Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive278

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

Noticeboard archives


Block Connell66[edit]

Resolved: Troll blocked by Kurykh

Connell66 is out of control. Firstly, he keeps spreading WikiLove, to the point where he doesn't contribute much else. Secondly, he seems to lack the understanding of the concept of an online encyclopedia, thinking it's a blog. Why, ust look at his userboxes! And finally, he keeps changing the summary of The Legend of Zelda:Ocarina of Time when it is perfectly fine. Get rid of this worthless user, for he leaves a truly disgusting taste in my mouth!!! MasterSuspicion 06:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC):

... HalfShadow 06:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
While I agree that having a majority of your contributions as "Welcome" templates and edits to your userspace is probably not the world's greatest use of an editor's time, he does have hundreds of contributions, and I'm not convinced that "loving too much" is a reason to block an editor. --Haemo 06:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, referring to another user as 'worthless' is bordering on an attack. That's bad, mm'kay? HalfShadow 06:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not certain how useful WikiLove smiles are, but edits like this one from User:The Master of Suspicion are clearly inappropriate.Proabivouac 06:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Followed up with even better. Er, what's going on, here? – Luna Santin (talk) 07:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I blocked him. Refer to WP:ANI#I was attacked, I think. I need a question answered. --Kurykh 07:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

User:T. Anthony admitted massive vandalism[edit]


If you go through the contributions of T. Anthony (talk · contribs) you will see that he or she has admitted many times to vandalizing Wikipedia with jokes and nonsense and silliness. I have been going through some of it and have placed db Speedy Deletion tags on several articles where both he was the sole writer and he has admitted putting nonsense into them. Example: Tinatin Mgvdliashvili. I have removed wholesale groups of edits he has made to articles where he has admitted vandalism. Example: Ferenc Cako. I would appreciate some intense scrutiny of all his edits, not just by Admins, but by any interested editor, and any other action the Admins deem appropriate. Hu 06:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Those requests for speedy delete were done in bad faith, and I'm going to request that they be removed. T. Anthony is a superb article creator (and though I don't approve of his "jokes," which I believe are POINT-y attempts to see if anyone notices vandalism in obscure articles; he ultimately removes the jokes after a few days), these are all legit, notable BIOs.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 06:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

These requests were done in good faith. I limited them to articles where he was the only contributor and where he also additionally admitted vandalizing the article in question. Thus those particular articles are clearly suspect. Several of them are biographies of living people. Whatever his motivations for serial vandalism, it is a serious problem, and should be taken seriously, especially biographies of living people, which currently has a high profile within and without the Wikipedia community, resulting in large scale deletions. Hu 06:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

And you (Fat Man) better get a bit more explicit about which ones. I db'd one myself, since it seemed clear that almost all his edits were pure vandalism. I said in the db summary that the subject was real, but not likely notable; certainly I did this in good faith, but I can't AGF about him, given his recent contribs. If there's evidence that he's creating some of these articles in good faith, let's have it. Dicklyon 06:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not excusing his vandalism, I just don't think speedy deleting his articles is the proper response. I believe we have to separate his questionable behavior from what are clearly legitimate, sourced contributions. The guy's created hundreds and hundreds of clearly notable (but obscure) bios over the years. Should we delete all of them?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 06:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am explicitly requesting careful scrutiny of his edits. I have not asked for wholesale deletion, so please do not put that up as a straw man argument, Mr. Fat Man. I was quite clear, twice that I was very selective on what I had nominated for speedy deletion, and my edit summaries on them are also clear. Further, I drew attention to the whole thing here in order to achieve the separation that you claim to want. When you reverted my edit to Ferenc Cako, you left in a bunch of unsourced stuff that we should be very skeptical about, such as purported advocacy of vegetarianism and Esperanto. Those two bits, as an example, are not unusual in and of themselves, but considering that the article is a biography of a living person and given how sensitive Wikipedia is about such biographies, it is better to err on the side of deleting all edits by T. Anthony whenever they contain questionable edits. Hu 07:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I put "hangon" tags on the bios that actually asseted notability and had reliable sources. Some of the others (that just had one link to a checkers website, or something) I left alone. I would request that you let T. Anthony remove all his vandalism before you block him; he appears contrite, and I think he was a good very editor in his day, much better than myself. That has to count for something.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 07:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you are right about Ferenc Cako, I reverted to the wrong version, and I apologzied[1] for the mistake. Sorry for the inconvenience.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 07:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
In going through candidates for speedy deletion, I just reviewed the Tinatin Mgvdliashvili article, which should be speedied. On the talk page the author admits it is fiction; the first source cited: Gutenberg's Georgian poetry is (not surprisingly) about the Georgian peoriod of English poetry and has nothing to do with the country of Georgia in the former USSR. Creating realistic articles intentionally to hoax seems way off the norms of acceptable behavior. Nor should this article be retained given the admission of a hoax. Carlossuarez46 07:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Some of the articles are garbage. I placed "hangon" tags only on the ones that appeared legit.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 07:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I went through Hu's taggings, I think I've got them all done, most were deleted as pure hoaxes, a few were left at Hu's reversions which I think took out the junk, I untagged one, and re-tagged the Ferenc guy; he's just not notable even if he's real, but I'll let some other admin decide on that because it wasn't tagged when I came upon it and it wasn't a pure fabrication. If there's some I missed let me know. Carlossuarez46 07:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Carlos. Just curious: why exactly was Noble "Thin Man" Watts deleted? I thought he had an All Music Guide entry and an Orlando Sentinel obit. I can't verify this now, b/c the links have been deleted with the article. Was it because it had too much false info to be salvageable?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 08:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Dicklyon and Carlossuarez46. With regard to Thin Man Watts, notable people will get proper articles sooner or later, Fat Man. The emphasis needs to be on "proper articles". Hu 08:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I disagree with you in principle here, Hu (about the "eventualism" argument, not about whether the Thin Man article was full of nonsesnse). One of the reasons I had so much respect for T. Anthony as an editor (before the ill-advised latter stage of his editing career) is that he would create articles about all these great, notable but extremely obscure jazz musicians that nobody would ever take the time to write about. IMO, without him, it would be a very long time indeed before the likes of Watts were included in Wikipedia.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 08:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I would like to this one is resolved! User:T. Anthony has left the project; I have blocked him in case he changes his mind. Thanks to User:Hu for uncovering the vandalism (not easy) and tagging and reverting it; thanks to TFMWNCB for salvaging what could be (and Noble Watts had such implausible stuff as being managed by world boxing champions, etc., to sort out what was real from what wasn't). Carlossuarez46 08:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand. T. Anthony is an interesting guy; I have been friendly with him in the past, and it's interesting that you mention the prospect of him "changing his mind" and returning as an editor. I would conservatively estimate that this editor has claimed he is "leaving Wikipedia" no less than 25 discrete times, only to return each time. He would do well to read User:NoSeptember/Leaving. When (not if) he returns, I hope he behaves himself.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 08:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Banned User:BhaiSaab editing[edit]

Please see [2] and [3], it is unfortunate that this banned editor is being allowed to influence the project. Arrow740 07:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

DavidYork71 socks...[edit]

A sock of banned User:DavidYork71 has appeared showing all the usually tenancies of the user. Ie, User:Fubar2000 has essentially admitted he is a sock on his talk page. I'm just letting the admins know I will keep reverting his edits beyond 3rr if need be, per WP:3RR, WP:SOCK, WP:IAR, and WP:BAN. Or, if other admins just want to block the sock, please do so. Please ask me for more info if need be, but it gets tiring reintroducing this loooooooong-standing sock puppet case. I've filed a request for check user, but i think that is a bit redundant when it is obvious like now. thanks in advance for any assistance --Merbabu 10:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have semiprotected the page, and blocked the account after reading his talk page. Neil  11:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thanks. I haven't been wrong yet with picking this guy's socks (although I'm sure I've missed some). But it's hard to convince others sometimes. Yes, his talk page is essentially an admission. --Merbabu 11:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Rlest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)[edit]

I've just blocked Rlest for 24 hours for incivility. He's been warned god knows how many times over the past few days, and then proceeded with this. Thought I best post it for review, I would like to see him come back (with the same account this time) with a more constructive attitude, but I very much doubt this will happen. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly endorse. He knows he's supposed to be civil, and he knew what to expect if he wasn't. --Deskana (banana) 12:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I see he has been incivil, but he is a good editor, and has usually been friendly and civil in my experience with him. He says he has left; what can be done? Lets just hope he doesnt deicde to leave for good. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
What is this? The 17th time he's left? Don't worry, he'll be back. As far as the block goes, sure it's endorseable, but it seems to me he was pushed to the brink having to deal with Miranda (not that he is innocent). These two seriously need to banned from interacting with each other, nothing good seems to come from it. -- John Reaves 21:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
John, I am staying away from that person as best as possible. Besides, this notice didn't help in order to calm the situation. Yet, to inflame it. I don't want to work in a disruptive environment. Miranda 04:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Qst (Userspace) (talk · contribs) for the duration of Rlest's block, after seeing this edit summary and this disruption. - auburnpilot talk 16:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is this user's disruptive conduct continually tolerated? The problem here isn't Miranda. This is his fifth account that we know about, and he was grossly insulting and extremely disruptive in his flame-out as Qst (talk · contribs · block log), and now he is continuing the same misbehavior and personal attacks as Rlest. He violated his disappearance conditions from the Qst debacle, which were to avoid all association with his previous accounts. How many more second chances does this guy get? --MichaelLinnear
  • I blocked a suspected Rlest IP at SSP for the length of the current block. To answer MichaelLinnear, we tolerate him because he generally behaves and does lots of work. He is prone to these flare ups but I'm not personally persuaded that his bouts of disruption outweigh his contributions just yet... Spartaz Humbug! 22:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Michael Linnear. This is ridiculous. Especially given the attitude of "I have 11 months of editing and 20,000 edits so I'm better than you", which is ridiculous and disruptive, and now outright attacking Miranda. SWATJester Denny Crane. 23:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well - according to his userpage, he is going to return under a new username, one he does not want to disclose. I wander if who he is will be apparent when he does come back. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Heh, it usually is. -- John Reaves 01:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
He just never seems to learn...He was formerly Qst, then got blocked and started sockpuppeting with Rlest... It's going around in damn circles, and he's not changing one bit. --Dark Falls talk 01:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget, he was Tellyaddict (talk · contribs) before Qst. - auburnpilot talk 02:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Wasnt he 1.Tellyaddict 2.The Sunshine man 3.Qst and now 4.Rlest? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) He was also FPT, too, see this. Yes, I do agree that he was a good contributor, but so was User:Encyclopedist. Encyclopedist got banned for personal attacks and trolling on different user's pages. I was thinking about a proposal to ban, because I see a pattern of 1.) creating an account 2.) making edits to that account 3.) running for RFA 4.) personally attacking others when the RFA fails, etc. I was thinking about a proposal to ban, but decided against it, because of conflict of interest and time concerns. Miranda 05:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I take it you were rather offended by recent diffs on his talk/user page Miranda? That is why you were going to propose the ban? I just think he is angry about some things. He was civil to me, always, and he designed by user page, which was kind. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
A ban might be a little harsh, but he's going to be in a helluva lot of trouble when he gets back. Civility and NPA are one of the most important policies on Wikipedia, and noone should be allowed to sidestep it. --Dark Falls talk 08:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
We don't ban productive users for an outburst of anger. Let's hope he'll compose himself and come back in a good form. Peacent 08:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
As I have already stated, it might not be apparent whether he comes back at all: i think the last things he put on his page, what with insulting Miranda, were just a wiki-suicide, at least as Rlest. He says he'll be back under a new username, but whether we will know who he is is not clear at the moment. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Peacent has made a very good point. What he did was out of anger and to some extent, we can't actually blame him since all these has happened within one month of his last failed RfA where he was tagged and blocked as a sock of banned user Molag Bal. He tried to explain that he wasn't guilty but nobody actually tried to reason with him and whatever happened with Miranda was just him finally "losing it". Come on he has done more good for this wikipedia then most editors combined. I will always see him as an editor who most users should look up to in terms of his contribution to Wikipedia as a whole and banning him would just result in us losing another good editor. What happened to Miranda was wrong but he only did all of that out of anger and frustration which was gathering inside him for the last couple of weeks..Please Give him a break..He deserves another chance and blocking him continuously won't help with that cause..--Cometstyles 12:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we should give another chance. He's had plenty already. Twice already he has created an account, become very productive, be the nicest person you've ever met, then he attacks someone, gets blocked, asks for forgiveness, and returns. I'm tired of having to deal with his "retirements" and incivility. I don't really care that he's been provoked, and I don't care he's been productive in the past. It's not an excuse to violate policy. We should deny him the pleasure of seeing us discuss his actions and forgive him when we know he'll strike again. But, alas, for the sake of WP:AGF, I say we give him one final chance to calm himself down, but I recommend that if he attacks one more person or leaves another insulting edit summary, he should be indef blocked/banned (yes, I said ban). We've put up with him enough times, already. --Boricuaeddie 02:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"Suspect" edits on Talk:Straw-bale construction[edit]

I am becomming concerned about Sunray's persistant refactoring and moving of comments during this active discussion on Talk:Straw-bale construction. several nonsense edits such as '&ot to topic headders such as this edit, and unnecessary renaming such as this. Comments were purposly replied to in specific locations in response to questions/comments and the continued refactoring of other peoples comments, such as this and this edit can significantly can change their meaning and is dangerously becomming close to a WP:POINT and WP:3RR violation. Talk pages comments are meant to be a record of a discussion; moving or editing these comments is a concern as it can significantly can change their meaning. I am an Admin, however I am involved in the discussion and am requesting that Another admin please monitor this discussion. Thanks--Hu12 02:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Response from Sunray[edit]

Hu12 and I disagree about a link, which he seems to think is spam while I say it is a valid resource. The link was at first being promoted by the site owner User:naturalhomes. Naturalhomes was told by several users, including me, not to promote the link. He stopped doing so and in discussion on the talk page I agreed to take a look at it, along with all the external links for the Straw-bale construction article. Meanwhile it was registered as a spamlink by Beetstra, here. I placed a note on the WikiProjectSpam talk page that I did not think that the link was spam. After some discussion, on July 18, Hu12 stated:
"... since the decision is now being discussed on the article's talk page, if it is found to be relevant, informative and should otherwise be included, a neutral and independent Wikipedia editor (other than Naturalhomes may add it..."
I agreed with this and added the link to the article on July 20,[4] I was, thus, dismayed to see that Hu12 removed the link five days later.[5]
The current issue
Faced with this reversal, I initiated a poll to get other views on the matter.[6] In the instructions I requested that poll respondents discuss the matter in one section and vote in another. When the respondents, including myself, began to stray into discussion, I moved the discussion to a separate discussion section to leave the vote section relatively clear.[7] This prompted Hu12 to revert me.[8]. I countered, and tried to explain why I was doing this. He has continually reverted me and has now violated WP:3RR (I have not). While he contends that my behavior is suspect, I believe that his is way out of line. A block of Hu12 would be in order so that we can get on with the voting on this matter.
Additional notes:
  • Tracking down spam is a very important task for Wikipedians and I try to do my share.
  • The link is obviously not spam by any reasonable definition of the term. It may, or may not, be a valid external link, which is what the poll is about.
  • Of those who have voted up until now, all but me are from WikiProjectSpam.
  • It is possible for WikiProjectSpam participants to become overzealous in their actions. If they begin to abuse their power, they will not be doing Wikipedia a service. Sunray 08:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Blatent misrepresentation of the facts[edit]

The dissagreement with the link is based on Wikipedia policies. This was explained by another editor on the 16 July 2007 on User_talk:Beetstra#Removal_of_link_on_Strawbale_construction. The link initialy was added with a conflict of interest by User:Naturalhomes. As was suggested on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/, citing directly from the Advertising and conflicts of interest policy it should be discussed on the articles talk page by neutral and independent Wikipedia editors. Unfortunatly prior to any consensus being reached on Talk:Straw-bale_construction#External_link_proposal the link was reinserted by User:Sunray on 16:45, 20 July 2007 here and on 00:14, 28 July 2007 here. Both under the assumption that one person is consensus.
After further investigation, the link was infact found to be inappropriate as it promotes Building Courses and Workshops, many of which require registration and is not a resource about the subject. and does not help to expand the article, as an appropriate external link should.
Revisions to remove simple and obvious vandalism do no violate the Three-revert rule and are the Exception to WP:3RR. Under Discussion page vandalism Where "An obvious exception would be moving posts to a proper place"[9]. this was not at all the case with User:Sunray edits. Stated above User:Sunray was intentionaly moving discussions away from their intended place, and in doing so is considered vandalism (1st revert: 23:08, 28 July 2007, 2nd revert: 01:35, 29 July 2007, 3rd revert: 01:45, 29 July 2007, 4th revert: 02:18, 29 July 2007). Even after repeated attempts in edit summaries, and in discussion to prevent the removal of these discussions, this behavior continued. I'll add also, based on the direction of consensus currently (based on policies WP:EL and WP:RS), which is opposite of User:Sunray's position, this may even qualify as possibly Sneaky vandalism, which involves reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the consensus/poll process, as there seems to no other legitamate reason for the actions. --Hu12 10:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, there you have it folks. When Hu12 made this report, he said that I was "dangerously becomming close to a 3RR violation." He has since revised that point of view and is now saying that I have violated 3RR, moreover, he now accuses me of "WP:POINT,"" vandalism," "sneaky vandalism..." More to come no doubt. I've explained my actions above and at the 3RR noticeboard. I'm not about to escalate this, but I do think that Hu12 needs to be reined in. Sunray 17:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
One more thing. I would suggest that a quick review of the various allegations will reveal that, despite some transgressions of WP:CIV and WP:AGF, there have been no serious policy violations, save breaking of 3RR. I think that 3RR should be reviewed and appropriate action taken. In the interest of cooling this thing down I can live with that and hopefully we could then all go back to working on an encyclopedia. Sunray 20:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:RPA#When_not_to_refactor, It might be better to not refactor if there is any kind of voting going on. Tampering with comments that are attached to votes may be perceived as in some way tampering with the vote itself. There is also the possibility that refactoring will make disreputable users think that it's ok to change someone’s comments and so abuse this policy. Of course bad edits by people abusing the policy may easily be reverted.--Hu12 06:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Block of Videmus Omnia[edit]

I have blocked Videmus Omnia (talk · contribs) for 31 hours 1 week 48 hours for his harassment of users Alkivar, Mike Halterman, and NeoCoronis. For three hours straight, Videmus Omnia was tagging images uploaded by these users for deletion, and then flooding their user talk pages with the relevant templates found on the image tags. I had to open up the user's last 500 edits to see when the action started (and a few minutes deciding upon a block length that was not too long or too short which lead to what his block log is currently).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk page spamming has become a concern as of late, see [10]. I've been trying to discuss this issue with Sfan00 (see User_talk:Sfan00_IMG#Talk_page_spamming). It's no surprise that users may become overwhelmed when faced with over a hundred notices[11]. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC) To get back to the topic: get Videmus Omnia to agree to stop, there's no need for a block. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
To be fair to Videmus Omnia, you blocked him/her half an hour after she stopped, so the block is quite pointless. —Kurykh 03:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Why did you opt to block, rather than discuss this with the editor in question -- especially after he stopped tagging images? It even appeared to be making a difference, as Alkivar appeared to be responding to them. I've always known Videmus Omnia to be a very reasonable editor, and though I've differed with him before about images, he's never failed to respond in a sensible and reasonable manner when asked. --Haemo 03:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really seeing the point in this block either, and it seems a bit punative. Videmus Omnia (talk · contribs) hasn't edited in hours, and stopped editing a half hour before the block. Also, there appears to be no attempt at discussing the situation before placing the block. Leads me to believe it should be reversed. - auburnpilot talk 03:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
It's talk page spamming and harassment. I will agree that I did not recognize the time stamps at the time, but the activity that was occurring was highly disruptive.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it may be harassment, but when it stopped half an hour ago, blocking will do no good, at best. Or backfire, at worst. —Kurykh 04:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
As said, blocks should be preventative, not punitive. I don't think blocking him will do anything, especially without prior discussion, and may just end up disenchanting a valuable editor. --Haemo 04:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I will agree that he be unblocked, but if he persists once he returns to editting tonight or tomorrow, I will reinstate the 48 hour block (given my block message that he would have not received can be perceived as a warning).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
If there was consensus that VO's actions constituted harassment, then that would make sense. But leaving some sort of notice on the uploader's talk page is mandatory. Is your only objection the manner of the notices? Besides the extremely long list of image violation notices, it doesn't seem to me that VO did anything objectionable, and even that seems to have been a mere error in judgment. (It's also possible, as I stated below, that he was planning to compact the notices after the tagging was complete, although I don't know that.) Either way, I don't think you should block him without a clear case of harassing. Since you have already blocked this user four times, and reversed yourself each time, I think it would be best if you let someone else judge whether his behavior is worthy of a block or not. – Quadell (talk) (random) 04:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not think that he was going to compact anything (he would have done so at NeoCoronis's page, Mike's page, and Alkivar's page once he was done with their images, but he didn't), and the two blocks in between my initial block of sockpuppetry (which it turns out he was not abusing multiple accounts) and the 48 hour block were going to be the 48 hour block, until I was advised that the first was too short and the second was too long. If he returns to the wikistalking activities when he resumes editting, I will block him, as I did give him a warning this time (and I have not been in any such conflicts with him).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I've been offline, and came back to find that all this drama had happened. I'll try to address the various facets of it below, but first I'll try to explain how this whole thing came to pass.

First, I'll make my position clear that I'm an opponent of non-free content, except in certain, very limited circumstances. My primary work is obtaining free content from copyright holders, and non-free content often directly competes with my ability to obtain it. A celebrity has no incentive to release a quality free-licensed image to me if a non-free image already exists on the page.

My normal method of patrolling for illegal (by Wikipedia policy) non-free content, until recently, was to hit 'random article' and check the image descriptions on the pages that came up, tagging as appropriate. I'll watchlist those images until problems are resolved. I noticed that, on one of those, User:NeoCoronis had removed the "rationale required" tag without adding a rationale. Further investigation showed that this was a continuing problem, and in fact NeoCoronis had uploaded dozens of non-free images without rationales. I investigated and tagged all of them.

This got me wondering if going after problem uploaders was more effective than "random article". I got acquainted with the upload log, and the first two uploaders I looked at there were User:Alkivar (upload log) and User:Mike Halterman (upload log) - two that happened to be on my mind because I'd been dealing with them lately. I was actually kind of surprised that these two experienced admins had also uploaded dozens of non-free images that didn't comply with policy - many of them fairly recently (so the statement that the policy didn't exist at the time of upload doesn't apply). So I tagged 'em. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk page spamming[edit]

Now that Videmus has been unblocked, lets discuss the overall issue: are such massive warning campaigns appropriate? I've seen image taggers apply over one hundred no-rationale warnings to several users. Some users managed to address the no-rationale concerns by adding a canned rationale to all images regardless of their current usage. Other editors appeared distressed. Sure, image tagging is basically inevitable, but there is a better way of going about it. Betacommandbot, for instance, did not target individual users. Users saw a trickle of warnings over many days and managed to address the no-rationale concerns. I suggest that we implement some sort of guideline for limiting image warnings to, say, a dozen per day, or institute another measure to limit what has been perceived as harassment. If waiting a little bit before informing a contributor of each and every untagged image will improve image retention and rationale quality, then it is a courteous and appropriate measure. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I've gone through pages and tagged images for cleanup; often, you'll get dozens of images by the same person tagged. Typically, what I do to minimize the "damage" is to post one template of each "type", and then list "Also Image:XYZ, Image:PQR, etc" for each subsequent violation. This seems to work well. --Haemo 04:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

A question arises... If I review some editor's log and found some images that need some tagging (no source, no rationale, replaceable, ifd, etc...), what should I do?:

  1. Start tagging the images as I see them
  2. Tag only the first N.
  3. Count how many image needs to be tagged and, if there are more than N, tag none of them.
  4. Some other option

I for one, would follow 1. But it seems it's not the best option here. --Abu badali (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Just be reasonable, IMO. You don't need to post the same warning dozens of time. Post it once, then just list the violations after it. WP:DTTR applies here I feel -- it's the spamming of talk pages that causes the problem. --Haemo 04:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
In fact, it appears people have been using scripts to do this. Perhaps they could modify them so they automatically do this? --Haemo 04:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
That depends, if the images are obvious copyright violations (free license on unfree images), then you have a responsibility to list them for deletion. If the issue is one of rationale, as appears in this case, then you should consider whether these images were uploaded during the license-tag-only days. Many productive contributors have images in their upload log that they did not add a rationale to, this oversight was not necessarily done in ignorance of policy. I would say that engaging users in a dialog and informing them of a major backlog would be the best way to approach the problem. Then, determine an appropriate timeline for the user to address these concerns based on his/her available time. If a user breaches the timeline, then just tag the images anyway, but I think you'd encounter a much smoother and more productive response by not using a redundant amount of templates. (e/c) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Tag the images, yes, but don't spam their page with messages; use existing message templates, and just append further violations. I am strongly opposed to the notion that we should restrict tagging images that have copyright problems because the the uploader's talk pages are "too full". However, I am equally opposed to filling a user's page with dozens of cookie-cutter warnings. I think my solution, above, is the best of both worlds. --Haemo 04:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
There's a secondary concern here: some editors simply don't have the time to create specific, properly-worded rationales to a hundred images in the grace period before deletion. Your approach works well most of the time, others may work better some of the time, the main ideas to keep in mind are flexibility and courtesy. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

(partially copied from VO's talk page)

As for the many image-deletion notices, VO uses a tool (which I also use) that automatically notifies the uploader when an image is tagged for deletion. When I see that I have left many notices on a user's talk page, I finish all my tagging, and then I go back and compact the warnings -- simply saying something like "This applies to the following images as well. . ." It seems likely that VO was planning to do this. How would you know without asking him? That's why it was terribly inappropriate for Ryulong to block VO without discussing the matter with him first. – Quadell (talk) (random) 04:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that the tool be modified to automatically do this; I know WP:TWINKLE has similar functionality for vandalism warnings. --Haemo 04:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
That's a good idea. But in the mean time, let's not block users for using an imperfect tool. – Quadell (talk) (random) 04:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Users are responsible for edits they make. The use of javascript does not mitigate this. If a user's tool(s) are causing them to act poorly, they should reconsider whether their use of said tool(s) is appropriate. It is not acceptable to leave several dozen duplicate warning messages. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I use a monobook script, which tags the image and notifies the user with one mouse click. This is unavoidable due to the sheer volume of illegal images and the small number of people attempting to enforce the policy. Today was the first time I've heard of the WP:TEMPLAR essay, but I remember thinking "Man, that's a lot of notices" and wondering if I should remove or consolidate them. I didn't because a) it would take the user about 5 seconds and a couple of mouse clicks to remove the warnings if they didn't want to see them, and b) I figured someone could simply ask me to remove the warnings, or to not leave the warnings, and I would be happy to cooperate. But I'm conservative because I don't want to face baseless accusations, such as Abu badali has, that I'm "sneaking around" trying to delete stuff without notifying uploaders. Better too much notification than too little, unless someone tells me otherwise. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The concern here is about the quality of and basis behind notification, not the quantity. Your actions were completely avoidable and you made a deliberate choice to proceed with a questionable method. Yes, there is a disproportionate amount of image janitors than, say, recent changes patrollers, but this is not an excuse. There is no pressing need or immediate deadline to provide each and every image with a rationale. Tagging dozens of images by the same uploader at once is quick but sloppy. Our goal here is to retain as many images as possible and ascertain their proper use, not to enforce an anal retentive adherence to rampant deletion of every image that requires some attention. Give uploaders, especially established contributors, the opportunity to fulfill these requests by partitioning the bulk of images so they can address rationale concerns in a reasonable amount of time. If you don't, the quality of rationales is compromised or the notified (spammed) users may become stressed out, incensed, or simply apathetic. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC) (Note: reading the comments below, I see that Videmus Omnia has assumed responsibility and apologized. Hopefully this is now a non-issue. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC))

I'm still getting hyper-spammed on my talk page by bots and others. I'm just letting things go till the server implodes, personally. 23skidoo 01:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That could easily be fixed by bringing your uploaded images into compliance. The above statement demonstrates the problem handily - most problem uploaders are making little effort to bring their images into compliance with the policy. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong's actions in regard to this block[edit]

The drama caused by Ryulong's block included this uncivil remark to a user who originally challenged the block. This shows he does not feel it was inappropriate to tell another user "You stay out of it." Five users commented on Ryulong's talk page, saying that his block of VO was too harsh or not appropriate. Two minutes after the last comment, Ryulong blanked his talk page, cutting off discussion. Anyone can remove comments from their talk page whenever they like, but I think this is inappropriate in light of what's gone on here. I'm an admin too, and I occasionally will find in necessary to block another user -- but I don't do it without prior discussion, I don't snap at users who challenge the wisdom of my block, and I don't try to cut off discussion or remove criticism. I think all of these were inappropriate. – Quadell (talk) (random) 05:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocking without a warning does concern me. While I do consider the mass of template messages disruptive, I'd hope we could resolve these things by discussion of some sort, before resorting to harsh action. As for Ryulong's behavior on his talk page, I have a strong impression there's a history here that I don't know about? If that's the first time they've spoken with each other, it seems to be a very unusual response. Currently, Videmus is unblocked, and the discussion seems to have moved to this noticeboard; both are probably for the best. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Ryulong, as an admin, tends to be a little less verbose than most when dealing with discussions and decisions. However, his often curt attitude has never really been a serious problem in my opinion, since he nearly always acknowledges input and learns from other users' comments -- even if he is less than expansive in his response to them, especially when there is prior history in the air. I don't think anything else really need to be said here -- anything that can be learned by those involved here, has been at this point. --Haemo 05:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I have never been shy to challenge Ryulong when I believe he's gotten it wrong. This isn't one of those occasions in my opinion - I think he had a valid basis to block and was right to dispatch Abu badali promptly from his talkpage. WjBscribe 06:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
He blocked a user for a "talk page spamming" (in his opinion) that had stopped half-an-hour ago. Even if we do not discuss about posting obligatory messages being a blockable offense, the block as completely wrong because of the timing. If this was a correct block, it would still be a correct block for any admin to come an block Videmus again today, then another admin to block him tomorrow, and so on, since checking the user's timestamps and talk page is not necessary.
I was also not shy to challenge Ryulong, but his response was terrible. He asked me to "stay out of this" in the first response, and shut down the conversation as "RESOLVED" when he found himself unable to respond specific questions. --Abu badali (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
You were completely uninvolved in the issue, and you had no reason to get involved whatsoever. I blocked him, was asked about it, agreed that I'd open up to wider input, but you were harping and saying that "HE DID NOTHING WRONG. THERE'S NO HARASSMENT. UNBLOCK HIM IMMEDIATELY," and I didn't need your input. I saw 500 edits and nearly a megabyte of memory used with those ridiculous consecutive warnings (there was 75k on NeoCoronis' page alone). I archived the discussion because I thought it was over. I unblocked Videmus Omnia, and found the autoblock and removed it. And then there's this waste of server space. I still did not need you involved, Abu dabali, as I am quite sure that you are on thin ice with the community already. There is no reason to be overly dramatic or confrontational about a block that has been undone due to the fact that there was a half hour between Videmus Omnia's last edit and my block.
And Quadell, you should stop encouraging this stalking. No one should feel the need to suddenly go through an administrator's upload log, use some sort of script, tag every image (within policy) for deletion or fixing, and then give the administrator the general warning that "If you don't act now, this image will be deleted in one week." As is described below, Videmus Omnia's actions appear retributive to NeoCoronis, Mike Halterman, and Alkivar, as is the current RFCU set up by Videmus Omnia. In my way first block of Videmus Omnia, and my following interactions with him, I privately discovered his original account which he left under a right to vanish or something like that, and I am sure that if I could remember the account's name, and check that user's actions, we may see that this is not a first time action.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not the first time I've been the victim of a meritless block and incivility by User:Ryulong, as can be seen from my block log. The 17 June incident, where he indef-blocked me with no warning or notification on a baseless accusation of abusive sockpuppetry, and then was grossly incivil on IRC (where I had to go to request unblock), is detailed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive261#Incivility by Ryulong. I thought about pursuing it at the time, but he repeatedly deleted the evidence page I attempted to create, and he had fully protected Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ryulong. He apologized and I dropped it. But now my block log now shows 4 blocks by Ryulong, all of them unjust. I'm sure Ryulong does good work, but I'm of the opinion he's far too trigger-happy with the "block" button, and needs some serious work on civility and willingness to discuss perceived misuse of his admin tools. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Three blocks are all related to this event, and they were trying to find a block length that was not too long or not too short, and if I could, I would wipe the middle two blocks from that log to reflect my final decision in this matter. The end result is that you are not blocked, but if you persist in activities, you may be blocked in the future, and if I do it, I doubt that there will be an issue.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you could cite the policy that led to your block? Videmus Omnia Talk 23:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:HARASSMENT.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you have no consensus for that interpretation of policy, as has been pointed out to you before. It's no more harassment to go through a problem uploader's logs than it is to go through a spammer or vandal's logs for purposes of cleanup. Videmus Omnia Talk 00:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
It is harassment when you post 70k text of messages on the user talk pages of people you just happen to be in a conflict in.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see that in WP:HARASS, could you please point it out to me? Videmus Omnia Talk 00:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
It is common sense that you don't repeatedly place the same message on the talk pages of other users. That in itself is harassment. You don't need something explicitly stated on that page to say what you did was wrong.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Yet I would have been perfectly willing to desist had someone asked. Was there a reason you didn't ask prior to your 3 blocks? Videmus Omnia Talk 00:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
As stated in many places, I mistook a message on your talk page for a warning for such activity, and I later discovered that the block had been placed half an hour after you stopped. There are only two real blocks placed by me. The other two were undone and tweaked.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Can we consider this closed then? With the conclusion of a misunderstanding between 2 good fau=ith editors? SqueakBox 00:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

To image taggers...[edit]

...(me included – I am by no means perfect) please take into account the feelings of others. If you feel that multiple images uploaded by the same editor ought be deleted, leave said editor a custom message, engage him or her in discussion, but don't leave multiple templated messages, and especially do not leave 50 kB of templated messages. Please. --Iamunknown 05:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sage advice. – Quadell (talk) (random) 05:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Definitely. WjBscribe 06:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
If this is the consensus, I'm happy to comply. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

ESkog's view[edit]

I don't think the original block was a good idea. Discussion would be a better way to deal with users who are applying policy in ways we may or may not feel is appropriate. However, others above are right that we should move beyond this. Often, when I see a serial image upload problem, I'll make sure that each relevant template gets posted once, then provide the user with a link to his/her upload log, stating that I have processed other issues with those images. I think this strikes a reasonable balance between keeping Wikipedia as maintained as possible, and not scaring off contributors who may be valuable outside their misunderstanding of our (admittedly complex) image policy. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

An unaddressed issue[edit]

Am I the only one who noticed that that two of the three users that VO checked up on were users that VO had just criticized for being uncivil in unrelated disputes? VO criticizes Alkivar for being uncivil, Alkivar tells VO to "step off," VO checks Alkivar's contribs for images. Mike H describes VO's RFC on Alkivar as "stupid sniping" (which I think was a bit much, but that's neither here nor there), VO demands an apology or retraction, Mike refuses, VO checks Mike's contribs. Both times, VO posts 50+K of warning templates.

The timing is very troubling. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to defend myself by saying that I thought the whole affair was stupid (reporting Alkivar, who I've just learned to deal with). VO had just assumed that I called him stupid, and ordering that I apologize. Obviously, since I never called him stupid in the first place, and pretty much in a corner that I must apologize, I did the difficult thing and said no. Then I got all the messages. Sure, they were valid (I'm not going to say they weren't), but the timing on this is very "tit for tat," and I'm really not convinced otherwise. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 08:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
If true, this is cause for concern. I've drawn Videmus' attention to this thread in the hopes of hearing their version of the story. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
As I said above, I didn't intend any malice. But I can see how that would be perceived. I unreservedly apologize. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll Address It: Systematic attacks (this is no tool problem, folks)[edit]

(I was just doing this big writeup, MIB, when you wrote that)

This isn't a tool or script problem and it is serious. I've already made comments about Videmus Omnia's egregious behavior in the last week here, on the Amy/JamesRenner case. The no-warning block was completely justified. He targeted those people intentionally. I'm thinking we are observing someone with some serious issues, or in the middle of some kind of crisis. Evidence.

  • Conincidence 1: James Renner
  • Punishment for disagreeing. This started out as image-related, and grew to a massive attack four AFDs taking place within a matter of hours. on various fronts. Videmus Omnia is, as we speak, driving a mass deletion a BLP and A COI and a related image deltion concerning a notable journalist (who's also directed a movie based on a short Steven King story). Omnia's main grudge is that the guy contested Omnia's opinion about fair use. The guy is a journalist and he wrote a book about the article topic - and he used the picture in his own book, and he tried to explain that to Omnia. Omnia seized on this information to report him for COI. There was already a BLP talk going on, abut the naming of suspects in a murder case - which is debatable as to who was right - but Renner doesn't know wiki rules, and he got tripped up and even blew his cool after Videmus had 4 different "trials" going on for him at once. He organized this rashly in one day - to a newbie expert (and famous) editor, who couldn't wikilawyer back.

::::* 3. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amy_Mihaljevic started by someone else as an outgrowth of 1 and 2

::::* 5. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Renner started by someone else as an outgrowth of 1 and 2

  • Conincidence 2: Neocoronis
  • Punishment for ignoring him? Neocoronis removed the fair use tag from an image that he had put a fair use tag on. He asked her why she did that, - but she never had a chance to answer because he had commenced with the tagged for deletion of ALL her images within TEN MINUTES. This reminds me of the temper tantrums I've seen grown adults throw. Given that he keeps doing such severe things when people don't answer him, or engage as he wishes, I have the impression that he hates being ignored, and if ignored, he will attack. This has nothing to do with the encyclopedia. It speaks to something else.
  • Honestly - right now I'm glad I have no images on WP. He would probably delete them or mark them for deletion
  • Coincidence 3: Mike Halterman
  • Coincidence 3: Alkivar

'My take: This is a guy with a severe drama addiction, and maybe worse. At the very least he's wasting a lot of time and energy that should be spent on substance. Another weird thing is that once I started calling his behaviors punative, he started saying other people were punative (no I dont have the link, but it was in the past 24 hours). Anything he is accused of, or described as, he describes other people as doing the same - when they aren't. Like accusing Squeakbox of stalking him, for no reason at all - while he is stalking (and harassing) others. I feel like I'm watching someone in a movie.BlueSapphires 09:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comments are melodramatic and over-the-top. "serious issues"? "massive attack"? "temper tantrums"? Citing WP:CANVASS for a single message on one person's talk page? "taunting"? "bizarre accusations of sockpuppetry" (when Hidey Ho was blocked by an uninvolved admin for being a sock)? "severe drama addiction, maybe worse"? I'm not saying you're wrong about everything you've said -- I'm saying your thesis is severely blunted by your overreach. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
And also undermined by the fact that the BlueSapphires account was created on 29 July 2007. Why hasn't this poster used his or her primary account for this? DurovaCharge! 21:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
1. You. You made an WP:AN and RFCU on me, after I pointed out on RFC/Alkivar the above information for context.
2. This may well be my primary account anyways, as I want to detach from the identifying info in my talk page. Assuming you don't get me indef blocked with the aformentioned false accusations.BlueSapphires 03:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
While I agree with both of you, it doesn't stop the evidence from being correct. SWATJester Denny Crane. 22:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Amen. BlueSapphires 03:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
And that's June 29, not July 29. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 23:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
And yet if you try to make sense out of it, you will notice that you perfectly can. Perhaps a less-than-over-zealous user would have put it in a better way, so that nothing would have been left to criticize. I am not saying Abu and some others do a bad job with the images, it's the approach which is unhelpful. We need to be careful with our contributors, they are only human and not machines. Do the right-thing the right way. </sermon> — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 18:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I find the attack (I don't know how else to characterize it) on me by User:BlueSapphires strange. In regards to the User:JamesRenner issue, that came to my attention because someone else posted a notice at WP:BLPN, which I watchlist because I frequently deal with BLP issues. I made the WP:COIN report, nominated the article for deletion, and also nominated the poorly-sourced image for deletion. But I had nothing to do with the James Renner article AfD. BlueSapphires seems to running all over accusing me of bad faith wherever he can, I not sure what has occasioned this extreme reaction. But this probably isn't the place to discuss it. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that you need to think less about being a victim and more about the problems you've created. Also what it felt like for Mr. Renner, and how Alkivar, and Mike and Noncordis felt when you decided to give them all so much of your time and energy. You've also wasted my time - but I felt as if I couldn't leave Mr. Renner without any help - I'm currently working with someone on rewriting the article, and I'm writing Amy's parents asking for GFDL on what they already gave free use permission to use. Honestly, I wish you'd look at how you contributed to this - and that you'd try not to do it again. What I see from you above is a rationalization of what you did, and no apology at all - which on my talk page, you told me you did. I'm sorry = "I'm sorry" not "I tagged all their images because they were on my mind". What about Mr. Renner? He's a well known person and you put it all over the internet that he was self-promoting here, also conflict of interest, which means something real off-wiki, and can be totally misunderstood. You can hurt a lot of people in this way. And it doesn't help the project.BlueSapphires 03:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
My statement "I unreservedly apologize" in the section immediately above isn't enough? Videmus Omnia Talk 03:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough - I didn't see that. It is hard to read mid-section entries. Apologies. BlueSapphires 04:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a major problem with this whole discussion. Why is the focus on talk page messages when the "victims" have apparently been persistently violating our image policies? I do a lot of work with images. There aren't many of us and there are thousands of images that either shouldn't be here at all or aren't properly tagged, sourced and rationale-ized. We can't keep up with the volume of image problems as it is. If we didn't use scripts, we'd fall even further behind. If we don't leave at least some kind of note for each image, we don't give the uploader an opportunity to fix the problem (which is after all the best case scenario). If we are asked to reformat a user's talk page to summarize all the warning templates, that takes us away from our chosen task of addressing image violations. Why should the volunteers helping to enforce our image policies be made to jump through more hoops? Shouldn't the uploaders of large amounts of problem images expect large amounts of warning templates? Would it help to make the warning templates themselves apologetic, or would that detract from their import? Is anybody still reading? -- But|seriously|folks  05:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

what to do?[edit]

Usually in resolving disputes, the question is to how to make a discussion come to a clear consensus. In this case, surrounding the Boerboel dog breed article, I am at a complete loss. Both User:Frikkers and User:Sabt have not made a single talk comment anywhere, and Frikkers has already been blocked once for violation of the 3RR. Now both of them have been warned continously, and I have even begged them to please make some reason, any reason, for their reversions known on the article's talk page. Zero response. Is this persistant refusal to commit to Wikipedia's process of consensus-building now mean that their edits are considered vandalism? I'm at my wits end here, and I'm also beginning to think Frikkers at least may not speak English (the article concerns what is largely only a South African dog breed). VanTucky (talk) 05:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear that VanTucky has tried to discuss this with both users, both on their talk pages and on the article's talk page. Both have indeed been unresponsive. Changes seem to involve links to breeding clubs, and which picture should be in the infobox. – Quadell (talk) (random) 05:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
That's basically correct for the changes. I also want to point out that User:Pharaoh Hound, who is pretty heavily involved in dog breed articles, has expressed concern over Frikkers behavior and edits on my talk page. VanTucky (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I suppose that the links are in the histories? If both editors were indef blocked for edit warring, on the basis that any block would be lifted (temporarily at first) to give them the opportunity to discuss their preferred changes on the talkpage, would this help the article. Any block would be without prejudice to their future contributions should they agree to use the consensus system of editing. I would be available to apply the blocks on that basis, once final warnings were issued. Best get the agreement of other editors first, though! LessHeard vanU 19:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Snowolfd4, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV[edit]

I've run into a strange issue with Snowolfd4 (talk · contribs) on the article Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka. He's insisting that the JVP and LTTE must be described as "the terrorist JVP" and "the terrorist LTTE", citing WP:NPOV, of all things, as his justification! I've pointed out at length on the talk page that his insertions violate WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:WTA#Extremist, terrorist and freedom fighter, to no avail; his responses have invariably been rude and extremely hostile. I'd appreciate it if others could weigh in here, as he seems adamant. The current discussion is at Talk:Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka#Policy and sources. Jayjg (talk) 06:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg is totally misrepresenting the content issue there. His stance on that article has been the most extraordinarily ridiculous thing that I've seen in some time. He is insisting that every single citation in the article should have the article's title in it s content. LTTE has been officially proscribed as terrorist in about half the globe. Every political analyst and even every author cited on that very article unanimously agree that LTTE is a terrorist group. It is hardly NPOV not to tell people where an opinion is coming from. You cant pass off LTTE's opinions about the SL govt., as if it was from an uninvolved, neutral, third party!! Jayjg's behaviour has been appalling and unbecoming of an admin. And this complaint by totally misrepresenting others' stances is in bad faith. Snowlfd4 is an established editor who's been here for a long time and this complaint by Jayjg is just an attempt to throw his weight around and browbeat him. Sarvagnya 06:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
We may not use the adjective 'terrorist' unless it is inside a cited direct quotation. Otherwise, it would be as if WP itself is passing judgment. Crum375 07:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello. That LTTE is a terrorist organisation is beyond question. I can give you a zillion citations for that. Infact, that is what snowolf had done before Jayjg vandalised it. Snowolf had given a citation which DIRECTLY stated that LTTE was a terrorist organisation. Infact, almost every single source about the subject and on that article says so. IN ANY CASE that is NOT the point of contention at all!! The question on that article is hardly about how to characterise the LTTE. Its about the characterisation of the Sri Lankan govt., by the LTTE and others. See that talk page of that article for details. Sarvagnya 07:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The only way you can use the word 'terrorist' in Wikipedia is inside a cited quotation. It may not appear outside a quotation, except perhaps in an article about terrorism. It doesn't matter who calls whom terrorist, and how many sources agree with it. Crum375 07:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
As qualification, see Abu Nidal as to how WP can use the word 'terrorist' when making a statement that someone is 'widely regarded' as such by the mainstream press, with a number of reliable neutral mainstream sources making that case. IOW, we can say "X is widely regarded as a dangerous international terrorist."[1] But we can't say, "X, the international terrorist, was captured by police yesterday."[2] In the latter example it would be WP making the conclusion, not just saying he's widely regarded as such. Crum375 15:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
"Hello. That LTTE is a terrorist organisation is beyond question. I can give you a zillion citations for that. Infact, that is what snowolf had done before Jayjg vandalised it." This is false accusation. 33 Countries has proscribed LTTE as terrorist. However, that's less than 33% of the world. We cannot just go around and say these types of sentence in wikipedia... Watchdogb 17:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagyna, please once again refrain from Personal attacking jaygj.

If organization XYZ is labeled as a terrorist organization, we attribute that opinion to the sources that hold these. But we do not use "the terrorist group XYZ" in our texts, and that is declaring on opinion (evenly if widely held) as a fact, in violation of WP:NPOV. Wikipiedia articles are not editorials or soapboxes in which opinions are wielded as facts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

mass changes, England --UK[edit]

Davis 11 (talk · contribs) has just made a plethora of change, removing references to England, or making them refer to "England, United Kingdom", as celebrities' place of birth. Previous consensus has usually been that "England" is sufficient, Is that something an admin could roll back, please? Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 10:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll second that, it's not like Arnold is from 'Austria, Europe' or Jackie Chan is from 'China, The Orient.' --Hayden5650 10:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I will third that. A place in England/Scotland/Wales/NI is generally referred to as being in England/Scotland/Wales/NI and adding UK is redundant. 'Birmingham, England, UK, Europe' ? -- roundhouse0 13:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

On further reflection, looking at edits as far back as early June, I wonder if that isn't becoming a single-use account. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 13:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion in this matter, other than to note that the usage actually seems to be under discussion. See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) (the world-wide discussion) and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#UK.2C_England.2C_Scotland... for this particular issue. Dina 13:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
There certainly are a lot of changes, but some of them are useful, so it's not as simple as a mass rollback. I've reverted several, but more eyes are needed. Martinp23 13:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion worth mentioning on the stylistic question, but it would probably have been good form to attempt to communicate with this user if people are going to mass revert his good faith edits. CIreland 15:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the Cornwall wikiproject, which agreed to use "England, United Kingdom" to satisfy both nationalistic viewpoints, I understood it to be agreed that the individual member country names were the preferred point of reference. LessHeard vanU 19:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and should be hashed out elsewhere. I would suggest following the dispute resolution process, perhaps starting with a Request for Comment. I'll also note that there has been no attempt to actually discuss the issue with the editor. --Farix (Talk) 02:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Videmus Omnia[edit]

User: Videmus Omnia has targeted every image that I have ever uploaded and targeted them for deletion..the amount of images was staggering..and if I spent all day today trying to fix them I still couldn't get them done. I feel he has targeted me becuase I removed a no fair use tag from one of my images (which was editted to be fair use) becuase after that my talk page was suddenly flooded with deletion warnings for all of my pics all filed by this one user who has yet to tell me why. NeoCoronis 15:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You have more than a day. You have a week, and if you can't manage in that time, you could ask nicely to be given more time, rather than reverting. If an image has no fair use rationale, and someone tags it as having no fair use rationale, don't remove the tag; start adding the rationale for as many as you can. ElinorD (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
"...the amount of images was staggering..." - If you plan to upload an staggering amount of non-free images, make sure you have valid reason to do so, and write this reason as part of the rationale as you upload the image.
For those which you believe there's no (longer a) valid reason to use, just tag them with {{db-author}}, and some admin will take care of it. --Abu badali (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
This was discussed elsewhere, on this page I believe. SWATJester Denny Crane. 02:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Yup, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block of Videmus Omnia. NeoCoronis: take the time you need, feel free to ask Videmus, Abu, or myself for help with providing rationales. If any of these images gets deleted before you have the chance to add a rationale, explain the situation and it will be undeleted. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation by an administrator[edit]

User Taharqa making personal attacks[edit]

The user Taharqa made these attacks while he is blocked [14]: "I guess an ego-maniac delusional Arab wouldn't perceive that as owning up" and other racial slurs. I don't know how I'm supposed to respond, but I know it would inflame the situation so I didn't. He also edited an article twice during this block. Egyegy 17:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the same person and good advice to not respond. I won't block the IP though; Taharqa's block has since expired. —Crazytales (talk) (alt) 22:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Multpile IPs attacking a variety of pages[edit]

Multiple IP addresses are attacking related pages, including the AFD, the logo image and the talk pages of various parties who have argued to keep. There's a related SSP page. Could an admin take a look at this? I'm having a hard time keeping pace with the vandalism. Thanks. -Chunky Rice 19:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, it looks like OwenX has the situation under control. -Chunky Rice 19:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous spammer on Sarbanes-Oxley Act[edit]

An anonymous spammer keeps reinserting links to a discussion forum and to an advertisement page on a commercial website in violation of WP:EL. WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:OWN problems as well.[15] THF 19:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

SEIU Local 1.on[edit]

I have requested that Dmcdevit take a look and see if these accounts are indeed the same person. User:El arco iris, User:UnionPride and User:SuperVideoGameKid have all been adding the same perjoritive and defamitory text to the article with edit summeries like "(Just tidying things up a bit.)" "(Made grammar and spelling edits, as per request from Sir William Tuttleworth III.)" and "Reverted vandalism.)" The re-addition is exactly the same material by each of these "editors". Any ideas how to proceed further? I thank you all in advance. Hamster Sandwich 19:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I checked and it is exactly the same text (OR, unreferenced and BLP violating) being added under various pretext's. I will block the three named users for team-tagging reverting for 48hours each. Other admins are welcome to review/vary/unblock as desired. LessHeard vanU 20:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Penis vandalism has more far-reaching consequences than just Wikipedia...[edit]

I know it's been a while since we discussed the penis vandal and his main page disruption, but today I discovered this interesting tidbit of how penis/shock image vandalism seems to have more far-reaching consequences than on here itself... see here for more info. As it were, Libyan Head (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) uploaded some penis images - which got deleted, thankfully.

We'd better watch out over the next few days for penis vandals... they seem to be back again. Looks like more new images need to be added to MediaWiki:Bad image list... --SunStar Net talk 20:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I never considered that the vandal could be the victim too, how sad. Until(1 == 2) 20:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
LOL!!! What the hell, never seen anything like that before. I don't think it would help to add to the bad image list; they can just change the filename for a trivial workaround. —Crazytales (talk) (alt) 22:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This truly deserves a Signpost mention. – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Could someone delete the entire history/logs of File:Skynight.jpg, the logs contain the email address of (a probably) unsuspecting person. Someone could call it courtesy blanking, but I cannot or don't know how to do it. Just a request. Carlossuarez46 23:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • We can't delete logs. Prodego talk 23:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
There's been talk of allowing those with oversight privileges to delete log entries. Carlos, you might want to bring it up on oversight-l by following the instructions at WP:RFO. —Crazytales (talk) (alt) 00:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
They can't do it though, they do not have the capability. Currently the software does not allow it, short of involving a developer. Prodego talk 00:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I thought that bureaucrats could, but oh well. Only admins can see the person's email address so the risk should be low. I was just trying to help. Carlossuarez46 01:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
It's in the upload edit summary, so anyone can see it, really. WODUP 05:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

User page vandalism[edit]

An anonymous user vandalized my user page here:[16] I warned this user on their discussion page User_talk: I request that this user be blocked.--Fahrenheit451 20:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandal blocking requests should be sent to WP:AIV, as they are typically handled faster there. However, blocks are generally not handed out for such sparse vandalism, only after multiple acts of vandalism after being warned he might be blocked. Further, you may be interested in WP:WARNING, a standardized list of warning templates to place on vandals' talk pages. Someguy1221 21:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

bureaucrat’s help needed[edit]

I am Polarlys, admin on de.wp and Commons. There is a serious problem which can’t be solved on a public talk page. I am not familiar with and I didn’t find a bureaucrat who is active right now. Unfortunately I also have no IRC access. So please hand over this request to an active bureaucrat who would please contact me via the mail form as soon as possible. Thank you. --Polarlys 20:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, is this related to OsamaKBOT (talk · contribs)? — Madman bum and angel (talkdesk) 21:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
No. It’s about identity theft. --Polarlys 21:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Okey. Never mind then. ;) — Madman bum and angel (talkdesk) 21:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Account identity theft or true identity theft? Prodego talk 22:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bureaucrat. Not sure exactly what I can do to help with identity theft... --Deskana (banana) 22:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Mail for you. :-) --Polarlys 22:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
My guess: Accounts with the same name, one of which can be renamed. Only a guess though, and forced renames are not permitted, so... m:SUL will fix this. Prodego talk 22:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
It’s really serious, please don’t guess. --Polarlys 22:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
What does one have to do with the other? Guessing is most fun when the subject matter is serious, anyway. Who cares about guessing about boring, uninteresting matters? Guess how many fingers I'm holding up right now ... Cyde Weys 23:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
42. :P Anyway I am guessing because Deskana asked what a bureaucrat could do, and whatever it is will be logged, so if anyone really wanted to know, they could find out. Prodego talk 00:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


I think this edit while appearing to be in good faith are done more to cause offense.diff

Muntuwandi 22:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Assuming the source is accurate, there is nothing wrong with the edit other than it's placement in that article, granting it undo weight. Notable viewpoints (if it can be asserted as such) can be discussed on Wikipedia even if offensive to some people. However, a single questionable edit does not belong on this noticeboard. See if you can hash it out with the editor, if he objects to the revert. Someguy1221 22:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

User avoiding indef block[edit]

Resolved: Blocked by Crazytales

User:Thebiggestwwefan was blocked on 27th July, he has re-registered as User:Darius123 and is continuing to post almost exculsively on talk pages asking forum-like questions. And has now decided to begin posting on my talk page again making baseless threats. He admits he has been banned and re-registered. I am not sure what needs to be done, I always understood that evading a block was enough for another block. I have alerted the original admin who blocked him and he has said he will keep an eye on him. I would rather not have to get involved with this user again. Darrenhusted 22:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I've stretched WP:AGF to the limit and given Darius123 a last warning [17] to actually improve the encyclopedia. I probably should have blocked him straight away, but I thought I'd give him a chance. ELIMINATORJR TALK 22:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your help with this user. Darrenhusted 22:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'd also like to ask for admin review of my actions, since I"m a new admin. —Crazytales (talk) (alt) 22:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I gave him a chance as he didn't seem to understand the difference between editing talk pages and articles, but it's fairly obvious that he wasn't here to improve the encyclopedia. He's requesting unblock now, btw, so we'll let an uninvolved admin review that. ELIMINATORJR TALK 23:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
An uninvolved admin declined his unblock request --Stephen 1-800-STEVE 00:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Pahlivimazandaranpars[edit]

Pahlivimazandaranpars (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly vandalized the discussion page of Qashqai. Pahlivimazandaranpars has made some of the edits under the anonymous IP account of . For instance, he removed all the contents of the discussion page and replaced it with his comment [18]. He has also edit warred in the article, please see [19].

When his vandalism was reverted, he made two personal attacks. He called the editor who reverted Pahlivimazandaranpars' vandalism an "ignorant arse" [20]. He also insinuated that that user's action were childish [21].

This user ought to be punished for his violation of WP:NPA. --Agha Nader 02:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

PrisonPlanet attack site[edit]

Alex Jones decided to write an attack/outing piece on a Wikipedia editor and encourages vandalism of Wikipedia. [[]. - this is unlikely to be accepted as a reliable source.] The vandalim has already started. Since Alex Jones and are synonomous, it seems that should be treated as an attack site. --Tbeatty 14:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. If specific attacks (and I mean attacks, not honest criticism, however misguided) on that site are linked on Wikipedia, just remove them. Block persistent offenders if necessary. --Tony Sidaway 16:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
While I do not like the contents of the site, there is clearly no "outing" going on, unless they are in fact "disinformation agents", which is highly doubtful. It seems to just be an overly harsh critique. Treated as an "attack site" seems a bit harsh, but I do not think PrisonPlanet is used other then in discussing itself. Unless of course this is an end run around getting the Alex Jones (radio) article deleted by labeling it as such. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
See external links to
Yikes. A while back we had some hyperaggressive POV-pushers insisting it was a reliable source for global warming articles, but I had no idea that links to it were so widespread. Raymond Arritt 17:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Cool. Didn't know you could do that external link search thing. But anyway. All those links are on talk pages, except for a few which are links to interview mp3 when the person in question appeared on the Alex Jones radio show. Eg. Greg Palast article has a link to an interview on Alex Jones. That should obviously stay. ... Seabhcan 17:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
That is alot, oddly it seems it appears heavily on Morton's page, the irony. The links also seem to appear mainly on talk page, or when citing interviews with people, most likely those who have done interviews with PrisonPlanet or on Alex Jones' radio program and those interviews are being used as sources, which is fair. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Those are primarily talk page links. Even IF we had a policy against these links, I don't think it would affect links outside articlespace. Circeus 18:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
There also seem to be a few linked Reuters and agency articles which are hosted on prisonplanet. If someone wants to track down these articles hosted on another subscription-free site, be my guest - but it seems a little unnecessary. ... Seabhcan 17:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Note: It seems Tom Harrison is going around stripping out all links to prison planet. This may be ligit, but I wonder if he would be so kind as to explain his reasoning here? ... Seabhcan 17:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
eg. Tom removed some material here [22] that could have been easily resourced to Fox News. I have done this in that case, but I don't want to be chasing Tom around wikipedia cleaning up after him. ... Seabhcan 17:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I started reverting the ones that are republishing of other articles. Hopefully Tom will be careful and only remove ones that are PrisonPlanet articles if that is his issue. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
He is now removing cited interviews, can we get another admin to rule on this. Thank you. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC) is not a reliable source for anything except what its operator thinks, and we have no way of knowing that they correctly "republish" the work of legitimately reliable sources. No article should cite them for any matter of fact. It cannot be used to support controversial material about any living person, except maybe Alex Jones, and even then only as a primary source. An external link to the site might be useful as a primary source or in articles about conspiracy theories, subject to other policies about linking, undue weight, etc. Except in these rare cases, links to should be removed. Material cited to there should be cited instead to a reliable source, or removed. Controversial material about living people cited to has to be removed until a reliable source is provided. While many of these are from talk pages and archives, there are over 300 of them. I suspect this is a reflection of the enthusiasm of the site's fans. I took out those that failed our standards and those that violated blp. I left in those I thought were appropriate. Comments are welcome, but they probably belong on the blp notice board or the individual talk pages. Tom Harrison Talk 18:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you attempted to see if any of them are incorrectly republished? You do realize that most links you removed are not citing PrisonPlanet, they are citing the republished article. Instead of re-citing these you simply removed them entirely as sources. Can you please go back and re-cite them as sources. Thank you. If you choose not to I will work on readding them tomorrow, your goal should be to fix material, not remove it, and if you did not even verify if any articles were republished incorrectly, I am not sure why you would make that judgement. I know Morton is your friend, however this unilateral action which is removing citations, is not the proper way to vindicate him. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
"Can you please go back and re-cite them as sources." Hell no. If you want that conspiracist nonsense in the article, you put it in and source it. If it is about a living person, it better be sourced well. Tom Harrison Talk 18:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes the Washington Post is conspiratist nonsense? I will revert your removals tomorrow, it seems you did not even read any of them before going on your way. In the furture be more careful regarding citation removals. Thank you. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Tom, you have been removing links to mp3s of interviews with the article's subject. When Greg Palast is interviewed, and that mp3 is available, that is certainly suitable for the Greg Palast article, regardless of your personal dislike of the Alex Jones radio show. ... Seabhcan 18:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see what encyclopedic purpose is served by giving our readers convenient links to mp3's of Jones' radio show, except from the page about Alex Jones. Tom Harrison Talk 18:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Or about the person being interviewed and their quotes from that interview, which you removed. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Tom, it is clear from that reply that you have personal issues with this particular radio show. But it is not policy to remove links to interviews - wikipedia has thousands of links to interviews. Perhaps you should consider refraining from making edits on this topic. Your personal bias is clear. ... Seabhcan 18:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not think Tom is actually paying attention to what he is removing, just removing everything he can find. Unless a consensus forms on this issue here I will go through the links tomorrow individually, those not related to BLP issues in anyway will be reverted. Or unless of course Tom properly recites the material of the republished works and interviews without the links. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
If I understand it correctly, Prison Planet is just some weird conspiracy website run by this guy. It is always good practice to pull unreliable sources from Wikipedia. It surprises me that they were ever used here in the first place. Tom should continue. --Tony Sidaway 18:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
It is that, but its also a radio show that attracts several big name interviewees. Eg Noam Chomsky, Greg Palast, etc. Further, it has good resources of news agency (Reuters, etc) reports without subscription needed. This is handy for many articles which may be reprinted elsewhere, but with subscription. ... Seabhcan 18:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Instead of just reverting, why don't you recite it? I've seen cases where the conclusion drawn from the Alex Jones cited stuff was 180 degrees from the actual material. They are not reliable sources and restoring them when you know there are legitimate sources available is spam and possibly vandalism. --Tbeatty 18:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Tbeatty, Actually I think we should never use an option piece from Alex Jones as a source (except on his article page, maybe) but we are talking about reprinted agency sources and first hand interviews. Those are certainly RS (but if you can find a different, subscribtion free copy of the article, I say use that instead.) ... Seabhcan 18:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
PrisonPlanet is not reliable enough to cite as a primary source for interview transcripts. It is not clear that PrisonPlanet has a license agreement with the copyright holder, as reliable source newspapers do, to reprint articles. Especially fee based articles that the web site is circumventing. This is the difference between linking to a reliable source using reprinted material and an unreliable source such as PrisonPlanet. It is not acceptable to cite except in reference to itself. --Tbeatty 01:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I have asked Tom to fix his mess, his response was "Hell no", Will you do it? Asking others to correct sloppy work is not appropriate, do it right, or do not do it. However if you want to take up the task, that will be more then better then me reverting, will you? --SevenOfDiamonds 18:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
While it is conspiracy focused, many academics and even governors have given interviews to Alex Jones. It would be like removing all information of Newton and gravity from Wikipedia as well as his works because he attempted to find codes in the bible or transmute materials to gold. Further the interviews being cited as reliable sources, and further the republishing of articles is not being fixed, Tom is effectively removing sources instead of re-citing them as asked, his response was "Hell no." because he believes Reuters and the Washington Post are "conspiracist nonsense" Again I will revert the citations tomorrow since they are valid republishings, and only Tom who has not checked them, states they are false and inaccurate republishings. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
How does this 'republishing' process work exactly? Tom Harrison Talk 18:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Tom, Most articles in all newspapers are republished agency pieces, as you know. Reuters stories are printed in newspapers from here to Iran. That Alex Jones also prints them, does not make those stories unreliable. ... Seabhcan 18:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
So why should we link Jones' site instead of a reputable newspaper? Tom Harrison Talk 18:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any reason not to. For example, while you just deleted material on Loose Change, I went and found the same story on Fox News and restored it. Do that in future rather than disruptively blanking material, please. ... Seabhcan 19:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Edit conflict - Nonsense. This is not an interview with Jones. THey have clearly stated an intent to disrupt and manipulate Wikipedia and have attacked individual editors. WP:BADSITES was formally rejected but the arbcom decisions cited there are useful.
This site did none of the below:
  1. Compiles or sponsors efforts to obtain evidence that may be used to discover the real world identities of Wikipedia contributors;
  2. Harasses or sponsors harassment of Wikipedians;
  3. Makes or sponsors legal threats toward Wikipedians
Therefore it is not an attack site by Arbcom's standards. Further one article on it, does not make it fit any of those either, as we all know a certain admin was outed, that publication did not become an attack site. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, come on. You don't think that this sort of nonsense is the type of thing Arbcom has in mind? How is asking people to vandalize his user page not sponsoring harassment? Pablo Talk | Contributions 20:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
A page which contains an attack on an editor and provides a handy link to his user page is an attack page. How many such pages a site must have to become an official AttackSite™ might be debated - several other undisputed attack sites have interesting material alongside the attacks - but when the user pages of our contributors are defaced with obscenities alongside "Internet smear info" and a link to the attacks, the distinction seems somewhat academic.Proabivouac 02:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, Tbeatty's original accusation that this is an "attack site" appears to be a little bit of an overstatement. An "attack site" is a site that exists purely to attack people. Prison Planet is probably better characterized as an alternative-press news and opinion site; most of its articles are reprints of news articles elsewhere. It doesn't appear to be any more of an "attack site" than, say, Fox News -- another news site that also carries aggressive opinion articles.

The article in question, written by Alex Jones and another contributor, expresses concern (in language that would on Wikipedia be considered uncivil, yes) about the alleged systematic introduction of bias into Wikipedia by an administrator deleting articles that they disapprove of. While we may disapprove of the language, this is a serious issue. If an administrator is really unilaterally deleting articles such as Movement to impeach George W. Bush -- a well-sourced article on a highly notable subject in current events -- that's a freakin' huge problem. --FOo 18:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Look at Morton's page: what is listed there is "Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (deleted & redirected to Movement to impeach George W. Bush)". Alex Jones need glasses. Circeus 18:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not an attack site, it's a conspiracy site, and currently it contains a vitriolic personal attack on a Wikipedia administrator in good standing. If that attack is linked to, it should be removed as an attack. If other items are linked to in articles, they should be removed simply because we don't regard conspiracy theorists as reliable sources. --Tony Sidaway 18:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
So Issac Newton needs to be purged from Wikipedia? Jessy Ventura? Do I need to go through the wealth of people who have believed or currently believe in conspiracy theories? How about History and Discovery, they often cover conspiracies, there is also PBS. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
The conspiracy theories are not reliabe for anything you mentioned. Since PrisonPlanet is only known for conspiracy theories (unlike the other people you mentioned), it is wholly not reliable. --Tbeatty 18:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure why you have yet to get what is being repeatedly stated here. Alex Jones is not being used as a source for most of what was removed, the site is simpyl holding republished articles, that are being removed. The citations are not being fixed, simply chopped out. Care to fix them? Is it too much to ask of someone to fix the mess they made? I will go about fixing it tomorrow as I stated, if noone has by then. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC) would be best if you want to continue editing here if you moved on and stopped confronting those you had prior disagreements with. As a ban evader, you're very lucky to still be here editing at all.--MONGO 20:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Is this a new accusation, file another RFCU, this will be your third accusation to fail. Fairness and accuracy for all, then I believe it was rootology, now nuclearumpf, I am sure you have more once that one fails. --SevenOfDiamonds 21:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you understood the wikipedia definition of "attack site" as defined in previous ArbCom decisions. If the sites stated goal is to disrupt Wikipedia and harass contributors, it is an attack site. This is what Alex Jones wrote and that's what his minions are doing. Read the comments, compare the commentators to contributors on User:Morton_devonshire talk page and you can see the disruption. Morton is not an administrator. No administrator is unilaterally deleting anything as the target of that article is not an administrator. Like everything there, it is full of misinformation and lies and that is also why it is not a reliable source. --Tbeatty 18:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
So when they republish a Washington Post article, they are lying about what? Since the sources being removed are not Alex Jones articles, but republishings of WP:RS sources. Are you going to fix the citations? --SevenOfDiamonds 19:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
When they republish a Washington Post article, they are committing a copyright violation, and in general we can't use that as a source either. Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. "If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States."--AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
AnonEMouse, you do not know they are committing copyright infringement by reprinting a Washington Post article. They may have a license to redistribute the article. Removing links to the website based upon alleged copyright violations is fallacious. --Iamunknown 20:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
For that matter, the Washington Post may be reprinting the article from AP, UPI, or Reuters. If the Alex Jones site has a license to reprint wire stories, than it is perfectly fine to link to those stories, particularly considering that lots of newspapers eventually take their old articles down or require payment for them. I agree we shouldn't be linking to his opinion pieces, unless we are citing his opinion in the article about him, but it sounds like that isn't actually happening. Natalie 21:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with this analysis. PrisonPlanet is a partisan, fringe site that cannot be considered a reliable source for factual information of any type. The best parallel I can think of is with LaRouche-related articles, where (according to Arbcom) LaRouche publications are citeable as sources on the LaRouche movement itself but not for other purposes. We can cite PrisonPlanet for discussing Alex Jones' views as such, but cannot consider it a WP:RS for factual materials. As for wire stories, we'd have to check that the stories are being printed verbatim and not being edited to support a particular viewpoint. Since this would require a second, more credible source for comparison, why not simply link to the more credible source? Raymond Arritt 21:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
That we don't know how to tell if it's licensed is an excellent point. I found an email address on the washingtonpost web site, [23] and asked. Let's see what they say. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself (and another user is attacked there far more harshly than I am) I care less about the issue of attacks than the unreliability of the site as a source, and the misuse of Wikipedia for promotion. I think there are some other websites run by the same guy: infowars,,, maybe others. Tom Harrison Talk 19:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really concerned about the personal attacks -- I've had Wikipedians call me worse things, and have a pretty thick skin about it all. But keep in mind that it's Alex Jones who is asking for the vandalism, and is his site. So yes, I think it's fair for us to remove all links to an attack site, as we have done with the infamous Encyclopedia Drammatica.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 02:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Links to attacks on wikipedians should be removed. Links to copyvios should be removed. Citations should go directly to the original source ("Washington Post, Smarch 32, page A1") even if it does not have a freely accessible URL (See Wikipedia:Citing sources). Linking to a copy of the article hosted on another web site is a copyright violation, plus there is no way to know the article wasn't tampered with. Links to partisan sites should generally be avoided except if it is the subject of the article. (i.e. Link to Hamas' web site in an article about Hamas but not in an article about Irsaeli politics.) So, link to Alex Jones' web site in the article about Alex Jones, if he has one, but don't link to it anywhere else. This is a standard application of the WP:EL policy, what's the problem here? Thatcher131 14:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
That's my interpretation. The reason for this notice was an alert that a specific attack piece was just written and to be on the lookout for vandalism and attacks. Removal of the links as you outlined above has always been policy but perhaps more pressing now that Wikipedia is under assault from "undercover truther" meatpuppets recruited by Seabhcan on their discussion page. [24] --Tbeatty 21:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
This is nonsense. I have no influence over Alex Jones or the people who read his site. I was, however, trying to stem the tide of IP vandals and SPA by convincing them to edit properally and get involved. Tbeatty is cheery-picking comments to smear me. ... Seabhcan 22:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't cherry pick anything. I provided the link to your complete post. It looks like you are recruting "under-cover truthers" to come by every once in while and argue for inclusion of truther stuff. Sounds like a meat-puppet. Smells like a meat-puppet. Must be a duck. --Tbeatty 22:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
That one comment was one of dozens, and part of a larger structure known as a "conversation". Anyway, it would be pretty damn stupid of me to have "recruited" secret meat-puppets and then told you about it, wouldn't it? Stop looking for conspiracies everywhere. ... Seabhcan 22:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Seems pretty clear you were asking like minded members over there to come here and take part in AFD debates, no? Basically, we need under-cover truthers to come out and help every now and then. Not secret, but really bad form if you ask me. RxS 22:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I was asking those interested to refrain from vandalism and SPA and to get really involved in wikipedia. Just asking them to vote on AfDs would have no effect, as you know. SPAs are excluded from the count. ... Seabhcan 23:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think the quote speaks for itself. Full quote and more discussion: [25]. RxS 23:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • pulls out tin foil hat* I think this proves Seabhcan is part of the secret USSR communist propaganda machine attempting to plot world domination by hiding missles in Puerto Rico and Trinidad. Seabhcan, do you defend yourself against our overwhelming proof of one sentence in the midst of pages long conversation? I thought some of the people here did not like conspiracy theories? I think everyone needs to lighten up, some people have their panties in a bunch over a certain "other article." --SevenOfDiamonds 11:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Any chance you could work to be more civil while you're editing Wikipedia? Thanks. RxS 14:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
See the next discussion for your answer. It Seven and YetAnotherEditor that accused him of incivility. --Tbeatty 15:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I left him a warning about his incivility and personal attacks on his talk page (since removed). No one should have to put up with that very long. RxS 15:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved from AIV: MKPluto's image uploads[edit]

Moving this from WP:AIV to allow for more discussion. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

For my part, I have great respect and appreciation for our photo contributors, but we must protect the rights of the original creators, whether that is indeed MKPluto or not. It catches my attention that most or all of these images seem to be of low resolution -- in particular, about the size you'd probably find on assorted websites and news items. In the case of Image:Prem.JPG in particular, we have two users both claiming to have taken the photo, MKPluto and FlamingSpear (talk · contribs).