Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thatcher (talk | contribs) at 18:49, 16 October 2006 (→User 137.94.*.*: sprotected). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion


    LorenzoPerosi1898

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

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

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

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

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

    Abraham Lincoln is a bad example - he's guilty of winning a Civil War apparently costing more than twice as many lives as Saddam Hussein's Iraq Civil War in 1991 (Saddam's Civil War was imposed on him - I suppose it's possible that Lincoln was in the same position). Alternatively, perhaps contributors here are required to abide by an AF (American Friendly) point of view, in which case I'm sorry, I didn't notice this injunction in my Wikipedia Welcome Pack. PalestineRemembered 19:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, PalestineRemembered is positively correct. Abe Lincoln was not the 16th President. How silly of me! LorenzoPerosi1898 09:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Usage of images in signatures

    WP:SIG is a guideline on Wikipedia as of now, and those who flaunt outrageous signatures with images in them can get away with it. I think it is time to set a precedent here and make is a policy on wikipedia so that usage of images on Wikipedia is discouraged. Alkivar (talk · contribs) (who is incidentally an administrator on en.wiki) has been flaunting an image in his signature since a long time. Reminders [1] to remove image by me and other users have been ignored by Alkivar and he conviniently chose to ignore them and clear his talk page for archiving [2] and he continues to have the image in his signature. I would like the community to adjudicate on this matter.

    Reference– User talk:Alkivar
    More about the problems that images cause can be read here — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 09:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't know much about the server load question but I do note that when uploading images for articles last night, the image server was struggling. Signatures are an expression of users' individualism and we should resist tampering unless it's necessary, but I personally do not like images in signatures. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 09:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not aware of many editors who still use images in their signatures. If they do, they should be reprehended and persuaded to change the signature to something more acceptable. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Um. Do you mean reprimanded or apprehended? I'm picturing chasing Alkivar around with a big butterfly net... - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reprehend v.t. - rebuke. (see reprehensible) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh. You learn something new every day. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Ghirla. This is another heavy handed way of dealing with something which is not really a problem except in the minds of a few. By the way, mocking someone for mistyping, is not exactly in the spirit of WP:civil or AGF...especially when English is not their native language and it is bloody obvious what they meant.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    It may not be a big issue but then -Ril-'s confusing signature did end up going to the ArbCom. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 09:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but that seems to have been a ~~~~ for a signature and then replaced by some abusive comments. Alkivar had an svg image (which is just a 2kb piece of XML code by the way) - I don't see how this warrants cold orders followed by threats of being blocked.--Konst.able 09:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please check this too, which was posted by some user as an anon, probably by mistake and was removed from his talk page by Alkivar. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 11:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That IP address post was posted by a vandal (see this other edit). Presumably this is User:DickyRobert my regular stalker, who presumably also posted as Seattle Lonelyguy here and IrregularSignature here.  ALKIVAR™ 20:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Konstable, please check this user's talk page carefully, and you will see the number of times, I (and other users) have asked this user to remove the image. Images in signature are a problem for Wikipedia, and this user has been blocked by an administrator for flaunting a confusing signature with image(s) in it. The fellow admin you are referring to does not understand Wikipedia and its processes and has assumed bad faith with me and perhaps other editors (check his user talk page). What I am proposing here is to ban usage of images in signatures, and persuading other users to change their signatures by removing the images. Perhaps you should see the acidulous language he has used to reply to me. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 10:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I had posted the warning only as a last resort. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 10:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nick, this seems like a classic WP:PERF issue... I tend to doubt that Alkivar's signature is really destroying the Wiki, but if it (and others) were having any significant impact at all the devs would deal with it. Trying to make policy on the basis of 'this is better for performance' has consistently caused nothing but aggravation and thus is itself strongly discouraged. As is repeatedly arguing a point and/or threatening users. Have you clocked the nanoseconds 'wasted' by Alkivar's signature image... and does that add up to more or less than the wasted time and aggravation being caused by your argument over it? --CBD 13:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried explaining to Nick that I have spoken with dev's over this back around 1 July, 2005 and they told me it caused negligable server load and that it was harmless. When User:R3m0t had initially said something on my talk page about the sig image.  ALKIVAR™ 20:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There is much more to the problems that images cause than performance. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 13:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Hey guys how does everyone like my new signature? -- S t e e l 20:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh! As long as the servers don't crash, I like it! :-) People Powered 22:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Outrageous. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 11:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Agreed, see your talk page for more. Deizio talk 13:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    One problem is that there usually isn't more than one edit per article per day, which doesn't really meet the threshhold for semi-protecting a dozen or more articles. Because Leyasu uses disposable British Telecom IPs, there's no point in blocking once he had logged off for the day. For example, this morning he was at it from 81.156.152.0 (talk · contribs), but is gone now. Your best bet would be to post to AIV (or maybe here, in case the AIV patroller is not familiar with the history) to block the IP as soon as it starts up. Thatcher131 15:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to catch this on the head. Deathrocker and Danteferno have been banned from changing the article versions until they provide counter sources. Thus, no vandalism. I might remind you all that he is also still claiming users to be sockpuppets whenever somebody reverts him, still making the claim about users RFC shows are not sockpuppets. There is no vandalism in reverting vandalism. And remember this much, im not the only person to revert Danteferno and Deathrocker - Cronodevir, Sn0wflake, WP:HMM users, and Ours18 are amongst others also watching these pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.130.138 (talk) aka banned user Leyasu
    You have been permanently banned by the community. As such, any editor may revert any edit you make without regard to its content or merit. The fact that this applies equally to Deathrocker was affirmed by Fred Bauder who said, I would let whoever is reverting Leyasu continue. I know I don't want that chore. [3] You also mis-state the terms of Deathrocker's probation. I'm sorry you've been banned; you can appeal to the arbitration committee if you want. Thatcher131 06:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:A Man In Black and fair use images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Which was actualy a very very notable thing. Thats keiichis only appearance in the mini serries. But perhaps you are right, mentioning him being a mere shadow can be done with thext... :/ Still the manga image should be fine. --Cat out 21:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no need to have an image of every single cameo appearance every character makes ever. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read my post. --Cat out 22:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I read it. You might notice that Ash Kechum, while overburdened with images, doesn't and shouldn't have images of his cameo appearances in Pokémon Chronicles or the various pre-movie shorts, where his absence is conspicuous. That cameo appearance can simply be described with prose. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesnt explain why you deleted the manga image. --Cat out 16:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Incidentally, I've fully protected {{Infobox Oh My Goddess! character}}, as Dynamo ace (talk · contribs) was reverting to a version with all eight image parameters. I invite review of this protection, as my role is a bit complicated; his revert also removed a ton of work I did to remove meta-templates from the larger template, so I rolled back to the last version with no edits from me other than the removal of the excess images. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur with Cyde here. AMIB did the right thing, indeed. Fair use images should be minimally used. I see no reason for decoration of the article pages with unneeded images. I suggest that User:Cool Cat must discuss on relevant talk pages before reverting the actions of an administrator an established user. In this case, AMIB's warning came as highly warranted. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support AMIB. Good call. Nandesuka 12:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. I see. The complaint is that AMIB is very very closed to a discussion and that he is taking actions without a discussion to the point of endorsing his actions by using admin tools. His actions on the template have nothing to do with copyrights since the template itself is released under GNU.
    Weather each fair use image is approporate or not should be investigated on a case by case basis. The "number" of images used is irrelevant, few is of course better and 2-5 is what I'd call "few". The copyright issues can be subject to a debate and this isnt the approporate place for that.
    A further note. AMIB being an administrator means absolutely nothing to me. Wikipedia is an anti-elitist comunity, infact that is the foundation of our comunity.
    --Cat out 16:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey you are right about the administrator part. But please respect consensus and discussions. Happy editing. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 10:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Durrus and District History

    Hi. Durrus adds very much to Durrus and District History (all is made by him). The page grows uneccessarily long and it is difficult to read. What is the policy on such edits? --Kristod 20:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You should explain to the user the need for concision and avoiding historically-trivial content. Otherwise, if it's still too long, it can be split to subarticles. But first, it needs a major cleanup. The problem with single purpose edits is that they usually involve a failure to observe the standards set for Wikipedia entries, so this needs to be pointed out to the editor (i.e. s/he should at least review a few history of articles). El_C 00:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    talk: Chatham Borough, New Jersey

    I have been editing this article on Chatham, New Jersey and the one for Chatham Township. I am running into someone who resorts to vandalism of a chart in Wikipedia to "prove his point" -- what is my recourse?

    This Wikipedia image that lists the communities in Morris County and shows them on a map, directory to Morris County communities was altered just a few minutes ago by you to read as you wish it to... that is vandalism and I will report it if you do not correct it -- your behavior is pathetic and unprofessional. O rly? I'd call it professional, actually. I find errors and I fix them. The Census bureau does not know of a town by the name of Chatham, NJ. So you're just making something up. Go ahead and report it. —lensovet–talk – 20:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC) your signature and time stamp are on the changes to the chart. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism I said, go ahead and report me —lensovet–talk – 20:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

    The Census Bureau should not be used as a standard on New Jersey geography; they do not understand it, and never have. I don't pretend to know Morris County well enough to know whether Chatham is common usage there. Septentrionalis 15:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a content dispute - not something requiring admin attention. Stop attacking each other and just write out the fact that the name 'Chatham' often gets used to describe what might more precisely be called 'Chatham borough', 'Chatham township', and/or BOTH of those together. Put a nice explanation like that on each page, have 'Chatham, NJ' itself as a disambiguation page to the two articles, and off you go. If you can't manage that... see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Or just meet down at the train station and duke it out under the mulberry trees. :] --CBD 17:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible Self Promotion that has existed for almost two years

    There is an article titled Buddhabrot that is apparently about some special rendering of the Mandelbrot set. The article shows a pretty cool picture and at first glance seems like something that would be very notable. However one line really stood out for me- "The Buddhabrot rendering technique was discovered and later described in a 1993 Usenet post [1] to sci.fractals", things that are brought up in Usenet posts are not usually notable enough for an encyclopedia. I decided to look at the sources given and they all seem to be the amatuer personal web pages of an interconnected group of friends [4], [5]. I then decided to see who wrote the original article, and discovered it to apparently be an administrator- User:Evercat, furthermore their userpage seems to indicate that it was in fact they who "discovered" the buddhabrot image. I suppose that this could all just be a coincidence and that the image is really notable enough for an encyclopedia, but you really have to admit that this seems pretty fishy.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this something that needs administrator handling? --Golbez 21:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if this article has been around for two years and is completly non-notable then yes, I would like some debate about it to see if the article should be deleted.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the place for it. See WP:AfD and follow the instructions there on how to start a debate on deleting it. Admins are not "in charge" of these things.--Konst.able 22:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just treat it routinely, nominate it for deletion. By the way, would have been better to not out Evercat's identity. Fred Bauder 22:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To state the obvious, the offending sentences can be redacted and if necessary oversighted if there's a privacy vio issue here. Newyorkbrad 22:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've never implied that admins were "in charge of these things", the reason I brought this issue here was because I wasn't even sure if there was need to launch an afd since as I stated before I have no experience with the subject and it is entirely possible that the image is deserving of an article. My hope was that someone who had some expertise in the area would see the thread and explain if it was or was not notable. I must say that I feel rather frustrated with the somewhat rude and pseudo-elitist response I have gotten since these kind of subjects are often resolved on this noticeboard.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry I didn't walk on eggshells. Fred Bauder 23:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose I should send you check for using up your important time.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am very busy, but I don't think I was so brusk that it required a comment. Thank you for bringing this problem to our attention. I have tried occasionally to sneak things in myself, so find this incident amusing, look at my talk page and you will see an example. (I have no idea who took that picture, and doubt anyone does) Fred Bauder 16:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Mate, no need to get offended. But you may have noticed that this is a very large page with a lot of querries the purpose of which is for incidents that "require admin intervention" (WP:AN and WP:VP are more general noticeboards). I think if an article page is dormant and if you have good reasons to think the page should be deleted WP:AfD is a good forum - even if your nomination proves to be erroneous there is really no harm done in the end. Hence me and Fred pointing you to it. No need to get offended if you didn't like me pointing out that admins are not in charge of these things, Wikipedia has a lot of new users who don't quite understand how things work, admins especially often have to deal with a lot of these, and I do not always inspect each user's contribution histories to see to whom I respond to. Simple. Nothing to get offended over.--Konst.able 03:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Mass external linking to libcom.org

    Hi everyone, I just noticed the contributions of Catch (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) who has added only external links to the site Libcom in articles since October 7. The libcom group describes themselves as "a small collective of libertarian communists based in and around London", and maintain "a library archive of historical and theoretical writings from a class struggle perspective." [6]. I've rolled back all of Catch's external link edits, but now I'm too sure if I acted too hastily considering a linksearch for libcom.org turns up 339 links to the site in Wikipedia. On the other hand, Wikipedia:External links states that preference should be given to open directories, so are we meant to tolerate the wholesale linking to such partisan web directories when they're not being cited as an article reference? --  Netsnipe  ►  21:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like you've taken the correct course of action. El_C 00:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the 339 other links? --  Netsnipe  ►  09:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like spam, personally. Kilo•T 15:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed three instances where Catch was only correcting a broken link and your fix actually re-broke the link: Marxist Humanism, Raya Dunayevskaya, and Johnson-Forest Tendency. I think all of those links were acceptable, since they linked to articles by the people discussed in the Wiki entries. Oops, forgot signature. Franklin Dmitryev 18:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hairwizard91

    Hairwizard91 (talk · contribs), along with IPs that I suspect to be sockpuppets, has been massively POV-pushing in Korean-history related articles (for an example of how the POV-pushing has been, see [7]. I'm a bit unsure how to proceed with this user, as he/she appears to be capable of constructive edits, but has chosen to impose POV changes without discussion, and a block of the main account or the IPs appears ineffective. Further, he/she is also very prolific, which makes it difficult to check for POV, effectively forcing me to revert each edit that he/she makes whether problematic or not. Opinions requested. --Nlu (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    That diff has a lot of material, can you provide more narrow examples of the problematic content? El_C 00:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an example. The user had previously posted nearly identical content with the same POV as 69.220.163.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (see [8]), 68.252.57.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (see [9]), and 68.252.41.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (see [10]), among other IPs. --Nlu (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's still a bit too prolific for me. Perhaps you can cite a few key sentences? El_C 09:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is really less the content than the behavior -- in other words, the user insist on imposing what he/she wanted in the article regardless of what others thought, and was refusing to listen. Part of the content is also in Korean, and when the user -- who clearly knows English -- has chosen to communicate on talk pages, he/she has largely done so in Korean. --Nlu (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Inappropriate username?

    Does anyone think that the username WikiTruth (talk · contribs) is inappropriate? He/she claims not to be associated with Wikitruth.info, but I think it would be a good idea for the person to change usernames...any thoughts? —Khoikhoi 23:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    In my opinion this is... truthfully... a clearly case of a WP:POINT-violative user name and should be blocked. --Nlu (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indefinitely. El_C 00:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly a case of WP:POINT? The user signed up in December 2005, over four months before wikitruth.info came into being. You're indef blocking someone because a website came along later and used their name? Mexcellent 00:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    I, for one, was not claiming WP:POINT. I do, however, think it would (now) prove difficult for the user to operate effectively with such a wikisensitive username. This will probably help him/her in the long run. Note that the account only has 30-or so edits. El_C 00:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It certainly would be hard now, since he's been blocked through no fault of his own. Why not let it go until it actually becomes a problem? This kind of action is what turns people off to contributing. Why don't you suggest a username change and guide him through the process, rather than just blocking him? Or better yet, just leave him be, since he hasn't caused even the slightest amount of trouble. Mexcellent 00:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    That the User:WikiTruth account predates the Wikitruth website is of no consequence (though it is an obvious indicator of the user's good intent) with respect to the inadvertant harrassment the user is likely to suffer in the future, thereby eliminating needless friction. I think my indefinite block note reflects this (i.e. no blame is assigned to the user in any way). Choosing a different username should not be a great undertaking. But perhaps the block was mis-placed. Feel free to overturn it and attend to the matter as you see fit. El_C 01:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    IMHO, I think you should unblock him so he at least has the chance to keep his contributions and continue editing, rather than making someone start all over again. — Moe 03:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, he's an editor in good standing. Suggesting a name change before an indef block would have been nice. Rx StrangeLove 04:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There's only 30-odd edits, starting over didn't seem a big deal. Feel free to overturn my block, though. El_C 04:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with El C. It's only 30 edits. Unless some of them are of major importance (extensive clean up, saving an article from deletion, ect.), starting a new account isn't a big deal.--KojiDude (Contributions) 05:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh, 30 edits or not, I still would have liked to see a warning or something before immediate action was taken. It's up to you really.. — Moe 05:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't think the user needed to be warned about anything, s/he didn't do anything wrong. El_C 05:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Put yourself in his position, you even said he didn't do anything wrong, don't you think he's going to think he did something wrong? He had the account since last December. I would think I did something wrong if I was mostly inactive and I came back one day to find I couldn't edit anymore. This could potentially drive a user away from Wikipedia. All thats left to consider if it's really a good-faith contributor your blocking indef or not, but the ball's in your court, so to speak.. — Moe 05:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't see why s/he should feel s/he did anything wrong. I did not think my note suggested wrongdoing. Anyway, I left the matter to the discretion of at least two users whom I place confidence in (Mexcellent and Rx StrangeLove), so I'm inclined to do nothing and rather have either of them take the lead from now on. El_C 06:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have unblocked this user and asked him/her to get a username change. This user has made valuable contributions and has received an award from another user for some of it! Wikipedia:Changing username is a perfectly good option. How would you like to be blocked because some website was created with a similar name as your username?--Konst.able 08:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like it just fine! Anyway, 30 edits — I make that in an hour. Just didn't think it was a big deal. El_C 08:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    i.e. I simply did not think anyone with 30 edits would bother to go through the process of changing their username. I sure know I wouldn't. El_C 08:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I counted 57 edits. Well, users who are not as experienced in all this would probably not find it a nice thing to get blocked. I see no harm in him having it until he applies to have it changed. It's not like it's Randomvandal (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) or Weiner (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log).--Konst.able 09:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Point taken. I should have paid closer attention, that's significantly more edits than I thought. El_C 09:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't block the ip, just that specific username, so I thought reregistering was to be a flash. El_C 09:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Guys, check this out... re User:Tell the Wikitruth

    Probably worth noting that per the above I blocked Tell the Wikitruth this evening, and posted {{Usernameblock}} on their talk page. However the interesting part? Their next edit... Patted myself on the back for that one! :) Glen 12:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Somehow I don't think is connected to the above case. It's clearly not the same user.. If WikiTruth (talk · contribs) was a Blu Aardvark sockpuppet, he probably would have been more active and would have (probably) vandalized something. WikiTruth was a constructive editor. I'm not too associated with "Wikitruth sockpuppets", but it seems like newer one's would be associated with the website. User:WikiTruth was here on Wikipedia before the website even opened, so it's hard to say if he is associated with them. — Moe 16:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh no I wasn't implying any corelation between the two other than a coincidental stroke of luck that this topic was being discussed (and thus Mr Aardvark blocked) Glen 03:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No user should be blocked just because their name is similar to the name of a website that scrutinizes Wikipedia. Doing this only advertises the site. I didn't know this site existed until it was mentioned here. At most this user should have been warned that a few Wikipedians might be confused and perhaps offended by the user name "Wikitruth." Blocking him for such a silly reason only reinforces the idea that Wikipedia is as messed up as [wikitruth.info] says it is. I would prefer that the user name "Wikitruth" go to a good user that helps improve Wikipedia as opposed to just sitting as an indefinitely blocked account forever. Jecowa 08:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're saying the name is a coincidence, that's absurd. The above phrase was created specifically as a way to troll wikipedia. --InShaneee 14:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible speedy delete from Florida

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

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

    User 71.195.147.135 - link spam

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

    WP:AIV for fastest response.--Andeh 12:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User User:Nlu abused his administration

    User:Nlu reverted article blindly without reading the article (Baedal, Hwanguk). These two nations are myth, so hairwizard91 added the category of mythical nation. But, Nlu reverted it without reading it.

    In addition, Nlu's adminstrative editing was very weird. Wiman Joseon was edited by hairwizard91 with cited references. However, Nlu reverted to the previous version with no references, Nlu added the Wiman Joseon to the categories of "Category:Articles lacking sources", and then Nlu semi-protected the article. The edited version by hairwizard91 has more reference and is confident. But, the reverted version by Nlu has no sources and cited references. He did not followed NPOV especially about the korean history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.210.12.141 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

    A check indicated that the above IP is an open proxy. Blocked indefinitely, and I have no doubt that it was the same user as Hairwizard91. --Nlu (talk) 03:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that User:Nlu has abused his administrator rights a little by blocking User:Hairwizard91 for vandalism. I don't know if Hairwizard91 was using sockpuppets or not, but he was definitely not vandalizing, placing non-NPOV statements, or placing spam into the two articles mentioned above. Consider this edit in which Nlu removes a source added by Hairwizard91 and attributes it to spam. I don't think he even read the source before he removed it. The source he removed was an English translation of the book that these Mythological cities come from. Nlu also continues to remove the Category:Korean_mythology tags from these two articles. In my opinion Hairwizard91 should be unblocked immediately and the semi-protected state of the Baedalguk article removed. Jecowa 08:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote

    There is still a lot of argument on its talk page that this cannot be a guideline because (1) it didn't follow the proper process for making guidelines, despite the fact that we have no such process, (2) people allege that Wikipedia uses voting all the time (such as in AFD) and therefore we may not advise against voting mentality, or (3) it is said that Wikipedia should adopt more formal mechanisms related to strict voting and that therefore we may not write down current practice.

    Voting mentality is harmful. Calling for straw polls at arbitrary times is also harmful, as it tends to preclude discussion and compromise. Not using (majority) voting is a long-standing practice. An essay against voting is not going to help because most new users ignore essays as "just a random user's opinion".

    I would really appreciate some experienced people giving feedback on the subject on the talk page here; last time I asked, I had about a dozen admins chiming in but their words have basically been ignored, so please try again. >Radiant< 08:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Now rewritten from scratch in an effort to better describe current practice, Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote/Draft. Comments welcome. >Radiant< 09:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems to me that the negative in the title is a problem. If it were "Discuss more, count less" or something, there would be a greater likelihood of overcoming resistance. We do vote, and we do discuss, and our discussions carry with them votive matters and judgments, so it's sort of impossible to tell anyone not to vote. So long as "don't vote" can be read, by either those who hate "process" or those who believe in "process," as "Do as you will shall be the whole of the law," it's going to be a monumental effort to try to move forward. On substance, we might all even agree that we take into consideration all voices, compare them to policy, and then act in a way most likely to generate consent, but if that is called a vote or a discussion will enable bad actors on either side. For every person wanting to halt proceedings to say, "But you failed by 69/31%," there is someone wanting to say, "Notavote! I am elect." In other words, the wording is very important and highly charged, even if the actual ideal practice is entirely rational and beneficial. Geogre 15:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I hear alot of people complaiing about voting, but all the "votes" I see around here are not votes. They are polls so that people can clarify their opinions. In most cases it is a boolean problem siuch as featured picture, approve or don't, or AfD, delete or don't.
    Even then, the tally is not treated strictly mathematically, but instead the value of the arguement is taken into account. It seems to be that there is not voting going an here and that we are, and have been, acting by consensus. HighInBC 16:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    67.190.44.85 evading block

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

    Attempts to intimidate me

    [11][12][13][14] these are attempts to intimidate me because I edit under my full name, and anyone can find this using a web search. I have not commited vandalism or pulled out of mediation twice. Would an admin be so kind as to remove these from my talk page history? --Mihai cartoaje 12:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, I must be really dimwitted today as I fail to see the intimidation or even the slightest insinuation re the use or knowledge of personal information... can you please clarify? To me it seems the comments are civil and well intentioned... Glen 12:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    My username is my full name. The edits have pejorative edit summaries. Also, what is written in the edits is false. I have not commited any vandalism and I have not failed to complete two mediations. I also have not removed content from Wikipedia.

    Because I edit using my full name, anyone can find my talk page using a web search for my name.--Mihai cartoaje 12:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Whether the allegations in the edits are false is a different issue from what you are raising here. As far as I can tell, these are requests for you to stop particular edits, and there are no threats, veiled or otherwise, to affect you personally outside of Wikipedia. Like Glen, I fail to understand why the ability of people to find your talk page would amount to intimidation. --khaosworks (talk * contribs) 13:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit summaries are not pejorative in the slightest and in fact you have been taken to mediation twice and pulled out: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-12 Schizophrenia and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-29 Schizophrenia. You may want to rethink your claims. –– Lid(Talk) 13:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It was me who asked for the first mediation. The second mediation was not correctly summarised. The mediator wrote this [15] after which I commented this [16] and after that I was not asked any more questions and it ended like this [17]. --Mihai cartoaje 13:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You conveniently skipped this comment
    Mihai, it's a discussion not an interview. There are points above which you have not answered. This all sounds like delaying tactics to me. - Vaughan 08:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While you did indeed start the first mediation the closer of it states you requested the mediation end. –– Lid(Talk) 13:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, well if he's making false claims about your involvement in mediation then I guess that's something, but the edits (and the 4 edit summaries: Added warning about balnking [sic] text on schizophrenia page / schizophrenia / fix header / restore my comments) do not really constitute an attempt to intimidate you.
    I have left them a note requesting more information and will let you know, however in the meantime I strongly suggest you head along to our changing username request page as you do seem very concerned about your anonymity (or feelings re lack thereof) Thanks Glen 13:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There are no threats in those diffs nor pejorative comments. The messages you got are standard messages. Also the use of your full name is a decision that you make, if it makes you uncomfortable close your current account and create a new one with a nickname. HighInBC 04:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Inaproporate username? User:Kurdt Kobain

    Since Kurdt Kobain is a recently deceased person, I think it is a poor choice of a username. --Cat out 16:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Recently deceased? Kurt Cobain has been dead for 12 years - I'm guess this is a fan (Kurdt Kobain was a mispelling of his name on an album cover). Are you suggesting that someone will think that this is the ghost of Cobain or something?

    --Charlesknight 16:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jesus, User:George Washington, User:Jon Stewart have all been blocked or would be blocked if created. By convention famous people are poor choice to be usernames and are often not descriptive enough. --Cat out 16:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    12 years isn't that long, and Curt is still popular now, with material released quite recently. The name was used by Cobain in autographs as well as on an album. Imo it's inappropriate per WP:U. Deizio talk 16:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, these aren't exactly comparable to Kurt Cobain. Jesus is a religious figure, and WP:UN treats names based on religious figures differently than names based on other people. User:George Washington was a sock of a vandal (and I don't see anything in his block log). Jon Stewart is still alive. jgp TC 16:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we'd be better of if he volunteerly chose a different username (someone should explain why in greater detail to him) but in the event he doesnt what should be done? --Cat out 16:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But isn't the convention with real people to stop confusion with the living? What's the problem if someone has been dead for at least ten years? Should I get a new username? --Charlesknight 17:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Checking WP:U it says Names of well-known living or recently deceased people, such as Chuck Norris or Ken Lay, unless you are that living person. If you are, say so on your user page. - Kurt Conbain is neither living or recently deceased, I don't see any problem with this username under WP:U. --Charlesknight 17:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And his name was neither Kurdt nor Kobain. If it's not acceptable, would Kort Kurbain be? How about Curt Chilblain? References to names are rather different from use of the actual name. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe he ever signed his name as either of those, or was listed as either of those on an album. This isn't exactly a serious contravention of WP:U, but if Cool Cat wants to have a quiet word in his ear and point out the guidelines I think that would be fine. Deizio talk 20:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am merely exploring the issue. Mind the '?' on the section header.
    I do not see a User:Charles Knight nor do I see his relevance. I think it would be prudent to disalow historic figures to be usernames. I'd rather not be editing an article about Che discussing it with User:Che.
    --Cat out 20:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    and that's why you rushed off and blocked the username because you were just "discussing it". That's a bullshit move. You asked, many of us said "no it's no problem" but hey, you've got your jackboots and had to use them. --Charlesknight 08:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait a minute, futher investigation reveals that (as far as I can determine) you are not an admin - so why are you placing templates that (falsely I assume) tell users that they are blocked? --Charlesknight 08:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    All you had to do was find the block log which would tell you all you need to know. Personally I see nothing at all wrong with the username. I don't think Kurt Cobain is in any danger of being impersonated or defamed at this point, which is the spirit of the username policy. Grandmasterka 08:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone decided to block him and I notified the person getting blocked so as to avoid alienating the individual. --Cat out 10:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    YOu can ask anyone at Arbcom and they will tell you policy isnt meant to be followed by the letter, that is for wikilawyering, its meant to follow the spirit of the policy, and I do not believe this name would be violating that spirit since its not spelled correctly and well the man is dead over 10 years now. If they start editing the Kurt Cobain article in a defamatory way then ban them, else just leave it as such, the person isnt living and its not even spelled right. --NuclearZer0 13:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont see a reason to involve the arbcom. --Cat out 13:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Who said we should? I am making a point that policy = spirit, not letter of the law. As pointed out above I also do not feel this person is violating that spirit. --NuclearZer0 14:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gunus Suir

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

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

    User:Kerr avon

    User is posting legal threats, and what he purports are real life details of another user at Talk:Derek Smart. I have told him to stop issuing legal threats and to stop playing internet detective. JBKramer 18:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The Derek Smart article has been a source of edit warring for a long time. A major contributor has been Supreme_Cmdr [18] who is a SPA [19]. Numerous discussions on the Derek Smart talk page have centered around the discussion as to if Supreme_Cmdr is Smart himself[20]. As such when Supreme_Cmdr's IP address was posted on his page, a traceroute revealed that both Supreme_Cmdr and Derek Smart have the same ISP. Given the background to the above long discussions to the identity of Supreme_Cmdr, I felt that posting the above information would be relevant.
    However once JBKramer pointed out that is not acceptable according to wiki guidlines, I have indicated by willingness to stop posting the above information about Supreme_cmdr.
    The legal threats were not against the wikipedia, it was said in a matter of fact way as regarding to Supreme_Cmdr's serious allegation of racism and racist discrimination [21] against me. No action was taken against Supreme_cmdr, and I was feeling bitter about it. I come from a poor third world country and I am not at all capable of legal action against anyone, so that should put that matter to rest as well.

    Kerr avon 18:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to know who this 'higher authority' he claims to have referred this to is, as that alone makes me think an indef block is in order. --InShaneee 19:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The 'higher authority' was Cowman109 [22] [23]. I see that it was my choice of wording 'higher authority' means probably god to the westerners, whereas to us it is exactly as it suggests indicating someone senior. No offense was meant to anyone.Kerr avon 23:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I was more concerned you meant some legal body. I have a feeling if you had appealed to God I wouldn't have much say in the matter. No harm done. --InShaneee 13:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rational Response Squad

    I closed this deletion debate early after massive sockpuppetry. Of the 80-odd contributions it received in the 36 hours it was on AfD there were about eight good-faith contributions.

    In particular there were a number of accounts with nonzero edit histories that just happened to crop up in this massively sockpuppeted vote. I am wondering whether this organisation has actively infiltrated Wikipedia with sleeper accounts, or whether this is coincidence; and also what other action if any we should take. (Of course some of the accounts listed below may be good-faith users who just happened on the discussion). The Land 20:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't know anything about this (though I agree it looks incredibly fishy), but you may want to brace yourself for a possible sock-o-rama DRV, since you closed an AfD in which you also !voted. --Aaron 00:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aye, probably should have taken it here for someone else to nix, rather than doing so yourself. In any case, this is indeed incredibly fishy. Especially if it continues to a DRv, I'd take it to the sock board or to CU (code D). I personally tend away from assuming good faith in this case purely because of the nature of the "votes" made. [24], [25], [26], etc., all sound like so many cases of this sort that I've seen before. In this case, with one outright admitting that they're from the organization, it's even worse. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article was about a radio show, so it's easy for them to tell people to go and !vote in a discussion. The ones that already had wikipedia accounts (active or not) would've been more inclined to go and comment in the first place. Thinking that a small group of people has been actively making sleeper accounts for no apparent reason (except to vote when an article gets tagged for deletion, 10 days after the fact) seems really unlikely. - Bobet 10:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    On reflection you're probably right. The Land 15:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Abusing Nlu's administrative right

    User:Nlu have abused his or her administrator's right when editing the Korean histories.

    1. Especially, the editing of Wiman Joseon by hairwizard91 is more confident and reasonble because it includes more references. But Nlu have reverted the article of Wiman Joseon to the previous one, which has NO reference, and then you added the category of Category:Articles lacking sources. His or her editing of the articles about Korean histories were not fair and violate the POV.
    2. For Korean History in Manchuria, hairwizard91 added the category Category:History of Manchuria and Category:Korea , but Nlu reverted it again. I think that Korean History in Manchuria is related to Category:History of Manchuria and Category:Korea. He considers that Korean History in Manchuria is not Korean history and History of Manchuria.
    3. For Baedal, it is myth nation of Korean history. So, hairwizard91 added the category of Category:Korean mythology. But, Nlu removed the category of Korean mythology.
    4. For Hwanguk. Hwanguk is also mythical nation. So, Hairwizard91 added Category:Korean mythology to Hwanguk. But Nlu revert it without even reading the article.
    5. For Goguryeo, his editing does not follow the rule of POV. As everyone already knows it, Goguryeo is still controversal nation that is Korean or China. But, he added the following sentencen. The term 'Goguryeo' is the revised term based on the changes in the law of Romanizing Korean language,Hangul, in 2000. The Chinese pronounciation of the word 'Goguryeo' is 'Gao Gouli'. But since most people in the world recognize the Goguryeo kingdom by the name 'Koguryo,' the old way of Romanizing Goguryeo, the Chinese utilized, for their benefit, the Korean pronounciation 'Koguryo' in order to register Goguryeo tomb sites as Chinese in 2004 and to validate their assertion that Goguryeo kingdom is part of Chinese history, not Korean.This sentence is too subjective, and should not be used if following the rule POV. Because hairwizard91 removed his sentence, the artifle of goguryeo is semi-protected. It is not the right way of an administrator.
    6. For Dongyi, Hairwizard91 added the historical Chinese records with correct citations. But, Nlu blindly remmoved the article with correct citation.
    7. For Nangnang, there are actually two things; one is Nangnang nation, and the other is Lelang Commandery. Hairwizard91 added two redirections for Nangnang, but Nlu modified the redirection only to Lelang Commandery, which is established by ancient China. Nangnang nation was established by Korean. He may not want to progress the article about Korean history.
    8. For Jin (Korean history), I dont understand the article is semi-protected. Nlu have justed blindly semi-protected the article. The sentence added by 67.38.248.16 is followed the history book of Joseon Sango Sa.

    As my examination of Nlu editing, he or she removed and reverted the article if the new sentence or content is the Korean history that is not taught in China. He did not follow the rule of POV...

    Nlu have prevented the article of Korean history from progressing further... Nlu do not edit the article with POV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.252.41.164 (talk)

    This user has no edits outside of Nlu's user talk and WP:ANI. Something smells like old socks. Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont have any account now. And my IP is dynamically assigned.--68.252.41.164 01:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See #Hairwizard91 and #User User:Nlu abused his administration above. To the anonymous user: this is not the Wikipedia complaints department; if you have a dispute with another user then please engage in the dispute resolution process, unless you have concerns which specifically relate to either:
    • actions requiring administrative attention;
    • administrative actions;
    in which case I suggest you rework your message to address only these concerns. Please do not simply repeat the message. --bainer (talk) 01:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Isnt it possible to write about the abuse of an administrator in this site ? It is not long since I have used wiki. (I made my account now) --Goldwing999 02:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have concerns relating specifically to use of the administrative tools (deleting pages, protecting pages etc), then yes you can mention them here. However if your dispute merely relates to editing, then you need to use the dispute resolution process. --bainer (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You're blatantly violating WP:SOCK. Sit out your block, or face longer blocks. --Nlu (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I didnt know the rule. Sorry but I made my new account because Thebainer requested it. Before he or she requested it, I did not make any account.
    Also, I am not sure why I cannot make new ID. The previous ID is blocked permanently. Is it possible to make new ID when the previous is blocked permanently?
    Moreover, this is talking about POV. Dont make vague the POV because of SOCK
    Please re-read WP:POV. Wikipedia is a cooperative project, not a project where someone who is the loudest or the most prolific "wins." You've been doing nothing but imposing what your own views are on since you've come on. You've obviously got good things to contribute to the project, but you need to be able to edit in a cooperative manner.
    As to your inability to create a new user ID -- why will you need to? The block on Hairwizard91 (talk · contribs) is only for 24 hours, and once 24 hours have elapsed, you can again edit. Again, creating new IDs for the purpose of evading blocks is a violation of WP:SOCK. For now, the inability to create a new ID stems from the block on Hairwizard91 (precisely to prevent this type of misuse). If you want to have a "clean start," wait for the block to expire, and then follow the procedure at WP:CHU. --Nlu (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nlu did revert the article even when it is additional explanation and nobody has a opposite opinion. If the added content is additional explanation and there is no controversal, it should be kept until someone has the opposite opinion.
    You said the cooperation. But, anybody even you did not discuss about the content. They were only reverting the article. Many chinese usually reverted the articles when it is not equal to what they have learned. There have been no discussion. As you know there are more larger chinese than korean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.75.20.209 (talk)
    Don't try to bring ethnicity into this. Your actions are no more appropriate by a person of any other ethnicity. --Nlu (talk) 03:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Racially stereotyping of editors when accusing them of POV "abuse" is not going to help your cause in the slightest. Daniel.Bryant 04:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This user has since resorted to Wiki-stalking me while evading the block -- perhaps validly adding {{sources}} tags on articles I started, but then adding spurrious {{fact}} tags on facts in fact established by the sources even after sources were added. Assistance in countering the stalking would be greatly appreciated. --Nlu (talk) 07:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The user has now taken it to vandalize Chinese history articles, whether I had been significantly involved or not, to remove images. Again, help in combatting him/her would be greatly appreciated. --Nlu (talk) 07:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    As it turns out, I've been forced to block the following ranges for three hours each:

    • 68.249.220.x
    • 68.75.x.x
    • 68.76.x.x
    • 68.77.x.x

    All of these are AT&T dialup addresses, apparently. Obviously, I'd rather not block this many ranges, but there appeared to be no other way of stopping this user. Additional ideas would be appreciated. --Nlu (talk) 07:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not against NLU but you want cooperation and then ban the user, thats not really in the spirit of cooperating, you also sprotect an article without discussing it with the person you were keeping from the article, also not very in favor of discussion. I believe Wikipedia is a colaborative project, as such reverting an article without explanation on talk or even in the edit summary isnt really working in that spirit. Also since one article was sprotected, this is a matter for AN/I and not just mediation since it then involves admin tools, including the wide spread ban above to a anon user, who when asked to, made an account to discuss this issue here.

    I guess the main question is, are they mythical nations, if so why remove the cat, if not then is there any proof? --NuclearZer0 13:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I tried to reason with the user (see, in particular, the discussion on User talk:Nlu) after the user initially indicated that he/she was willing to abide by WP:SOCK. However, the user then resumed his/her disruptive behavior by in fact refusing to sit out the block, and further engaging in WP:POINT-violative behavior.
    The reason why I reverted the user's edits was because he/she made so many, there is no way to go back and pick out the one or two good edits and let them stand. The user is effectively going, "I may have made a bundle of bad edits, but let my 1% of good edits stand!" Well, this is similar to the vandals who put in sneaky vandalism; there is no good way to distinguish the good with the bad. --Nlu (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Need help with some trolling

    172.130.210.78 (talk · contribs) was blocked by Nishkid64 earlier today, but now the anon has returned as 172.130.181.150 (talk · contribs), whose first contribution was this edit, and the rest are a mix of trolling and insults. Here for example, he/she said the following:

    BertilVidet, if you continue with this kind of (mis-) demenour, you will hear from your university where you are registered as a master's student. And, trust me, this is a promise.

    Can someone please block this guy? He's probably the same person who caused Bertilvidet's userpage to be semi-protected. Thanks. —Khoikhoi 01:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    ...and he's back as 172.163.2.61 (talk · contribs). —Khoikhoi 02:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, he's returned again as 172.128.27.44 (talk · contribs). —Khoikhoi 02:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Digimorph and spam

    Someone may want to have a look at Digimorph (talk • contribs). I'm pretty sure his activity constitutes outright spam, but would rather have someone more experienced consider his contributions and possibly roll back his edits. Thanks. -- mattb @ 2006-10-16T01:27Z

    Yes, that's definately spam. He's advertising his website (digimorph.org) through sections in various articles. —Khoikhoi 01:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also just realized his last edit was on March 22... —Khoikhoi 01:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Ongoing copyvios from www.marvunapp.com

    Someone for marvunapp.com has been emailing WP:OTRS regarding copyvios from their web site. This is the third complaint we've received, this time regarding Captain Albion and Captain Airstrip-One. The pattern is that someone is paraphrasing using identical sentence and paragraph structure with only slightly different word choice. I'm sure there are more of these. Would someone like to get to the bottom of this and explain the facts of life to the perp? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ugh. Well, the source of the copyright infringement is User:Originalsinner, who created the Captain Airstrip-One article and expanded Captain Albion from a stub. Some of the text is identical to the original site, but it is paraphrased rather heavily. Originalsinner has been talked to about copyright in the past, and these are not recent infringements. There are probably more problems, but Originalsinner has thousands of edits, mostly minor without edit summaries. Someone take it from here? Mangojuicetalk 04:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ongoing personal attacks and verbal abuse from User:Ernham

    User Ernham is posting a personal attack on Talk:Race Differences in Intelligence [27]. This is only the latest of many personal attacks, attacks for which he was blocked a few days ago. For some reason, he seems unable or unwilling to understand. Is there anyone who can let him know what a personal atack is or isn't? This last post is bodering on the slanderous. Thanks in advance!--Ramdrake 03:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fmaack and User:69.196.150.118

    I've just blocked this IP address as it has been clearly carrying on the edits of User:Fmaack. His edit pattern involves the article on Andrew Nellis (also Andrew Bruce Nellis) and their DRV debates. I blocked Fmaack for a week for trolling after he did this, which itself didn't occur in a vacuum: Fmaack had previously been blocked for personal attacks. Fmaack got pissed off at this and ended up leaving an unblock message that got him blocked indefinitely. While I don't disagree with that decision, what I stand by for sure was my 1-week block for trolling, which was being evaded via that IP address. Still, I would appreciate review from others: should this user really be blocked indefinitely? Can they be turned into a positive contributor eventually? Mangojuicetalk 05:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Alzheimer's disease

    Dear Jimbo Wales,

    I'd like to request a comment from you concerning THC's role as a potential treatment for Alzheimer's disease. I think this discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alzheimer%27s_disease#THC) could provide interesting insight into how Wikipedia really functions and could be used for future references. If you consider the discussion worth commenting, I'd appreciate it if you would have time to read through the entire thread about the subject and give an opinion about what is about to happen there.

    Sincerely,

    --Jnx 10:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I posted this on Jimbo Wales user talk page but apparently that was not ok so now I post it here. I'd like to have an honest opinion about this dispute. Jimbo Wales, if you see this please consider giving an opinion.

    --Jnx 12:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You're already getting plenty of discussion about the subject, why are you posting it here? And why would Jimbo Wales be an expert about Alzheimer's disease anyway? - Bobet 13:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wan't someone with neutral point of view to give an opinion about this subject. You don't need to be an expert about Alzheimer's to give an opinion about this subject. If you read the discussion, you might understand what I mean. I am not after discussion, I am after conclusion. In my opinion the discussion about this subject has not reached conclusion yet.
    I might be wrong on this subject, but I'd just like an opinion from someone I know I can trust to be objective. --Jnx 13:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like advertising to me. --InShaneee 13:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean advertising THC? That is not my point. As I said, I might be wrong. I am sorry if turning to Jimbo Wales seems strange to some of you, but people who I am having this debate with turned to the person responsible for the medicine Wikiproject who I consider pretty highly respected person too as far as Wikipedia persons go. I'd like an opinion from someone who doesn't see THC as nothing but a substance. In my opinion the last sentence in the comment by JFW in the discussion thread showed that his view on this is biased. --Jnx 13:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean advertising the study. And this shouldn't be turning into 'who can appeal to the highest power'. The Medicine Wikiproject has a lot of knowledge about this topic. Jimbo doesn't. --InShaneee 14:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Jimbo has a lot of knowledge about being objective. I really don't understand your point about advertising a study? Everything in science is based on scientific studies, which are used as sources on Wikipedia articles. Please read the discussion thread, this case needs someone who is objective (and possibly not from the medicine Wikiproject) to take a stance. My point is not to turn this into 'who can appeal to the highest power', I'd just like to find someone who really knows how to be objective. --Jnx 14:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Claiming that everyone who disagrees with you isn't objective is the best way to ferret out the real bias. You've brought it up, and it's been roundly shot down. The time to let it go and stop making absurd claims about an FDA conspiricy is now. --InShaneee 14:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It hasn't been roundly shot down. If you read the thread, there are people who have supported my stance too, and there are exactly two people who shot it down in addition JFW who commented on it yesterday. Please take a look at the arguments of the people who are shooting it down.
    I do realize that I went overboard with my theories about hiding this fact but I got angry when I tried to make a discussion and the arguments from the people whose opinions differed from mine were absurd. You are right about letting go though. Maybe it's better to concentrate on something else now. I just thought I saw something here that wasn't what Wikipedia is about. You can remove the THC study from the article as far as I am concerned. --Jnx 15:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    These sorts of disputes are common, you just need to work through them. Providing evidence in the form of major publications endorsing the study may help more than rallying supporters. Your best supporter is the truth. HighInBC 16:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Review

    Could an independent admin review my declining of an unblock request at User talk:68.189.255.6 please? Thanks. Mangojuicetalk 13:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    WhisperToMe's block was indefinite, but recommended to be at least three days... Personally that outburst of incivil language is reason enough to keep the ban in place for the time being. I'd remake the block with a definite timespan (say a week). Thanks/wangi 13:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Unbelieveable. Well, they cant even behave when applying for an unblock then they most definitely arent going to pull their head in afterwards. In the first few lines of the talk page he uses the words Moron, Clown & Retard. I dont know why WhisperToMe used the block the they did as its bound to (and has) cause confusion. As such, I have now reblocked for 2 months with the request that before unblocking an admin just pop a note through to myself or Mangojuice. Thanks Glen 13:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the personal-attack ridden rant from his talk page... we shouldn't be providing people with free webhosting for that kind of garbage. --W.marsh 13:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Awesome. User has now been notified Glen 13:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please put a block on 204.50.64.129

    This IP has been warned that any further external link spamming will result in a block, and it was disregarded recently. I would list a the diffs, but it pretty much involves adding spam links to leasing, Hyundai Capital, and Penske Corporation. The links go to a "get out of your car lease spam site. Warning is on User talk page. Thanks! Puchscooter 14:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 48h. --Kbdank71 16:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello

    Hi, my user name is People Powered. Out of the blue on Saturday night Freakofnurture stole my user name, and blocked me from editing on the suspicion that I was another person, Andrew Sylvia. Rather than following any procedure, he decided to be policeman, judge, jury and executioner. Several other editors have commented that this seems to be unjust[28],[29] and apparently much of my work on the 2006 New Hampshire Elections has been deleted (you can see for yourself just at looking at Template:2006NHElection, on Friday all of those articles were blue, after I put in hundreds of edits into all of them. Now, most of them have been deleted, apparently for no reason. Please advise me on what to do now. Regardless of what happens, I think this is a perfect example that there needs to be some mechanism to keep administrators such as Freak of Nurture accountable for their actions. Right now, there appears that there is no accountability for his actions, and I'm worried for the project if there are other users that act in a way like this, let alone several. -- People Powered.

    You weren't blocked on the suspicion of being Andrew Sylvia, you were blocked on the suspicion of being a sockpuppet of banned user Karmafist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Furthermore, you weren't just blocked by Freakofnurture, but also by Centrx. The block is currently under review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#People Powered block review. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 15:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Uhm, just FYI, Andrew is Karmafist. – Chacor 15:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But he wasn't blocked for being the person, he was blocked for being a sock of a banned wikipedian, and the wikipedian is Karmafist. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 15:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Weird

    User:Zidcosd (Talk | contribs) is removing speedy delete banners from articles, with no reason. That's all he's doing. No editing, no particular pattern to the articles he doesn't want deleted. Can someone make him stop? The Crying Orc 16:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He appears to be adding them now, and legitimately. --InShaneee 16:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Jennifer Aniston picture

    A user, in good faith, uploaded Image:Jennifer Aniston.jpg. The source for this particular image, flickr, claims that this image is licensed under the Creative Commons license. However, the uploader on flickr (not the person who uploaded the image to Wikipedia) has a number of other images which he similarly claims are licensed under CC while being blatantly obviously untrue. I believe this image also was not licensed under these terms. The person who uploaded the image to the Wikipedia claims rightly that I need to provide some evidence that the image was not released under the CC. Aside from the flickr page itself, I can't find this evidence. Can someone help me out? --Yamla 16:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No, it does not work that way. It is the burdern of the uploader to prove unambiguously that the license is correct and compatible with Wikipedia's goals. --69.157.1.45 16:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He's right. It's our job to avoid liability, so they have to show proof. --InShaneee 16:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I disagree this image can be kept. I did a search through the public domain commercial usable images. Wikipedia states if an image is found there it can be relesed. Until that image is removed from Creative Commons it is allowed to be used on Wikipedia or a citation is needed proving that that specific image is not open source. My proof is that it was found on Creative Commons commercial section: http://search.creativecommons.org/?q=Jennifer+Aniston&commercial=on&engine=flickr Valoem talk 16:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    My evidence, by the way, is that the flickr uploader also uploaded other pictures such as DVD covers that are blatantly obviously not licensed under the CC. And this image is very similar to standard Friends promotional images (albeit cropped) which have never been released by NBC under the CC license. The creative commons search page simply takes as accurate the license that is attached on the flickr page. If the uploader uses the wrong license, as seems to be the case here, the image will still show up. --Yamla 17:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)However, we've got clear proof that the licence is most likely faulty. It should become a common sense matter that we can't just leave it there. --InShaneee 17:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sweetest Day

    User:Miracleimpulse is engaging in a series of disruptive edits to the Sweetest Day article, primarily adding tags to the article where there is no consensus for this. Numerous editors have reverted him, but he seems to feel that the fact that the current version of the article does not conform to his point of view is reason enough for him add disputed, hoax, advertising, and other tags or tack on his version of the article. He's already been blocked for this sort of thing once. He also is continuing to insinuate in his edit comments that everyone who reverts him is involved in "industry spinning". WP:AGF but based on his past history with this article (which all of his edits involve) and the proximity of the "holiday", it's a safe bet he's only going to get more disruptive in the coming week.--Isotope23 17:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 48 hours for disruption. He's clearly got an agenda to push, and considering his past attempts to replace the entire article with one of his own design, I doubt he'll stop any time soon. I've also put the previously userfied page he's using to stage these attacks up for MfD. --InShaneee 17:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks... this whole thing is getting really tiresome.--Isotope23 18:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    One or more users dancing around IPs have been conducting a series of vandalism against Chinese dynastic articles, such as Han Dynasty, History of China, Qin Shi Huang and Jet Li. I've already blocked two of them User:65.43.196.76 and User:69.219.81.7, but there are more. Most recently User:69.220.162.121. I don't have a ton of time to keep pursuing this and I'd like some help. --Durin 18:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User 137.94.*.*

    I've been reverting a series of edits (adding an apparently popular but not notable man to the list of notable professors) to Royal Military College of Canada. (Some sample diffs are [30] and [31]; it's been reverted six times so far.) The edits all seem to be from what seems a single user. Trouble is, each of the edits is coming in from a different IP address. All of the addresses are in the 137.94.*.* block, which an IP lookup shows is registered to RMC. Not sure what to do in this case, as there isn't a single user account, or even IP, to request a block on. Eron 18:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protected. Maybe the editor can make a case for some of his changes on the talk page in the mean time. Thatcher131 18:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Julieismywife, etc. Spam Campaign

    There has been a weeks-long campaign to inject promotional material from Linda Christas International Schools into dozens of existing articles across WP (+ creation of new single purpose articles), using a large number of sockpuppets, including attempts to get around deletions. Linda Christas is currently protected from being re-created, although at last check, Linda Christas International School was still up. These editors have spammed dozens of articles, and it's increasingly difficult to keep up with them and their new sock puppets. Currently deleting AFD tags as well. Certain articles that are being targetting multiple times daily, including Sue Grafton, Pat Boone, Margaret Spellings, Efrem Zimbalist, and Efrem Zimbalist, Jr. need to be protected. Linda Christas International School and Ronald F. Bernard need to be deleted (again!) and protected from recreation. Can I get an admin's help on this?

    Sockpuppetts/Suspected Sockpuppets include: user:Julieismywife, user:71.143.16.237, user:Buddydebrill, user:Manysummers, user:71.143.14.118, user:71.143.4.0, user:71.142.228.226, user:Oppieangel2000.

    Francisx 18:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=81833661"