Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive141

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

Noticeboard archives


Contents

Christopher Shays / Diane_Farrell / et alia[edit]

Christopher Shays (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) / Diane_Farrell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is making my head spin. I had some small part in a civility discussions with Francisx (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log) but american politics is something I really would prefer to stay away from. It appears to be spread over two articles at least, and I have to admit I simply don't have the taste for sorting it out. Does anyone feel like stepping in, or must I simply grit my teeth and do some homework? - brenneman {L} 07:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Brevity isn't my forté. The three articles are Shays, Farrell, and Connecticut 4th congressional district election, 2006. I left a summary of the current situation on FloNight's talk page, but the situation has escalated since I last heard from her: I don't know her timing or if she's around. We have issues of civility, BLP, poorly-sourced edits not using reliable sources, and the latest is the insertion of almost direct copies of Farrell campaign ad material into Shays' article. (Shays should be scratching his head at why we allow that.) With the election in 3 weeks, and BLP issues occuring, mediation might not be the most effective option. There is currently an almost copy of Farrell campaign material on Shay's article: my attempt to remove it and start over was reverted. Sandy 07:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm honestly not sure what the issue is. What Sandy calls "Farrell campaign material" consists of three reliably-sourced Shays quotations on the War in Iraq she says are taken out of context. Yet when asked to place them in context or amplify his views, she resists. Instead, we have massive reverts of sourced information, and ceaseless appeals to multiple Admins to block good faith NPOV edits. Fortunately, Wikipedia doesn't have to answer to the Shays campaign, but even if it did, I'm not sure what WP would have to apologize for. Moreover, these quotations are absolutely necessary: Chris Shays has congressional oversight over the Iraq war, as the chair of a top congressional subcommittee, and his views on Iraq are extremely important. These quotations explain those views. It is silly to remove NPOV information about the Iraq war views of a top Congressman with oversight over the Iraq War, just because the Iraq war is a topic in the campaign.Francisx 07:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I have not resisted anything: my only edit was reverted, after long talk page discussion of an accumulation of things that needed to be addressed. Yes, Wikipedia does have to answer to any living person, which is why we have WP:BLP. The section (Views on Iraq) is written from and structured after Farrell's campaign ad, including direct quotes presented exactly as in her ad, POV and all, with no attempt at encyclopedic tone, neutrality, or balance. It does not behoove Wikipedia for a candidate's article in a widely-watched race to copy, parrot and summarize his opponent's campaign ad material: Farrell campaign material (not a reliable source) is used to source other edits in the articles, in addition to the BLP problems that are occuring. The article cannot be structured to parrot Farrell's campaign ad; I reverted to a previous version to provide a better place for starting over. This is separate from the civility issues, including labeling my attempt to remove the copy of the ad as "vandalism", ongoing failure to assume good faith, and repeated BLP issues. The current content is far from NPOV: it is an exact copy of quotes taken out of context from Farrell's campaign material, with no attempt at context, balance, or neutrality. Sandy 08:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The "direct quotes" are direct quotes from Chris Shays, cited and properly attributed in the article to the Connecticut Post and CNN, not from a Farrell Campaign ad. No commentary or POV is added. As for my use of the word "vandalism," it concerned Sandy's removal of a large portion of sourced text here [1]. I also think this conversation (at least from our end) is probably better suited for the article's discussion page or arbitrartion.Francisx 08:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Direct quotes exactly parroting Farrell's ads. Verbatim. Farrell campaign POV, no balance, no context. The entire section written to parrot her ad. My edit *moved* a lot of sourced material around to accomodate other problems (discussed on talk), and only deleted the section parroting the Farrell ad. Sandy 08:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Sandy has been invited repeatedly to provide exactly the context she's talking about. She hasn't done so. These quotations are straightforward -- they aren't "gotcha" quotes by any stretch of the imagination -- and if Sandy feels they need contextualization, she should provide it. Instead, she's trying to turn this into a revert war. --Francisx 08:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
They still aren't completely cited, but I'm about halfway through finding and filling in sources and full text: they are all selective, biased, out of context portions of Shays' quotes, creating POV. "CNN 8/31/2006" is not a reference. So, I'm doing the research to correct a copy violation that wasn't mine. Sandy 10:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem this creates for Wiki isn't that hard to understand. You turn on your TV, you see an ad where Farrell is attacking Shays' record on Iraq. You read Shays' Wikipedia article, you see the exact presentation, the exact words, in the exact same order, you just saw on TV in a 30-second sound bite. You realize that Shays' entry in Wiki is Farrell's campaign ad. How can that not cause a problem for Wiki? How do we let that happen? In five years, how does it happen that the only things that Shays has said about Iraq to the press happen to be the exact things, in the exact order that Farrell is saying on TV? Wiki is an encyclopedia: we don't parrot campaign ads. We report the issue neutrally, and comprehensively, without selective quoting resulting in "spin". We need to fix this: Wiki cannot be a copy of a TV campaign ad. Sandy 08:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, if "in five years" Shays has said other things of note (which I'm sure he has), then Sandy should by all means post them to his WP article. I did create a "Views on Iraq" section, but by no means am I pretending it's comprehensive. This isn't a problem for wiki, this is a problem for two posters with obvious differences of POV. Again, I'm sorry we're debating this here, rather than in arbitration or better yet on the article's discussion page where I think it belongs.--Francisx 08:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Who's for protecting both articles? Or should we just block the warring parties util the election is over? Incidentally, Francisx, "some critics" is a weasel term. Name them. Better still, merge both articles to the election article because this is all specific to this year's campaign and is thus getting undue weight on the biographies. Guy 09:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
For historical context, to see where these articles are likely headed, look at this beauty of an article: Democratic Party primary, Connecticut United States Senate election, 2006.
(Joe Lieberman was the same after the August primaries: I cleaned it up last week.)
At least protect the candidate articles, so they aren't trashed as Lieberman was. (The copyvio/Farrell promo needs to be removed from Shays' article.) Warring parties? The article hasn't suffered much: I've been investing a lot of time on the talk page, just trying to hold down the BLP violations. The weasly "some critics" statement is sourced to the Democrat campaign website, which is partisan, and isn't a reliable source. I changed it; my change was reverted. And the fun hasn't even started: if it's anything like the August primaries, the anon POV and vandal edits will hit the articles hard a few weeks before the election. Sandy 09:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
1. If you actually read Chris Shays there is little evidence that the article has been trashed. On the contrary, uncontroversial NPOV information on the Congressman has been added. Sandy seems to be trying to wash several politicians' bios.
2. Despite oft-repeated claims to the contrary, there is absolutely no copyvio here -- all quotations used are from independent media sources and are clearly fair use. The constant reverts and tags and appeals to admins are highly disruptive and have a chilling effect on WP.
3. As for historical context, I had absolutely nothing to do with the Connecticut Senate primary articles, and I think Sandy knows that. Chris Shays is not Joe Lieberman. The information Sandy is targeting at Chris Shays is sourced, NPOV and highly topical.--Francisx 19:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Sandy is playing games.[2] This is not acceptable, especially weeks before an election. This user has changed the {cite} method and is citing the BLP to remove things that are sourced from the candiate's own webpage. While it is possible that the user is confused about policy in those two regards, that does not explain her/his other edits which I mentionedhere of removing a national headline. I have basically given up trying to engage that user who is WP:POINT. I don't think a temporary block should be ruled out. Arbusto 18:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Correction: as the diffs show, you inserted a direct quote and attributed it to Shays, when the quote you attributed to him was in fact a CNN headline, not words ever used by Shays at all. Reverted per BLP. You can't attribute words to Shays he never said as a direct quote by him. Perhaps you mistakenly thought CNN's headline were his words: they weren't. Sandy 19:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
If you have issues on the Shays article with wording why not fix the wording? You did so on the Farrell article to ensure criticism stays. The above comment is indicative of the user's POV-pushing. I have a strong distaste for users who cite wikipedia policy for the POV. If this user keeps doing this, he/she should be blocked without haste. Arbusto 22:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
No, I didn't do that on the Farrell article: you are mistaken. After spending most of last night finding and fixing missing references for Francisx, it's not also my duty to rewrite every BLP violation. There are only so many hours in a day, and night. I'm hoping you'll invest some time in reading up on WP:BLP and understanding its importance. Sandy 00:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the optimal solution would be for an admin to revert all negative information introduced into any of these three articles between now and November 7th. Given that we're less than 30 days out from the election, any such editing ought to be considered WP:POINT violations by default. --Aaron 19:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd definitely support that, although it depends entirely on your definition of "negative." I don't see how a section outlining Chris Shays' views on Iraq -- the specific grievance here -- constitutes a "negative" addition. As always, the insertion of POV material should be unacceptable. But the candidates' statements and actions are not only fair game, they're essential. The Farrell article especially needs work (it was only recently undeleted) and I don't think a general block on new information would help things.Francisx 19:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I'd rather that both the Shays and Farrell articles be overly positive than to have new edits that could be even potentially considered as containing negative POVs. Sure, all this stuff is fair game in general, but at the end of the day, we're an encyclopedia, not a news service. (In my dream world, all articles about incumbents and candidates would be locked down 60 days prior to an election. Truly important breaking news would always be an exception of course (e.g. Bob Ney, Harry Reid and Mark Foley), but run-of-the-mill campaigning would be out.) --Aaron 20:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Run of the mill campaign information belongs on the campaign page. As for locking down the articles, that might make sense if the articles were decent to begin with, but both Diane Farrell and Chris Shays were basically substance-less campaign-written stubs just a week ago. In many cases, lack of interest in candidates means that proper articles won't be written about politicians until after public interest in the campaign rises.Francisx 20:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, three things. 1) Francisx please cease POV-pushing. It is good you are adding sourcing, but the article is about the man not about his Iraq views. The latter should be included but not to such a large extent. 2) Sandy needs a block. Sandy is removing removing sourcing claiming it fails to meet WP:RS. Why isn't a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee a good enough source to show Russell is backed by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in Russell's article? [3] This user is twisting policy for his/her own aims. WP:RS allows personal webpages to be used modestly in that subject's article. 3) If Francisx doesn't cease POV pushing he should get a block too. Arbusto 23:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
That's an interesting take on my edit, Arbustoo. JzG (talk · contribs) deleted the same source from the Christopher Shays article yesterday. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is ... ummm ... a campaign committee: a partisan, non-neutral site, not a reliable source. It can't be used to source criticism anywhere on Wiki, and particularly not on a WP:BLP. It would be interesting if I could be blocked for enforcing WP:BLP; it would certainly take the bite out of that policy. Sandy 00:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
You don't see a difference between this and this? The Farrell article contained a source from the person's party on her.(You removed that one.) While the other is was removed from the Shays article containing the opposing parties view. (JzG removed that one.) (I agree with JzG's edit.)
Stop citing policy that you don't bother reading. From WP:RS: "Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as there is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it..."
You are misquoting policy and POV pushing! Arbusto 04:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Sandy just archived his/her talk page with my questions. The heat getting turned up? Arbusto 23:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Vince Young article[edit]

I am working for the GA project and since it is logical to delist articles when they don't meet the standards, there are always users relisting them without making the appropriate changes and without complying with the renomination process. I need help to prevent that. They have even blocked the talk page on Sept 23, 2006 to prevent any change in GA status. Lincher 16:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Who are "they," and how did they do it? I'm not sure I understand what remedy you're seeking. Geogre 02:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Request 2nd opinion on User:Calgvla[edit]

I blocked this user yesterday for the 3RR violation reported on the noticeboard. He has a history of posting inflammatory comments to Armenia, Armenians, and their associated Talk pages, including proposals to cite Nazi literature to prove his point. The community has taken to simply removing his comments in many cases. His agenda seems to be to prove that Armenians should not be considered Europeans.

I opened a dialog with him hoping to help him understand that this agenda is incompatible with Wikipedia, but he doesn't seem much interested in that. He did, however, seem agreeable to be more civil in attempting to discuss his views and even to filing an RFC.

However, other editors of those articles brought to my attention that he has a sockpuppet, Caligvla (talk · contribs). I didn't block it because he didn't use it to evade his other block. He has recently started posting messages to editors' Talk pages though, requesting support of his issue. I have asked him to stop, and file an RFC like I suggested.

Anyway, anyone think this can be salvaged? Would someone here have just indef blocked both accounts? --Aguerriero (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I would (of course I'm not an admin., consider the overwhelming majority of his edits trolling and am in an editing dispute with him, so I'm not expecting anyone to take me too seriously on this issue).--Tekleni 18:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Ditto. I would also like to point out some of his other edits which included blaming Armenians for "80% of all crime in Glendale", California along with an "outbreak of savage murders". I would also like to mention that Aguerriero is not the only one who assumed good faith and tried to reason with the above user to no avail, Dbachmann and Khoikhoi tried to reason with him without any results as well.--Eupator 18:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • 1) I have never once used Nazi materials, Eupator's defination is if a Nazi once read a certain book then that book is now a Nazi book. His comments are abusive.
  • 2) I have tried several times to speak with Eupator directly and offer a rational and polite converstation, his response has been, blanket deletions, constant reverts, and racist accuasions.

I would still like to discuss the matter with him 1 on 1, I am a fair and open minded person.

  • 3) The vast majority of crime in Glendale, CA is caused by Armenians that is a fact. You can contact the Glendale California Police Department at +1 (818) 548-4840, There have been over 20 murders in the last 18 months all of them caused by Armenians. However, I agreed that it was the wrong section to distribute this information as I later found plenty of articles on armenian power etc... they seem to cover the topic fairly. My intent to add the information was not to disparage Armenians but to contribute information that was unique to the Armenian presense in Glendale, CA. Prehaps responsible Armenians in other communities who were unaware of the problem would have great interest and get involved in a group to help reduce the problem.
  • 4) My only goal is to be honest and truthful, and Armenia is not located in Europe, to propagate this POV is an injury to the European commuinty. --Caligvla 01:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • 5) Caligvla is not a sockpuppet, it is my Real account, Calgvla was a typo and was on my laptop as I extensively travel I did not notice there were 2 accounts until I got back to my desktop PC today, I have no intention of having 2 accounts and will only use my real Caligvla account.--Caligvla 01:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Harrassment, defamation, libel and slander by user Richardjames444[edit]

Entire comment can be found here (it was too lengthy). El_C 20:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked this guy to stop referring to my name, project name in any regard, and have yet again edited his comments that refer specifically to me. I have the right create on my user page in a form of computer/new media art, to comment in whatever language or form I feel free to express in. [...] I have repeatedly attempted to expunge previous username and posts, have requested assistence several times in doing so for the above reasons. Please honor this request and block Richard James from his harassing behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurentdion (talkcontribs)

As far as I can tell, this user is simply angry about her username being used, as it is apparently her real name. I see no 'harrassment' on Richard's part (although he has been incivil in a few cases), but merely an attempt to prevent the confusing removal of the username from talk pages. Frankly, the only harrassment I can see is on Lauren's part, which seems to skirt WP:NLT more than once. I've issued her a warning about legal threats and personal attacks seen above, though I have a feeling it won't be enough. --InShaneee 19:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
From what I've read, User:Laurentdion = User:Yakusudo. User only wants to be known as User:Yakusudo, but continues to edit while logged in as User:Laurentdion. I'm not an expert, but I think the second you create an account with your real name as your username, you pretty much cease to be anonymous. I don't know if there is any way to delete the username, but with the cat out of the bag, as it were, would it do any good? --Kbdank71 19:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Nope, usernames can't be deleted. --InShaneee 19:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Urg, I've now blocked her for 24 hours. Her every edit has been along the lines of the above (ie, wild rants demanding that everyone who refers to her username is committing 'libel'). We'll see if it does any good. --InShaneee 20:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, it's a him, not a her. Laurent is a chap's name, and in any case it seems to be his surname. It might also be worth mentioning to him that stomping around changing people's talk archives and so on doesn't delete any of the history, and just draws attention to the stuff you're trying (futilely) to consign to oblivion. --ajn (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I've reviewed his case (after prompting though a series of typically abusive emails), and am severely inclined to extend this block to indef for point violations (with no sign of stopping). Here's the timeline:

  • [4] - Laurent's first edit is to defend an article about his own artwork.
  • [5] - He then posts his own personal information on his userpage.
  • [6] - Following the deletion of his article, he becomes abusive, demanding review.
  • [7] - He forgets the article and just starts attacking editors involved in the deletion, along with Wikipedia on the whole.
  • He posts Richard's personal information without his consent (which I won't link to for obvious reasons)
  • [8] - He starts a campaign to remove all instances of his username, the name of the deleted page, and the word 'artist' when used in reference to himself.
  • [9],[10] - Claims a 'right' to remove whatever he wishes about himself.
  • [11] - Goes so far as to replace 'unsigned' templates with 'anon'.
  • [12] - Returns under a new username, again wanting all material relating to him everywhere expunged.
  • [13] - Begins using the new account to remove all comments by and about him from other user's pages.
  • Starts documenting the process from his perspective on his talk page. Links to Richard's private site (again, no link).
  • [14] - Jumps back to his original account and begins referring to mentions of his username/article as 'libel', starts removing any mention of them again.
  • [15] - Posts a giant protest poem on his talk page following my block for personal attacks and disruption.

This is a single purpose account if I've ever seen one. Not a single article edit after three months. Whaddya think? --InShaneee 22:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, if he wants to remian anonymous, I'm all for forgetting about the existence of this guy. Would an admin mind removing the message he left on my talk page from its history? Danny Lilithborne 00:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.Richardjames444 10:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

After a failed event to circumvent his block this morning, I'm now getting password requests and requests for confirmation of new usernames similar to mine. An IP lookup confirms that it's most likely Laurent. --InShaneee 21:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Potential AFD sockpuppetry[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web 3.0 (second nomination)

There appears to be quite a bit of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry going on here. I ran whois checks on two of the IPs (84.77.74.235 (talk · contribs) and 84.77.93.205 (talk · contribs)), and they're both based on the same ISP (fairly obvious, but I had to doublecheck). These anons are also posing as nonexistent users, and all of them are trying to keep the article, which has been deleted at least six times under various titles. There are also a few votes from brand new users (with no other edits). Would a RFCU be appropriate here? --Coredesat 19:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No comment on the AFD, but it's very rare that two IPs belonging to the same /16 range are not from the same ISP. ~crazytales56297 O rly? 20:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, but I figured it was worth doublechecking anyway, in the event one or both were proxies. --Coredesat 20:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Regardless, easy enough to spot; none of em bother to put anything on their userpages. El_C 20:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Whoever closes the discussion should spot the illicit votes, but if this is a repetition of a previously deleted article, why not list it for cat:csd under G4 with a link to the last article name it had? Once you can determine that it's the same thing as the previous deletes, it should be a valid speedy. Geogre 02:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Line spacing[edit]

There's a problem with the MediaWiki name space it's usually:

PAGETITLE


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Same on Meta, wikibooks, commons. has someone hacked wikipedia. --213.162.236.9 11:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you please be a little clearer? What are you reporting? User:Zoe|(talk) 18:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it must be referring to the same thing being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Style changes. the wub "?!" 18:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

LorenzoPerosi1898 Again[edit]

In response to a request for admin action yesterday, User:Andrew Norman left this friendly note for this user at his talk page. Since then, the user has made the following edits (note the change comments):

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leonardo_Ciampa&diff=prev&oldid=81287746
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arthur_Rubinstein&diff=prev&oldid=81277896
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Don_Lorenzo_Perosi&diff=prev&oldid=81277445
  4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_Lorenzo_Perosi&diff=prev&oldid=81276722

These edits show a continuing pattern of injecting unsupported assertions into articles, reverting insertion of [citation needed] tags to these unsupported assertions, using extremely hostile language in his change comments, and confusion of POV statements with what he refers to as "undisputed facts". He seems to think that the burden is on other editors to disprove his assertions, rather than on him to support them. This user also seems to feel that he "owns" certain articles: see his comment to "STOP VANDALIZING MY ARTICLES". This behavior has continued despite repeated attempts to point him to Wikipedia policies on Verifiability etc. Please could an admin do something about this. I don't know what steps short of blocking could induce him to change his behavior. Thanks. Grover cleveland 21:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Grover, take a deep breath. Now take another one. Everything you wrote above is one big POV. Do you have a personal vendetta? If so, here is not the forum to vent. Take a long walk. Get away from the computer screen for a while. I have done nothing other than to contribute to topics that mean something to me -- which is what every contributor here does. Calm down. LorenzoPerosi1898 01:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Lightning-Feather[edit]

This is a bit of a long one, but I want to lay out as much evidence as possible. This fellow was recently given a 2-day block for legal threats, but I've discovered that a year ago, while he was editing under an IP on the deletion page for his bio, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean-Pierre Ady Fenyo, he made several legal threats:

  • [16]: "I may yet have you investigated for any prejudices you might harbor against any persons, ethnicities or other, in case I may have to seek legal remedies"
  • [17]: "WIKIPEDIA...YOU WILL PAY DEARLY IN COURTS OF LAW FOR DEFAMING MY CHARACTER..."
  • [18]: "I forbid anyone from further attempts to defame my character, and I have informed my solicitor in London to find the means to enforce my request, if need be."

It is certain that the IP and User:Lightning-Feather are the same. When editing under an IP, the user identified himself as Jean-Pierre Ady Fenyo. On his website, Ady says that his "Native American name" is Lightning-Feather, and on the userpage for this account he again identifies himself as Fenyo.

Strangely, this man was never blocked for legal threats while editing under the IP, even though even a legal threat usually gets an immediate block. The IP was, however, blocked for "mass spammings", which he has kept up under the username (just look at the contribs). Since his activity both then and now was dedicated solely to writing biographies of himself on WP and citing himself as a philosopher in other articles, and since he loves to make legal threats, I suggest he be permanently blocked. CRCulver 21:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

For some reason he decided to email me asking that I contact him on some private account, I will put up a copy of this email in my userspace, more than likely User:Ryulong/Lightning-Feather. Ryūlóng 22:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Funny that he accuses me of anti-semitism in his letter too. In his addition to my user-page, he claims that he knows just from looking at the portrait picture of me on my website that I "hate Muslims and Jews". If you look at the AfD discussion from a year ago, you can see that back then he was tarring all who disagreed with him (even Jewish editors) as anti-semites. Yet another reason to have him blocked, he's plainly not a civil editor. CRCulver 22:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
What, no diff of that strange legal threat where he outwardly calls you an anti-semite and threatens to bring the B'nai Brith at your feet? Ryūlóng 22:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
He's continuing to do vanity editing, and just created the article Infinitology. CRCulver 23:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
He's now demanding at Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/October 2006/Lightning-Feather that I not be allowed to critique his edits without a Jewish editor on my side. CRCulver 00:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Mike Church (maybe, probably not)[edit]

...is back. User_talk:Antandrus#Ambition, and the recent history of ambition. He's remarkably persistent, as this is more than two and a half years now that he has been trying to force his card game "Ambition" into Wikipedia. If anybody remembers, or is willing to help, please put ambition on your watchlist and keep an eye out for more socks. Antandrus (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Have marked Pensive 44 (talk · contribs), Ike Sarottle (talk · contribs), AHSA (talk · contribs) and Prestegious (talk · contribs) as probable socks. AzaToth 23:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, that's a blast from the past. For those who haven't experienced the joys of Mike Church yet, he's pretty noisy about it and will toss up a big flurry of citations that don't bear investigation. If needed, I'm sure we can find the links to some of the several debunkings of his claims. He is very energetic. Geogre 02:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
It looks like they all came from here: [19]. I blocked the account that was spawning the socks, and protected Ambition, which I hope does it for now. Antandrus (talk) 03:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
UPDATE; it's not Mike Church. Look: [20] -- I had to go way back in the user creation log to 7 October to find where one of the socks was spawned. Look at the edits of the spawner, and edits of the spawned. It's that kid we used to call the "North Carolina Vandal" -- he's imitating Mike. The writing style wasn't quite right anyway, and Mike can spell better than that ("prestegious"). Not that it really matters differentiating one vandal from another, but I was wondering why these socks were behaving like they were editing from a blocked IP, as the NCV is. Antandrus (talk) 03:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Mirenmere (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log) OK, he's admitted it. Now that he's found out, expect to see him imitating another "well known" vandal next. Please make sure you block the spawning accounts since his IP range is blocked and they're all he can use. Antandrus (talk) 05:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I blocked Hirschten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) since it was only used to spawn vandal accounts. Thatcher131 15:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! not sure how I missed that one; I thought it had been blocked. I just blocked Country Jeb!! (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log) for the same reason. Antandrus (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Username Vio[edit]

User STR1KER (talk · contribs) has a username violation based on this [www.str1ker.com] artist. It may be the artist herself (this account created the page for the subject), but it would still violate our username rules, no? -- Chabuk 00:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably not. wikipedia:username prohibits usernames which are that of "well-known living or recently deceased people ... unless you are that living person". So if she's the artist, there's no violation. If she isn't , we've still taken a pretty high standard for "well known" (and this artist is well below that, I think). For borderline cases the behaviour of the account can be a giveaway - if they're pretending to be Minor Politician Jim and they're editing suggests it's someone trying to make the real Jim look bad then we'd block and ask for verification that they're really Jim. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Okey doke. Sorry about that. -- Chabuk 00:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


Protected page should be redirected and still protected[edit]

Don't know where to put this, but since only admins can edit it, this seems a good a place as any. Candlejack has been recreated a few times, so it was delete-protected. However, the character Candlejack is from the TV show Freakazoid!, so anyone coming to Wikipedia looking for information about Candlejack would want to be directed there, I think. Could this be redirected to the TV show? K bye 70.171.32.217 00:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've now made this a redir to Freakazoid!. Thanks/wangi 02:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Place for this was the requests for page protection page. --Woohookitty(meow) 09:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, not sure if I was clear - it was already protected (else I'd have redirected it myself). Not sure if you understood that. I mean it's academic now, but just for future reference, is that really where I go for this (a deleted page redirect request)? Thanks for the redirect in any case. 68.101.67.48 12:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
yes. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 12:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

User Seadog.M.S / 201.248.204.176[edit]

I'm not certain if this is the proper place to address this; please redirect me if so. I saw a speedy delete tag put on Slide (guitar), which seemed odd I and started looking into things. The user that had put the tag on, Seadog.M.S, seems to have something of a history making disruptive and/or vandalizing edits, at least anonymously through 201.248.204.176. This sort of research is a little beyond my proficiency at this point, but it seems this user has been previously blocked and appears to have sought to suppress this information, if I am not mistaken. I wanted to alert those familiar with the user's history so that fitting response is possible. Please let me know if my perceptions are accurate, and direct me in dealing with such things generally. ENeville 00:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

User removing warnings from talk page[edit]

See this.--Redderman 03:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Banned user of the same user who was harrasing Cyde, I blocked as a sock. Jaranda wat's sup 03:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Image copyvios on Ship Construction[edit]

I just came across Basseem (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log); looking at his contributions Special:Contributions/Basseem mostly images and edits to Ship Construction, it's clear that the images he uploaded are not his own autocad product, as he tagged them, but scans out of naval architecture textbooks. I don't actually know the proper procedures for dealing with a large copyvio so... can someone take this up and do the right thing with it? Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 05:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Line spacing[edit]

There's a problem with the MediaWiki name space it's usually:

PAGETITLE


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Same on Meta, wikibooks, commons. has someone hacked wikipedia. --213.162.236.9 11:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, what? Can you be more clear? User:Zoe|(talk) 18:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Z-vandal[edit]

There is a vandal roaming about, making edit-summary vandalism to his talkpage and evading autoblocks. If you see an account add silly "ZZZZZZZZZZ" edit summaries, please block the account indefinitely, no warning necessary. So far we have:

The IP listed is confusing me. I tried blocking it to prevent account creation, but I got a notice that it was already blocked. So I tried to unblock it and got a screen saying that it might be already unblocked. Strange... Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Image backlog at C:CSD[edit]

24.163.65.156 (talk · contribs) has tagged many images uploaded by GoOdCoNtEnT (talk · contribs) for speedy deletion, with various reasons. The images aren't completely kosher, but speedy deletion is probably not the right process for them. The help of image-experienced admins is needed. Kusma (討論) 14:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

F.C. Copenhagen[edit]

Please semi-protect the article F.C. Copenhagen. The page is vandalized a lot which is very sad. I am tired of revert the so much. In the last 100 edits, I have reverted 10 times[21]!

Please act quickly. kalaha 15:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please use WP:RPP for this situation when it arises. I'm not going to protect this, but I've watchlisted it. Yanksox 16:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Page moved by one user despite unanimous consensus not to do so[edit]

Nixer (talk · contribs) moved Sanhedrin to Synedrion (Judea) despite wide consensus for not doing so and extremely stiff opposition. Also posted on Wikipedia:Requested moves. Request administrator intervention against Nixer immediately. --Daniel575 | (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yanksox (talk · contribs) and Runcorn (talk · contribs) moved the page back. Still need someone to give Nixer a stiff warning. The discussion ended 10 days ago with a unanimous 'no'. Yet, 10 days after the discussion had ended, Nixer just changed it anyway. --Daniel575 | (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I blocked him for 72 hours, and he is currently requesting an unblock. I'll step back on this one. Yanksox 16:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
If there is evidence that he appreciates the disruption caused and is sorry then I will do a bit more AGF and unblock him. However, Nixer might be running out of the community's patience. The Land 17:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I have unblocked. It is arguably less bad to perform dodgy pagemoves than to be edit-warring. However, please do keep an eye on th parties involved. The Land 17:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note also that Daniel575 is a noted civility breaker and maker of personal attacks. (for admins, look here:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Daniel575) and all his arguments in the talk page were only "you're an idiot" and "you dont know anything". No any other argument.--Nixer 18:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Noted. I am confused, however, about why you would believe Daniel's rudeness would excuse your decision to ignore (at least) three other editors who also weighed in – politely and rationally – against your proposed move. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

User:PANONIAN[edit]

Reverts my edits without reason continously as soon as he's able to. These from yesterday only:[22], [23], [24], [25]. I tried to use discussion pages several times before, in other cases and articles, both logged in and logged out. I guess he's or [[Tankred) User:Otu2 also, but I'm assuming good faith for the last time and not ask for a checkuser, besides that it is more than obvious. I simply suggest warning him to stop trolling. Thanks. --VinceB 18:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The true problem here is User:VinceB. He posting ultra-nationalist POV and deleting parts of various articles with no explanation, and I simply repairing the damage that he done to Wikipedia. He was already blocked for sockpuppetry. Besides all this, most of the articles that he edit are on my watchlist, so, I certainly do not "revert his edits without reason continously as soon as I'm able to", but as I said, repairing the damage that he caused there. PANONIAN (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, if you compare my and his edits, you will see that most of my Wikipedia edits are not in the articles where I reverted User:VinceB, while he edit same articles again and again trying to implement his POV and therefore he was involved in revert war not only with me but with several other users who saw his behaviour as destructive. PANONIAN (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
At the top of this page it clearly states that this is not a place for dispute resolution, and provides a very nicely outlined list of places where to go for what.--Konst.able 22:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing cited Material[edit]

User:Proabivouac keep removing well cited material from The Quran and science page. I do not know, what I should do to stop him from doing that. Any help in this regard will be great. --- ابراهيم 19:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Ttiotsw's, Arrow740's and my own edit summaries make it clear that this material was moved to the established temp page, where Ibrahimfaisal is free to work to bring it up to par. Anyone interested in the character of this material or in the debate surrounding it on talk is welcome to take a look.Proabivouac 19:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
You have make this your habit to remove and change cited material and it is not a good habit to keep. They remove the section saying it heading is not what the quote said. I put it back changing it heading but you still keep removing it. Why? --- ابراهيم 19:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with moving bad material to a temporary subpage to improve its quality. --InShaneee 21:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes if it is bad and not referenced. --- ابراهيم 23:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Perm banned user User:Leyasu evading ban, causing more trouble[edit]

I would really appreciate admin intervention in restraining this banned user's disruption. I have already asked for semi-protection for the articles he's hitting the most with IP's (Rotting Christ, Moonspell, Tiamat (band), Diabolique (band), Crematory, Wildhoney, Paradise Lost (band), many more) a request which seems to have been overlooked. User:Leyasu's sockpuppets have also been throwing accusations that the users reverting his post-ban edits are "banned", he has "consensus" or "RFC support" for his post-ban edits, that other users are "vandals", all (as everyone knows) is completely untrue. He has no regard for his perm banned status and continues to abuse Wikipedia and attack other editors just as he did during his pre-ban days. Admins, please enforce. --Danteferno 13:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, see your talk page for more. Deizio talk 13:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
One problem is that there usually isn't more than one edit per article per day, which doesn't really meet the threshhold for semi-protecting a dozen or more articles. Because Leyasu uses disposable British Telecom IPs, there's no point in blocking once he had logged off for the day. For example, this morning he was at it from 81.156.152.0 (talk · contribs), but is gone now. Your best bet would be to post to AIV (or maybe here, in case the AIV patroller is not familiar with the history) to block the IP as soon as it starts up. Thatcher131 15:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to catch this on the head. Deathrocker and Danteferno have been banned from changing the article versions until they provide counter sources. Thus, no vandalism. I might remind you all that he is also still claiming users to be sockpuppets whenever somebody reverts him, still making the claim about users RFC shows are not sockpuppets. There is no vandalism in reverting vandalism. And remember this much, im not the only person to revert Danteferno and Deathrocker - Cronodevir, Sn0wflake, WP:HMM users, and Ours18 are amongst others also watching these pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.130.138 (talkcontribs) aka banned user Leyasu
You have been permanently banned by the community. As such, any editor may revert any edit you make without regard to its content or merit. The fact that this applies equally to Deathrocker was affirmed by Fred Bauder who said, I would let whoever is reverting Leyasu continue. I know I don't want that chore. [26] You also mis-state the terms of Deathrocker's probation. I'm sorry you've been banned; you can appeal to the arbitration committee if you want. Thatcher131 06:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hairwizard91[edit]

Hairwizard91 (talk · contribs), along with IPs that I suspect to be sockpuppets, has been massively POV-pushing in Korean-history related articles (for an example of how the POV-pushing has been, see [27]. I'm a bit unsure how to proceed with this user, as he/she appears to be capable of constructive edits, but has chosen to impose POV changes without discussion, and a block of the main account or the IPs appears ineffective. Further, he/she is also very prolific, which makes it difficult to check for POV, effectively forcing me to revert each edit that he/she makes whether problematic or not. Opinions requested. --Nlu (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That diff has a lot of material, can you provide more narrow examples of the problematic content? El_C 00:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
This is an example. The user had previously posted nearly identical content with the same POV as 69.220.163.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (see [28]), 68.252.57.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (see [29]), and 68.252.41.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (see [30]), among other IPs. --Nlu (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
That's still a bit too prolific for me. Perhaps you can cite a few key sentences? El_C 09:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem is really less the content than the behavior -- in other words, the user insist on imposing what he/she wanted in the article regardless of what others thought, and was refusing to listen. Part of the content is also in Korean, and when the user -- who clearly knows English -- has chosen to communicate on talk pages, he/she has largely done so in Korean. --Nlu (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible speedy delete from Florida[edit]

I am a bit concerned about the Lori Klausutis article. It is up for deletion here. Some have made observations that this could be a speedy delete as an attack page. Not sure if this is the case, but could an admin look at this? BTW, I did a check with WHOIS, and the person who is the relative (see the request for delete as pointed out here) to the subject looks legit. I am only "assuming the good faith" here. Thanks. JungleCat talk/contrib 23:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see the attack part... El_C 00:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
If there are no issues, let the AfD run its course. I am only assuming good faith on possible "legal" issues here, that is all. Sorry I brought this up. Cheers. JungleCat talk/contrib 00:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Not at all. I just didn't notice anything striking (possibly it was edited out since). El_C 00:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

User 71.195.147.135 - link spam[edit]

This user is a major spammer. He is adding links to hundreds of sports stadiums directing people to a website called mapgameday.com. It appears he/she has been blocked for this in the past. A few of his edits have already been reverted today as spamming, but there are a lot and it would be helpful if an admin could look into it. KnightLago 00:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Nevermind, looks like someone already blocked him. KnightLago 00:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
WP:AIV for fastest response.--Andeh 12:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

67.190.44.85 evading block[edit]

IP user in question posted in Talk:Freddie_Mercury#No_need_to_post_.22B-class_article.22_designation under the new IP of 138.67.44.79. *Sparkhead 12:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Gunus Suir[edit]

I have indef blocked Gunus Suir (talk · contribs) as he claims to be a sockpuppet of indef blocked users. Please review. If anyone thinks posting about this here is against the spirit of WP:DENY feel free to remove this thread. Thanks. --W.marsh 16:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the two DRV requests and replaced the sockpuppet tags with a generic {{indefblock}}. Naconkantari 17:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

LorenzoPerosi1898[edit]

This user has persistently made extreme POV and unverifiable changes to the Vladimir Horowitz and Arthur Rubinstein pages. When these are corrected, he reverts them back again. Please block him. Thanks. Grover cleveland 01:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

He has since done the same thing at Don Lorenzo Perosi. See here. His attitude is not improving. Grover cleveland 03:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh come off it - hyperbolic praise of pianists and removing a {{fact}} are grounds for blocking him? I've left a note asking him to tone down the enthusiasm, but his intentions are good - he's a newish editor, he needs to be given some latitude (and he also needs to learn that gushing praise is not the correct tone for articles). I've left a note on his talk page. --ajn (talk) 07:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I must second this complaint. This user seems to have a vendetta against both Grover Cleveland and myself, and has made a point of going into articles and removing cited, verifiable statements, and replacing them with his own opinions. He has been warned several times and is batantly crosssing the line. THD3 21:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I must also object to his use of the term "gay" flowery language, in a comment about an edit on the Evgeny Kissin page. To the best of my knowledge, homophobia is not a Wikipedia policy. THD3 21:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a general misunderstanding of late as to the true intent of WP:NPOV and WP:V. To state a "fact" (or, if you prefer, a "generally held belief") which is supported by virtually all sources and contradicted by few if any, it is not appropriate to slap a "[citation needed]" tag on, just for one's jollies. "Abraham Lincoln was one of the greatest presidents." One DOES NOT have to provide a source for such a statement!!! There is where y'all are a little unclear about the rules here. To even attempt to name "one source" for the above comment about Lincoln is ridiculous. If, instead, you know of a source that contradicts it, it is your onus to find one. Perhaps you also disagree that Lincoln was the 16th president. If you think he was the 15th or 17th, go prove it. Slapping [citation needed] here and there might be enjoyable to you, but that is not the appropriate response to accepted fact. This clarification is intended not towards any one editor in particularly, but clearly it has become a trend, and a very immature one. Best, LorenzoPerosi1898 00:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln is a bad example - he's guilty of winning a Civil War apparently costing more than twice as many lives as Saddam Hussein's Iraq Civil War in 1991 (Saddam's Civil War was imposed on him - I suppose it's possible that Lincoln was in the same position). Alternatively, perhaps contributors here are required to abide by an AF (American Friendly) point of view, in which case I'm sorry, I didn't notice this injunction in my Wikipedia Welcome Pack. PalestineRemembered 19:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes, PalestineRemembered is positively correct. Abe Lincoln was not the 16th President. How silly of me! LorenzoPerosi1898 09:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Your example stating that Lincoln is one of greatest presidents is simply an opinion. It's a widely shared opinion, but it is not an "accepted fact". Accepted by whom? Him being the 16th president on the other hand is a fact found in most general reference sources and is easily locatable by anyone - it's undebatable and will never change. Greatest president on the other hand is, as I've mentioned, simply the opinion or the Point of View of a large number of people, and even that could be subject to change. Yankees76 21:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely[edit]

FYI, LorenzoPerosi1898 has since been indef blocked by Gwernol for "making false accusations and deliberately falsifying evidence to discredit editors in good standing" per here. Glen 07:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Usage of images in signatures[edit]

Problem[edit]

WP:SIG is a guideline on Wikipedia as of now, and those who flaunt outrageous signatures with images in them can get away with it. I think it is time to set a precedent here and make is a policy on wikipedia so that usage of images on Wikipedia is discouraged. Alkivar (talk · contribs) (who is incidentally an administrator on en.wiki) has been flaunting an image in his signature since a long time. Reminders [31] to remove image by me and other users have been ignored by Alkivar and he conviniently chose to ignore them and clear his talk page for archiving [32] and he continues to have the image in his signature. I would like the community to adjudicate on this matter.

Reference– User talk:Alkivar
More about the problems that images cause can be read hereNearly Headless Nick {L} 09:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't know much about the server load question but I do note that when uploading images for articles last night, the image server was struggling. Signatures are an expression of users' individualism and we should resist tampering unless it's necessary, but I personally do not like images in signatures. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 09:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not aware of many editors who still use images in their signatures. If they do, they should be reprehended and persuaded to change the signature to something more acceptable. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Um. Do you mean reprimanded or apprehended? I'm picturing chasing Alkivar around with a big butterfly net... - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Reprehend v.t. - rebuke. (see reprehensible) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh. You learn something new every day. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Ghirla. This is another heavy handed way of dealing with something which is not really a problem except in the minds of a few. By the way, mocking someone for mistyping, is not exactly in the spirit of WP:civil or AGF...especially when English is not their native language and it is bloody obvious what they meant.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why you're making this a big deal, Nearly Headless Nick, as Alkivar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has already pointed out it is a guideline, not yet a policy. Maybe this does deserve discussion but not in the manner that you are approaching it with - threats to block him, posting on WP:AN/I, and just general aggresion and disrespect towards a fellow admin, whom I'm assuming, has done nothing else to you. If this is an issue, it should be discussed in much more peaceful terms. Please calm down.--Konst.able 09:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It may not be a big issue but then -Ril-'s confusing signature did end up going to the ArbCom. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 09:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, but that seems to have been a ~~~~ for a signature and then replaced by some abusive comments. Alkivar had an svg image (which is just a 2kb piece of XML code by the way) - I don't see how this warrants cold orders followed by threats of being blocked.--Konst.able 09:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Please check this too, which was posted by some user as an anon, probably by mistake and was removed from his talk page by Alkivar. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 11:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
That IP address post was posted by a vandal (see this other edit). Presumably this is User:DickyRobert my regular stalker, who presumably also posted as Seattle Lonelyguy here and IrregularSignature here.  ALKIVARRadioactive.svg 20:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Konstable, please check this user's talk page carefully, and you will see the number of times, I (and other users) have asked this user to remove the image. Images in signature are a problem for Wikipedia, and this user has been blocked by an administrator for flaunting a confusing signature with image(s) in it. The fellow admin you are referring to does not understand Wikipedia and its processes and has assumed bad faith with me and perhaps other editors (check his user talk page). What I am proposing here is to ban usage of images in signatures, and persuading other users to change their signatures by removing the images. Perhaps you should see the acidulous language he has used to reply to me. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 10:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I had posted the warning only as a last resort. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 10:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Nick, this seems like a classic WP:PERF issue... I tend to doubt that Alkivar's signature is really destroying the Wiki, but if it (and others) were having any significant impact at all the devs would deal with it. Trying to make policy on the basis of 'this is better for performance' has consistently caused nothing but aggravation and thus is itself strongly discouraged. As is repeatedly arguing a point and/or threatening users. Have you clocked the nanoseconds 'wasted' by Alkivar's signature image... and does that add up to more or less than the wasted time and aggravation being caused by your argument over it? --CBD 13:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I tried explaining to Nick that I have spoken with dev's over this back around 1 July, 2005 and they told me it caused negligable server load and that it was harmless. When User:R3m0t had initially said something on my talk page about the sig image.  ALKIVARRadioactive.svg 20:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
There is much more to the problems that images cause than performance. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 13:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly support an outright ban on any images in signatures. It's entirely unnecessary and the drawbacks far outweigh the non-existent benefits. --Cyde Weys 20:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

How about also banning code in a signature that affects how a user's cursor appears? That's not very helpful. —Malber (talkcontribs) 13:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat off from the topic, what's with the "Comments left by anonymous editors may be removed without warning...." banner? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk)

I have a regular stalker named User:DickyRobert who posts alot of garbage on there as an anonymous IP, or with a SPA. Its put there to tell people that I may wipe it as vandalism by accident, there is no secret conspiracy to keep down anonymous users :)  ALKIVARRadioactive.svg 20:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Its quite different from removing good faith messages posted on talk page, than removing vandalism attacks. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 11:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Policy is what wikipedians do. Guidelines do carry weight, otherwise, if only policy has to be followed, why have guidelines at all? -- Drini 22:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought editing was what Wikipedians do. The framework of the encyclopedia is its weakest part by far in what i've seen so far, there seems to be no method of making guidelines other than just saying it is one and saying anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. People Powered 18:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
1st note, i've not read any of the comments above... so this is a straight braindump. Anyway, my take is that there are bigger problems..., but the wacky sigs do piss me off from time to time. Pissing time away talking about images and the like isn't useful. We need to revert to a standard sig, including at least user page and talk page to meet the main reasons for non-std sigs. Turning off user-specified signatures should be do-able. Thanks/wangi 00:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It's strongly discouraged to use images in signatures these days. They should ban all images in signatures, though this is only a guideline NOT a policy. I hope Alkivar will remove his image in his signature and just have text in it. I support any ban on images in signature, as it can be irritating. What does it give to the particular user anyway? --Terence Ong (T | C) 13:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

There has to be a compromise somewhere. —freak(talk) 21:08, Oct. 14, 2006 (UTC)

It is gratifying to know that we have reached a point in the evolution of Wikipedia where we have managed to solve all the large, pressing, important issues, and can now spend our time arguing over small, inconsequential details like the aesthetic implications and the server drain caused by a 2k, 18x16 pixel image file. Ξxtreme Unction 14:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys how does everyone like my new signature? -- Status.gif S Status.gif t Status.gif e Status.gif e Status.gif l Status.gif 20:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Heh! As long as the servers don't crash, I like it! :-) People Powered 22:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Outrageous. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 11:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, if I recall correctly, it's just as bad (if not worse) than the full size image, as the server has to load the image and then shrink the size, using just as much bandwidth (or more) than having a 600x525 image. --Rory096 23:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The image in Alkivar's sig is not a 600x525 image that is being shrunk to 18x16. It is an 18x16 image, and its file size is 2k. This is easily verifiable by right-clicking on the image and selecting "properties". This subsection of WP:ANI in which we discuss the server implication of such sig images, is several times larger, byte-wise, than the image in Alkivar's sig. Ξxtreme Unction 23:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Er, that information that you get from right-clicking just means that an 18x16 image was sent down to your browser. It doesn't tell us what had to happen server-side to generate that 18x16 image. It could stil be the case that the server loads the 600x525 image and shrinks it down to 18x16 every time the smaller image is called for. Geekily yours, FreplySpang 00:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The devs aren't idiots. The server shrinks the image once, then caches it for futher use. The only time the server will need to re-shrink the image is if someone uploads a new version over the existing one. --Carnildo 01:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

My one and biggest consern with regards to images in signatures is what happens when the image is to be deleted (eitehr since a better one have replaced it or it has been given a "better" name and so on, granted this seems unlikely in Alkivar's particular case but still, if we allow some images as "safe" it's hard to deny others based on that presidence). This have happened several times in the past for example images of national flags have been revamped and renamed to various standards several times, and flags that where often used in signatures therefore where a LOT harder to replace in articles and such because the file links where absolutely bursting with talk and AFD pages and so forth (agrivated by the fact there there is still no easy way to see more than the "top 500" pages an image is used in). Personaly I can live with people having 5 lines of markup as theyr signature (but I would ask them to trim it down), but I don't think images should be used. Granted Alkivar's use is fairly "safe" it's a "stable" image not likely to be deleted any time soon, but still generaly speaking images in signatures are bad that's why we have a guideline that strongly advice against it, and when people see and amin using an image anyway, any image it will undermine what little "power" than guideline has because people will figure if it's ok for an admin to do it they can too. Trying to explain to people why theyr image is bad while other images are ok is hard work, and I would ratehr not wake up one day and find flashy animated gifs runnign all our talk pages, and the "myspace generation" do love theyr flashy stuff. --Sherool (talk) 11:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it will be a lot difficult to gain consensus here. I shall post a proposal on WT:SIG. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 11:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Will wait for sometime. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 10:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I find it extremely ironic when I see an admin criticise another admin for not following a guideline, and then that very admin violates another point of that same guideline. (i.e. WP:SIG#Customizing your signature) —Malber (talkcontribs) 13:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we have had enough of your strawman arguments, Malber. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 09:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I think this matter has been blown way out of proportion. What could have been settled with a few lines of civil dialogue, has now escalated into messy ego-brawl. The image in Alkivar's sig definitely isn't going to crash the servers. However several rookie users look up to the conduct and actions of experienced users and admins for guidance and mimic it themselves. I used to have a image in my signature which I copied (quite ironically) from nathanrdotcom's who helped me out in my initial days. Similarly several newbies may look at Alkivar's sig and say "Hey that looks cool!" and decide to put flashy images in their own signatures which will cause a drain on the servers and subsequent uglier problems. I feel the involved people should take their egos off the line and try to reach an amicable compromise. Thanks --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 18:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Srikeit -- Samir धर्म 22:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
You can rest assured that I do not sport any grudge here with Alkivar, but I have a problem with images in signatures. This string was posted here so that we could gain a communal imprimatur, before taking any actions. If the concerned user had responded to my notices, this would not have been here at all. In my opinion, administrators should respect guidelines and act maturely. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 10:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's another user in support of Nick's original point. Images in sigs really are ridiculous, and I'm in support of getting people to remove them immediately - but politely. A little community pressure seems like a reasonable way to accomplish this, but I don't really endorse anything more severe than that. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 10:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Images in signatures are kind of distracting. Also, I don't see the point in renaming the links in a signature. The links in signatures would be easier to use if they were in the same place on every signature. It's not so pleasant search for the letter in someone's username that will direct me to that user's talk page. Jecowa 11:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

An admin placing in user talk the section header Warning and threatening a block based on a guideline and not on policy would seem to be actions that were not in good faith. —Malber (talkcontribs) 17:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

And how about this? The user did not heed to this message and instead archived his talk page minutes after this notice was posted. Do you think he would have responded if I had posted the same notice once again? — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 14:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Pointing to your own diffs is precisely my point, Headless. —Malber (talkcontribs) 14:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
And your point being...? — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 15:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

As one of only three people in this section to use a standard signature link (and having never ever used a custom signature), I feel I am qualified to tell everyone here that your signatures mostly look crap. You should all get on with writing encyclopedia articles instead of stuffing around trying to outdo one another with more garish colours, superfluous images and unintelligible links to random pages like policy statements, Special:Blockip and your contributions. Images should go because they are ugly and temporary, not because of their server load. Having said this, a year or so ago there were terrible problems with the image server, and images used across the 'pedia (like on templates) had to be removed for a while to ease the server load. So it's not entirely implausible that this may cause problems in the future. - Mark 15:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh please... Steel's, at least, is rather pointedly awesome. --tjstrf 17:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It took me way too long, but I did just read this entire thread. I have no problem Alkivar's use of that image in that specific way. The number of other images that I find appropriate for use in signatures is very small. I agree that Alkivar's use is not directly hurting the project. That said, it does set a precedent if an admin has an image in their sig. I have had problems with radioactively unstable images in sigs before (see my talk archives, pun intended). Unless there is a protected list somewhere of images deemed appropriate for use in signatures and a policy behind what is included in said list, I think it would be best if there were no images in signatures. I understand Alkivar's wanting to keep the same sig and would be interested to know what Alkivar and others think about Freakofnurture's suggestion.—WAvegetarian(talk) 19:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Resolution[edit]

This is my proposal, I hope this makes sense. Everybody is invited to add their comments below. :)

  • Images might not look like a big deal with only a single user having them in their signature; but it definately would not help the project if they are used by a number of users.
  • Newbie users and non-admins can be persuaded when they are told that it would be difficult for them to secure adminship by the way of RfAs; because there stands a high probability that they will be opposed for violating WP:SIG guidelines. The case is not the same with administrators.
  • Carnildo rebuttled outgeeked FreplySpang's comments about the image being cached in the server for further use. It is not a question of a singular 2k image, but 2k multiplied by the number of times Alkivar signs his comments.
  • I propose that this be moulded into a policy and a precedent be set regarding this.
  • After having a talk with an experienced commons user, I can definately add here that – When they try to delete or move an image, they will not be able to do so easily if that image is all-over the place, as in case of signatures. The interwiki bots are definately going to have a problem making the moves.
  • And who said, "Alkivar's Radioactive.png is stable?" Its irradiated my balls already and now they are glowing in the dark! — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 15:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I think this is absolute not worth wasting electrons on. The arguments about images in sig files take up more bytes than the images in the sig files themselves. --Ξxtreme Unction 15:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Gah. Wikispace is cheap. Wikibandwidth is not. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 15:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Wikibandwith is pretty cheap as well, to the point where the devs have said "If the only argument you can come up with to oppose something is 'THE SERVER LOAD OMG!'" then you generally don't have an argument. If the server load is significant, the devs will take care of the problem on their end. They've said as much.
And if they don't care, I'm not sure why I should. I'm certainly not in a position to gainsay them, and neither are you. --Ξxtreme Unction 15:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Why make problems for them? I say propose it as policy. --InShaneee 15:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of Pascal's Wager in issues of either theology or technology.
It is not a problem now. No one has offered any evidence other than vague speculation that it will be a problem in the future. This is a solution in search of a problem. --Ξxtreme Unction 15:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hogwash. Have you not noticed the number of users' having their signatures bedizened with images? — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 16:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. That would be the "vague speculation" I alluded to earlier. If you want me to take you seriously that this is a serious problem, you need to provide credible evidence that this is a serious problem. Not "Well, a lot of users have images in their sigs, so it's obviously a problem." It's not "obviously" a problem. It's vague speculation and hand-waving argumentation. --Ξxtreme Unction 16:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
If you are as ignorant as you are pretending to be, perhaps you need to open your eyes and look around. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 18:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Flattery will get you nowhere.
The facts remain: There is no credible evidence to indicate that this is a problem. "Looking around" doesn't make credible evidence magically appear. I have looked around. I don't see a problem. I see only hang-wringing supposition, and aesthetic objections.
When the devs have a problem, they're not shy about saying so. WP:AUM owes its existence to that fact. --Ξxtreme Unction 18:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Hehe. Like Mdd4696 has put it rightly you can read it and weep. I don't want anymore head-banging over this. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 18:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Issue has already been thoroughly discussed[edit]

Didn't anyone look through the discussion archive at WP:SIG? This has all been discussed before. Read it and weep. There was consensus to disable images in signatures altogether, through technical means. There's a bugzilla request, but I suppose the developers are a bit hesitant to make the killing blow. ~MDD4696 17:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Finally, we have something here. But, why wasn't a notice regarding this posted on the SIG page? — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 18:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Per discussions with Alkivar, over IRC. I am here to apologise for my aggresive and tactless behaviour, particularly over his talk page. I hope that Alkivar understands the issues raised here and is willing to compromise. Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 21:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Per discussion compromise reached... now lets all get on with our lives...  ALKIVAR 21:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

User:A Man In Black and fair use images[edit]

User is delinking fair use images and later is speedy deleting them. User is only "allowing" one fairuse image per character page.

Firstly the admin revert wared on orphaning two fair use images used in Keiichi Morisato without a discussion. He later speedy-deleted the two images he revert warred on. His delete came after his 3rd revert.

"Image:Keiichi Morisato (Oh My Goddess! Manga).png": fair-use orphan, one of three images being used to illustrate one single character
"Image:Keiichi Morisato (Adventures of Mini-Goddess).png": fair-use orphan, one of three images being used to illustrate one single character

Afterwards, he edited a heavy-use template accordingly causing havoc on many articles and practicaly orphaning many images.

Furthermore he has threatened to block me. In addition he has full protected the template.

Aside from Oh My Goddess! related aricles, user has removed fair use images such as this which in my view is clearly approporate since it is the historic logo.

--Cat out 20:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That infobox had four fair-use images in it to identify a single character. The infobox (up until I removed them) had capacity for nine. This fails WP:FUC #3 and #8 miserably. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Not at all. It contributes significantly to the topic.
  • Keiichi having and maintaining Lind's an angel is one of the most signigicant events involving the character. Hence it meets #8. I can make a detailed analysis per fair use imaged used on OMG articles here but I'd rather write that in the actual articles.
  • The style of the series drawing was altered significantly on the past two decades. Having an image per animation generation is only approporate. Featured article Superman for instance has multiple fair use images. Hence it meets #3.
    • Furthermore I'd like to add #3 of FUC does not mean ther has to be one and only one image.
--Cat out 21:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It is important to remember what our ultimate goals here are. We are creating a free content, freely redistributable encyclopedia. The use of non-free images detracts from that, and are only acceptable when absolutely necessary. I think AMIB correctly identified an instance in which they weren't absolutely necessary. --Cyde Weys 21:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The question is, when are they absolutely necessary, and when aren't they? And who determines this? People Powered 22:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Different editors decide when the photos are needed or not needed, but there is no set rule on what is "allowed" and what is "not allowed." If there is a short article with many fair use photos, some can be removed. But if there is a long article with maybe two fair use images, none might need to be removed. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
It is also important to understand that we are an encyclopedia and illustrations are necesary. The procedure of weather or not an image qualifies under fair use is not revert warring, speedy deleting the images in question, threatening with blocks, and etc...
--Cat out 21:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I threatened CCat with a block when he said that he refused to discuss the infobox on talk, and was only waiting for 24 hours to expire so he could go back to reverting. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Your first talk post started with a "WTF"... --;Cat out 21:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I think discovering that an infobox has eight parameters for eight different images merits a WTF. How huge would that infobox be? Yikes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
If you are really serious about discussing this, I'd like to see some evidence of good faith. How aboult undeleting those two images and reverting the template the way it was. Images can be deleted later on at the end of the discussion assuming thats the outcome. --Cat out 21:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the problem is that, as it is a copyright issue, this cannot be done unless the images are proven to meet the criteria in WP:FUC, which has not yet been done yet.-Localzuk(talk) 22:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Cyde -- we should use fair use images minimally. We can't have galleries, and don't need to illustrate every tiny detail - to be safe (and remain encyclopedic), the idea of one or two fair use images per article is pretty safe. Anything more goes against both safety and is overdoing it, especially for these kinds of articles. --Improv 00:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

To give anyone passing by an idea of the sort of "differences" being illustrated by these many redundant images, I invite someone to consider Image:Skuld (Ah! My Goddess The Movie).png and Image:Skuld (Ah! My Goddess TV).png, both of which were, up until recently, in the infobox for Skuld (Oh My Goddess!). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

For one her skin color is darker in the move... The uniform she is wearing is significantly different as well. The fact that she is flying itself is en entierly important ilustration. Skuld throughout the manga and TV series did not display much of a magic tallent. --Cat out 21:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Agree entirely with AMIB. Overuse of fair use images within an infobox is not acceptable and does fall foul of WP:FUC #3 and #8. If we allow such things to occur then it is simply opening the floodgates to potential copyright infringement problems.
It comes down to whether or not those images are significant enough to be included. If they are then they should be included within the article along with, as AMIB states, commentary (which should explain why they are significant). Doing it via infoboxes does not allow for such commentary.-Localzuk(talk) 21:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that images were deleted without a discussion. I can put the images outside the infobox with ease however a wikipedia bug is making me hesitate. Section edit links are misaligned when multiple thumbnail images are used.
That still does not explain the two deletions.
--Cat out 21:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
If you've got in mind some use for the first image deleted, I'd be happy to undelete. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Because one of them was nothing more than a shadow. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Which was actualy a very very notable thing. Thats keiichis only appearance in the mini serries. But perhaps you are right, mentioning him being a mere shadow can be done with thext... :/ Still the manga image should be fine. --Cat out 21:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
There's no need to have an image of every single cameo appearance every character makes ever. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Please read my post. --Cat out 22:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I read it. You might notice that Ash Kechum, while overburdened with images, doesn't and shouldn't have images of his cameo appearances in Pokémon Chronicles or the various pre-movie shorts, where his absence is conspicuous. That cameo appearance can simply be described with prose. - A Man In Bl♟ck (