a filter now, so hopefully it won't be an issue). –xenotalk 20:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Zeno, thanks for following up on these. The range block was put in place to deal with an ongoing, highly abusive series of IP edits, sockpuppets, and the like from User:EverybodyHatesChris. (Said user employed multiple sockpuppets, edit warring, article ownership, abusive tirades, and even off-wiki "hate" sites directed at the admins who were blocking him. He even went so far as to use a sock account in an extended charade that involved tricking another editor into mentoring him.) The range block was instituted because of the number of accounts he was operating in that range, and the very low proportion of non-EHC edits that originated in it. EHC also used several other ways in, but it has been some time now and the efforts appear to have slowed. It is possible that he's still around but is avoiding the previous behaviour; alternatively, he may just take advantage of the opportunity to jump back in if the block were to be lifted. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 22:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed - some of the fresher ones should probably be left alone. Thanks for the input. –xenotalk 02:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The block was such a long time ago, dunno if it is still a spambot network, though unless no-one from that network complains, I would assume it's still a blacknet. AzaToth 11:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Need people familiar with checking for open proxies[edit]

I've just noticed in the navbar at the top of this noticeboard that "Open proxies" is actually directing to a WikiProject page that isn't being serviced. This should probably be changed to a process page somewhere. In the meantime, there is a backlog there so folks who have experience with this would be appreciated: Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. –xenotalk 22:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a look. Jehochman Talk 13:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Flagged Protection: ready for more testing[edit]

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Flagged Protection: ready for more testing --MZMcBride (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"Spoiler Alert!" The flags will be orange with puce borders. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Breaking news: FlaggedRevs said to cause cancer. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Only Chuck Norris' tears cure cancer. And Chuck Norris has never cried. Guy (Help!) 08:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Reverts and vandalism on nationalistic basis[edit]

Resolved: User:Free Belarus and User:Mogilev82 indef blocked by User:Nihonjoe for edit warring and sockpuppetry Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dear admins! I'm talking about two issues: 1. The page Tadeusz Kościuszko. 2. The collage at Poles.

The thing is, Tadeusz Kościuszko was at least partly ethnicaly Belarusian, which I referenced in the article about him (he was even baptised in an orthodox church). Now he was also born on the territory which is Belarus, so I entered him into categories like Belarusian nobility. I also deleted him from the collage at Poles, because the article talks about the Poles as an ethnic group, and Tadeusz Kościuszko was not ethnicaly Polish (I wrote it on the discussion board. I mean he was born in Belarus, he was ethnicaly Belarusian, he was born on a territory which was part of Lithuenia then, so he was Polish only by citizenship). Now the user User:Marekchelsea started reverting me on both pages, without writing anything, which is rude. I was warned before signing to Wikipedia that there are few Polish nationalists here that do those stuff, but tell me, can't you admins do anything about it? It's really discusting when referenced information gets deleted, and when someone wants to steal to his ethnicity someone who wasn't of his ethnicity. Free Belarus (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

And now there is user User:Stephen G. Brown writing to me "Busy yourself with Belarusian pages and leave Polish subjects to the Polish" on the Poles discussion page, not refering the topic. Common, where are the admins when needed? Free Belarus (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Why can't you keep him in both categories so everyone can be satisfied? Poland has moved its location around so much over the past 300 years that they could well legitimately have a claim for him. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I probably didn't explaine myself good, I am keeping both categories! They are the once who keep deleting the Belarusian categories from the Kościuszko article without any rational. I mean, he faught for Poland (more accurate, for the Polish-Lithuenian commonwealth), the place he was born in was a part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, I haven't deleted any of the Polish categories he has! I just added the Belarusian categories since ethnicaly he was of Ruthenian (today that is called Belarusian) stock, his native language was Belarusian, and he was even baptised in the Orthodox church as done by Belarusians. And about the Poles article... but the man wasn't an ethnic Pole, he was Pole by nationality, and the article talks about Poles as the ethnic group. Free Belarus (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Who is "they"? I don’t delete Belarusian categories or references, but you,, and Ales hurko keep removing Kościuszko from the Polish article and repeatedly delete his Polish identity. We have always shown him in Polish, Belarusian and Lithuanian pages, which is as it should be. After you wrote the preceding remark stating that you are keeping both categories, you again deleted Kościuszko from Poles. You are vandalizing Poles and Tadeusz Kościuszko and you should stop it. Nobody is stopping you from mentioning him on your Belarusian pages. —Stephen (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I haven't deleted even one Polish category! You wrote he is a Pole as of Poles, and I wrote he is Pole as in Poland. He was Belarusian by ethnicity, and Polish by nationality, while you tried to label him as Polish by ethnicity thought he isn't, whoever want's to see the arguemtn beetwen us it is on the Poles talk page. Free Belarus (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Today alone you and have each reverted these pages over and over and have broken the 3-Revert rule. —Stephen (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
And you added to a collage a person who is not Polish ethnicity. Free Belarus (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

After going throught edits by User:Marekchelsea, you can see that he has a long history of removing categories without any rational (this is a partial list): (he is like some bot, he says he removes unsourced information, even when this information is sourced). (another case where he ignores references) (just go through his contribution pages, all he does is edit wars where he deletes referenced information only because he doesn't like it).

Dear admins, please intervent! Free Belarus (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Here is what he does! Deletes referenced information from the text and referenced categories from the article. Free Belarus (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I’m not aware that I have deleted any referenced information. Kościuszko is as much a Pole as George Washington was an American. You keep trying to rationalize a way to remove him from Poles, but he is a Polish national hero and belongs on the Poles page. Besides your reverts to Tadeusz Kościuszko, you have reverted Poles at least four times today. That’s blatant edit-warring and a breach of 3RR. If you are the same person as, then you really have gone beyond the pale. —Stephen (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
American is a nationality, it's not an ethnicity!!! Don't you get the difference?? There is a difference between ethnicity and nationality. Poles is an article talking about Poles as an ethnicity, that's why he doesn't fit there. I already told you I don't argue with the fact he is Polish by nationality and a Polish national hero, no one can argue with that, but he was not of Polish ethnicity, and the article talks about Polish ethnicity. Please read the difference between nationality and ethnicity, those are really slightly different things. Free Belarus (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I thought we already talked about it here: Free Belarus (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Now you have reverted Tadeusz Kościuszko four times. You’ve now violated 3RR on both pages, Tadeusz Kościuszko and Poles. —Stephen (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Out of arguments? You are the one having this edit war. Free Belarus (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
And now that I look at it, you and User:Marekchelsea also broke the 3RR, but the difference is I use referenced information, and you push nationalistic POV. Free Belarus (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
You accused me of deleting referenced information without providing any evidence. Now you have accused me of violating 3RR. Can you prove it or are you lying? —Stephen (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The one who deleted referened information was not you but the second guy, and about you braking the 3RR... look at your edits at 09:06, 20 March 2010, 16:56, 20 March 2010, 17:03, 20 March 2010, 19:08, 20 March 2010. Free Belarus (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
On Tadeusz Kościuszko, my edit of 09:06 was only a partial revert. My edit of 16:56 was likewise a partial revert. My edit of 17:03 was a revert. My edit of 19:08 was not a revert, but the removal of a stray letter space. So you see, I did not delete any referenced information, which you accused me of, and I did not break the 3RR rule which you accused me of. You, OTOH, have broken 3RR on both Tadeusz Kościuszko and Poles today, and you have made rash, untrue accusations about me which have proven to be completely untrue. You, sir, are a miscreant and you should be blocked from further edit-warring and reprimanded for making false accusations. —Stephen (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
A partial revert? What kind of animal is that? It's a revert, just a revert. I didn't accuse you of deleting referenced information, more like adding unreferenced (adding him on the ethnic Poles collage thought not beeing an ethnic Pole), if it came out that way worry, in that I blame the other guy and I have links to that here. But you, "sir", are writing him as a Pole like in Poles thought he was not Polish by ethnicity! He was Polish by nationality, and that's why I wrote him as Pole like nationality. You also add him to an ethnic Poles collage thought he was not an ethnic Pole, ignoring that discussion page, so you, "sir", should be baned for edit waring and pushing a POV! Free Belarus (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I can't see how anybody who uses a User ID of Free Belarus can be anything other than disruptive. Woogee (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
That sounds: 1. Racist. 2. Stupid (judging a person by his nick). 3. How is adding referenced information be disruptive? 4. My nickname shows my oposition to