Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive247

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

Noticeboard archives

Brand new account trying to have Wikipedia:Non-free content deleted[edit]

Hi, could an administrator please take a look at the activities of Phantom Renegate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for disruption. --BigDT 15:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, BigDT. I might add that it's obvious that Melacobanshia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is the same, as that account immediately targeted me, after I had been resisting Phantom Renegate, and had an edit summary based on the content of Phantom Renegate's user page. Also, contributions of Ahoy there matey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Fifty five zeroes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) indicate that they're the same user as Phantom Renegate. So perhaps the 24-hour block for Phantom Renegate is a little lenient? ElinorD (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, at the time I made the block, the others hadn't surfaced yet. If someone wants to raise it, that's fine ... I've added a request at WP:RFCU] to find and block other socks and underlying IP addresses. --BigDT 15:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I lengthened it to a week for the continued disruption with sockpuppets. See what RfCU brings up. Trebor 16:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Heh, I think he would have been sorely disapointed if he had sucessed in getting it deleted. Deleting WP:NONFREE would effectively leave us without a working exception doctrine policy. Projects without an exception policy in place is left only one option by the foundation licensing policy: free content only. --Sherool (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The vandal's opinion is that all content on the Internet is free by definition, though. (Don't look at me, I don't know how vandals' brains work.) JuJube 18:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
That's a fairly common belief in general; it's not just vandals. Spend some time dealing with image uploads, and you'll run into it often enough. --Carnildo 07:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • User is part of a larger sock network according to this [1], should be indefblocked. --GDonato (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Whacked. For heaven's sake, people, just indef the really obvious trolls straight away. It saves a lot of grief. Moreschi Talk 19:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this was pretty obvious: a guideline receiving 3 different accounts and an IP trying to speedy delete it, on the claim that all media on the internet is public domain? Uh yeah right. SWATJester Denny Crane. 20:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks against a new user on their own talkpage by suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Resolved

Moore321 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Bollocks2you (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Both edited Hydeblake (talk contribs count)'s userpage as part of backlash from a dispute over private investigator. More info on Hyde's talk - basically bullying from sockpuppets used to make the case, violating WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:SOCK/WP:SPA. Bollocks2you also violates the policy on offensive usernames. I hate bullying, and I'm not going to let Hyde (a potentially great user) be intimidated. —Vanderdeckenξφ 19:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I had noticed these 2 new accounts, and their activity at private investigator led me to semi-protect the page. Let me take another look at their activity since they've been warned. MastCell Talk 20:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, User:Bollocks2you has already been indef-blocked by another admin for vandalism-only and username issues. User:Moore321 has been warned and hasn't edited since. I do find his/her comment that "we haven't spammed..." suspicious (emphasis mine). If that account crosses the line again, report them to WP:AIV or ask me and I'll take action. MastCell Talk 20:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep an eye on User:Shirtlifter while you're at it: same guy. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're saying these are socks (which would make sense, at least for Moore321 and Bollocks, based on the contribs), then I'm going to go ahead and block all 3. The vandalism-only nature of the accounts, combined with the violation of WP:SOCK, is enough for me. Thanks for the heads-up. MastCell Talk 21:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Just an update - from mine and Hyde's perspective this issue is now solved: Bollocks2you (talk · contribs), Moore321 (talk · contribs) and Shirtlifter (talk · contribs) have all been indef blocked, for sockpuppetry, offensive usernames, WP:SPA and harassment. Hyde is now happy and case closed. Thanks for the swift and decisive help, guys. —Vanderdeckenξφ 17:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Is User:Sandbot dead?[edit]

Resolved

I tried to click on the link to reset the sandbox, but it doesn't work anymore. I guess we'll have to revert manually from now on. --24.136.230.38 21:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Its last edit was on May 14. Now, plain doesn't work. --24.136.230.38 21:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You should report this on WP:BOTS, or contact the owner of the bot. Maybe a server error or something. Real96 21:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Urgent admin help needed[edit]

I've posted this to two admins yet, one of them did not respond, the other suggested, that I should post my problem here. Hope this is the right place for it: I've added some sources and infos to Miklós Horthy page, but two vandals, Tankred and PANONIAN are deleting it permanently. This is the page: [2], and this its history: [3]. PANONIAN also calls me Vince and puts a "suspected socpuppet of VinceB" tag on my and onto a lot of IPs. PANONIAN's history: [4]. Seemingly this is his hobby to tag all IPs and call them Vince. What to do? Ban them, please! --91.120.113.31 22:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: the previous post was added by suspected sockpuppet of banned user:VinceB - it has same ip range like VinceB (91.120), he edit same articles like VinceB and present same POV like VinceB, so there is resonable doubt that he is a sockpuppet of this banned user. PANONIAN 22:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
At least two users, who have had many dealings with the banned user VinceB (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), believe that 91.120.113.31 (talk · contribs) is his new sockpuppet. VinceB has been openly evading his block, editing from various IPs of the range 91.120...[5] The "new" IP has been used practically only to reinsert VinceB's edit.[6] Another (already blocked) sockpuppet has done the same in the past.[7] Since this is the usual pattern of VinceB's activity, I would like to ask you to block 91.120.113.31 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) as soon as possible. I would also greatly appreciate any advise what we should do with this persistent banned vandal. It is impossible to block his IP because he is using dynamic IP of two different ranges. Thank you for any ideas. Tankred 22:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
(2nd edit conflict!) I would just like to add my own two cents (two forints?) here and say that I simply find this whole situation very unfortuante. I do not doubt that VinceB has been using sockpuppets and IP accounts to continue editing since he has been banned. (I don't know whether this particular IP is Vince or not.) What is sad, though, is now that we know Vince is playing Whack-a-mole with us, any new user from Hungary or any new user who edits similar articles and apparently has similar political opinions as Vince is immediately labelled a sockpuppet. (I can't help but think of l'affaire Koppany...) I would be willing to bet a thousand forints that I could create a sockpuppet, edit some articles about Horthy, Trianon, and Greater Hungary with a somewhat nationalistic slant, and maybe call Panonian a troll for good measure, and within a day, people would be convinced I was Vince. ;-) What's next, ban all new account creation from any IPs anywhere in Hungary? (After all, what if Vince moves to Szeged? Then the Budapest IPs would be worthless...) I almost wish Vince hadn't been banned, then we would always know who wrote what and wouldn't have such a case of witch-hunting paranoia around here. Like I said, I'm not defending this IP, I'm just disappointed that the situation is turning out this way. K. Lásztocska 23:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Right, and, given your edits, that would make you a perfect example of a meatpuppet, and we would have every right to block you. Trying your best to impersonate someone else usually gets its desired results. The Evil Spartan 23:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not actually going to do that! I was just pointing out that at this point basically any new Hungarian user is suspected of being a sockpuppet of this blasted Vince character. K. Lásztocska 23:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I added totally new books and references and lines, wich was not in the article, and VinceB did not edited that page long ago. --91.120.113.31 23:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

For the totally different ranges: maybe it's because I'm a different unique user, not VinceB, didn't you think about that? Next time users will be also tagged by "suspected sockpuppet of VinceB"? Than anybody, who edits that page? Then admins? This is non sense, please ban these vandals above. --91.120.113.31 23:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The ranges 91.120... and 195.56... belong to the same ISP. VinceB has used both of them in the past. Tankred 23:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

aha, yeah, I found this on VinceB's block log, wich was linked above: [8]. VinceB's IP range is 195 something. mine is 91 something. Urgently ban these users above !!! --91.120.113.31 23:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

And yet, oddly, not only do you have an amazing amount of knowledge for Wikipedia as a newbie, but you both come from Hungary. What a startling coicidence! The Evil Spartan 23:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, but being from Hungary is not a crime. There are ten million people in Hungary, not ten million sockpuppets of VinceB. (still not defending or condemning anyone, just making a perhaps unnecessary remark.) K. Lásztocska 23:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What knowledge? I posted this to two admins yet. One of them, Wangi said, I should post this here. If you got some IT knowledge, and forum experiences as moderator, the technical things are not a matter to you. This is getting crazy... --91.120.113.31 23:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If someone asks for help, you kick him in the ass? Nice mentality. Please ban those two vandals, and restore my valid contributions, what they permanently deleting, despite the fact, that I'm not even in the same IP range... Isn't it just a little bit suspicious, that maybe I'm right, and they're wrong? --91.120.113.31 23:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not this particular IP is Vince is not my concern at the moment: however, chances are very good that the real Vince is reading this page, whether he is or is not this IP. So, Vince, from one Hungarian to another, I have an important message for you: please go away. Stop stalking the Wiki and making anonymous IP edits and setting up sockpuppets. If you continue evading your block ad nauseam, these current conditions will eventually reach their logical conclusion and no one from Budapest will be able to edit Wikipedia, because they will all be suspected of being your sockpuppets. Do a good deed for the people of Hungary and leave us alone. K. Lásztocska 23:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
It is indeed VinceB's range. 91.120.82.124 was blocked as VinceB's sockpuppet[9] and the IP even did not hide the identity of the sockpuppeter.[10] But the IP range is not the problem here. 91.120.113.31 has reinserted an old edit of a banned user. That can hardly be a coincidence. Tankred 23:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that would definietly prevent such debates, where I have to prove my innocence (sic!) and maybe my edit would be valid, and above all, I would not be considered as a vandal, just because of editing from Budapest. --91.120.113.31 23:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW opinions about Horthy in Hungary are very contradictionary. So at least half of Budapest's 2 million inhabitants are sharing my views, as well as half of the county. I see, Lastochka is a Fidesz supporter, so she also probably share this opinion. Hmmm... Maybe Lastochka is my sockpuppet, and I'm just logging in and out. Hm.... --91.120.113.31 23:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a "she." And be careful, I'm not really a Fidesz supporter, it's more like I consider them the lesser of several evils. And I'm no fan of Horthy, though I do recognize that he could have been much worse. Please don't accuse me of being a sockpuppet, even as a joke. And the more I think about it, the more I think your IP is a little too close to Vince's to be "just some guy from Budapest"...K. Lásztocska 23:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

And I thought the "Curse of Turan" was supposed to have expired seven years ago. :( Maybe the news just hasn't reached Wikipedia yet. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, this turn weird... Still no admin action. Wangi was wrong then, I should've searched (instead of posting here) for an admin willing to take action against these two vandals, whom trying to hide their vandalism behind false claims. It just luck, that I coincidentally found out, that my IP range is totally different from VinceB, so obviously, brighter than sun :), that they are lying too !!! If this does not worth a ban for them, than what? --91.120.113.31 00:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No, Vince has also used the 91.120 IP range. You have a bit more explaining to do than that, I'm afraid. K. Lásztocska 00:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That's impossible. How? You sure? Not just one of his "friends" here tried to discredit him? Budapest is not so far from Slovakia for a weekend, and lots of internet café's are around town, not to mention the public libraries. I mean, saw on forums, that some tried to impersonate another commenter, to dishonest him/her, and to somehow "get rid" from that "opponent". --91.120.113.31 00:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


Add Lazio gio (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) to the equation; I've just indefblocked him, as it definitively quacks. Block review is welcome, but, at least judging on the contributions in past few days, I'm fairly certain it's VinceB. Duja 15:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User page harrassment by User:Ronz[edit]

I have asked Ronz several times to discontinue a dispute which he has brought to my talk page. We are currently awaiting mediation on the topic and I have politely informed him several times to dicontinue this dispute with me until mediation [11] [12] [13] regarding this topic, yet he persists. [14] [15] [16]. The call to end these discussions was suggest by our mediator [17] and I am trying my best to abide by the mediator's wishes. Ronz is choosing to ignore the mediator and is just aggravating me. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the dispute is about, but I don't see a reason why you would be obligated to respond if you don't want to. You also have the right to remove comments from your talk page. nadav (talk) 10:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The mediation is about a content dispute. Ronz is trying to resolve a dispute regarding Levine2112's behavior. It may be to Levine2112's advantage to talk about it with him. (Note: I am involved in these discussions.) AvB ÷ talk 10:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually Ronz is trying to turn a content dispute into a behavior issue. Ironically, this is reflecting poorly on his own behavior and causing him to be uncivil. This is why I am posting here. -- Levine2112 discuss 16:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

De-linking years on articles[edit]

I have not seen this as a guideline, but User:Editore99 is cruising through numerous, numerous articles removing all wikilinks to years. See War of the Roses for just one example. Is this now policy here? I did not really see a problem having links to dates. It looks cool and is also interesting to click and see what else happended around the same time. Gaff ταλκ 00:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Non-admin issue; replying on editor's Talk page. --ElKevbo 01:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It was in the MOS that dates should only be wikilinked if it contains the day, month, and year, but stand alone months and years should not. However, that appears to have been removed recently for some unknown reason. --Farix (Talk) 10:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Probably because whether to link years is a long-time subject of dispute, and the consensus on what to do is not the bright line rule that that statement implies. You can find an explanation of that dispute and of why such a bright line rule won't garner consensus in the Manual of Style. Uncle G 12:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

LifeLock[edit]

Hi - on the article LifeLock, the founder's social security number is displayed (plus, the whole thing reads like an ad, even giving out a promo code...) Most of that I can deal with, but I'm not sure what to do about a social security number; the only thing that makes it odd is that the founder of the company DOES give his Social out to demonstrate how secure his product is, but.... should we allow it on wiki? Philippe 04:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not allowed, and it may need to be oversighted. I've speedy deleted the page per CSD G11 right now. —Kyриx 04:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, and thanks for the quick work. Philippe 04:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The number is also on the Social_Security_number page. -- Hdt83 Chat 04:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I removed it. Obviously, it's still in history, so I'll go for oversight, I guess. Philippe 04:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record here, the Social Security number is on there because the owner says it in his advertisements. Part of a 'It's so effective, I use it! Here's my Social, I tell you because it wont matter, because I use lifelock!'. It should be returned to the Social Security article, as one of only 2 numbers made available by a commercial enterprise, its notable, it's even gotten press coverage. -Mask? 14:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I asked the question... but the thing is, that's a path that I think it's a little dangerous to walk down. Oversight seems to agree. Philippe 15:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no 'path' here, its a significant event in the history of the Social Security number. We still have the previous number published listed. I'll go see if I can flag someone with oversight down on IRC and explain the whole 'covered by the news' deal. -Mask? 15:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Low-speed, low-intensity, low-importance edit war at Ryan North....[edit]

... between myself and another editor regarding just how much information should be included in a footnote. Yes, this is a content dispute. No, it does not require administrative intervention. However, Talk:Ryan North is simply too low-traffic to wait around for grand consensus to form on this (three users have weighed in on this in five months), and we've hit an impasse. I figured y'all opinionated people could do that article a favor and form consensus one way or another, and discuss it on the talk page. See relevant discussion on the talk page and in the edit comments. Thanks, JDoorjam JDiscourse 04:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That article should be AFD'd. His only claim to fame is a webcomic, and a website that suggests vandals should only vandalize the article on chickens instead of the rest of wikipedia, that somehow got minorly picked up by a single major newspaper. SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
You first. :-) Grandmasterka 08:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

thunderthingy[edit]

Resolved

I cannot remember the guys name and thus cannot report it to AIV - but this is clearly a sock of thunderemwhat's he called - Road nun (talk · contribs). Hopefully one of you know who I'm on about and can stop his replication. --Fredrick day 08:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User:SummerThunder? Ah, yes, an old friend of mine, though I'm less familiar with him on his edits on Chinese topics, which is what this account is doing. Grandmasterka 08:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I've seen this a couple of times, he produces multiple copies of existing articles under new names. --Fredrick day 08:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
On further review... Blocked indef, I'm deleting those articles and getting them on my watchlist. Someone else can tag the userpage and delete the trolling he'll probably post on the account's talk page. Grandmasterka 08:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
All done, for now. :-) Grandmasterka 08:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User Gandhiserve[edit]

Can someone please take a look at User:Gandhiserve and the articles created by this user? Multiple copies of the same article have been created with the quite obvious purpose of promoting the organization. Andante1980 12:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yawn, typical corporate vanity. Block away. MER-C 13:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Blocked for 1 week, hesitant to indefblock. Comments appreciated. – Riana 13:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

My (Arthur Rubin's) blocks of User:Opal07 and of Rulesteak77[edit]

I thought I'd bring these up from review.

I blocked newly active account User:Opal07 for only 3 hours, for WP:ATTACK vandalism of miscellaneous articles, and vandalism of my user page. My reasoning for the short block is that the user will probably give up trying.

I blocked User:Rulesteak77 for 24 hours for repeated entry of non-notable people in calendar date articles, and creation of an article claiming someone is/was a porn star (which I deleted under {{db-attack}} and {{db-nocontext}}.

Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are appropriate in both cases. --Aude (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually OPALO3 is the original one creating multiple socks such as OPALO5, OPALO6 ad some more that I can't remmeber for now ..----Cometstyles 16:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Tagging for non-free logos (formerly: Betacommand appears to be at it again[edit]

Betacommand (talk · contribs) appears to be at it again; this time their target (at the rate of several edits per minute) is all images which they perceive to be logos lacking a "fair use" rationale for use in the articles about the companies that the logo represents.

Now I'm not a Wikimedia Foundation copyright lawyer, but this seems to me to be a pretty safe "fair use", and I would expect that most companies would actually LIKE the use of their logos to decorate their articles. If this is true, then someone needs to rein in Betacommand. If not, then I think we need to either:

  1. have someone draft a boilerplate fair use rational that covers this exact case, or
  2. tell us exactly why this doesn't fall under fair use.

Atlant 18:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If the issue is that the images do not contain the fair-use rationale, then the burden is on the uploaders to fix the situation. The images are not embedded in articles, they are resources that are linked to as needed. - CHAIRBOY () 18:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Why did you bring this here first as opposed to Betacommand's talk page? --Iamunknown 18:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Because I wanted advice and guidance before taking action. Atlant 18:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. --Iamunknown 19:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
that is the problem Boiler plate templates are not fair use rational. if people would actualy follow policy and take the time to write a one or two sentence explaining what the image is and why we need it the problem would be solved. as it is images need valid FU rational and templates dont do that. Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 18:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand is acting quite correctly in this case. We require individual rationales for all fair use images, not a boilerplate one. Its not a matter of whether the companies would like us to use their images, its a matter of Wikipedia's policy on unfree content. We only allow copyright content in a very narrow range of circumstances. In particular, images must be free not only for Wikipedia to use but also for anyone else to use for any purpose. If this is not that case, a valid individual fair use rationale must be provided. Images are unlikely to be fair use if merely being used to decorate an article. Betacommand has approval to tag all images that do not contain a fair use rationale, either by himself or using his Bot account. If they are not added before 7 days after the uploader has been notified by the Bot, they will be deleted. WJBscribe 18:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe Betacommand is doing the necessary this time. -- FayssalF 18:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur. This is needed and necessary work. -- ChrisO 18:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

(e/c) While the edit rate is a little high (4-5 edits/min) but not quite bot speeds, FU images need a fair use rationale and a source. He isn't quite saying they aren't fair use, just it isn't explained how they are fair use to fully meet Wikipedia fair use criteria. Commenting them out in the artices can help as well to encourage readers to add the info after thinking: "Where did the image go? I better do what th tag says." As opposed to just seeing a redlink for an image after a few days "Where did the image go? I better upload it again." Mr.Z-man 18:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The first step in dispute resolution is to....contact the user involved. Swatjester 18:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  • One problem is that many images were uploaded at a time before it was made clear by Jimbo and/or Wikipedia policy that a justification beyond the template was needed. Rather than tagging at bot-like speeds, it would be better if someone could go through individually to check fair use images. If there is no justification but a good one could be made, then write it. If the image violates fair use policy, nominate it for deletion. Crotalus horridus 19:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    Bots are for large scale operations like this. Atlant wants someone to either draft a boilerplate (not a good idea, rationales should be written on a case by case basis) or "tell us exactly why this doesn't fall under fair use." The latter is obvious: if nobody has written a rationale for using a non-free picture, then fair use cannot be justified. We have had these images on-site for years now in such cases, and nobody has bothered to justify their use. Time to get rid of them. --Tony Sidaway 20:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Bots are impersonal and rarely even describe the problem adequately. I've had at least one bot that never really gave me specific pointers in a peer review, just a general dump list of what needed to be done period. And in that list, I actually fulfilled 75% of the list. Even if you added a human element, we'd still have problems. --293.xx.xxx.xx 20:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I've always wondered why people, instead of tagging en-masse and causing problems, don't simply create the fair use rationale. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • There is certainly something unclear here, not so much about the policy but about what people think the consensus about its interpretation is. Do we believe that the practice of routinely having a logo image on each company etc. article is justifiable? In that case, a single type of valid fair use rationale could be devised that would apply to all these images in pretty much the same way (and the demand of having it written out individually in each case would be not much more than an enforced symbolic bowing down to policy but of little practical value, and we could really just as well have that standard rationale templated.) Or do people think that logos should be used on company articles only in special cases, for instance where the design of the logo was of particular encyclopedic interest? In that case individual rationales would be crucial but, first and foremost, 98% of all existing logos would have to be deleted. This is a real question. What, in people's opinion, would be a valid fair use rationale for a company logo? I honestly don't know. Fut.Perf. 20:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Creating a fair use rationale takes time and thought, tagging random logos with a no rationale tag cuts out the latter requisite. The greater concern is to make sure that logo usage complies with Wikipedia:Logos. In my experience, simply deleting an image is unlikely to deter anyone from uploading a poorly sourced duplicate. So why not create a blanket rationale for the majority of cases? Asking individual contributors to cobble together a rationale that complies with policy as well as copyright law ignores the fact that the majority of users are not too well familiar with either. If we assume a janitorial role with image uploads, then lets address our own concerns. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Per Anetode. If WP:LOGO is appropriate then I don't understand the problem against a boilerplate FU rationale specifically for those logos (I thought there used to be a pulldown choice for uploading logos, which was implied FU, before they rearranged all that stuff). If we want to be more hardass about refusing FU images (an idea that I sympathize with) then the problem is WP:LOGO, which would need to be redone with the result of getting rid of almost all of the logos in the encyclopedia. I don't see the need for a handcrafted FU rationale message for each logo given that the actual usage is about the same in almost all cases. This particular bot operation looks ill-advised. I'd add that backlogs of stuff like this get large precisely because of the thought required to handle them correctly. Stuff that can be crunched through mindlessly usually gets taken care of quickly, either by hand or with software. So bots are usually the wrong way to deal with a backlog unless there's consensus to abandon hope of dealing with the backlog properly. 75.62.6.237 07:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
um there was no bots involved. Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 07:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Then that's even worse. You could have left messages on linking articles' talk pages very easily, asking that the relevant images be tagged in accordance with the latest policy whim, and not cluttering main article namespace history. Instead, you simply commented each image out of each article, which is disruptive and at the very least vigilante justice, if not one step short of outright vandalism. VT hawkeyetalk to me 21:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Betacommand, that's amazing. I counted up to 7 edits a minute for hours on end. I wish I could do a neat trick like that without a bot. Nardman1 06:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not inappropriate to use something like AWB, or just old-fashioned tabbed browsing, to speed up the laborious process of mowing through fair-use images. It's a simple thing: if a page has no rationale and needs it, tag it with the appropriate tag and notify the uploader. It cannot be our job to write a rationale, which would require us to examine the image's use in every article in search of the critical commentary required by Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images. That job has to fall to the uploader. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
No, it can be your job. It's not like only one person can come up with a fair use rationale. To not do due dilligence - check the image to see if it's appropriate, and then fill in the gaps if it is - is poor editing, and using an automated tool to go through the images - thus assuring there's no actual human review - is insulting to editors working on these articles and images. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
If you want to take the time to make sure that poorly sourced or poorly justified images can remain in Wikipedia, you can find them in the same place I do. I don't view it as my job to search for critical commentary, especially when it isn't even there over 95% of the time. (ESkog)(Talk) 14:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, I don't see the harm in asking the original uploader to finish the work they started. If we fix all of the problems, none of our other good image-uploading editors will learn the proper way to do it, and we'll have more problems to fix. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree w/ you. I am one of the worst uploaders and i never complained to Betacommand about his frequent warnings on my talk page. I've just started to know how to do it. Thanks Beta. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
VT hawkeye before calling someone a vandal why not read the Policy I was enforcing. leaving notes on talkpages doesnt get the job done. Commenting out the image and notifing the up-loader get a lot better feedback and results. as for Nardman1's issues its not a bot but a tool like AWB that I have written for FU image review. if anyone would like the code Ill give it to them as soon as I debug my most recent code change. Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 13:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm aware of the policy, thanks. I'm disagreeing with your method of enforcement. Common courtesy (not to mention common sense) appears to be rapidly disappearing from WP, and this didn't help. VT hawkeyetalk to me 15:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
maybe if uploaders did what they were supposed to do, per policy and copyright law this wouldnt need done. but because users are lazy/dont know policy it needs done. this is the best method of getting results. if you think just placeing a template or notice does it your sadly mistaken we have articles that havent had sources tagged since 2005. since this is a legal issue i thought a more direct action is needed. Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 16:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe if you actually reviewed the images and tried to fix the problem instead of tagging 7 images a minute following numerous concerns about similar edits, this wouldn't be an issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
hay jeff before making comments why not double check your facts. I dont tag 7 Images a minute, most of the edits are removing them from the mainspace and notifying the uploader. Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 16:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
hay beta i did double check. If you're simply removing/tagging/notifying at a high rate without any real consideration, you're not really doing people a service. We allow fair use here, so if there's a fair use image being used that lacks a rationale, see if you can create one before tagging and removing. That's hard to do when you're making near-bot-speed edits. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually I am, for someone not involved with either the image and related pages it would take 20-30 minutes to figure out where and why its needed. on the other hand someone who is familiar with the issue can do it in 2 minutes. also having only one person doing this would take years to review, on the flip side we remind users that FU images need rationale's and then they take care of that for all of the images they've uploaded. now jeff tell me what makes more sense one user checking and adding FU rationale to 360,000 images or having the community do it? Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 16:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
What makes more sense? Getting a bunch of people together to actually review the images as opposed to tagging them willy-nilly, undoubtedly. We are here to improve the content, after all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with betacommand here. Simply tagging the images, and hoping that someday, it will eventually get fixed per m:Eventualism is inappropriate in this case. This is a legal issue; we need fair use justifications, not just tagging it as being copyrighted. Leaving ourselves exposed to this sort of problem can potentially have serious impact on the project. Betacommand's actions are putting teeth into it. We might not like the teeth (even I don't like seeing some fair use images removed for lacking rationale) but it does have the effect of encouraging people to do it right in the first place. --Durin 17:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • First, it's extreme copyright paranoia, not a legal issue, and has no legitimate long-term, short-term, or any term impact on the project, let's stop fooling ourselves here. Secondly, no one's saying "simply tag the images," I'm saying actually review the images and attempt to fix the problem rather than throwing our hands up and insulting editors along the way. Make an effort, y'know? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, Betacommand just ripping through pages is not much short of vandalism. It is no wonder that hard working page/subject editors are giving up posting in droves when someone is ripping through their work. If you are that concerned about fair use rationales for something which are obviously sporting logos, then why no add the rationales yourself rather than wrecking the pages. How to wreck an online community in one easy lesson. If people get genuine pleasure in their self imposed task of correcting other people's image 'errors' at a rather alarming rate(each to their own), then why not be constructive and source the rationales. I for one know my subject, but not the in depth workings of Wikipedia and am not remotely interested. Instead of wiping images, why not form, for example, a sports logo rationale those of us who write about our chosen sport. A sports logo is a sports logo. Hammer1980 17:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • If doing this work is vandalism, then I suggest you have WP:CSD#Images.2Fmedia criteria 6 removed from that page as a blatant case of vandalism. --Durin 17:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
That may as well be in a foreign language to me mate. Hence the reason instead of ripping pages to shreds, how about putting in these rationales instead. A sports logo on a page is not likely to be targeted for copyright violation on Wikipedia when just being on this project increases awareness of the clubs/organizations concerned. It 'is' paranoia. Hammer1980 17:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • de-indent You consider it extreme paranoia. Myself and others do not. There are droves of lawyers whose sole purpose in professional life is to go after people who violate copyright of their clients. I'm not terribly interested in running afoul of these people. We've tried for *years* to get people to appropriately tag their images without effect. If such an effort actually yielded results, hey I'd be all for it. That's one of the joys of Wikipedia; group effort. But, the group effort has categorically failed in this instance. We're long past the time when we should sit around and wish for it to happen with our hopes dashed. This is a legal situation even if you don't want to feel it's a potentially dangerous one. The right thing to do is to make this situation go away. Since group effort isn't working, deleting is a way of fixing it that will actually work. If you are offended by this, then by all means *please* form a group of people to go after these images that are tagged and fix them. But, I'll virtually guarantee you nobody will want to do the work. That's why this tack needs to be taken. --Durin 17:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • No, it merely postpones the issue and pisses people off, not to mention actively harms the quality of the project and the product we're providing. If our paranoia is so great that we somehow think that a possible (not even probable) DMCA request is going to be leapfrogged for a lawsuit on a site that's been high-profile for over a year, I'm not sure what to say. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I know, I was being tongue in cheek. I've learned my lesson on civility from my recent failed rfa so I was just trying to use a little humor. You might want to fix your script a little, it's leaving comments in image page code indicating that you are BetacommandBot (when it lists the pages the image has been removed from). Nardman1 16:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If Jeff is so all-fired desperate to keep these images, why doesn't he round up a bunch of people to perform the review which he seems to think would be so simple and quick? Put your time and effort where your mouth is, Jeff. —Phil | Talk 17:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I do it where I see it, quite honestly, which isn't entirely often because I don't generally work with images. I also know that our extreme paranoia on copyright isn't nearly as urgent as about a hundred other things. More to the point - if there are people who actually see image patrolling as a valid use of their time, there's an effective way to do it that improves the project, and a lackadaisical approach that only stirs up more ill will for no good reason. If we can promote the former, we're better off. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I was really taken aback by the thoughtless way Betacommand stuck two boilerplate messages on my talk page yesterday, and then ignored me when I left a response on his own talk page. He should learn some manners. I also agree with Jeff that Betacommand would be better employed providing fair use rationale. RupertMillard (Talk) 18:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm still a bit puzzled with this debate, and I'll repeat my question from above which nobody has answered: What, in people's opinion, would be a valid fair use rationale for a company logo? If people think a valid rationale could be found for the great bulk of these routine logo-in-infobox usages, that's one thing; if people think it couldn't, then we shouldn't be talking about uploaders writing rationales or not, we should be talking about preventing uploaders from writing wrong rationales. Fut.Perf. 18:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a template that just needs filling in on my talkpage for a good example of a simple FU rationale. Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 18:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Pretty simple:
  1. No free or public domain versionis available.
  2. The image is of lower resolution than the original logo (any copies made from it will be of inferior quality).
  3. The image does not limit the copyright owners' rights to distribute their product or image in any way.
  4. The image has future historical significance, and is a more appropriate choice than any other image available.
  5. The logo is only being used for informational purposes.
That covers 99% of any logos we have. Furthermore, most other sites on the internet aren't fair use retarded, so many popular logos could use a variation of "This image is used on various websites, so its use on Wikipedia does not make it significantly more accessible or visible than it already is." If, instead of tagging, bot users would simply replace the text with this rationale for most logos, we'd probably be in better shape, but they still need to be reviewed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Jeff that rationale covers exactly zero percent of the images. per policy you have to state why you have to have the image on every page you want to use it on. Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 01:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Um, okay, so add "the image, as a logo, is used as a visual representation of the organization, and therefore its inclusion in the article is an important visual representation of the organization" to the boilerplate (although obviously something better worded). Think about it, Betacommand—every single logo for an entity used on the article for that entity is used in exactly the same way. If we cannot make a boilerplate argument for the use of almost all logos, then we can't make an argument for the use of logos period. So, do you think we cannot make an argument for the use of an organization's logo, or not? It's really as simple as that. Lexicon (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary page break (FU images)[edit]

I don't even really care that Betacommand didn't/can't/won't provide the rationales on his own. My issue is with deletion from linking articles being the FIRST STEP he took. It would have been significantly more polite and courteous to leave a note on the articles' talk pages with a rationale request and, say, a 7-day warning, which would have caught the attention of watching editors just as effectively, but without disrupting the main articles for readers and casual editors. Are we trying to prove a point, or are we trying to write a usable encyclopedia? VT hawkeyetalk to me 16:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I aggree, I spent about 20 minutes fixing all the links to pages that his bot deleted images from in a flash, and placed rationales on the images. ≈ Maurauth (nemesis) 18:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, VT. Frankly, I do consider the damage Betacommand is doing to articles to be vandalism, and informed him so on his talk page. While properly tagging images is something that is important, the methods he is using to "enforce" these rules are bordering on disruption to prove a point. There certantly is a better way than to vandalize dozens, if not hundreds, of articles, but Betacommand refuses to consider them. His talk about "if only people would follow the rules" as a defense is particularaly hilarious given his own history, and that he was already slapped by an admin yesterday for deliberately tagging images with improper tags. Resolute 00:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have to agree. Fair Use, even though it is a vital, robust part of U.S. copyright law, which governs Wikipedia, is under systematic attack on Wikipedia by anti-fair-use zealots. This is not a good development, and unfortunately, it has the result of diminishing the quality of Wikipedia in order to promote a rather radical agenda. --MCB 01:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually Im improving the quality. wikipedia is the FREE encyclopedia having images that violate copyright law hurts use a lot. if even one of these copyright holders sued the foundation, it is very likely wikipedia would shut down forever, as the Foundation probably doesn't have the financial support to fight such a legal battle and then pay the court ordered fines. Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 01:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
"Radical agenda"? Absolutely not. here Some Wikipedias do not allow fair use at all. Fair use is a slippery slope; after a while, the project will be completely dependent on it. When you look under the article's name, you see a little bit of text. This text reads "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". I agree with Betacommand; With fair use images, Wikipedia is not free. It may be a necessary evil that we must endure, but we need to stop sitting on the fence and decide one road or the other. Sean William 01:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Once again, it is not your intentions that are being questioned, it is your methods. You are unnecessaraly disrupting dozens of articles in the process of conducting your latest crusade. Resolute 02:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
disruptions are not always a bad thing. I have gotten a lot of support from numerous admins and even one ex-B'crat for that Im doing and how im doing it. if the images in question were not so screwed up I wouldnt have to do what im doing. Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 02:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
And you are also being questioned but several admins and numerous users (some rightly, some wrongly) for your tactics. In your arrogance, you simply refuse to listen to anyone, or consider alternatives, and that is the true problem here, imo. You are still behaving like a rogue admin. Resolute 02:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not refuse to listen, I have considered the alternatives, show me a method that has a better result ratio, I would gladly use it. as for the complaints, I have yet to see any validity to them. they are mainly either complaints against our FU policy or from people who dont understand it. how is enforcing policy rogue? if inforceing policy is rogue then 99.9% of our admins are rogue. Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 02:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Vandalizing articles is rogue. I have already seen two suggestions offered: contact relevent wikiprojects when blocks of images with missing info is found, or place notifications on the talk pages of articles that such images have been tagged for lacking the necessary info. Show me that you have tried these methods. Show me what you have tried. And stop hiding behind "I'm just enforcing policy". The fact that you need to constantly trot this line out as an attempt to sidestep your vandalism pretty much shows me that you have no legitimate defense for your actions. Policy says FU images need proper tags, thats fine. Policy says that newer images without a valid claim can be deleted in 48 hours, and older ones in seven days. Fine. Enforce this, tag the images. But your actions to disrupt articles themselves are what concerns me. Until you show me the policy that states vandalism is a valid method for enforcing policy, your defense is quite empty. Resolute 02:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) so your calling User:OrphanBot a vandal too? Because I choose to comment out images and make the fact that the image is about to be deleted clear? someone sees the image disappear they say "where did it go?" they check the history find out that it was commented out, they then can ignore it or fix the image. Yes I personally havent attempted other methods (why re-invent the wheel?), that is because I adopted orphabot's method. one that is very effective and has been in operation for a long time (1+ years). and calling me a vandal is very low brow. as for Identifying wikiprojects that is a very illogical action, I would have to check to see what projects each page every image is used in, make sure that project is still active and then find the right subpage to leave the note on. (a lot of work for very little reward). Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 02:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that Orphanbot removes images that have already been tagged as lacking source/FU claim so an admin can delete the image - i.e.: once the 2day/7day time limit has expired. It does not remove those images as part of tagging them. You have adopted OrphanBot's activities, but have changed the order to suit your power trip.
Also, I did not state check for a wikiproject for every image, but for when you identify a block of images that belong to an easily definable group. ie.: sports logos. When you come across a bunch of NHL team logos, as you did yesterday, you could very easily find the relevent project, in this case WP:HOCKEY, and mention it. I sourced about 50 NHL logos yesterday after being made aware of the issue. One message on that project's talk page could have accomplished the same function, saving yours, mine and a lot of other people's time.
However, a more reasonable alternative, IMO, is for you to post a message on the talk page of an article with an affected image rather than removing the image itself. This accomplishes the same goal: note of a problem appears in the watchlist of anyone watching the article without the vandalism of the article itself. If nobody takes care of the problem once the 2 days/7 days expire, then the image gets deleted. That is policy. Disrupting articles is not. Resolute 03:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Resolute, I'd like to get something straight here. Removing no-rationale fair use images from an article is not, by any definition, vandalism. You might disagree with how it's being done, and if you do, you have every right to state your opinion. But continuing to call it "vandalism" is a personal attack, and will be treated as such. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Then call it disruption. Makes no difference to me. From my point of view, removing valid images - especially those that were uploaded well before the current rules were put in place - before their 48 hour/7 day time period is up over what is often an easily fixable problem does not add to the project. The point is, Betacommander's actions are overboard and unnecessary, and he has shown a complete lack of interest in considering alternative ways to accomplish his goal. At any rate, I've said my peace. I can only hope that at some point, he will learn that policy and the community can co-exist. Resolute 03:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
While I understand that Betacommand is simply implementing policy (regardless of whether we agree with it or not), I do find the “commenting out” approach unnecessarily disruptive and inappropriate. With images being placed in an article by different editors over a long period of time and these editors working on a great many articles, all of which are being steadily changed by other editors, it is not necessarily easily and automatically noticeable that an image has been “tagged” for review prior to removal – unless an individual editor has practically memorized the article and its images and their placement. Even if this does happen to be the case (and within the brief time to act and not altogether after the fact), that editor has to act on his or her suspicions of a missing image by scanning through the history to verify that suspicion and determine what image “disappeared”, and then check to see if the uploading editor (the only one being notified) remains active (and isn’t on a wikibreak, vacation, etc.); if not, then the editor – assuming they are familiar with the whole upload and justification process (which few are) – has to try to find a certifiably free image (however one does that) to replace the it (and finding the original image was almost certainly a hard enough and time-consuming task in the first place) – or else try to determine the fair-use rationale for an image whose source and status is unknown to them – all while the timer runs ever closer to zero … and other images in the same or other of the articles they’ve worked on “disappear” into the “commented out” void.
Frankly, there really should be a better way than “commenting out”. I can think of at least two options of which either – or both – would be preferable. First, instead of just notifying the uploader, also post the notice on the article’s talk page. Second, instead of “disappearing” the image, give it a red frame or some other marking that makes it immediately apparent to all and sundry that the image is “at risk”. That would at least give the editors watching the page a head’s up and the maximum time to try to remedy the situation. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, he should have used something like this: {{Deletable image-caption|date=January 2012}}.


This file may be deleted after December 2011.
What betacommand's doing so far has been very counterproductive. Many uploaders have not editted wikipedia for a while and it's unlikely that they'll get around to add the rationale. Not commenting out the image in the main article namespace, which betacommand should have done, is a lot more useful because it at least gives editors who view the page a chance to add the rationale themselves. Again nobody is arguing about the legality of his motive, but his method at approaching this. I hope betacommand changes his massive taggings and start listening to the community because what he's been doing is not helping the project at all. Blueshirts 04:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Many uploaders have not editted wikipedia for a while and it's unlikely that they'll get around to add the rationale.. I'd say what if copyright holders come here before those many uploaders to sue the foundation? Please, think about it both ways and see which thing is more important. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
You're not getting it. The tag still targets the images for speedy deletion within seven days if nothing is done. What's different from betacommand's approach is that at least editors who view the page will have a chance to add the rationale, instead of having the images disappear from the article with a great number of their uploaders already missing. Blueshirts 05:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry but i've got what you say as i've understood the whole mess since Atlant's started this thread. Betacommand is doing the job nicely and accurately. He notifies uploaders everytime he does so. He notified me today before i went to fix my pic at its roots before fixing what you are talking about above. It wasn't a big deal.
Think about something being straightforward: Tagging → commenting out → notifying uploader → Uploader fixes it.
Think about this now: Tagging → picture removed automatically after 7 days → no picture anymore.
The thing that doesn't make sense is if uploaders would be already missing than who would fix them? Uploaders are notified. If they are still here they have to fix it. If they are off than no one can do that job in their places because other users know nothing about the components. In brief, if the pic is tagged and the uploader is off, it will have 0 chances to survive.
Because i liked the way he does his job, i awarded him 3 barnstars at once. Yes, 3 and i believe they are deserved. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 06:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Completely incorrect assumption. If the uploader is gone, or otherwise unavailable, a notification left on the article talk page can alert others so that if they can find the original source (as I did with many NHL team logos), then an editor other than the original uploader can correct the situation. Failing that, other editors could replace the images with alternatives, without disrupting the article itself. If after 48 hours/7 days, nothing is done to correct the image, then it gets deleted. The idea behind this project is to improve this encyclopedia. The improvement part is being lost by editors who do not want to work with the community at large to resolve this issue. Damaging articles and hiding behind policy is the lazy way out. We are asking that you take a look at an alternative that gives people an opportunity to fix an issue, not repair an article. Resolute 15:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
It is not an incorrect assumption. {{Non-free media rationale}} has a component called "source" (the most important component) and i don't see how anyone would know about the source if s/he wasn't the one who uploaded it. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is an incorrect assumption, and has already been proven such. I spent two hours Thursday sourcing about 50 logos where I was easily able to find the source. In fact, I can very likely find the source of nearly every team logo related to North American hockey, and failing that, find an alternative to replace it with. All of this would have been cheerfully done if BetaCommand or someone else had made the slightest effort to contact either the hockey wikiproject, or to place a note on an article's talk page indicating an issue.
That said, photos and other images are obviously different than logos, and can be harder to find the proper source. However, such images can likely be replaced within the time limit of the speedy deletion. This can be done without disrupting the articles before it becomes necessary. Resolute 05:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey people, there's one important detail that this lengthy discussion fails to mention: are the fair-use images of logs being removed from articles obviously connected to those articles? By that, I am asking if these are logos for the company or product in question. To furnish examples, this would be the equivalent of the logo for IBM being removed from the IBM article, the Chevrolet logo from the article about Chevrolet vehicles, the unique, unpronounceable symbol that the musician Prince used for a while being removed from the article about him.

If it is not the case, despite my feelings about this Wikipedian, he should be thanked for this efforts -- he is doing the right thing & removing obvious cases that violate Wikipedia's free-use policy. If this is the case, then Betacommand is in the wrong, & should be disciplined -- these are exactly the situations where the spirit & the letter of the law governing fair-use is meant to apply. Sheesh, I can't believe this omission was only mentioned after 4 days has been spent on this debate. -- llywrch 21:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes in some cases I do remove images from company pages. the issue is that the images lack rationale and/or sources. per the FU policy every FU image must have a detailed FU rationale for every page that we want to use it on. If an Image fails policy I tag, comment out, and notify the uploader. when I tag the image I also leave a note of the pages that I removed the image from so that when/if the image's issues are fixed someone can go to those pages and uncomment them out. Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 23:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The images he's been removing from articles, or at least the ones that have drawn the most ire, have been logos of sports teams, college athletic conferences etc. with obvious fair-use rationales that simply have not been attached to the images yet, generally because they were uploaded before WP's current rules to that regard went into effect. Are the individualized rationales necessary? Policy appears to be that they are, and IANAL (or even a Wikilawyer) to argue that point one way or the other. Given that, the problem is that he chose the most disruptive way possible to make his point short of overwriting/deleting the image files themselves. Furthermore, he (along with others in high places) doesn't appear to give a damn that anybody else might find this the tiniest bit antisocial or damaging to the content (assuming one might consider gaping holes in image boxes to be a problem). What are talk pages for, if not to discuss changes necessary to the article? VT hawkeyetalk to me 03:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
VT Hawkeye, you told me all I need to know, & wish it had been repeated a few times in this discussion. It is obvious fair-use to include a team's logo in an article about that team. No one would seriously object to that -- not the owner of the logo, not we Wikipedians interested in free culture. It is not fair use if it is used for other reasons. If the image was uploaded a while ago, & the rationale for its use has not been updated, the more productive course of action would be to update the rationale for the image -- not remove it; to paraphrase someone with more respect than me, never allow the letter of a policy to kill the spirit. -- llywrch 05:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
This is almost the sole type of removal that Betacommand is carrying out in relation to logos. There are a couple removals that he has made that are otherwise. For instance, removing the logo of a soccer team from an article on the soccer league (which is not fair use). However, in these cases, he has left the logos of every other soccer team on that league's article. In these cases, if he's not using a bot, he's also not using his brain (or else he'd be removing all the logos, because they're all clearly not fair use). But, as I said, the majority of the removals are of logos of organizations, corporations, and the like from the single article the logos are on, that is, the article for the organization, corporation, or the like. I cannot imagine that his edits (which are often three-fold: addition of no fair use rationale template; commenting out image from the one article it is on; and informing uploader of image) are easier to do than to paste in a virtually boilerplate fair use rationale for the logo. That's the problem—there's no reason why he shouldn't be adding the fair use rationale instead, since, as a logo, there's only one rationale that applies to all. Lexicon (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Adding fair use rational is the responsibility of the person seeking to include the image. Betacommand should not have to do this when he is responding to an image that does not meet the FUC. You cannot "boilerplate" the rational, as the rational needs to be specific to the image/page. If people are upset by the removal of the FU image, they can just write a rational as should have been done from the beginning. He is responding to images that are not meeting requirements, just because you can think of a more productive way of doing it does not mean what he is doing is disruptive. (H) 17:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
H, in a perfect world that would be true. But in a perfect world, we wouldn't be having this conversation about fair use of logos to begin with; & in a perfect world people wouldn't leave Wikipedia, never to return or be reachable about images that they uploaded when their rationale is deemed obsolete. As for "boilerplating" the rational, when the case falls cleanly within the guidelines we have have drawn up, expecting a specific argument in this case is, frankly, thinking like a bureaucrat & threatens to kill Wikipedia with a thousand cuts. Lastly, I think the argument that other Wikipedias do not allow fair use images may be spurious in this case: even though the German Wikipedia does not permit them, for example, they include the logo for Arsenal FC in their article on this soccer team. -- llywrch 18:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh my god, would people stop repeating over and over again that a fair use rationale has to be unique? This argument holds for the vast majority of fair use images, but not for logos. Could you explain to me what would be different in the fair use rationale of the logo of the Boston Bruins in the article Boston Bruins as opposed to the logo of Microsoft in Microsoft? Every logo of an organization which is placed on the article of that organization is fair use for the exact same reason. It is fair use because it is used as a visual representation of that organization in the real world, and so serves the very same purpose here on Wikipedia.
Now, as for your argument that Betacommand is not being disruptive simply because I can think of a more efficient way of dealing with the situation than he has, that's bullshit. Betacommand knew the second he placed the first "no fair use rationale" template on a logo's image page that it would require no more work to add the fair use rationale himself, so it's not just what I've thought of. As for the argument that it is up to the uploader or editor who eventually takes it upon himself to insist that the logo is fair use on an article to come up with a fair use rationale, yes, ideally, that is how it works. However, unless you feel that Betacommand actually desires to rid Wikipedia of all the logos he has tagged, then we should understand his tagging as an attempt to include the logos on Wikipedia, and therefore he has already taken the responsibility upon himself to deal with the images in the most efficient way possible, resulting in the least disruption to Wikipedia. The short of it is that the kind of editors we want on Wikipedia actually do the necessary work, they don't just tag and forget. Lexicon (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Betacommand doesn't know how to respond except for repeating the rules and dropping off a couple f-bombs. Is there anybody with the know how to automatically add logo-rationale tags using a bot or something? Blueshirts 01:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Tagging for non-free logos: arbitrary break[edit]

Having just read all of the above discussion, I have the following comments:
1. I agree that it's very important to rectify the problems that Betacommand is targeting, but I also agree that he's going about it in a counterproductive manner.
Almost all of the images in question were uploaded before such tagging was required (and many of the uploaders no longer edit), so it's understandable that they've slipped through the cracks. It's true that we need to either apply the proper tags or delete the images, but Betacommand's method ensures that the former is unlikely to occur. This is because he has no desire to see these FU images properly tagged; he would prefer that they be deleted (because this is a "FREE encyclopedia"), as clearly evidenced by his remarks on this page.
2. Betacommand is only notifying the original uploaders of undeleted images that existed under the pertinent filenames. He is not notifying users who subsequently uploaded replacement versions (often from entirely different sources) under the same filenames.
3. Betacommand wants the community to believe that he's performing these edits manually (and claimed above that he isn't using a bot). If only he'd remembered to disable the "BetacommandBot" identification from the beginning, perhaps this blatant lie might have been slightly believable.
4. For a while, Betacommand was deliberately applying the incorrect {{no rationale}} tag to images uploaded before 4 May 2006 (despite knowing that it contained an explicit claim to the contrary). He then refused to immediately re-tag the images (despite the fact that this could have misled sysops to prematurely delete them), so I performed almost 1,900 rollbacks (and I don't have a bot), thereby investing a great deal of time that otherwise could have gone toward something else. —David Levy 02:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Before you start name calling maybe you see: User:Betacommand/Sandbox that is what im using, (sorry the code is so ugly and messy without code comments) you might want a m:pywikipedia user to double check that. but that is what im using. (when you asked me to revert myself I said that I couldnt then, I had to go to work then, I said Id be back in ~12 hours and id fix it then, while I was away you mass reverted. I would have helped had I been able) Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 02:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
1. Name-calling? What name-calling?
2. That code (which took some time to produce, supposedly because you needed to make it look "presentable" for some inexplicable reason) proves nothing. I don't doubt your ability to write a script that could be used to perform user-assisted edits of this nature, but it simply isn't plausible that all of the edits in question occurred in such a manner (even ignoring the fact that they included a "BetacommandBot" identifier).
3. Yes, I said that you refused to act immediately. Eventually (more than ten hours after arguing that it was okay to insert the improper tags), you agreed to begin rectifying the problem twelve hours after that (by which point many of the images may have been prematurely deleted). Had you not deliberately inserted a false tag in the first place, none of this would have been necessary. —David Levy 03:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
you called me a liar. and that code is still shit, I wouldnt normally publish that. Ask any good programmer, that code doesnt have documentation, and still needs a lot of cleanup. but because you called me a liar, I decided to publish it in that form. I didnt deliberately inserted a false tag I looked for the appropriate template for the images, I coundnt find it. so I used the template that best fit. Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 03:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
PS let me fix the code so others can use it then please prove me wrong and that that script doenst do what I say it does. Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 03:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
1. No, I did not call you a "liar." I referred to your claim as a "lie."
2. Seeking an appropriate tag, failing to find one, and using one that you know contains an inaccurate statement is deliberately inserting a false tag. Why didn't you simply create a new template for this purpose?
3. Again, I don't doubt that the script does what you say it does. I simply don't believe that you've been using it to perform these edits. —David Levy 03:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Well... let me ask, does it work as advertised? If it does with no bugs and it behaves the same, then I would assume good faith here. If it does not, then we might have issues. I assume the betacommandbot summaries would have been a one line change in code, just changing what it puts in the summary field. —— Eagle101Need help? 03:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
In light of Betacommand's past infractions of this nature (which resulted in his desysopping earlier this month), I'm only willing to assume good faith on his part in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Nonetheless, I do believe that the underlying motive behind his edits is to improve the project. —David Levy 03:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, betacommand I think it would be best if you gave us a set of instructions on how to use this python code, It should be pretty simple, download python, get twisted python... etc, but if you could do this, then we would be able to verify by trying the code that it works as advertised. —— Eagle101Need help? 03:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm willing to assume that the script performs precisely as Betacommand claims. But what does that prove? We know that he's a talented coder, and he had days to write it. —David Levy 04:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

(copied from the other board as discussion there is closed) I also doubt this is a fully automatic process, a fully automatic process could not tag something as no fair use rational, then in the next edit tag something as no source, then tag something as no rational. There is *no* way to make a bot do that type of determination by itself. All the bot can see is text and keywords which the programmer has programmed into it. See this link from 4 days ago here that I found. I think he has been using this script the whole time, either that or he has written a damned good bot that can some how make that type of determination (no source versus no fair use rational) with no errors. I think I'd lean to the former rather then the latter, as I don't think the latter is possible. —— Eagle101Need help? 05:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know which edit(s) you're referring to, but I don't see what's so difficult about determining that a page containing nothing but templates with no parameters lacks a cited source and fair use rationale.
Incidentally, there have been numerous errors. —David Levy 05:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I don't think you understand the difficulty in doing this task with an automated bot. How are you tell what to do on an image with a fair use rational but no source? A human is required to look and see "oh, there is no source provided". Same for no fair use image. Now I can understand a bot that tags inages as no fair use rational and no source based on seeing only tags. Thats something I could program in 20 minutes with the frameworks I have at my disposal. In addition the only errors that I have seen are to articles (ie orphaning problems), In short I'm not seeing any errors with the determination of no source, or no fair use rational given. In short David, can you supply me a reason that it is a bot, other then the fact that at one time he had the "betacommandbot" thing, which very easily could have been a programming mistake when he copied and pasted old code. (probably from the orphanded fair use image bot). —— Eagle101Need help? 05:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
1. It's easy to determine that a page containing almost no non-template text other than a URL includes no fair use rationale but likely includes a source citation (the aforementioned URL).
2. I just searched through a page of 500 edits to the Image namespace. I found three tagged only as "no source," and they didn't contain anything that would be mistaken by a human for a fair use rationale: 1/2/3
3. Betacommand didn't claim that the "BetacommandBot" notation was a mistake. He provided an explanation that made no sense to me (and ignored my follow-up questions).
4. By your account, most of these edits (the ones to image pages containing only templates) could easily be performed by a bot. Why would Betacommand devote hours upon hours to such a task?
5. Earlier this month, Betacommand was desysopped due to continual bot abuses. I have a difficult time assuming good faith on the part of someone who lost the community's trust because of precisely this sort of infraction.
6. The craziest part is that I barely care whether a bot was used (excepting the contrary claim). Specific implementation aside, this actually seemed like a good idea. As others have noted, performing these tasks manually would be less sensible. —David Levy 06:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Well the way I'm reading point number two is that a semi-automatic tool had to be used. Thats just not consistent (and bots are anything but not consistent), as I'm sure there are instances where he tagged something with no fair use rational and no source as "no rational given". You are right though, a bot can and probably should be used for the vast majority of these. (those with no source and no rational given that the bot finds a) no text other then tags in the description b) no summary c) was after May 4 2006, if its before, take a different action). Frankly I still don't see evidence that it is a bot. —— Eagle101Need help? 06:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Oops, forgot to reply to point number one :). If I did a bot to do that it would inevitably screw up on those with no url as the source. Not all sources have a url. Given that, a bot would mistag things in a very obvious pattern. —— Eagle101Need help? 06:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
1. I don't understand your response to my previous point #2. (Sorry.)
2. As I noted, there appear to be very few instances in which an image was tagged only as "no source." If this was done manually, I don't know how the existent text could have been mistaken by a human for fair use rationales.
My point was that a bot could safely assume that a URL is a source (even though it might not be), not that it could safely assume that text lacking a URL does not contain a source. —David Levy 07:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Mmm, ok, let me try again then :), sorry about that. You stated that you found 3 images tagged only as no source when they could have been tagged as both no source, and no rational. What I'm trying to say is that I'm sure there are instances where he tagged them as both no rational and no source, and some instances where he tagged them as no rational only. Thus his behavior is not consistent. If it were a bot it would do the same thing every time. Given a page with no rational and no source, it would tag it in a predictable manner, he is clearly not tagging these in a predictable manner.
As far as the url issue, thats exactly why a bot can't be used for such a task. It would tag articles with no urls as no source given, unless it were to use some other criteria. A bot can tag images that lack both a source and a fair use rational, as the criteria for that is clear cut, a bot however would have a very difficult if not impossible task of accurately tagging an article as missing a fair use rational, but having a source. I guess you could use the existence of a url for this, but it would not be 100% accurate, or anything very close to that A bot would not be able to tell the difference between the text saying "the source is" (or any of many other variants) from the fair use rational, and would end up screwing this up. But the other way around is not possible to do vie bot, and that is tagging an article image that has no source, but has a fair use rational. As not all sources have a url (say scanned book covers for example). Therefore I'm almost 100% sure that betacommand was using the semi-automated script the whole time, there simply is not strong evidence to the opposite effect, and some difficult challenges to using a fully automated bot that would not make predictable mistakes. —— Eagle101Need help? 07:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Likewise, let me try this again. :-)
1. Did you view the three pages in question? They weren't blank. All contained text that could have been interpreted by a bot as possible fair use rationales, but none contained text that an actual person could reasonably perceive as such.
2. Again, I'm not suggesting that a bot would interpret the lack of a URL as the lack of a source citation. I'm suggesting that it could err on the side of caution by assuming that a URL (possibly among other keywords) is a source citation and tagging the image only as "no rationale" (if little or no other text is present).
3. I wish that we could return to discussing the other pertinent elements of this situation. As I said, I actually believe that Betacommand's actions were less sensible if I'm wrong (and he wasn't using a bot). I pressed the issue (among several others) because some users seem to feel strongly about it, but the core topic of discussion should be the edits themselves (IMHO). —David Levy 08:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Right, I was thinking of something else you said >.> In any case, thats still not possible to do vie by bot, as how can the bot tell if there is not a source in that text? (not all sources or URLs). In any case, I don't think there is a very strong likely hood of this being a bot, I don't see anything close to a smoking gun, and several difficult technical obstacles that would have to be overcome to even stand a chance of not being detected by an obvious pattern, and I don't see any ideas being put forth that would even make it close to possible, its just not technically possible to do that. In short he did not use a bot under his account. There simply is no evidence that he did. Now since we chatted about this, what were the other parts of this discussion? (other then the bot issue?) I have a feeling that he was using a semi-automated tool as the technical challenges to using a non-semi-automated tool are rather difficult, as I demonstrated above (in my last reply). Now if there are improvements or other ideas that can be given to betacommand that would improve the behavior of his tool such as not orphaning the image, and instead posting a message on the talk page (and logging the image somewhere for a checkup in a week or so for further action), please state them :) —— Eagle101Need help? 08:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The vast majority of tagged images contained no non-template text. It's possible that Betacommand manually intervened for the few that did, but that would only make some of the edits in question more inexplicable.
Had Betacommand provided a logical explanation for the "BetacommandBot" identifier (such as your theory that it was a simple mistake) instead of ignoring my follow-up questions, I might have felt differently.
Please see the first message in this subsection (from 02:12 UTC) for the other concerns that I didn't intend to be overshadowed by this one (which matters to me the least). —David Levy 08:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, lets assume good faith in betacommand and assume its not a bot. If we do that we are faced with a few issues that need resolved.

  1. First he, and anyone else that uses his tool should notify all uploaders.
  2. A message should be posted by the tool to all talk pages of all articles that the image is on, to notify editors on those articles that an image on that article needs a fair use rational, and or source.
  3. No orphaning the images until a) they are deleted, or b) the image has not had a rational added in 7 days. This can be achieved by having the tool log all images that an action was taken on into a file such as <currentdate>_imagelog. That way the user of the tool can re-check those images in 7 days and orphan them if needed.
  4. Insure that the tool uses the appropriate tags. (suggestion on appropriate tags would be nice here) :)
  5. The tool must display to the user the summary that *all* uploaders used, and the names of all the uploaders (with the date of upload)

Have I missed anything? If those points above were done, would there be any problem with allowing users to use this tool? —— Eagle101Need help? 09:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Tagging for non-free logos: yet another arbitrary break[edit]

  • It shouldn't break an article, like this [18] as I pointed out in the now-closed WP:AN discussion. EliminatorJR Talk 12:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
see [19] I think that should fix that issue. But as Im doing some other upgrades (some that Ive been planning and some that I have gotten from user input) I havent had a chance to test it yet. Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 12:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Ive added the code for the five things Eagle brought up. #4 im using {{image source2}} and {{missing rationale2}} for talk page notification. Im still debuging and testing when I am sure those work Ill release the code. Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 17:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
1. Regarding "the five things Eagle brought up," multiple editors raised these points, and you basically told them to piss off (but often with much stronger language). It's nice to see you finally taking the community's concerns seriously (I hope).
2. Do you intend to answer my questions from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (which you ignored)? —David Levy 18:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes I added them to the code as a new option. that doesnt mean that I have agreed to change my methods. I didnt Ignore your questions, I guess I missed them. ill be glad to answer them. Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 18:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Wow, the fact is nobody complaining has a solution to fix the fair use problem, but Betacommand is fixing them. You guys have no reason to be so upset with him. Any image that does not meet criteria can be treated in this way. It is not his job to make images meet the inclusion standards, that is the job of people who want it included. (H) 18:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
No-one is saying that this isn't an important job that Betacommand is trying to do, but some of the concerns that were raised about the methods were definitely justified. Hopefully this has all been fixed now... EliminatorJR Talk 23:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • How much of an image source does something like a video tape cover need? (I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say it was taken from the video tape cover). After Betacommand tagged Image:9tailors.JPG as no source, I wrote one. Do you think it's enough to satisfy him? -N 20:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Nardman, you basically need to say "hey I scanned it from the tape cover". From that we can figure out that the company owns the copyright. Source really is not hard to do, not as hard as some fair use rationals can be :) The whole point of the source is to help folks figure out who owns the original copyright to it. (whom are we claiming fair use off of?) Nardman an acceptable source goes something like, I got it from the cover of the dvd. You can even add the company that produced the movie as well if you want to be extra helpful :). —— Eagle101Need help? 23:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Nardman, I'm sorry for not mentioning this earlier but your fair use rational should have a mention of which article are you going to use it, and why is it needed there. (Its a simple rational I know, but the article's title in the rational would be nice), other then that its fine. —— Eagle101Need help? 00:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Mind you, it's not my image, I am just trying to clean out the fair use backlog Betacommand is leaving :) I'll add a bit about the title. -N 00:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Uh, Nardman, I wouldn't be so quick to approve use of any images Isis uploaded. If anyone here (well, besides me) remembered her, they'd argue that her contributions were "shoot-on-sight" deletions. Details, anyone? Or shall I let you research her story? -- llywrch 01:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • As far as I'm concerned, if an image is obviously from the cover of a book, recording, or other item & used in an article about said item, it deserves {{reviewedfairuse}}. I'm devoting about as much thought to this matter as Betcommand appears to be doing. -- llywrch 23:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Logos#Captions for all Logos about a proposal that all logos on Wikipedia bear captions to help prevent potential trademark violations. nadav (talk) 09:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I have tried to add fair use rationales to some images (mostly logos and album covers) which were lacking them, but some editors have complained that my rationales were inappropriate. See Image:UMKLogoV2.jpg and its history for a typical rationale for a logo and Image:Jem - Finally Woken new.jpg for a typical rationale for an album cover. I don't want to spend time adding these fair use rationales if the consensus is that they aren't acceptable, but at the same time I don't want to see all these fair use images deleted, which is what will happen if nobody adds a fair use rationale. --Eastmain 19:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    See Special:Contributions/ESkog for more images tagged as lacking fair use rationales. Other editors may wish to add a fair use rationale to any of these images for which a valid rationale can be found. --Eastmain 19:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Unwarranted and repeated incivility by User:Gwen Gale[edit]

I hate reporting but this is causing me some grief. Gwen Gale has repeatedly impugned my integrity, while I am trying to have a rational discussion. Here are the diffs:

I think that this is unacceptable behavior. --Blue Tie 04:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, and? -- Ned Scott 04:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
LOL.. thanks for asking. I do not know. What am I supposed to do? Is uncivil behavior allowed on wikipedia or is it disruptive to the project?--Blue Tie 04:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey Blue Tie, I guess nobody told you. Gwen owns that article so it would be best just to move on. It took me HUGE efforts just to remove the word "Friday" from the lead sentence. With over a million other articles, I wouldn't fight it. Cheers :) --Tom 18:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect for the patience of anyone who may be reading this and only for the record, as far as I know Tom (aka User:Threeafterthree) has made zero contributions to that article other than hammering away at removing the widely documented and verified day of the week from the article's lead. Why this is so important to him, I do not know. Gwen Gale 16:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Why is it so important to you to keep it in the lead? --Tom 17:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I replied to that rather completely over on the talk page an hour or two ago. Another editor agrees with me that it's ok to leave it in the lead. Gwen Gale 17:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
A number of other editors have weighed in questioning that addition. It seems that concensus was reached and article was stable as far as that goes until now. I guess we will have to revist this again? Oh well. --Tom 20:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I most respectfully but strongly disagree with your interpretation of the history of that discussion. However, I thank you so much for your helpful input about this. Gwen Gale 20:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you think that is a good way for wikipedia to operate? I was under the impression it should be different. --Blue Tie 01:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the more insubstantial complaints I have seen appear on this noticeboard, which, might I remind you, exists for matters which require the attention of administrators.Proabivouac 04:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You, however, are her friend and have participated with her in efforts against me, so I do not believe you are unbiased in the matter.--Blue Tie 14:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't recall having taken part in any effort against you.Proabivouac 21:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't matter. Your bias is demonstrably extreme. I do not mind that you like her (seemingly, she can do no wrong in your eyes) but you are not an unbiased editor on this matter. --Blue Tie 23:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Blue Tie, I'll grant you that some of Gwen Gale's comments linked above are sharp, perhaps unduly so, just as I would concur that your style of engagement is at times tiresome. There may be some merit in your proposed removal of the word "scathing," however that is a content dispute which requires the attention not of administrators but perhaps a few fresh pairs of eyes; an RfC on this point might attract them.Proabivouac 19:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
[20] and [21] are really beyond the pale, not "sharp." Dmcdevit·t 00:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation is this way, or that way. I would strongly encourage the two of you to engage in it, before you find yourself going an entirely different way instead. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You might not have noticed this, but some of those responses she gave me were where I had asked her if we should be involved in mediation. She was not very interested. But more importantly, mediation pages say that an assumption of good faith is required for mediation to work. The fundamental issue is that she does not assume good faith with regard to me but assumes bad faith. She calls me a troll. One of her edits, that I show above, has me requesting that she refrain from personal attack and she says it is ok to attack me personally because she makes her attacks in good faith. Another one, in response to a fair request, is to bring up her beliefs that I am somehow I am not representing myself honestly, and several times she returns to that theme - evidently believing that I am somehow some other editor with whom she has had problems. So Mediation, which requires good faith, does not seem to be an appropriate venue. Just asking her to assume good faith and be polite has not worked. What else would you suggest?
I want to work to write articles in a fair, neutral way, without things getting personal and unpleasant. I do not abuse people. I do not call names. I apologize frequently when I know that I have upset someone. I rarely report anyone. And in return I find myself regularly getting walked on. This is not the first time, but I am, after a year of this, starting to grow tired of it. Why can't wikipedia be a place where rules of civil behavior are appropriately enforced, so that the process is not disrupted? Is the right answer, like Tom says, to just let bullies drive you off articles as it did with him? How is that the way to write an article well? Is that how wikipedia wants to operate? I ask the question seriously because it seems so to me and it is frustrating.
Finding mediation not very fruitful in 4 past encounters and also not believing the conditions meet the standards for mediation, I have instead come here. Have I done it wrong? It seems Arbcom is a step past this and should not be considered or recommended yet. So, what have I done wrong? --Blue Tie 14:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
It occurs to me that perhaps this is seen as "too light a problem". Perhaps that is because I have not included some history going back and only discussed the most recent issues. But I generally prefer to assume good faith and let past problems just go away. However, with this user, the problems continually repeat. The accusations of trolling and wiki stalking her are not new. I just have not complained about them or included them above, because it seems to me that it is ok to put up with things for a while, but after a while enough is enough and a reasonable concern posted here should get at least a bit of attention if not respect.--Blue Tie 15:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that accusations of bad faith, and calling others trolls, is a particularly unwarranted and needs to stop in order for the content negotiations to be fruitful. In theory, the response refused or failed mediation is WP:RFAr, for cases that don't require obvious fixes like admin blocks. I'm not sure there is much administrators can do here: our technical tools are blunt. I can block someone, but for problems like assumptions of bad faith in a certain content dispute for an otherwise productive editor, that is not likely to be a net gain for the project. Administrators (because of the limitation of this being a website) don't really have many options outside that, besides persuasion. Perhaps arbitration is the way to go, if it continues. Arbitration isn't just for bans, but is designed to be able to handle targeted solutions for specific problems, like assumptions of bad faith. Dmcdevit·t 00:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I never refused mediation.
Meanwhile, as I said on my talk page, if an admin would like to point out some specific aspect of WP policy which I have overstepped, I'll be happy to stop whatever it is I shouldn't be doing. Since arbitration is for behavioural issues, and I'm willing to instantly cooperate with the leadership of this public wiki in anything the leadership asks me to do, there is no need for arbitration. Finally, this all comes down to a simple sourcing dispute. Blue Tie seems to want a 100 year old citation being used at Mountain Meadows Massacre expunged. I think it wholly complies with WP sourcing policy. Gwen Gale 02:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Good, then I suggest you two try mediation before contemplating arbitration. If you want specific problems pointed out, as I noted earlier I think the trolling accusation was over the top and a personal attack. There's no reason to make accusations of bad faith like that, and if you do, the only effect you are likely to cause is to poison the atmosphere and make a peaceful resolution impossible. Dmcdevit·t 05:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Dmcdevit, if accusations of trolling are unacceptably uncivil personal attacks, why have you engaged in them yourself?[22] In large point font and boldface, no less. If, on the other hand, "trolling" is a potentially legitimate characterization of user behavior - as I imagine you must have thought at the time you signed that - then the question is only whether the characterization is accurate.
You wrote, "Good, then I suggest you two try mediation before contemplating arbitration."
Of course, you are correct that mediation is the way to go here; however I must observe that the only one who has "contemplat[ed] arbitration" in this thread is you.
As you have blocked Gwen Gale in the past under questionable circumstances - again involving Blue Tie - it might make sense to await the participation of administrators who don't carry this baggage into the discussion.Proabivouac 06:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
First, quit the ad hominem. I'm offering a bit of advice, nothing more, and am not personally on trial just because you disagree. In regards to that ruling by the Arbitration Committee, there is no way it constitutes the assumption of bad faith that Gwen Gale's attack does, since he was trolling, and he stated so himself. Are you trying to say that Blue Tie is really a troll? Again, that is a very unproductive way of resolving a content dispute, making accusations of deliberate disruption, rather than addressing the debate at hand. Yes, that is incivility. Dmcdevit·t 16:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Dmcdevit, I assumed good faith with Blue Tie months ago, and in return, I am so sorry to say, I was wikistalked from Lisa Nowak to Mountain Meadows Massacre by a user whose edits (and even user name) were quite similar to a string of obvious sockpuppets. Nevertheless, I didn't bring any of that up until it became clear that what Blue Tie meant by a "serious meaning of the minds" and "good faith" was agreeing wholly with his notion to remove throroughly sourced and documented material from the MMM article. Many experienced editors watch and contribute to that article and Blue Tie is the only editor who has repeatedly objected to the inclusion of that widely known material (the content has to do with accusations of rape so it's very emotional and controversial, like the whole topic of MMM). What's more, Blue Tie clearly misread the source and this was pointed out to him by other editors. Meanwhile the citation conforms spot on with WP's sourcing policies, I never refused mediation and truth be told, one might understand how I could be a bit unhappy that my posts and edit history have been so wantonly misrepresented here. Lastly, I still think your behaviour towards me last month was a blockable offense but I let it drop and I'm still willing to let it drop because although I think you made a big docking mistake, I glark that from your perspective it was done from some wider aspect of good faith. Thanks for listening and cheers to you. Gwen Gale 17:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
A modest proposal: that spurious allegations of blockable behaviour be greeted with a block - David Gerard 17:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's spurious. I'm only defending myself under a blistering attack of what I sincerely think is misrepresentation of my edits. I've said I think he only made a mistake, other editors also objected to his behaviour and mentioned the same recourse before I did. I still assume good faith on the part of Dmcdevit. Thanks for reading this though, and for mentioning your concerns. I hear them. Gwen Gale 17:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Gwen Gale has a terrible disposition with a history of attacking other users. For example she deleted all of my critics and suggestions about the lesbian article. She dared to call those trolls who ask for a scientific and phonological section on the article.--Margrave1206 13:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Would saying someone has a terrible disposition be uncivil, a personal attack, or beyond the pale? Tom Harrison Talk 13:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Haha! That's the pith. Margrave1206 characterized lesbian behaviour as an "imbalance" with zero citations to offer in support of that assertion. If Margrave1206 wishes to characterize my "disposition" as "terrible" for having removed Margrave1206's unproductive comments, which I took as baiting, from that talk page (and which comments another regular editor on that article also strongly objected to), I see it only as a typical MUD tactic for tricking a careless admin into doing something accidently untowards (like blocking me without warning for something I haven't done). So far as my editing history goes, who here hasn't had disagreements with fuzzy headed or PoV warring editors? Cheers to all though, Gwen Gale 14:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
which I took as baiting, - this doesn't seem like you're assuming good faith. Someone might be wrong, and muddle headed, and not have any sources for stuff they want included, but that doesn't mean they're baiting. Dan Beale 18:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Did you look at the diff? Are you familiar with the kind of stuff that gets luzzed onto the talk page of Lesbian? Are you aware that the article is more or less in a permanent state of semi-protection? Are you aware that, with all the editors who watch that high profile article, it's been a day and nobody has reverted my removal of that thread? Gwen Gale 18:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

Based on her contributions and other evidence, it appears that Gwen Gale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of Wyss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Wyss is banned from making edits related to homosexuality (broadly interpreted) under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone. For deliberate evasion, I have blocked her for a week. The arbitration case also places Wyss on general probation allowing any three administrators to place restrictions on her editing for general disruption up to a one year ban. Any thoughts on this? Thatcher131 20:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes - what evidence? Where is the checkuser request? What is the evidence in her contributions? Who asked for this block? What is the "other evidence"? I haven't seen any indication from Gwen's edits that she is trying to evade a ban. Are you sure you're not drawing a hasty conclusion? alanyst /talk/ 20:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The evidence is that she outed herself in her emails to me, Thatcher, Fred Bauder, and possibly others. Looking at the contributions confirms this. Only a cursory review shows that both have a similar affinity for, and made similar edits to, Nazism-related articles (Death of Adolf Hitler, Eva Braun, etc.), Pacific islands (Nikumaroro, Howland Island, etc.), sexuality-related articles (Lesbian, etc.), from which she is banned, Amelia Earhart, and Deborah Foreman. The link is pretty obvious to me. Dmcdevit·t 21:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Contributions are similar, indeed. And this is to Gwen Gale's credit.
Supposing Gwen Gale were Wyss, this would only further convince me of her value to the project. It is not every day that we see editors being topically banned because their citation standards are too high, particular where living or recently deceased people are concerned - a misguided decision were there ever one. Supposing Gwen Gale were Wyss, then this editor has spent not just months but years insisting that Wikipedia hold itself to the standards of a respectable academic enterprise. How backwards is it that serious citizen-editors like Wyss and Gwen Gale are targeted, sanctioned and hounded, while all manner of ignorants, cranks and fanatics are given welcome messages and a million chances, where frauds like Essjay are handed the keys of power and authority.Proabivouac 21:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
It is inaccurate to say that Wyss was banned from all sexuality-related articles. The accurate wording from the decision was "banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality." She can edit articles on sexuality as long as it is not concerned with the alleged homosexuality or bisexuality of an individual. I have not examined the contributions of User:Gwen Gale to see whether she has been doing so or not, but let's not read the arbcom decision as saying things it didn't say. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Why are you reading the ruling selectively? The rest of that ruling says "The clauses "any edit" and "related to homosexuality or bisexuality" shall be interpreted broadly; this remedy is intended, for example, to prohibit correcting the spelling of "gay"." I find it hard to believe that the ruling intended to prohibit spelling corrections of "gay" anywhere, but not repeated edits to lesbian for months, especially ones like this [23]. This is also a violation: [24]. Those were only from within the last week. She was violating the ban from the very beginning of the sockpuppet's creation, though: [25], [26], etc. There is no question in my mind of repeated violations. That ban was indefinite, and Wyss' edits would surely have been noticed had she not obscured them with an undeclared account. The more important problem, though, is that Gwen Gale has been having the same sorts of problems that got her into the arbitration case: namely, edit warring and assumptions of bad faith. If you are going to declare that the probation has expired, it would be nice for ArbCom to recognize the continuing problem that exists here (or we would never have had this discussion and found out that this was Wyss) beyond sexuality-related edits, and to make a motion to fix that. Dmcdevit·t 08:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
"…it would be nice for ArbCom to recognize the continuing problem that exists here (or we would never have had this discussion and found out that this was Wyss) beyond sexuality-related edits…"
This strikes me as an alternate way of phrasing the fact that a hopelessly dated and completely unrelated arbitration case was used to attack and block Gwen Gale.Proabivouac 08:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, the ruling says that 'Any edit' and 'related to homosexuality or bisexuality' should be interpreted broadly, but if the then Arbcom did not wish the restriction to "a person" to be part of the ruling it would not have been there. The interpretation of this that I take is that any edit about the sexuality of a person is off limits, and no argument about "but it's a trivial edit" or "just grammar fixes" or whatnot is acceptable. The plain language of the ruling is that the prohibition does not extend to articles on sexuality when the sexual orientation of an individual is not in question, such as edits to Lesbian if no individual is being discussed.
Wyss/Gwen Gale/etc has indeed breached that rule a number of times. She should immediately cease doing so. I do agree with the remembrance that Wyss was encouraged in private to find another username to contribute under, so as not to continue the feud with e.g. Onefourtyone, so I don't think it would be just to punish her for doing something that prominent members of the community encouraged her to do. I don't think she was ordered to keep the arbcom informed of new usernames either, though others who unlike me did participate in this decision are welcome to elaborate and/or correct this.
However, the issue that's brought the AN/I attention is not a sexuality edit, but one of stubborn edit-warring and incivility. I think that continuation along that path WILL rapidly earn another visit to the arbcom or a community ban, and I encourage User:Gwen Gale to turn from that path. If she does not, I will certainly accept an arbcom case and will be very inclined to go for more serious remedies this time. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wyss has been in constant violation of the Arbitration Committee topical ban, through the use of an undeclared sockpuppet, and the behavior that led to her original case and ban, edit warring, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith, has continued for months now, as evidenced by this thread, as well as the previous blocks and discussions related to them. I propose that we take the current week-long block to consider that she be banned from editing indefinitely. Actually, she was placed on probation by the Arbitration Committee, which allowed for her to be banned with the agreement of three administrators ("If in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, she is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia, restrictions may be placed on her editing, up to and including a general ban of one year.") I don't think it is unreasonable to consider the year that that expired after to be reset due to the sockpuppetry, and to go by those guidelines. Dmcdevit·t 21:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I support Dmcdevit's summary. I'd be willing to be one of those 3. SWATJester Denny Crane. 21:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't Gwen be given a chance to answer the charge of sockpuppetry before being blocked? Are similar contributions considered irrefutable evidence of sockpuppetry? I can't see the emails in which she supposedly outed herself; can you quote the relevant excerpts? I think many of Gwen's contributions have been very beneficial to Wikipedia, and it would be a real shame if she were being falsely accused, and convicted without a chance to defend herself. I am, however, open to persuasion that you are right, based on what evidence you can cite and how she responds. alanyst /talk/ 21:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support the above. There are two kinds of problem users: those who accept the restrictions and may eventually redeem themselves, and those who ignore them and continue their behaviour. The later kind? They can get lost. We have enough problems with people who do good stuff for the project without giving more chances to obsessives. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I see no evidence that Gwen Gale has disrupted anything.Proabivouac 22:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I currently find it a little inconclusive too, and that any disruption is a stew multiple hands have stirred. I'm going to see if I can discover the backstory behind some of this.
Furthermore, the probation would have expired in December 2006. Did any known new identity of Wyss behave in a manner that would have been subject to its terms before December 2006? If this can't be shown, Gwen Gale cannot be banned under the terms of a probation that has expired, IMO. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Per the case, probation is indefinite. OK, I missed the line in the case Should any period of one year pass without any such restriction being imposed, Wyss's probation shall automatically end. I wonder if that can be fairly applied if she was editing from a hidden account, so that no one knew there was an enforceable remedy against any disruptive or edit-warring type behavior. However it appears from the letter of the law that I should unblock. Thatcher131 01:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Probation has by its terms expired. There was no prohibition on creating an alternative account. Her editing to Lesbian had nothing to do with the issues in the Onefortyone case. I think she has been quite abrupt in her interactions with others, but has not committed any serious violation. I'm not for any sort of lengthening of her ban, but suggest a mentor might help. Fred Bauder 01:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The indefinite probation expires after a year with no violations.Fred Bauder 01:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
She says I encouraged her to create an alternative account to get away from the Onefortyone thing and I think that is true, so the sock accusation, while confirmed by checkuser, is not that relevant. Fred Bauder 01:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have much experience with the aggressive behavior of user Wyss, and there can be no doubt that this user is identical with Gwen Gale. Some further details:

  • Wyss was constantly edit warring in the past and frequently removed edits by others. See, for example, [27], [28],[29],[30]. She even deleted contributions from talk pages. See [31], [32], [33].

For a discussion of Wyss's deleting tactics, see also Talk:Nick_Adams/Archive_1#Discussion_of_edits.

  • Wyss repeatedly attacked administrators. For example, she accused administrator Mel Etitis of being a troll. See [34] and [35].
  • Wyss already violated her probation in 2006. She repeatedly contributed to homo- and bisexuality-related topics under the IP 194.146.111.10, although she is banned from making any edits related to such topics. For instance, she contributed to the Picnic (film) article removing the expression "jilted boyfriend" (see [36]) and frequently included the "disputed" tag in the sexualty section of gay actor Nick Adams (see [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]). Wyss even included a reference to her own book in the Lesbian science fiction article. See [42], [43]. (The following edits to the User talk:Wyss page prove that IP 194.146.111.10 is identical with Wyss: [44], [45]. See also the history of the Talk:Joshua Gardner page, where most contributions are from the pen of IP 194.146.111.10, User:Wyss and her other sockpuppet, User:The Witch.) Furthermore, Wyss was talking about Elvis Presley's alleged homosexuality here.
  • Wyss is also a supporter, if not an administrator, of Wikitruth. In 2006, she repeatedly expressed her wish to become involved in this anti-Wikipedia project. See [46], [47]. See also these edits expressing Wyss's alias Gwen Gale's opinion of Wikipedia: [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53]. 80.141.192.57 02:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It looks like you've been saving these up for some time, given that some of the links you give have been long since oversighted by the looks of it.
Many of these links don't say quite what you imply them to mean, either. Many of them are from before the arbcom decision. Many more do not breach the terms of her restrictions or probation. Looking through the contributions of 194.146.111.10, I only see one breach of the probation conditions - adding a {{tl:noncompliant}} tag to Nick Adams on October 6, 2006, which User:Onefourtyone reverted.
On 22 November 2006, Wyss wrote: "There is no evidence EP (or Nick Adams) was gay other than unreliable, unsupported hearsay which has been published mostly in tabloid publications. I wouldn't be surprised if he was and I wouldn't care, but there's no evidence to support that notion." See [54]. The "disputed" tag in the sexualty section of bisexual actor Nick Adams was added by Wyss's IP 194.146.111.10 at least five times between 25 June 2006 and 23 September 2006. See [55], [56], [57], [58], [59]). 80.141.229.225 13:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
As to the allegation that Wyss supports Wikitruth, I don't really see anything serious there, or in the list of 'opinions of Wikipedia' - are you trying to say we should censure anyone critical of the project? Rather, we should welcome rational criticism. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
That IP is likely Onefortyone carrying a grudge; let's not let it distract from the legitimate problems raised above, however. Dmcdevit·t 08:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. IMO Wyss' reincarnations are currently free to edit, but an unnecessarily combative style and an unwillingness to compromise or even calmly discuss are problematic. Edit-warring to keep an unnecessary 'Friday' in an article lead, for instance, goes too far. Yes, it takes two to edit-war, but she should try not to be one of them - and certainly not to be the one doing the escalating. There are alternatives including the steps listed in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution; taking the high road and refusing to react to provocation will serve one well in them. I would also counsel Wyss/Gwen Gale to avoid the individuals and topics that were associated with trouble in the past. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Qian Zhijun[edit]

Resolved: ANI is not the forum for this discussion. Direct any further discussion to the Request for Comment. -N 19:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, let's get this mess sorted out ourselves, no need for arbitration, we all had a little tantrum, things got closed/reopened/deleted/restored but now it's time to act like the grown ups that we all are (well most of us :-)) and sort this out as a community without the need for the all too busy arbitration committee having to waste there time and give a few people a slap on the wrist. As a community, let's sort it out once and for all. Here's what I propose;

  1. Let's restore the article and run a full AfD (yes - 7 days, no more, no less)
  2. Let a completely neutral administrator close it (I'm personally volunteering by the way as I have no opinion on the article, I haven't even looked at it).
  3. Accept the decision and get on with creating an amazing encyclopedia!

How does that sound???? Ryan Postlethwaite 21:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Alternate plan: all of the admins supporting inclusion of this article voluntarily resign their adminship as they are obviously unsuited to the task due to their complete lack of social responsibility. Everybody else goes and writes an encyclopedia. Phil Sandifer 21:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's one of the least constructive things I've ever heard here, but hey - each to their own. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
People who are that unwilling to compromise or even talk should probably voluntarily resign their adminship too, as they are obviously unsuited to the task due to their complete lack of ability to work in a group environment. — MichaelLinnear 21:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm perfectly willing to compromise. That's why I grant that it should be removed through AfD instead of CSD. Which it was. Phil Sandifer 21:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
And that was overturned. So why do you struggle to accept that? --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
A full AFD is 5 days, it's already had more than that. --pgk 21:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I was pro-deletion, but everyone, let's ease up on the rhetoric. Newyorkbrad 21:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
That would be great, but, as you see, people aren't open to that. People want an RfC? They'll get an RfC. When I get the nasty messages again and nothing occurs, it'll end back at Arbcom anyway, and who knows what will occur with DRVs in between. But hey, keep asserting false BLP issues and ignoring our verifiability/notability policies/guidelines in the meantime, that'll be great. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's go step by step through the history of this arduous conflict to see where it went wrong. Does everyone agree with the validity of the first AfD? —Kyриx 21:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

We could do that. We could also just drop it. Picaroon (Talk) 21:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, if we leave this in limbo, we're essentially just shoving our heads into the sand. Might as well put it to rest once and for all. —Kyриx 21:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to believe that the "back to XfD" closing instruction on DRV is creating a lot of these messes. —Kyриx 21:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • How about everyone just doesn't wheel war over this. Seriously, did you all go insane when I wasn't watching? Why is it worth all this to have the correct action taken IMMEDIATELY about something that none of us had ever heard about before? Because this situation was quite clearly caused by admins reversing each others' decisions unilaterally for no good reason, however much people may think it was caused by some misinterpretation of content policies. -Amarkov moo! 22:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This was meant to be an idea to stop the bitching, not a free for all to start a war - this isn't going to just fly away so dropping it isn't an option. Full AfD, then it can be put to bed. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There was a strong consensus for deletion between the original AfD 1, DRV 1 and AfD 2, DRV 2 and AfD 3 had more robust arguments for deletion though not an overall majority. This over zealous application of process just to try and please a few people is unnecessary and at this point, a true consensus on any one new AfD is totally unreachable, I would like to see this article fully protected from recreation for 3 months and then we'll think about another debate as to whether the article should be recreated or not, the unacceptable allegations of administrator misconduct and the stubborn process wonkery that has taken place in order keep this article will all be in the past and we can try to have a reasonable discussion to decide on the future of the article. An AfD with the current atmosphere is a disaster waiting to happen Ryan. Nick 22:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    "Allegations" of misconduct? Administrators wheel warred. Administrators are not allowed to wheel war. Deliberately doing things you are not allowed to do is the definition of misconduct... -Amarkov moo! 22:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    That interpretation of "wheel war" may be open to debate. I happen to agree with it, but I know for a fact that some people don't. Maybe we should take the "Brian Peppers" approach; if anybody cares 6 months/1 year from now, then we'll deal with it then. Otherwise, let's put this messy issue behind us and get back to writing the encyclopedia. Sean William 23:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    I really don't think an approach that merely says "Even though consensus was to overturn the original AfD, we'll let the numerous deletions stand and postpone the inevitable" is a good idea. This could have been over two days from now if things happened organically. What's standing in the way of an actual resolution is clear. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    Then you condone the escalation of this issue into a full-blown wheel war? This also could be over right now if we let it go. Sean William 23:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    I read this as "We're forcing the result we want whether you like it or not." So perhaps the "letting go" should be of the people who feel the need to exert their will on this cotinually as opposed to actually letting anyone else have a say. See below for a great example. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    You've already had your say. Are 3 AFDs and 2 DRVs not enough? The first AFD even ran its full course. Let's quit beating the dead horse. Sean William 23:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    1 AfD and 1 DRV that overturned it. Don't sit there and try to say that two AfDs that were closed by people who simply do not want to see this exist within hours of creation are representative of anything. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    That's where your wrong, DRV's remit is not to allow people who didn't like the outcome of the AfD to complain and have the result overturned, it's "to consider disputed decisions" - there was no dispute over the outcome of the AfD, just that people didn't like the outcome, as became abundantly clear when the discussion's closure was reverted purely on an ILIKEIT basis. Ditto for the second AfD (less edit warring). Nick 00:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    On the contrary, that's where you're wrong. The decision was disputed on policy and closing grounds, thus it was reversed. The continued deletions were what were on the IDONTLIKEIT basis. Revisionism must not be tolerated. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    It's resolved, it's dead. --Tony Sidaway 23:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    Has anyone noticed that "It's resolved" is one of those things which is only said when it obviously isn't yet resolved? -Amarkov moo! 23:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    Well, we don't want to call it resolved when we're standing around a horse carcass with sticks in our hands. Sean William 23:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    It's deleted, and given the reaction of the arbitration committee thus far it seems unlikely to be undeleted. So in that sense the issue is resolved. Certainly the complaining hasn't yet concluded, but those interested only in the final outcome can safely stop watching, I think. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    "Brian Peppers" was only resolved by direct action by Jimbo. But unlike Peppers, where the only source was a sex offender website, this dude is taking advantage of his fame, and giving press interviews. See [60] Nardman1 23:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    Dead as the dodo. It isn't coming back. --Tony Sidaway 00:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    I'm incredibly glad that you have absolutely no more say than anyone else in the proceedings. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of generally keeping the peace, since there isn't going to be an Arbcom ex Machina solution, is there any good reason not to go for the Peppers solution? There's no deadline on Wikipedia and if this is an encyclopedic topic, a year from now won't be too late. --BigDT 13:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I note that the Peppers solution didn't work as designed. The theory was that after a year, if anyone still cared, we could discuss it. Obviously, people still cared, but the discussion was killed before consensus had been given any chance of forming. Since it failed in the initial experiment, and I see no change in the behaviour of our administrators to make me think otherwise, I expect it to fail again whenever and wherever tried.
I happen to believe that this will end up at an accepted ArbComm case, and believe that we should look for the least painful route there. I missed most of the weekends drama, but before the weekend we had admins promising to ignore consensus and wheel war-delete the article before the weekend, so I'm not surprised we had more drama over the weekend. Because I believe that the flagrant abuses (and yes, I absolutely mean abuse) of administrative tools have been by those wanting the article deleted, a solution that gives them what they want without a fair hearing is unacceptable. It is possible that an AFD run fairly could avoid an ArbComm case; but otherwise I don't see a solution short of ArbComm. GRBerry 13:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
One, to BigDT, I will care in a year. I'll care in six months. I'll care whenever some arbitrary timer ticks to zero. My caring doesn't really change. It's still my belief, as with GRB, that this will end up with an accepted ArbCom case, even if we have to go through the motions of an RfC before representing it. Of course, if there's a new AfD/DRV to cover the point that there were issues with the process and result of the original AfD (as the DRV that set this bomb off concluded), there's no need to have any of this. But the "kill it now" crowd won't have that, because they're afraid of the result. So that's where we stand. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, then, start an RfC. You're not going to get an accepted ArbCom case without one. Instead of standing around arguing like a dysfunctional Roman senate, let's try to get something done. Sean William 14:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm amused that getting "something done" means wasting time with an RfC first. We'll see if ArbCom changes their mind, then take it from there. --badlydrawnjeff