Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive64

User:Durin out of control (edit stalking/unrealistic copyright requests)

Original complaint

I am asking other editors for help with this problem as this has gotten way out of control and, in my opinion, amounts to nothing less than harrasement by another user. The matter of copyright material, my edits, images, and my user page continues to fester and User:Durin has launched into nothing less than a stalking campaign against every image I have uploaded. Recent activities include:

• Declaring two gold circles next to eachother a copyright violation against Paramount Pictures because they resemble the Star Trek insignia of Lieutenant. Clearly ridiculous as anyone can draw geometric shapes and Paramount can not possible hold the copyright on a picture of two gold circles [1].
• Demanding personal information about the people who either a) verified that a photograph was public and not copyrighted and b) insisting on specific contact info (down to the name, address, and phone number) of the people who took the photograph [2]. In two cases, one contact was a friend of my late grandfather and the other an ex-finance. Even when told this, Durin demanded to contact both and have thier personal info posted on Wikipedia[3].
• Targeting every edit and every image I have recently been involved with [4]. (Also See:User:Durin/Husnock images).
• Durin intejected himself into a totally unrelated issue on Pharaoh and Cleopatra regarding housing image graphics appearing in the game [5]. I was attempting to resolve a fair use issue with another user and was working with a 3rd user to reach a compromise. Durin appeared, posting about the image and questioning me about my edits. In that rare case, Durin was actually correct in what he was saying, but I was distressed that he was following my edits this closely and becoming involoved in an article that he otherwise would have paid no attention too but become intersted only becuase I was associated with it. This is, in my view, "following me around" to different articles: the very definition of Wiki-Stalking.
• Durin completely freaked me out when he posted for all to see that my last name was visable on a user pic I have on my page [6]. I must add, unless someone is looking really closely, that would probably go unnoticed. I can only assume that Durin downloaded my picture and zoomed in on my name. Granted, he then provided me with a picture where my nametag was blanked out, but why look in the first place?
• Simple put, Durin needs to leave me and my user page, and my edits alone. I have told this user at least 3 times that I am a member of the military deployed to the Middle East and could lose my access to Wikipedia for weeks or months at any given time, depending on my deployment schedule. Durin has not made a single response to this and has even posted messages to my talk page, then demanded answers if they were not there within a 24 hour time frame [7]. He has also openly stated that he will continue to follow my every edits and that he sees me as a "problem user" [8]. I am an Admin on this site and have written some great articles. Durin seems to have targeted me based on an original dispute regarding flags displayed on my user page. This user needs to back off and leave me alone. Other editors, please help. Thank you. -Husnock 15:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm increasingly concerned about the matter of an image with personally-identifiable information being left undeleted after attention has been drawn to it. While I think it was a mistake (though a well-meaning one) to draw attention to it through the talk page instead of by private e-mail, I'm puzzled that Husnock did not delete it immediately when he was made aware of it (especially since Durin was kind enough to make an identical but safe image for him at Image:HusnockMidway1.jpg), but instead drew further attention to it, while complaining about someone having discovered his last name. I have decided to go ahead and delete it myself. If Husnock decides that he is, after all, comfortable with having a photo at Wikipedia that can lead to his identity being made public, then, well, he's an admin and it will take just three seconds for him to undelete it. I'll post something to him later. Going to lunch now. AnnH ♫ 14:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Responses

• • My only question is this: are you confident that your images are properly tagged and identified? Mackensen (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • No, I'm not. Some of them are wrong. I am just feeling that my edits are being targeted by this user based on an original dispute about flags being displayed on User:Husnock/Travel. I at first listened to Durin and tried to find images I could display. When I began posting these, I think Durin had an idea that I "outwitted him" and began this campaign. -Husnock 16:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
      • No. The seals and flags that you have been putting on your page would be absolutely fine if you had requested release under a free license from the various copyright holders of the images. I have on a large number of occasions pointed out to you that this needs to be done. I have pointed to the templates that you can use in requesting permissions. I have outlined the policy that supports this. Recently, I have asked you three times what permissions you asked for. You have refused to answer saying that since you are on deployment, you can not check. It's a simple question, and does not require checking. In general, did you ask for a free license release or did you ask for permission to use on Wikipedia? To date, there's no answer. From what evidence I have seen, it appears that what was asked for was permission to use on Wikipedia, which is not compatible with our policies. I've been trying hard to get confirmation from you about this, but I have not been able to get a response. I even offered a compromise position where we revert back to fair use, and you send the permission letters to m:OTRS when you had opportunity, so OTRS could evaluate and retag, allowing a third party to evaluate what permissions you received. I have been trying hard here to get these permissions clarified, but have been completely unsuccessful in gaining any response from you on this. --Durin 16:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • we need an efficient "image police". and Durin didn't 'completely freak out' here. But I tend to agree that this edit of his wasn't brilliant. All in all, not much to see here, recommend that Husnock tag his images watertightly from the beginning, and that Durin might give him a break over tiny Starwars rank insignia. Both users are admins, so neither needs to be afraid of "biting a newbie", and reasonable maturity, and properlly tagged image uploads, should be expected. dab (ᛏ) 15:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Re: Two gold pips Husnock himself in an earlier edit acknowledged that the original came from Paramount. He created the tag {{PD-StarTrekRank}} (which has since been deleted as wholly improper) which contained the text "This image is that of a rank insignia used in Star Trek. Over the past 40 years, Paramount Pictures have released most such images to the public domain. Also, such rank designs normally consist of stripes, geometric circles, and other shapes which can be easily recreated and hence are ineligible for copyright." Can a circle be copyrighted? No. Can a rectangle be copyrighted? No. Use them together with particular colors in a design? Absolutely. The notion that simply because an image contains geometric shapes that it can not be copyrighted is utterly false. I don't really care if that counts as brilliant or not. It's blatantly obvious from Husnock's earlier own taggings that the image is originally Paramount's.
• As to the rest of this, I'm starting an RfC. This situation has gone on long enough, and despite my best efforts to work collaboratively with Husnock and keep things calm and cool, it's exploded. --Durin 16:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • As stated four times now, I am at present in the Middle East and could lose access to Wikipedia tonight, tomorrow, or next month. I would not have time to follow an RfC or post to it or check it everyday. That is one of the points, you knew I was deployed and yet did this image targeting campaign and demanded answers if they were not posted within a day. Start it if you want, but I doubt I will be able to contribute. -Husnock 16:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with dab and add that stating in public that Husnock's identity was visible in an image was a mistake. Maybe innocent, maybe not, but a mistake nonetheless. yandman 16:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Husnock has uploaded an image before that contained his last name (in addition to the one already mentioned), this one in the title of the image. Since apparently me noting an image that has the name would be a problem, I am not going to note it here. But, it's out there. He has substantial personal information on his userpage that could readily lead to identifying him. I provided a copy of the image that did NOT have his last name so that he could better conceal his true identity. When I made mention of it, I did not state his last name. To date, Husnock has not used this image in lieu of the image that has his last name. If he was so concerned about the revelation of his last name, he would have deleted the original image and used the image that I provided him that did not have his last name on it. The claims that I am violating his privacy by revealing his last name are utterly false; he's the one doing so. I tried to HELP him not reveal it, but he's refused the help instead allowing the name to appear. --Durin 16:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Re: Husnock on deployment: That a user is on deployment does not in any way mean that we should suspend operations here on Wikipedia. There are more than 50 problematic images uploaded and/or modified by Husnock. Are we to let these problems sit forever if he should vanish from the project for a year due to being on deployment? What if he vanishes and we don't know why? Do we let copyright violations sit forever? An argument before a judge where we said we did not correct the copyright problem because the user that generated the copyright problem was no longer with the project will not hold water. We fix problems as we find them, regardless of how active or inactive the user who created the problem is.
• Re: RfC I do NOT want to start an RfC. I really don't. But the reality is that this situation has been going on for months and months and months. I am not the only person who has approached Husnock regarding copyright issues. I have tried desperately to keep things amicable. Despite all my efforts, the situation has exploded. I don't know what else to do. These copyright problems exist. If I correct them, I'm stalking him. If I talk to him about them, I'm not assuming good faith. If I note that he is the source of the copyright problems, I'm conducting a personal attack on him. If I create a user subpage of mine to help me work through the images he has uploaded and/or modified, it's the "most insulting thing I've seen on Wikipedia from another established user". At most points (not all, but most) of this Husnock has been obstructionist and antagonistic. Now I'm being accused of revealing personal information....which he revealed himself. Not only that, but I tried to help him NOT reveal the information, but I'm still accused. If anyone has any suggestions on a route other than RfC, I'm all ears. --Durin 16:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Stepping forward as a Global War on Terrorism veteran and an admin, I think the fair thing to do would be to open the WP:RFC with the disclaimer that this editor's Internet access may be interrupted due to the deployment. Let the RFC proceed at a more flexible pace than usual. Durova^Charge! 16:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not have the expertise to review the images tag-by-tag but I would like to see this resolved if possible without an RfC, without undue distraction to an armed forces member on active duty, and without further dispute or dissension. Would it be possible for this to be addressed by temporarily removing any problematic images with the understanding that copies would be kept somewhere off-line and Husnock would be given an opportunity to re-post and retag them upon his return from duty? If this is agreeable then perhaps an image-savvy admin without prior involvement in this dispute could be responsible for determining which images need to be removed temporarily. Newyorkbrad 17:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Either way is fine with me. Durova^Charge! 17:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion to resolve this dispute

I've been chatting with some admins regarding a way to resolve this and we seem to agree that an RfC would be an unnecessarily long and drawn out process.

As such only solution I can see is as admins we get both of you to agree to leave each other alone (so Durin stops direct activity on any and all Husnock's images) and then we get an independant admin that knows image policy really well (Geni comes straight to my mind for example) to look over Husnock's existing image contribs as well as a review of the methodology he uses to tag future uploads - with an agreement that the decision made by this admin be fully binding by you both (so if the admin decides Durin is over-reacting and trolling Husnock's images he will drop the subject - or, on the flip side if he/she decides to speedy delete the lot per WP:CSD then Husnock will also drop the subject and live with the decision.)

I cant see a better way to resolve that will be agreeable to all parties personally... thoughts?  Glen  18:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem I see with this is that it implies some sort of impropriety on Durin's part. His actions have been entirely consistent with the stated goals and wishes of the foundation. Assigning someone else to this seems unneeded and likely to impair the proper enforcement of long standing copyright policy. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Creating a project page about me to expose any and all of my image edits to scrutiny, insisting that I post information on Wikipedia which I a) dont have time to research or b) isn't available to me since I now live in the Middle East, demanding e-mail addresses and phone numbers for every person I have ever talked or written to about photos, following my every edit and stating he will tag and delete images even if I'm not here to defend or update them, and last but not least openly accusing me of breaking copyright law, implying that I am knowingly posting false information on Wikipedia and perhaps even telling lies about my sources, and then bringing to the worlds attention that my last name is visable not once, but twice, on Wikipedia...these actions are not entiely consistent with the stated goals and wishes of the foundation. -Husnock 19:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• 1) Your edits are already open to scrutiny via Special:Contributions/Husnock.
• 2) We expect people to provide contact information for images released under a free license from a copyright holder. You've been informed of this multiple times by people other than myself. Regardless of your current status, we need that information. If it can't be provided, you can always upload the images later when you do have it at the ready. Further, I asked you for one contact point; the copyright authority whom you contacted at City of Corpus Christi. You wouldn't provide it not because you don't have time to research but because you felt it violated privacy of a municipal copyright authority whose telephone and e-mail contact information is publicly available on a website I previously referenced.
• 3) I have followed your image edits, in complete compliance (not violation of) Wikipedia:Harassment where it says "(stalking) does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful." In conducting reviews of your image edits to date, I have reviewed 146 images. 58 of them have or had problems of one sort or another, or approximately 40% of them. If this is not justification for reviewing all of your image edits, I do not know what would constitute such.
• 4) Not being here to defend an image is not an affirmative defense in court. If it's a copyright violation, it's a copyright violation whether you are here to defend it or not. The work of Wikipedia must continue regardless of your availability. We can't suspend work here while you are on deployment.
• 5) I have never implied you have posted false information and have clarified that to you before. I have stated and continue to maintain that we do not know what permissions you asked for. You refuse to provide this information. I have never maintained that you did not contact the respective agencies, nor have I ever claimed or even inferred that you lied about your sources.
• 6) I provided you with an image that did not have your last name. If you were concerned about the privacy of your last name, you would delete your original (at least) and use the alternate image I provided to you. In effect, it's as if you spilled a drink on your shirt, I noted that you did, provided you a towel to clean it up, and you blame me for spilling the drink. You uploaded the original image that contained the name, not I. I observed to you that it contained your name, and thought you'd remove the image. Note that in bringing this to your attention I never mentioned your name, just that it was there. By deleting the image, you would have removed the name. Instead you chose and continue to choose to not delete the image and continue to host it on your user page. Additionally, another image still in use by you has your last name in the title of the image. These facts juxtaposed with your insistence that I violated your privacy can not be reconciled.
• I recommend you accept the proposal by User:Glen S and the proposed mediation by User:Zscout370. If you seek some sort of condemnation of my activities with respect to you, I respectfully submit (as per the top of this page) that you are in the wrong forum. Wikipedia:Requests for Comment is the next step. --Durin 20:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Chairboy, thanks but no thanks :) The dispute with Husnock is sufficient that I do not feel further interactions with him by me on these issues is likely to be a pleasant experience for either of us. This is work that can be done by a third party, and done in such a way that causes less offense (I hope). --Durin 18:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, also Zscout370 comes to mind as a good choice as a third party also... :)  Glen  18:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• This is all acceptable to me. I'll now continue my review of his images at User:Durin/Husnock_images but will not conduct any work as a result of those reviews. This will make the work that Zscout370 does, or whomever takes this on, considerably less. --Durin 18:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll accept the task of mediator/third party. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Pointless addition from me: I've looked at Durin's edit pattern and, frankly, I can't see anything objectionable; quite the reverse - Durin has acted properly and conscientiously to protect the project. The edits can be defined as "stalking" or as "proper actions by an experienced and respected editor". Only the latter makes for the building of an encyclopedia and only the latter is correct. Just my tuppenceworth. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

See my comment above the section semi-break which might possibly be helpful, I hope. Newyorkbrad 23:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• I suggested a variation on this; that the images in question be retagged as fair use, and Husnock could present to m:OTRS with what permissions he asked for and received on each image and let OTRS retag the images away from fair use as appropriate by their reasoning and reading of the permissions received. I suggested this to Husnock yesterday. He's ignored the suggestion, and given that he has responded to this thread since your proposal was put forth and since Glen S's was put forth, it appears he is not accepting these proposals either. So what now? --Durin 23:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record that's exactly why I made the suggestion above - simply because without an independant 3rd party Husdock will never agree to Durin's suggestions as he believes there's malice invloved Glen *** 00:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a few suggestions for Durin here. If in future you find an image with someone's name on it, and you are in a discussion like this with them, it might be best to approach the issue more elliptically. I was going to suggest you ask someone you trust to point it out to them instead, but that is fraught with ethical problems. The way you handled it, you might have thought you were doing a favour, but something like "are you aware that some of the images you have uploaded have your name visible on them?" and then waiting for a response, might have been received better than a "it's this image here, and I've done a new version for you". The 'waiting for a response' bit is crucial to avoid the scenario where the other person gets affronted and feels you've overstepped the mark. I personally don't think Durin did anything wrong here. Getting others involved earlier might have helped. Carcharoth 23:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• For the text transactions of how I notified him, please see User:Husnock/Durinharrass#Privacy_concerns. I did almost as you suggest above, with the exception that I did point out the image in the first message. I can see your point, but not telling him which image would send him on a needle in a haystack chase; he's worked on over 1500 images. We did try to get others involved on several occasions. First, it went to Image_talk:Corpus_Christi,_Texas_flag.svg on 14 November. Nobody responded there other than ourselves. From there, Husnock took it to Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Outside_assistance on 16 November. One person responded there. Seeing such little traffic, I took it to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive62#Input_on_copyright_issue_requested on 17 November, where two people responded. My opinion; most people do not like to deal with these copyright issues, so they get little attention. It wasn't until today, when it positively exploded, that it got attention. --Durin 23:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is getting attention now isn't it. Getting more people working in this area would be a good idea. Image copyright does seem to be one of those areas that really needs more people, but is chronically understaffed. My sympathies are with you in this dispute. I don't think the accusation of harassment is warranted. I do sympathise with Husnock as well, as he obviously does feel aggrieved, but it should be clear to him now that it is notjust you that has concerns about image tagging and copyright issues. Carcharoth 02:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • I was the third party mentioned by User:Husnock in the Talk:Pharaoh and Cleopatra (computer game)#Fair use images discussions that had developed about those images and additionally I have already offered to review any images. If User:Husnock User:Durin and User:Geni agree I'll act as an independant 3rd party to resolve these image issues. By this Durin and Geni list the images with the issues, I'll assess whats required to comply with the license and talk directly with Husnock. In the event of Husnock becoming unavailable the issues are still being addressed, where because of Husnocks unavailability the only option is to delete I'll organise it to be deleted and fix any affected articles including User pages. Gnangarra 03:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation by Zscout or even Geri would be fine. To clarify something, I'm actually not so upset about the images being wrongly tagged...some of them probably are. The whole point here is that this user seemed to target me and did a massive campaign to investigate every edit I have ever done. I will always feel this is becuase he wanted to "teach me a lesson" or had something against me stemming from the original dispute about flags on my user page. He then demanded immediate replies and posted tags stated that all these images would be deleted in seven days if enough info was not provided. I told him over and over again my time on this site is short and I would have to research this more deeply, needing much more than 7 days to fix these images. He dismissed this, saying I was using my deployment as an excuse. Its not an excuse, I am helping to fight a war in the Middle East, normally work 12-16 hour days, and only get on Wikipedia when I can. Then, when I arrive to enjoy the site, I find this user creating a policy page about me and demanding answers to questions posted the day before, before I had any time to review or research them. Then we get to this whole contact thing- I provided Durin with basic contact info. I told him I had written cities, had gotten some e-mails and letters. I told him I would have to check, again it would take time. I also talked to JAG officers and PAO officers with the Navy who assured me that the United States Navy had every right to copy and distribute city images of Japan and Korea which had been released by thier government to ours. This was all dismissed. Specific info was demanded and, when I couldn't provide it right away, I was being evasive or when I DID give the info, Durin would make a blanket statement that it was wrong or he would need names, phone numbers, and e-mails even for images uploaded years ago. Let us not forget, he hs not said a word about the image whre I flat out provided everything he asked for...the name, address, and how to contact the photographer (this was my ex-fiance). he uses the Corpus Christi case over and over, but that contact who gave me the city info is an elderly woman who works part time in the city office and got the info for me as a favor. No way was I going to hand over her name and number to Durin or post it on this site. So, in the end, others feel free to review my images. I will fix them when I can and provide info when its available, robably over a 6 or 7 month time frame. As for Durin, he can kindly leave me and my edits alone and his project page on me should be deleted. -Husnock 10:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

We appreciate your efforts, but you are not being persecuted. Every image needs to follow the image policy, and when someone sees a substantial portion that do not, it is absolutely correct to proceed with further efforts to fix the problem. That has been explained to you, so please stop acting like you are being persecuted. I recommend stepping back from the emotions of this and just working to resolve the problem. - Taxman ^Talk 15:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think anyone is targetting you. What I think may have happened is Durin noticed one or a few of your images were of concern. Given this, he or she probably decided to do a review of all your images. This is not about targeting you, it's about targeting a serious of images which the editor has belief to be may be of concern. Similarly, many RC and other vandalism patrollers will look through the contribs of someone who has vandalised or added other inappropriate info (NPOV, copyvios eyc) to see if this is the only instance and to correct any vandalism which has not been corrected and perhaps provide further warnings or even request a block if it's merited. Again, this is not about targeting anyone but about identifying a problem. Having identified possible problems, it is normal practice for an editor to take steps to correct them. There are several requirements for images and if any of yours didn't appear to meet them, Durin and other editors can and should make an effort to correct this problem. Generally speaking, the best way to do so is to approach the author first. I'm sure you would have preferred this rather then Durin just tagging them for deletion Nil Einne 15:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Question: as part of my mediator status, can I recreate some of the images that are in dispute? The problem I see with most of the flag related images that despite getting permission from the cities in question, the flags were drawn for the FOTW website by people who expressed their work not to be used commercially (which has been disallowed by Jimbo since May of 2005). Plus, some of the symbols drawn by Husnock are from other countries, such as Japan. We need to clarify that situation, so we could use some assistance with users from Japan. I am at college now, so I will not have time in the next few days to crack out images and upload (Durin and Husnock, email me). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Begging for help

On 22 November 2006, User:Taxman and User:Mindspillage left notes on User:Husnock's talk page indicating to him that he was in "inappropriate territory" [9][10]. Prior to this, Husnock made a claim that he feared I am revealing personal information about him to outside parties (see User:Husnock/Durinharass#Original_actions item #9). Since these comments by Taxman and Mindspillage, Husnock has further expanded on this "fear" and continues to maintain that I not only am I doing this, but that his family is possibly in danger ([11], third paragraph and [12] second to last paragraph).

This is a completely unfounded accusation. I have done no such thing nor would I ever do any such thing. Husnock himself contacted a number of different city agencies attempting to get permissions to use various different images. From his posting of the content of one of the response letters, it is a fact that in at least one of those contacts he used his USN rank and last name (see Image talk:Corpus Christi, Texas flag.svg, second section, quoted text). His release of his own name into the public therefore has factual basis.

Husnock has made no less than 10 distinct accusations against me, ranging from personal attacks, to slander, to stalking, to threatening his family. I have repeatedly asked Husnock to stop making accusations like this against me. Nevertheless it continues apace.

I have been told by a number of parties through various conversations that continued interaction with Husnock is not likely to bring any light, only heat. Agreed. I have been told by the same than an RfC is not likely to bring any light either. Additionally, I have been told by Husnock that he can not participate in an RfC.

I'm begging others to step in and please, please, please stop this ceaseless onslaught upon me. I am not recommending specific actions. Just that something needs to be done. --Durin 14:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Durin, I really think there is no need to worry. As far as I can see, you have acted appropriately throughout. I can vouch for the fact that you were not "targetting" Husnock, since I know that you have, for months been removing non-free images from user space, not just Husnock's. (With a slightly red face, I have to admit that I was one of the careless people that you had to do it to!) Most of the people who do that (Jkelly is one example) provoke a lot of indignation from a very small number of users, regardless of how "right" or how civil they are. In every case where Husnock has made accusations about your behaviour on Wikipedia, your behaviour stands up to scrutiny, with one small exception (see next paragraph). In the case of your behaviour off Wikipedia, he has not, as far as I can see, actually made any accusation, just a hint that you might have released his name publicly. I can't imagine that anybody here will seriously think it's possible that you did, and he admits himself that it "probably isn't you",[13] so what are you worrying about?

Where I think you may have been wrong, though certainly without malice, was in telling him publicly that his last name was visible on a certain photo. It would have been more prudent to have said that in a private e-mail. However, it is now a week since you told him that. He has admin powers, and could easily have deleted that photo. (You were kind enough to offer him a replacement where his name could not be seen.) Instead, he chose to leave the photo there, and to post on this noticeboard the diff where you tell him which photo it is.[14] An admin who was really concerned about that potential risk to his privacy would have deleted the image immediately, and then complained about your post and about the possibility that people could have gone to the image in the few minutes or hours that elapsed between your drawing attention to it and his deletion. Since he has not deleted it, and has drawn extra attention to it as part of his list of accusations against you, it's hard to believe that he's all that concerned.

Another point is that when an admin such as Durin is conscientious enough to take on the extremely thankless task of enforcing copyright policy, it's absolutely normal that when a user resists him, reverts him, protests, etc., that the admin will then look into his other images to see if there are other problems. That is not harassment or stalking.

A final point is that the "ex-fiancee" argument and the "friend of my late grandfather" argument might increase sympathy, but cannot change policy. If an image source cannot be verified, the image should be deleted until such time as it can be verified, or until it can be replaced by a properly-sourced image. My understanding is that Jimbo is anxious that copyright policy be strictly enforced. Full sympathy to someone who doesn't want to pass on details of his ex-fiancee or his grandfather's friend, but are those images really essential to Wikipedia? Is it really essential that images without proper source should remain simply because we sympathize with the reasons for not providing the source?

I agree that something need to be done, as this is getting out of hand, and I urge others to give whatever help they can in this situation. AnnH ♫ 14:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I must clarify that I never said Durin had threatened my family or had revealed info to the outside world. Tha is simply untrue. I stated that I was afraid he had revealed info about me when he e-mailed Corpus Christi about thier image, but didnt know for sure. I then stated to him that I was getting scared of this whole situation becuase someone had emailed an nrelated contact, asking who I was using my last name, statng that I "worked for Wikipedia" and "wanted to find me". I NEVER said that was Durin and even clarified twice on his talk page that it probably wasnt him. Also, in resposne to concerns that he was getting fried up, I toned down the language of my sub-page User:Husnock/Durinconcerns removing references to harrasment and instead clarifying that it was a record of the dispute. I did all this to defuse the situation as I am leaving Wiki after the holidays and probably wont be here to continue this dipsute until next year. I am leaving this to ZScout and others. I am allowed to think what I think and I think I was targeted by this user for various reasons and that he was unreassonabe and unrealsitic in demanding such information ASAP even when told it would take weeks or months to verify in light of my situation. My supage speaks for itself, the record is there of what I believe he has done for the benefit of mediators and others. Durin is also concerned I am border-line making legal threats which simply isnt true either. I ahve never made a legal threat against Durin and it would silly to do so since I live overseas now and couldnt reasonably pursue it. I leave everyone with this scenario then and perhaps they can see my side of it:

"You are a United States servive member working overseas in the Middle east. You love Wikipedia and log on when you can and edit it. One day, someone questions where your article images are coming from. You try to answer them, but your answers aren't good enough. You give the best information you can, but there is always something that is either stated to be wrong or simply "can't be the case". You're then told a third of your images will be deleted in 7 days if proper information is not given. You tell people that you are overseas, you ask for more time. You are told no time can be given, a deployment is not "an excuse". You are then asked for very personal information like the phone numbers and addresses of those close to you or of people yo've known in the past. You then discover a page where every image you have ever uploaded is listed for "review", as if you've committed some kind of offense to Wikipedia that must now be looked at. And, lastly, you get an e-mail saying someone is out there, in the real world, asking questions about you and trying to find you because you've edited on Wikipedia."

Thats where I'm coming from, maybe now people see why this is disturbing. With that, I leave this to others. Happy Turkey Day and I'm off to do duties elsewhere. -Husnock 20:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

That being the case, then you should find no problem removing a number of entries you have made since they have nothing to do with me yet you've tied them to me. In particular you should remove:

• Elements of item #9 from User:Husnock/Durinharass#Original_actions, beginning with "quite possibly".
• Everthing in paragraph 3 of [15] beginning from "Rather the opposite".
• The last two sentences of paragraph #5 of [16].

Since these things have nothing to do with me, per your assertions above, then continuing to allow their presence here does not make any sense, would you not agree? --Durin 16:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Husnock's accusations against me continue apace [17] [18]. --Durin 18:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That is getting silly. He has no right to make accusations like that against you. I hope the e-mail Cool Cat sent calmed things down. Husnock also seems unable to admit that he might have been wrong, instead saying things like: "much to my horror his activites were backed by a large number of well established users. It makes one wonder." It certainly makes me wonder, but not in the way Husnock might think. Carcharoth 14:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: thread will be archived soon, and it seems to me at least that the dispute is dying down. Before the thread is archived, though, I'd like to put it formally here that Husnock accepts that Durin had nothing to do with any real-life attempts to contact Husnock, using Husnock's last name. The problem of editors' real identities being figured out and attempts to harass them in real life is a very real one on Wikipedia. It was happening long before this dispute started, and will continue long after it ends. Durin indicated here that he was not comfortable with vague statements about there being no proof, and Husnock answered here, saying, "you were never accused of stalking my family, in fact I said 3 or 4 times it wasn't you. Someone did though, probably as a result of reading what was going on." He added that he didn't have time to go back to old disputes and do strikeouts and retractions, and that the noticeboard would soon be archived and the dispute buried. Finally, Husnock stated here that Durin "had nothing to do with these incidents." I just want to add that to the record before the bot comes along and moves this thread to the archive. AnnH ♫ 15:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Review of Indef block of SuperDeng

SuperDeng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been indef blocked, apparently without consultation. After a series of blocks for personal attacks and other bad behavior he was finally banned for one month with the understanding he would be mentored after the ban was up Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive43#User:SuperDeng and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive43#User:SuperDeng_II.

The ban was extended to two months for sockpuppetry. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SuperDeng After the 2 month ban expired, it was discovered that he had returned as Lokqs (talk · contribs) (only after the ban) but also as The Green Fish (talk · contribs) (edited during the ban). I reblocked for one month (beginning Nov 5). Following more proven sockpuppetry, Woohookitty applied an indef ban, apparently without consultation.

SuperDeng has e-mailed and posted numerous editors asking for the indef ban to be lifted. I think it should at least be reviewed. The choice seems to be between an indef ban for exhausting community patience, or a return to the one month ban followed by mentorship, assuming he can keep out of the sock drawer for a whole month. (If he can't stop using sockpuppets, a rolling series of one month bans would amount to an indef ban anyway.) I don't have a strong opinion either way as I have never encountered him outside of my role as checkuser clerk. I think his complaint that an admin has a personal grudge against him shows a lack of awareness of his own problematic editing behavior, and the fact that his sockpuppets are so easily detected shows he hasn't yet learned how to work within our system. Thatcher131 18:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of much disruption from this user, therefore blocking him indefinitely without prior consultation was harsh. His habit of sockpuppeteering is ridiculous and even harmless, as he is dyslexic and easily recognizable. I urged him to stop using sockpuppets for no apparent reason. If he perseveres, I will support an indefinite ban. So far, I am inclined to give him another chance, as his behaviour is not really disruptive (if I don't ignore some compelling diffs, of course). --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets are not banned, only proscribed. I would suggest that if puppetry is the full extent of the problem then ArbCom is the logical step, and a request for an emergency injunction to use a single account pending what would presumably be a final resolution to the same effect, but I have not yet gone through the contribs in detail (I bet puppetry is not the only problem). For those others who wish to do so, these are the identified socks:

• Beenhj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cvaltnm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Klingoner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bignra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gipornm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fgbvnm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mblafg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nickmolo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mortcv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Toadfootre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There may be others. Guy (Help!) 20:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. well, if those are socks, then I'd say he's a bit obsessive but not a vandal. Some of the edits are completely sound, others need taking to Talk, but there is some evidence of engagement in Talk - this does not look like your run-of-the-mill POV pusher, more like an editor with strong opinions. I'll go through the edits of the main account as well, I think, but there is nothing obviously wrong with several of the edits of the sock accounts, and none of them are self-evident vandalism or trolling. Maybe I'm not seeing the whole picture yet. Guy (Help!) 20:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Um. Look at his block log. It's about a heck alot more than just using sockpuppets. Deng has been disruptive almost since day 1. If he doesn't deserve an indefinite block, no one does. He's written alot of people. And? And I'm sure he's given the same song and dance he has on his RfCU page, about how I'm biased and he's done nothing wrong. Um. 3RR vio. Wikistalking. Disruption. Sockpuppetry. There aren't alot of policies that he has NOT violated. So let's say someone ends the ban or shortens it. Looking at that block log and his talk page, does anyone seriously think that he's going to change? Mentorship will not work on someone who isn't willing to change and Deng has shown 0 inkling to change. He thinks that what he does is right. Look at his RfCU page. In late October, he actually claimed that he'd never used socks despite the numerous pieces of evidence. He has spent most of his time on the project blocked. I think that says it all. As for his socks, it's a continuation of what he's done in the past. He blanks other people's contribs. He refuses to take anyone else's thoughts into consideration. He stalked another user (Kurt Leyman) for a full 2 months, reverting every edit he could. He hasn't even attempted dispute resolution. He's called users stupid. He knew about the 3RR rule and yet, even after warnings, he reverted someone EIGHT TIMES in 90 minutes. That was during the spring. And this is the tip of the iceberg. "Go to ArbCom". WHY? So they can just confirm what I've said? There are clear cut cases where someone should be blocked indefinitely. This is one of those cases. --Woohookitty^(meow) 23:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup, found that, didn't get round to coming back and commenting (my bad). He can fuck off, I think. Guy (Help!) 10:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. I mean, if this was just one vio and then sockpuppet use, I could see unblocking and giving him another shot. But he's been at this for a year now and yet he just continues on his merry way. He isn't going to change. --Woohookitty^(meow) 15:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• (outdent) Deng is agitating for an unblock. The more I look at this, the more justified I think the block is. If anyone whats to help him get to ArbCom they are welcome, but I don't see much likelihood of any outcome other than a ban. As my friend Mr Larrington would have it: shoot him and burn the body. I'd link you to the source of that quote but due to an outbreak of frightfulness in the BRITONS' England, The Weekly is currently devoid of its illuminating and civilising content. Bah! Guy (Help!) 22:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I share the same view. As I stated above, some (including dmcdevit, who I respect greatly) have suggested arbcom but why waste their time on this? --Woohookitty^(meow) 12:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • That's not really our call, IMO. They can, if they choose, dismiss the case as a righteous block - they have done that before. Little time is wasted in that case, and we have made every effort to be fair. If, on the other hand, ArbCom decide that there might be some merit in considering the case, that's their prerogative (yes that will suck in some of our time as well, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it). I somehow doubt they will accept, but I have not yet seen anything like a neutral statement of Deng's grievances. Maybe if he can document calmly what his problem is, he will be on the way to fixing the problem. And pigs might fly. In the end, though, I see not much to be lost and some to be gained from allowing Deng his day in court, even if the case is thrown out on day 1. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I've been going through this with him for over a year now. He's not going to change. Trust me. And I just don't see the use of an arbcom case. Why force people to present the case against him yet again when it's pretty clear cut. What I mean is that I've given the evidence on RfCU 3-4 times and another 3-4 on AN and AN/I. If he isn't going to change (which I don't think he is), I just don't see the point of making us go through an ArbCom case. I think we can safely use "exhausted community's patience" with Deng as we have with others. That block log is a book. And again. He's not going to change. He's shown no inkling of wanting to change. His explanation for everything has stayed the same since April. It's a biased admin and he's never used socks and he does nothing wrong and it's everyone else's fault, etc, etc. There hasn't been even a hint of "hey, I'm wrong". And honestly, given the subject matter Deng posts on along with the passion of the nationalist fervor with which he and his supporters post, I just feel like it'd be asking for more edit warring on the articles he's involved in along with his arbcom case. Finally, given his "which has forcced me to do some createive thinking" post on his user page along with his use of socks, I suspect that this is all symbolic anyway, i.e. he's going to keep using socks despite the block. --Woohookitty^(meow) 05:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
      • And this is what I mean. --Woohookitty^(meow) 22:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• I was thinking that the likely outcome - a refusal with the comment "righteous block" - would forestall any further aggravation. And that's if he can find an advocate to help take it to ArbCom, I'm certainly not going to based on his comments on his Talk page. Guy (Help!) 00:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom campaigning images

T-shirts? [19] [20] --Ars Scriptor 21:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've got a premium Cafepress account; it could happen very, very easily. :D EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, why not? I'll take 3 Tawkerbot for ArbCom t-shirts, size medium.

Seriously, so long as the campaign ads aren't giant signature banners or WP:NPA violations, I don't see any harm in it. --tjstrf talk 21:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just go ahead and give me your credit card number while I print them up... EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Political banners and slogans should be prohibited. —Centrx→talk • 21:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Like tjstrf said, as long as they aren't breaking actual rules, I don't have a problem with them. If they bleed over into other namespaces, it'd be a problem. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Centrx. This isn't the attitude that we want to foster: we want a healthy, co-operative community, not political parties and factions. Snoutwood (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If we start seeing banners that say "Daniel.Bryant eats puppies" or something similar, then I'd agree that it runs counter to a co-operative community. Multiple users vying for a single position doesn't quite count (in my opinion). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

He's Australian, right? God only knows what he eats. Newyorkbrad 22:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Cuisine_of_Australia#Unique_and_Iconic_Australian_foods - what the hell are those little '?' symbols against Vegemite and Marmite? Carcharoth 22:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not against the election (that is, multiple users vying for a single position), I'm against people declaring political allegiances. Snoutwood (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just don't feel that declaring support for an ArbCom candidate is as decisive as declaring political allegiances (an admittedly US-centric attitude). I also just wanted to use "foo eats puppies" in a sentence. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It is internal advertising. "As long as they aren't breaking actual rules" is a meaningless reference to 'the rulebook', when the question at hand is whether there needs to be an explicit rule forbidding these sorts of advertisements. —Centrx→talk • 22:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The question, as you stated, is whether there needs to be an explicit rule forbidding these sorts of ads. My answer is no; the "they aren't breaking actual rules" bit is the rationale for my answer, not my answer out-and-out. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It is my belief that these should be deleted as per CSD T1: Templates of a divisive nature, but am refraining from doing so until there;s been some discussion. By their very essence, they promote campaigning and factioning, which shouldn't be the point of the election. This is a bad idea, and shouldn't continue. For those of you who argue that they aren't in the template namespace, my reply is that namespace is irrelevant, what's important is how they're used. Snoutwood (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Bah rulecreep. OK, this is how mine is used. Divisive? Bishonen | talk 00:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC).

Aww, rulecreep? I haven't even changed any existing rules.... Anyhow, I suppose I do feel that it's somewhat divisive. Supporting or not supporting someone or something inherently creates divisions, and that's fine, that's the way the world works. But it seems to me that stuff like openly stamping your political affiliation on the online equivalent of your forehead is kind of combative. Like wearing a Democrat pin in the U.S. around election day, it doesn't do much more than set yourself in a group that is not part of another group (in this example, Democrat, not Republican), which I don't see the benefit of here: hopefully, everyone's making up their own minds about candidates based on their merits, not because they fall into a faction (which I feel this sort of thing promotes). So maybe I was a bit harsh saying that they should be deleted; I suppose that it didn't come across so much as humor to me, but a barrier. Snoutwood 08:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot have political parties, just individuals. There's a difference between campaigning for a person and campaigning for a platform, and no sufficiently divisive issues have come up (which revolved around the arbcom at least) to be the basis for such a thing. The only thing even close to a party philosophy is deletionism/inclusionism, and those have nothing to do with arbcom. --tjstrf talk 21:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I hasten to point you to Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion (et al.) and Wikipedia:Esperanza to give you two quick examples of Wikipedian political parties. They are certainly possible here, and very much exist: after all, all a party is made of individuals... The point is, having a big "VOTE FOR X" stamp promotes the idea that Wikipedia is about competing philosophies, not about writing an awesome collaborative encyclopedia. We are, or we should be, about consensus and common ground, not bickering, infighting, and creating divisions in the way that a "FloNight Party" or a "Daniel.Bryant Party" does. Snoutwood (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Given how ArbCom elections are run the probability of factions forming based on this is fairly small. They strike me as humorous boxes not doing any harm. If in the future there becomes a problem we can deal with it then. JoshuaZ 21:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

images != templates, so they can't be speedily deleted. You could run an IfD on them, though I doubt it'd pass. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

To quote myself several inches up this page: For those of you who argue that they aren't in the template namespace, my reply is that namespace is irrelevant, what's important is how they're used. To put it otherwise: if I take a photograph of a userbox, upload it, and transclude it on my userpage, does it magically cease to be a template because it's not in the same namespace anymore? Snoutwood (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh pshaw, that assumes that I'm going to actually read this thread. ;P

I still don't feel that it should be deleted as T1. If I happened across it (hypothetical situation, assuming this entire discussion hadn't happened), I wouldn't hesitate to remove the db tag and tell the user to send it through IfD. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm failing to see much of a problem with this at the moment.Geni 22:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Given their licensing, shouldn't they be on the commons? Hiding Talk 22:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

These were clearly intended quasi-humorously, have had extremely limited dissemination, and probably more people are aware of them as a result of this thread on the noticeboard than were previously. Newyorkbrad 22:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

My comment was also clearly intended quasi-humorously. Hiding Talk 22:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

While we are on the subject, what about heading off the inevitable placement of these sort of endorsements in signatures. Even a seemingly innocuous "vote in the ArbCom elections" trailed in someone's signature could get lots of exposure, and could lead the unwary to a page endorsing various candidates and suggesting who to vote for. That would be something to stamp on. Hard.

I say limit such things to people's userspaces. Allow voters and candidates to have a notice on their talk page, and a page in their userspace to comment on the candidates and who they intend to vote for, but no campaigning on article talk pages. User talk pages only. Carcharoth 22:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Putting a link in a signature is a totally different issue and, I agree, should be prohibited.

Same with actively putting this on other people's talk pages (or anywhere else); the caveat for my opinion of keeping these images is that they are applied to a user's page only by that user. If I got one of these slapped somewhere (either as a false show of support or by someone trying to curry my support), I'd have a totally different attitude. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

To clear up one or two things: firstly, I did not create any "bumpersticker", nor had any knowledge of such doing until someone posted on my user talk page. Although I did have the chance to say "no" to having mine used, I saw no real reason not to. The question here is "will these create divisions etc. within the community, therefore be a (loosely-interpreted) T1". My question to you is "how are these more divisive than any userbox that states your political affiliation/religious views"? Really... Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 22:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Extension of response (I really should learn to read the whole thread before responding...): I totally agree with the stance of prohibiting placing these anywhere bar the userspace, and for this to occur, it must be the "owner" *cough* of the userspace who does it. Otherwise, as someone rightfully put, that is pushing your opinion onto someone else, and should be viewed with the same contempt as spam-canvassing messages to other users' page for XfD's etc. And, although I have no idea what my food of preference has to do with any of this, lets just say I don't eat puppies...nor Vegemite, for that matter :) Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Obviously we need a userbox to declare whether one is or is not in favour of arbcom election bumper stickers. Guy (Help!) 23:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There are at least four of these so far: Category:ArbCom bumper stickers. There are 34 candidates at the time of writing, so maybe we can look forward to another 30 of these. I'll vote for the one with the most inventive design... Carcharoth 00:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A genuine concern though. If people put these stickers on their pages to show who they intend to vote for, then the image page (which shows where the images are being used) becomes a "endorsement page" by the back door. Judging from the bad stories I heard about this last time, this might be a bad idea. Carcharoth 00:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Question: what parties? I don't see a huge partisan split among the candidates. Ok, so I'm known for being one way, but a half dozen other candidates are in general agreement with me on the critical matters. Phil Sandifer, for example, is known for being the other way. There are perhaps three or four other candidates who would agree on the practices. I don't see where any of the candidates has grandstanded on a wiki-political issue, so I don't see where we can really get parties forming. I don't see the "deletionist/inclusionist" split operative on ArbCom selection, and we don't have folks who "lost" a divisive RFAR swearing vengeance, so I'm not sure that this particular election can, at least with the present prominent candidates, generate much heat.

Then again, the bumperstickers are parodies. The people who have made the ones I've seen have been joking, both about the idea of "campaigning" and the idea of there being political parties at Wikipedia. People can take those jokes the wrong way, infamously so, but none of the bumpersticker creators, that I know of, has been guilty of anything but puckishness. Geogre 03:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Quite. And if they get deleted I will climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man to protest. Guy (Help!) 07:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I've got a small sidebet on Guy shoehorning WP:NCR into fifteen more threads before Christmas :) Proto::type 10:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"Phil Sandifer is known for being the other way" - sorry, but I had a real Allo! Allo! moment when you said that - flashback to the "Is he one of us?" "No, he's one of them!" scene in a very early episode :-). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I created Category:ArbCom bumper stickers to start tracking these. Personally, I think they're a bad idea and I'd prefer they all went away. I don't think we should add !campaign to !vote in the Wikipedia lexicon. —Doug Bell ^talk 10:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that category is a bad idea. These images were supposed to be mostly harmless fun, now your category makes them look like an official part of the election, not like the bumper sticker parodies they really are. Kusma (討論) 11:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if all the images get deleted, you can speedy the category. :-) I don't see where the category makes them official more than someone encountering one on a user page, which is how the vast majority of people will encounter them. Delete 'em all. —Doug Bell ^talk 11:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why there's so much fuzz about so trivial a matter. All Wikipedians have the right to voice their opinions on their talk pages, which they do by posting stickers. This is a very small scale development which needs not be discussed at such a length. When you started a category, you lumped all of these individual things together, representing them as a sort of "phenomenon", which is plain wrong. I would rather address the issue of massive campaigning on IRC, as it seems to be more annoying and divisive. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's fine if people want to express their opinion on their user page. However, how about we give opinions a chance instead of starting down the road to slogans. Next thing you know we'll have sound bites and animated GIFs. —Doug Bell ^talk 13:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

While I like the images as parody, I don't like them as a campaigning tool, that is people using them on userpages to show who they support. I don't like the idea of the Arbcom elections becoming associated with the adversarial, negative campaigning style of political elections (particularly American ones). There may be people running for the same position, but we aren't running against each other in the same way that politicians are. Whereas political elections are generally about ideology, our elections are more about experience, judgement and other qualifications - or at least they were. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Secret ballot, anyone? ;-) Guy (Help!) 13:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As someone so rightfully mentioned above with the "Daniel.Bryant eats puppies" example, I reckon these are just a little bit of "quasi-humour" (NYB), and provided they don't change from this into what could broadly interpreted as a personal attack against other candidates, this intent won't change. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 21:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Illustrative comics

There is a new WikiProject dedicated to creating illustrative comics for articles, such as the one on the right. An editor on the Village Pump disputes this practice, calling it clutter. Do we like this idea or is it not encyclopedic? Please respond on the wikiproject's talk page. (Radiant) 15:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think they're brilliant. I'd like to see an illustrated version of WP:NOT. Proto::type 15:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Very clever. I'm sure that will impress our critics. Thatcher131 16:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

They're brilliant, high-quality, inspired, clever illustrations—that belong in some other project. They really are superb, but I don't think that they suit our encyclopedic style. I wish the artist the best of luck with his Wikibook or other publication. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm racking my brains to justify how they could fit in. After all, we do have spoken word versions of articles, although that's more of an "access for all" thing. They certainly could go on Wikibooks but be linked to on via a little template on their 'parent articles'. Proto::type 16:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This may make more sense to bring up somewhere on meta. JoshuaZ 16:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Surely a link on the talk page is enough. Martin 16:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Having a custom drawing in a comic-related article like Hammerspace might be defensible; after all, the illustrations in science articles are often conceptual illustrations, and regarding Hammerspace specifically, any actual image will be copyrighted and fair use, so a non-fair use image might be preferable. However, I can not see any value in an article about non-comic related topics. Is there a kids wikipedia or wikipedia junior? Thatcher131 16:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree completely with TenOfAllTrades says. Delightful, well done, and not suitible for Wikipedia articles. -- Infrogmation 19:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I raised 5 points on the village pump (not just "calling it clutter"), I'll add them here.

1. The images are just not right for encyclopedic articles, even just as links (they are cartoons after all).
2. The template used to distribute the images is clearly a self reference.
3. The whole idea seems very spammy/self promotion.
4. The idea does seem to have been discussed at all.
5. We already have too much template clutter as it is.

Maybe the community can consider links on talk pages, or even a new illustrated wiki or something. Martin 16:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If all of the illustrative comics tend to be of the same quality as the image to the right then they surely will be brillant additions to the project. Bravo! (→Netscott) 16:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Mightn't it be possible to put them on Commons (where they surely fit the inclusion guidelines), and then link to them with a sister-project template? --ais523 17:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a well-recognized panelological genre and is not limited to children's literature (see for example The Cartoon History of the Universe by Larry Gonick. Whether this format is suited for Wikipedia articles is a separate question, of course, but the intellectual level or complexity of the contribution doesn't correllate to the format. Newyorkbrad 17:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This isn't spammy/self promotional at all since if you notice it isn't the author who is inserting them. I think they are fine to be linked to, and where it fits, added fully.pschemp | talk 17:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you'll notice, the author is repeatedly inserting the images. Regardless, the main question is are they suitable. Martin 18:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The WP:NOT comment (which I understand was intended to be sarcastic) actually got me thinking. Using comics as illustrations will usually be inappropriate in an encyclopedia (except in an article on a comic), but, if done right, they could be appropriate in WP space to illustrate policy, guidelines, etc. JChap2007 18:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that Commons does this on their image licencing page:Image:BD-propagande colour en.jpg. 68.39.174.238 01:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Comics have the problem that the text in them is not editable. This creates an encyclopedia anyone can edit, except for text that has been cleverly made read-only by burning it into an image. Not good for finding consensus. Weregerbil 18:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Although the comic above is pretty boring, this kind of simple illustrated example would work well on the Simple English Wikipedia. - hahnchen 01:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Eek! Lordamighty, the last thing we need to do is try to take our articles more toward the Classics Illustrated mode. It's wonderful that people like drawing pictures, and a fully graphic encyclopedia somewhere else is an idea. It is NOT right. This is such a prima facia bad idea that we really shouldn't have to debate it. Geogre 02:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Putting these on simple, or creating a wikia or somesuch to host an illustrated encyclopedia, could provide a nice home for these. If this had just been proposed in text, without an example, I would've said it was a terrible idea, but the illustrations are just too well-done not to use them somewhere. The popularity of the cartoon guide to... series (I've heard of Cartoon Guide to Genetics being used as a high school textbook!) indicates an existing market for this sort of thing. Also nth-ing the idea of doing similar things for policies and guidelines in wikipedia space, or corresponding dicta on meta. Opabinia regalis 03:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The page says "In cooperation with the Wikimedia Foundation". Is it? The guy is Tampa-based, so it seems probable.

Maybe it doesn't belong on "en.wikipedia.org", but as an experiment, I can see trying out a "cartoon.wikipedia.org" space. Creating the policy pages, as someone put it, would be a bear, though I look forward to seeing how he'd handle WP:3RR. --Calton | Talk 06:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that his cartoons would work great as a WikiReader type project on Wikipedia. - hahnchen 17:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Caricatures instead

What would people say to the suggestion that we ask the artist in question to perhaps create caricatures of people for whom finding free to use photo's is hard? This would allow us a free to use image and make sure any copyrighted images of such people were used only when fair use really did apply, for example when discussing a particular image or where the image illustrates a point. Any thoughts? Hiding Talk 22:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, but could have NPOV issues based on how the people were depicte. For example, if Ross Perot's ears were shown as larger than they are would that be an issue? How close to actual proportions should they be? etc. However, it is an interesting idea. JoshuaZ 07:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If someone did a sketch based on an unfree image, but releasd the sketch via GFDL (or the appropriate CC one for Wikipedia), would we be allowed to use this image? Proto::type 09:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This is sort of an old discussion. We have consistently favored line art for things that we either cannot or should not present photographs of (various anatomical features and organs, e.g.), and this would be little different. It would be a neat thing, as a stop-gap, if a skilled free hand depiction were used. As for the copyright status, I am no lawyer, but I really, really doubt that it would stick, if this were a wholly new, though "inspired" portrait. After all, most paintings are based on previous paintings, photographs, etc. If a portrait painter did the work from a photo instead of making the sitter pose for days at a time (as is usually the case these days), that painter would be unable to claim copyright of the painting, unless it were the case that working from the photo did not carry with it rights to the photographer. Geogre 11:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Legally, I think caricature is protected from defamation law by being for the purposes of satire. Regarding the NPOV point, maybe it would inspire people to get Wikipedia compatible images? Going a little further though, we used to, in the UK, have a programme called Spitting Image, which used puppetry to caricature, and politicians and celebrities actually felt honoured to have been caricatured in such a manner. There will always be the danger of NPOV debate about images on some scale, for example if we illustrate an article on Ross Perot showing him doing something illegal, even if that's the only free to use image we have? Hiding Talk 13:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The artist insists his name be on the images so the images are not free enough for wikipedia. How many useful images have been deleted because they were not free enough? And now this with the guy's name on each one??? Take it to Wikia. It will fit in nicely between two advertizements. 4.250.198.224 18:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong. The license is suitable, why should we remove his name from the artwork? It's a Creative Commons license which asks for attribution, even if you removed his name from the image, you'd still have to let people know who drew it. Hence, why remove the name? - hahnchen 16:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, he's got a fairly good, secure job as a newspaper layout designer, he's not using this to promote himself and become a fulltime cartoonist, a very unguaranteed profession. -- Zanimum 22:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a wonderful idea, if it is not compatible with Wikipedia, contact me and I will personally set up a private Wiki running MediaWiki for this project. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Gay Nigger Association of America

Can someone please explain why this is deleted? I can't find an AFD that allowed it. If none occured, please undelete it, and please ask the deleting admin to stop being disruptive. Sorry - I'm about to get married and I haven't got time to fix this issue! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The page was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (18th nomination). Wait...18th nom? You must be kidding me. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

See also WP:DRV#Gay Nigger Association of America. Khoikhoi 03:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This was not disruption; it was a good-faith deletion. Those who object may log their opinions at the DRV Khoikhoi links above. Meanwhile, congratulations and good luck to you, Ta bu. Chick Bowen 04:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Good faith or not, speedy deletion of pages which have survived prior XfD attempts is forbidden by WP:SPEEDY, and WP:SNOW is restricted to non-controversial decisions. This needs to be overturned. --tjstrf talk 04:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

speedy deletion of pages which have survived prior XfD attempts is forbidden Except it wasn't "speedy deleted": note the reference to [[this, above? --Calton | Talk 07:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"Needs" is a strong word. Take it to DRV if you want; there's little to discuss here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

So a few policy pages overrule Jimbo? [21] Thankfully most people seem to realize process for the sake of process is a mistake in at least this once case. Sometimes rules need to be ignored. --W.marsh 04:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

In either case, the relevant policy says to take it to DRV, where it currently is... Titoxd^(?!?) 04:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo doesn't override always. When he is acting ex cathedra he generally makes it clear. In this case, if he were acting as such he would have closed the DRV. JoshuaZ 05:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Archiving to prevent redundant discussion on multiple boards. This is under discussion on DRV, please direct your comments there. (Radiant) 09:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

we actually deleted GNAA?? Blimey, Wikipedia must be getting respectable after all! dab (𒁳) 21:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Registration: "too similar" usernames - option to request review by admin

This is a technical suggestion but I raise it here because if implemented it would give an additional task to administrators.

It comes out of a frustrating experience with the system which detects whether the username you are trying to register for is too similar to an existing one. The algorithm does not always make decisions which a human being would consider sensible; for example "-Alan-" was rejected because it was too similar to "A$ian". As the number of existing accounts grows, this problem would seem set to get worse.

In the situation I describe, I think it would be good to give people the option of having it manually reviewed. So for example, what about making it respond along these lines:

Your proposed username, "-Alan-" has been identified via an automated system as being similar to the following existing username(s): "A$ian", ... .

To safeguard against possible confusion or impersonation, the requested account has not been created.

• To choose a different username instead, click here.

• It is possible that a human reader may consider that the usernames are not likely to be confused, so you have the option of requesting creation of the account "-Alan-", and an administrator will make the decision. To request this, click here. Note that you will be asked to provide an email address on which you can be informed of the decision, and that your IP address will be included in the email which is sent.

Hopefully not too big an extra admin task, but what are your feelings?

Thanks. — Alan^✉ 13:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Given the sheer amount of usernames we have that are registered by sockpuppeteers or pranksters, I'm afraid that this feature would quickly be flooded under them. (Radiant) 15:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It is possible for an admin to override the system at the moment; if an admin goes to Special:Userlogin whilst logged in and creates an account, I think it gets round AntiSpoof (and IIRC this has happened before). The obvious problem here is that the admin has the password, rather than the user trying to create the account, so some secure means must be needed to distribute the password. --ais523 16:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It has been done by having the target creating a temporary account - the admin sending the password by email - after which the target changes the password. Agathoclea 00:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Yep, it is definitely possible. You just create an account, which is then tagged as "created" by some other user, like I did here. However, getting an admin to not block it as a reflex is another thing, though... Titoxd^(?!?) 06:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe admins should check the user-creation log before doing username blocks based on similarity (this shouldn't be too hard, because most such blocks are caught from the user-creation log...) --ais523 12:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hi, thanks for the replies. If the expected load is more than admins can reasonably handle, then fair enough my suggestion won't work. But I think it would be good for something to be done about the spoof protection being a bit too paranoid as in the above example. Otherwise each username registered makes a considerable number of other potential usernames become unavailable for registration. (As this no longer concerns specifically admins, feel free to move this to another page if appropriate.) — Alan^✉ 20:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Question about checkuser from fairly newbie admin

I have a couple users that I'm pretty sure (but not certain) are the same person. They make the same edits and their accounts were created one day apart. They have both voted in the same AfDs on two separate occasions, but their votes didn't (in the first case) and won't (in the second) affect the outcome of the vote. I haven't yet noticed their use in a 3RR violation either. So there's nothing to warrant a checkuser under any of the categories. WP:RFCU suggests it be taken to WP:AN/I, but what use would that be? I left a note on the userpage of the user who makes more of the edits, speaking authoritatively about my knowledge that he is the same person, but he flat out denied it (and accused me of being the same person as someone else he’s in a conflict with). Do I just have to wait until he slips up further? _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 20:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep an eye on him, but in the meantime, I recommend following WP:AGF--Vercalos 21:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Advice for future reference: If a user hasn't yet justified a checkuser to tell if they are the same editor then it is often best not to alert them until you can justify a checkuser request. They will now be more likely to be careful about making more subtle socks. JoshuaZ 21:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I know, I guess I just had faith that the user cared enough about Wikipedia to admit his sockpuppetry (he wasn't making terrible edits before, just somewhat POVish ones) and decide to use one account. He's now suddenly taken to commenting on his other account's edits to try to show he's not the same person. <sigh> _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 23:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I will say that I have followed some of the discussion (not closely, but I've kept an eye on it), and my impression was that the two accounts were different people that knew each other and had a common interest. They may very well have both come here for the same purpose, yet be different people. No evidence to support this, but thought I'd offer this as a possible explanation for their behavior. —Doug Bell ^talk 00:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, I considered that, but figured that they might very well have communicated with each other in talk pages prior to this if they were friends IRL. One only decided to comment on the other's edits immediately after I called him out, which I find awfully suspicious. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 15:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Advice needed

Just want opinions before I block. Have a look at User talk:Jonsiker and tell me what you would do. Although it is quite a sob story, wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. I am also inclined to disbelieve the claim that wiki is the only free site he can get too (apart from the other mentioned one) its more likely that he doesn't know anywhere else. Viridae^Talk 02:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh heh, isn't young love cute (not to mention pornographic) these days? I'm with you on this one, its likely convenience that leads them to use WP for their lusty chats. You are probably doing them a favour anyway, she'll just break his heart one day or he'll give her an STD he caught in Spain... ;) Rockpocket 06:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Haha! Viridae^Talk 08:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I indef blocked and protected. Also left a message on the talk page of the "girlfriend" to notify her the account had been blocked. Just as a courtesy. Viridae^Talk 10:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be getting more of people misusing Wikipedia as personal chat pages. another recent example-- see the page history. We need to keep an eye out for this sort of thing. -- Infrogmation 11:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I find their reactions very ammusing when we blank the page. "What was that? Didi you do that?" etc. Viridae^Talk 22:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You might want to reprotect. Deletion undoes protection.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 22:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Viridae^Talk 22:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Couldnt find a better template than that one - the user talk page protection one talks about constant vandalism, which i thought was a bit harsh. Viridae^Talk 22:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Joeyramoney

This user seems to either have decided to become a vandal, or has allowed the account to be taken over. I have given it a 1 day block to prevent damage to the account, and will look back before then. What do others think? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a good move. Perhaps a vandal has temporary access via an auto login. Rockpocket 06:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No e-mail address set up. Odd--seems to be generally a productive sort and limited to one, non-controversial subject area (albums/bands)--not the type to turn sour (though I do remember his unfortunate sense of humor in connection with the February wheel war). Perhaps it's--as Rockpocket suggests--the "drunken roommate syndrome." Chick Bowen 06:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

How should I confirm he has control of the accoun again if there is no e-mail? Should I just let the 24 hour block expire then check back, or should I extend it? My instinct tells me that if the account has lost control for more than a couple days that I should just block the account indefinetly until evidence is provided. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that's the way to go. The original owner of the account can provide some evidence on his Talk page or by contacting the unblock mailing list. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems it was just a case of little brother. I am still watching the talk page. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

BhaiSaab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a Wiki Stalker who is actively engaged on a serious campaign of Wikipedia:Harassment and provocation towards editors that he disagrees with . User:BhaiSaab has by his own admission gone as far as calling the real life work place of other Wikipedia editors to harass them [22], which I consider to be psychotic and dangerous behavior and which could lead to serious confrontations with those editors. Rather than engaging other editors he disagrees with User:BhaiSaab consistently stalks them in Wikipedia and tries to build some sort of case against them to try to get them blocked or worse. For those who wish to read more about User Bhaisaab they can go here.

User:BhaiSaab is a very disruptive user, who is under a pending 1 year block [23] and pending a 1 year block for editing religion related articles continues to edit war and try to provoke 3RRs [24],[25],[26].

User:BhaiSaab is tying up administrator time with his continuous Wikipedia:WikiLawyering trying to rope other editors he disagrees with into arbitration and wiki proceedings.

Can anything be done to deal with this disruptive editor?--CltFn 05:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

There is already an ArbCom case dealing with this issue. I don't know why you have brought up the issue again. Is there any specific incident that you want administrators to look at? If not, then you too are tying up administrator time. - Aksi_great (talk) 05:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not trying to waste your time, just asking for help on this.--CltFn 06:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This is seriously old news which CltFn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is bringing up merely as a defense technique in response to this user RfC that User:BhaiSaab initiated over CltFn's behavior. (→Netscott) 05:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Netscott , It would be appreciated if you did not jump to conclusions, I brought this up because User:BhaiSaab is stalking my edits as you can see here. --CltFn 06:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Stalking your edits? And you provide a link to the history of Portal:Islam/Did you know where BhaiSaab is editing in response to your edits there? Sorry but that is a rather ridiculous thing to pin your accusations of stalking on. Most any editor (and particularly Muslims) editing on Islam topics are likely to have the portal pages watchlisted and respond to edits there accordingly. (→Netscott) 06:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand why the unhelpful response, but thanks anyway.--CltFn 06:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I have posted some evidence that substantiate CltFn's claim that BhaiSaab's Wiki-stalking him here, and if we look at the history of the "did you know.." template that CltFn now mention, then it is even more clear that we are talking about a case of ongoing Wiki stalking and not an old or resolved issue. CltFn makes an edit here: [27] and 12 hours after BhaiSaab makes his first edit to the template in almost 3 months: Which is another revert of CltFn's edits -- Karl Meier 09:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Karl Meier, User:BhaiSaab was the 7th registered editor to have ever edited on the Portal:Islam/Did you know page. He was editing there long before User:CltFn. Let us not forget that WP:STALK allows for "checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy". From looking at the RfC against User:CltFn as well as the comments on the RfC talk page (note User:Zora's commentary in particular) it's arguable that BhaiSaab was, "checking up on [ User:CltFn ] to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy". (→Netscott) 09:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Netscott knows what he's talking about. I have this page on my watchlist as with all other portions of the portal. I edited the portal way before CltFn did. And yes, I do check on CltFn's edits to "fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy" considering his bad faith edit history with sockpuppets. BhaiSaab ^talk 13:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The truth about this matter is that BhaiSaab has hounding CltFn for months and months because he doesn't agree with his strong personal pro-Islamic and anti-Semitic views. Wikipedia's policies doesn't allow anyone to follow another editor for months and months attacking the editor on every possible occasion, and if BhaiSaab has some genuine concerns that can survive the attention of a broader range of participants in this project then he should indeed bring them to the attention of a broader range of Wikipedians instead of trying to drive and harass CltFn off the project. Another fact is that is that BhaiSaab haven't been editing the mentioned template for months before CltFn made his edit, and only a few hours after BhaiSaab made his revert. It might be a coincidence, but I doubt that is the case, considering all the other times he has followed CltFn around reverting his edits. BhaiSaab has a long history of Wiki-stalking, and has even brought his harassments against users that he doesn't agree with to peoples workplaces. BhaiSaab's constant nit-picking against CltFn and a few other users that he has targeted is against everything that Wikipedia's policies regarding stalking is about. -- Karl Meier 14:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

C'mon Karl. We all know where your loyalties are. When Gren mentions the anti-Muslim brigade, which group of editors do you think he's talking about? The RfC is just attempting to bring his edits to the consideration of a larger group, and then you say its "harassment." What nonsense is that? BhaiSaab ^talk 19:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Quit making personal remarks and bad faith accusations. I have never said creating an RfC is harassment. Try to read what I write above. It's about you stalking and hounding Wikipedians that you disagree with on the project and sometimes even outside it. -- Karl Meier 01:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

(off topic) Just to clear my name a tiny bit... when I say "anti-Muslim brigade" it was in contrast to the "Muslim brigade". That is I created a silly dichotomy to describe the editors who try to fight perceived apologetics in the articles and the editors who try to fight perceived anti-Islam bias in articles. I was trying to be more humorous than insulting--I hope that came across well enough. gren グレン 18:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab has harassed other users before. He even called one user outside wikipedia. He also does go out of his wait to edit controversial articles to make sure they agree with his view.--D-Boy 07:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Problems with NGC 1531 and NGC 1532

Within the past month, I rewrote NGC 1531 and NGC 1532 as NGC 1531 and NGC 1532, which were both redirects to NGC 1531 and NGC 1532 before my edits. Since then, this is what has happened to NGC 1531 and NGC 1532:

1. I turned NGC 1531 and NGC 1532 into a redirect for NGC 1532 (the larger of the two galaxies in the pair).
2. I nominated NGC 1531 and NGC 1532 for deletion on the redirects for deletion page. The nomination failed because of concerns about preserving the edit history and maintaining the link for external web sites.
3. NGC 1531 and NGC 1532 was turned into a disambiguation page.
4. Someone else saw the disambiguation version of NGC 1531 and NGC 1532, thought it was stupid, and attempted to PROD it.
5. The PROD failed because of the significant edit history of the article.
6. The article was nominated as an AfD.

At the moment, the discussion on the AfD is still continuing, although the issue is confusing. I think the outcome that most people would like to see is the following:

• Keep the current text within NGC 1531 and NGC 1532.
• Preserve the edit history of NGC 1531 and NGC 1532 somewhere.
• Delete NGC 1531 and NGC 1532 itself.

Assistance and advice from an administrator would be helpful. I would also like advice from an administrator on how to perform this kind of action in the future. Wikipedia contains several articles on pairs of galaxies that could be split like this one. (Perhaps Wikipedia needs a "Requested split" mechanism, which I would be willing to assist with creating.) Dr. Submillimeter 11:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I just found that Wikipedia has a WP:SPLIT. The information at WP:SPLIT, however, did not address the issues brought up with NGC 1531 and NGC 1532. I would still like advice on splitting pages like NGC 1531 and NGC 1532 in the future. Dr. Submillimeter 12:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Have many edits been made to the separate articles since the split? If not, I would suggest deleting one of the separate articles, revert the double article to before the split, move it to the article you deleted, and then remove all the text that's in the article you didn't delete. The article that wasn't deleted should then link to the moved article somewhere (on the talk page, probably) so people can see who made what edits. --Tango 13:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither of the single articles look like each other, nor do they look like the double article before the split. I rewrote the single articles, with only some general information, transwiki links, and external links being used from the double article. (The double article was poorly written and lacked references for some of its information.) The edit history of the single articles, however, is not very extensive; only 6-8 edits have been made to each article.

Would it be possible for an administrator to do the following steps in the following order?

• Copy the text of NGC 1532.
• Paste the text into NGC 1531 and NGC 1532.
• Delete NGC 1532.
• Move NGC 1531 and NGC 1532 to NGC 1532.
• Delete NGC 1531 and NGC 1532.

This seems to be a modified version of the proposal by Tango. If it preserves the text of the two single articles, preserves the edit history of the double article, and removes the double article itself, then I think everyone would be happy with the outcome. Dr. Submillimeter 14:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is done. Here's what I did (slightly different from either of these proposals):

• Deleted NGC 1532
• Moved NGC 1531 and NGC 1532 to NGC 1532
• Restored the deleted edits of NGC 1532. They were now buried in among the post-split edits to the dab page.
• Reverted to the correct version of NGC 1532.
• Deleted NGC 1531 and NGC 1532, which was then a redirect with the only edit by me.
• Oh, and now I'll add a link from the talk page of NGC 1531.

Full edit history preserved, dab is gone, everything good. Yes? Chick Bowen 17:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and you asked about what to do in future. If you had Galaxy 1 and Galaxy 2, as in this situation, the best thing would be to move the article to Galaxy 1, cut and paste Galaxy 2 into a separate article, and then put a note on the talk page explaining what you'd done and linking to Galaxy 2 (or linking directly to the history as I did at Talk:NGC 1531); the problem here stemmed from the double cut and paste. But it was fine to bring it here and have us fix it. Chick Bowen 18:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent fix. All the suggestions did pretty much the same thing and I think any of them would have been fine. --Tango 19:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tango. I think the fix satisfied everyone. Thank you also for the information on splitting other articles on double galaxies. Dr. Submillimeter 21:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Propol

An IP, possibly the logged out user (although no way to check without CheckUser) is adding the same content to User:Propol despite numerous reverts. It includes an extlink to a site which seems to glorify paedophilia, amongst other things. Could someone have a look? haz (talk) e 18:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the first time, I believe - if I remember rightly, Gamaliel removed a bunch of this sort of garbage from the edit histories of both Propol (main target) and me (collateral damage), earlier this year.  !John Broughton | Talk 20:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Lopnore64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I indef blocked this user for making death threats[28], then I protected his user pages for continuing personal attacks[29]. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a valuable contributor to me. </sarcasm> Tony Fox (arf!) 23:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Year-long blatant vandalism never caught

I must say, I hope we can catch blatant vandalism faster than one year ago which no one found. Is there anyway to search for blatant vandalism other that by random chance of us finding it? semper fi — Moe 19:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What you're calling "blatant vandalism" looks to me like a freewheeling comment on a talk page by a registered user who has been a valuable contributor over the past year. That comment begins grr i hope i don't accidentally delete this because i can't see a dang thing!, implying that the editor was having some visual problems. The comment wasn't appropriate primarily because the talk page was a redirect, something (I believe) is fairly unusual.

More to the point - the problem might have been caught if there were (a) an automated process for editing a redirect page, or (b) an automated scan of redirect pages to detect any characters on a page beyond the last two "]]'s"". Since neither exists, the answer at the moment seems to be "no" - not for this type of "vandalism". John Broughton | Talk 19:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

3 year block on an IP

Is it really appropriate to put a three year block on an IP address as was done here? I could see the one week block since it looks like the user behind it was posting personal information (either real or made up). --StuffOfInterest 23:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The IP put personal information in Widnes and WP:AN/I. I saw both edits before sending a private e-mail to the oversight mailing list. The edit to Widness introduced \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ in several places on the page. The edit to WP:AN/I did not, but it's interesting that in the edit summary (which is still visible in the first entry in his block log) was "HEY HEY, I AM JARLAXLEARTEMIS AND I\'M BACK!!" Note the slash in the word "I'm". Isn't that a telltale sign that an open proxy is being used, in which case the IP should be blocked not for three years but indefinitely? AnnH ♫ 23:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The blocking admin used the description (user is idiot), which seems like a personal attack. *Dan T.* 00:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

First off, the user was acting, if I may say so, quite idiotic. He/she posted the personal information of several administrators/users right onto the AN/I board. The contribs were given an admin rollback. Second, it was almost certainly a proxy, because it changed every ' into a /'; thus it should actually be indef'edx. Perhaps, then, we can avoid a confrontation over this user? Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Pardon, I see everything I said was already mentioned above. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I remember having seen at WP:ABUSE an ip from a school or something similar that is indef blocked. If someone can confirm the ip is an open proxy, it should be indef blocked indeed. Otherwise, personally I don't think such a long block is justified. -- ReyBrujo 00:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The simple thing to do here is just to go ask the blocking admin about it. No need to post here first when you are perfectly capable of asking a question of the admin who did it. It is almost certainly though, an open proxy. pschemp | talk 00:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked indefinitely. Nothing to see here; move along. Mackensen (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The IP should indeed be indef blocked as an open proxy based on that evidence, however the original block description is a personal attack - it doesn't matter that's it's true, WP:NPA is not WP:LIBEL, truth doesn't come into it. --Tango 01:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:DNFT, people. Let's go back to article writing, this is time-consuming and pointless, to argue about a block summary for a troll. – Chacor 01:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. If admins don't show the behaviour we expected from all wikipedians, then do you really expect we will have any luck convincing others to follow our policies and guidelines? Simple fact is, it was in violation of WP:NPA and shouldn't have been done. While I personally don't see any point arguing over it or making a big deal of it, if admins can't see that, this is a serious problem IMHO and it is worth arguing and making a big deal of. Nil Einne 15:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DM Ashura

This AFD needs to be closed. I can't close it myself because I participated in the discussion. It was nominated six days ago by SPUI, who put an unnecessary {{afdanons}} tag on it - I can't really find anything on any Bemani forums that justifies the tag. The article seems to have improved quite a bit during the course of the discussion. --Coredesat 01:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like bainer closed it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

• Tommysun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from editing articles which relate to science and pseudoscience. The term "pseudoscience" shall be interpreted broadly; it is intended to include but not be limited to all article in Category:Pseudoscience and its subcategories.
• Tommysun and Iantresman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are placed on probation. They may be banned from any article or subject area which they disrupt by aggressive biased editing. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.
• Elerner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from editing Eric Lerner, Plasma cosmology, Aneutronic fusion, and any pages, excepting talk pages, related to his real-life work.
• ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines, in spirit as well as letter, when editing articles concerning some alternative to conventional science. This applies in particular to matters of good faith and civility.

For the Arbitration committee. Thatcher131 02:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Are non-English words preferable to English ones?

Question: Is in common English language usage, "Hindu Dharma" a common substitute for the term "Hinduism", when referring to the language? I would note that the article I'm talking about is Bindi (decoration) which refers to the colored dots worn by women of South Asia.

Bharatveer (talk · contribs) continuously insists that we must use "Hidnu Dharma" to refer to Hinduism, and resorts to revert-wars on this. I have shown that the term "Hindu Dharma" is outnumbered by the English language word "Hinduism" by many times. Yet, he claims that "Hindu Dharma" is an English word/phrase which must be used as a replacement of the term "Hinduism".

Yes, I have time and again raised this in the article's talk page, but Bharatveer's usual replies are only personal attacks on me and other editors. Also, he is gaming the 3RR in the article. The article has just been removed from protected status, which was initiated as a result of this series of unexplained reverts from Bharatveer.

I request opinion of other editors about why we would prefer to have a non-English word which is virtually unused in common English language usage, over an English language word. Thank you. --Ragib 06:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Following my last post above, Bharatveer (talk · contribs) has broken 3RR on the article. I've reported him to AN/3RR. But that's a separate matter; I'd like to hear other admin's comments on using non-English terms where an English-language word is many times more commonly used. Thanks. --Ragib 07:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Pls understand that I have not broken 3RR. User:Ragib is lying .(Pls see Bindi-History.-Bharatveer 08:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It is common sense that, as the English language Wikipedia, we should use standard English in all articles. Hinduism is stated to be "Hindu Dharma" solely in the Hindi language. Unless the article on the bindi uses other Hindi terms for common English terms, then "Hinduism" should be used in the article.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 08:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Both Hindu and Dharma are well known English words as per standard dictionaries.-Bharatveer 08:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well Bharatveer, regarding 3RR you have made that edit 4 times today. I'm not sure if the first edit counts as a revert or not though. Please assume good faith--I doubt Ragib is lying. It is very possible that they counted the first edit. At first glance it does look like you've violated it. As for both words being in English dictionaries, they aren't used together like you are doing, at least not in Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 08:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary has a page for Hindu and one for Dharma but not for the phrase "Hindu Dharma." "Hindu Dharma" is solely the Hindi phrase for Hinduism. It is not at all common in English.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 08:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK 'Hindu Dharma' is not an English phrase. It is probably in common usage only in India, and that too only in north India. User Bharatveer's insistance on inserting this phrase in an English language encyclopedia is unexplicable. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 08:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I know what "Hinduism" means but I've never heard of "Hindu Dharma" before now and I've been speaking English for over forty years. Many English speakers will have heard of "Dharma" used as a woman's name but will have no idea that it is an ordinary word as well. Since so few English speakers outside India know what "dharma" is, I think that it is an extremely bad idea to use an incomprehensible phrase like "Hindu Dharma" when a commonly understood word like "Hinduism" is available. Moreover, use of the lesser known phrase goes completely against standard Wikipedia policy on the use of common terms. -- Derek Ross | Talk 09:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually despite the use of the name in the TV show, Dharma is really a male name AFAIK Nil Einne 15:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added several older diffs from late october/early november which show Bharatveer's repeated replacement of "Hinduism" by "Hindu Dharma". That led to protection of the article which only recently has been removed. --Ragib 10:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

"Hinduism" is by far the more common word in English. I've never heard of "Hindu Dharma" and wouldn't expect a typical English speaker to understand the phrase if used in an article. It doesn't really matter if it's in the dictionary or not, if readers aren't going to understand it, we shouldn't use it. --Tango 12:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

reporting 3RRvio and disruption is of course on-topic on AN, but the question of naming conventions isn't. These matters belong on Wikipedia:Naming conventions, in particular Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic). "Hinduism" is, of course, the far more current term in English, so I do not think much discussion is needed here. dab (𒁳) 12:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Per the others: "Hinduism" is clearly preferred over "Hindu Dharma", because Hinduism is commonly understood by all English speakers, whereas Hindu Dharma is mainly understood by Indian English speakers. I think if you polled the average American, or even the intelligent American, they wouldn't know that "Hindu Dharma" means "Hinduism". --Cyde Weys 22:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, snap. I would query whether the average American even knew what Hinduism was. Mild anti-American xenophobia aside, the MoS is clear on such topics; the term in English is Hinduism. Proto::type 14:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Did I jump the gun?

While I was doing my cleanup and writing on Alexander Litvinenko, I came across some extremely POV sections of the article. I saw that the user Ekraus was adding them, and I started to revert his POV edits. I went to his user talk and warned him to stop, and I then went to the user's contributions page. Apparently, he/she made their account today and only edited on Alexander Litvinenko, adding a bunch of extremely POV information. It was apparent that this user was SPA, and I blocked him indefinitely. I'm doubting myself now, because I did not give the user time to possibly amend his ways after warning him. Do you guys think I jumped the gun here? I mean, all of his contributions were POV. Need some help here, guys. All comments are appreciated. =) Nishkid64 15:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Can be looked at both ways. You probably did jump the gun a little, but we really shouldn't be tolerating POV-pushers, especially new ones who are up to no good. – Chacor 15:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, I recall at least one admin who started his Wikipedia career by adding POV to Hurricane Katrina because he didn't really understand Wikipedia, was corrected, and went on to be a model Wikipedian. Did this guy actually continue after your warnings? I am bad at figuring out time zones so I can't really tell at a glance. If he didn't, I'd suggest an unblock to see if he can learn to follow NPOV once he knows about it. He really should be citing sources for the claims he was making. --W.marsh 16:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

But his claims were so biased, I doubt he could find sources for it. Alright, I'll unblock him and give it another shot. Nishkid64 17:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict, now redundant, but I'll say it anyway:)Some of his edits are decidedly POV, but they don't look to be in bad faith and he didn't edit after the warning, so I would suggest unblocking. If he continues making POV edits, then an indef block is probably justified. --Tango 17:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not so sure now. See User talk:Ekraus. He's making an request to be unblocked. He thinks I have some political agenda, which I don't. I'm a neutral party and I am one of the key contributors to the page. He says, "There are numerous unverified allegations made on the page which are clearly tendentious and inaccurate, e.g. that the Polonium has been traced to a Russian reactor". The source we provided for the Russian reactor was indeed accurate. I went back to the source and verified it. Also, in the article we are not expressing opinions. I have spent a good deal of my time trying to remove these opinions and making it NPOV. Nishkid64 17:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

From his perspective he might feel you have got an agenda. Why not give him a chance "under scrutiny" and discuss the matter on his talkpage first. Agathoclea 17:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I reviewed his request for an unblock, and I processed it. He's unblocked now, but I did warn him that he may be re-blocked if he continues adding POV info. See my entire response here. Nishkid64 17:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. I've made NPOV a link to WP:NPOV in your explanation, just in case he doesn't know the acronym, but otherwise it's good. --Tango 19:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes you did. He may be POV, but being POV is no crime on Wikipedia. What is bad behavior is edit warring, reverting and deleting other peoples contribution. He did none of that. If his contributions were POV, the correct thing would be to ask for sources. Most likely he did not make everything up in his own mind, if he is Russian, his sources are likely to have a very different take on this issue. The article should not have a London based Anglo-Saxon point of view. Besides calling him a vandal was a no-no. -- Petri Krohn 20:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

If he is purposely throwing the POV of the article to change it to his own personal opinion, then he can be blocked. He did delete other people's contributions, as well. I don't think "Reports in the Times, otherwise replete with errors for instance that Litvinenko in charge of anti-terrorist activities, note that while Polonium is subject to strict controls, in theory at least, it could have been purchased commercially in France, Russia or the US." can really be sourced. The user was just trying to avert any suspicions of Russian government involvement (In particular, he kept pointing out Litvinenko's connection to Berezovsky). Also, Petri, I know that you have been edit warring with 72.183.125.111 for the past few days. According to your conception of blocking policy, I can technically block you. Nishkid64 22:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Rejects(movie)

I was going through some old Afd discussions and noticed a problem with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rejects(movie). The result was delete, but two of the three nominated articles seem to have been forgotten. --- RockMFR 18:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Same thing happened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Symington. --- RockMFR 18:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Taken care of. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed policy needs comments, esp. from administrators

Over at Wikipedia:Usurpation we've got a useful proposed policy to allow active users in good standing be renamed to already existing but totally unused accounts. It's got a fair bit of support, but it doesn't seem to have been commented on by a lot of people, so the bureaucrats are worried the community doesn't really know about it. It'd be pretty good if people would go read it and comment; we think it's solid and safe to implement, but it's always good to have input from the people in the trenches as it were. --Gwern (contribs) 20:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Fys skating on thin ice

I guess I can handle as much trolling as Fys wants to hand out, but I think we should draw the line at his editorialising and deleting blocks from his ArbCom case. What do others think? Guy (Help!) 20:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You want to delete the editorialising you can, but no-one objected on Talk: when I raised the issue of including blocks not related to the ArbCom case. Nor did anyone object to the renaming. PS: You are aware JzG has violated 3RR on his own talk page? Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 20:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like he was removing some bogus template warnings from a disruptive user. —Centrx→talk • 20:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

What is bogus about the warning? JzG twice called him an idiot. I don't care what Fys has done, why is a personal attack warning unjustified after JzG to call him an idiot? Do we have different rules for some editors? ATren 21:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, if you treat someone like they are disruptive user, they're more likely to behave like one. And, of course, vice versa. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 21:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the editorializing; Fys is perfectly entitled to change his name. I think that removing unrelated blocks is ok as well, as his block log will always be available to check. One issue (duration of probation) is unclear, so I will ask at WP:RFAR. Thatcher131 21:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be good to get some confirmation on that. The actual wording included the word "also" which seemed to refer to the probation mentioned in the original finding, and as that was one year from August 2006, that seemed the most likely. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 21:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out to Fys that 3RR does not apply to ones own user space. However, when in others' userspaces, it surely does apply, as Fys has violated on Guy's user talk in one way or another.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 21:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh you must be joking. Different edits are not reverts. I was attempting to warn JzG that his edit summaries were insulting, and that he should not be removing warnings about them. Did someone edit WP:NPA so that it says "except for Fys" while I wasn't looking? Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 21:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I know that neither of you is eight years old, and you are not fighting over who gets to be the Red Ranger first but are engaged in writing an encyclopedia, so can we please not edit war over user talk pages of all things? Thatcher131 21:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher, I should like to write an encyclopaedia. I should like to be able to do so without other people accusing me, without any real evidence, of a particular political bias in my edits – and especially after I have provided ample evidence to contradict such claims. The personal attacks bounce off, but the unwarranted reflections on my neutrality are a little difficult to take. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 21:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

<--Individual editors can be, and unavoidably often will be, biased one way or another. I'm not sure why anyone should care if you are neutral or not, as long as you can work well with other editors and the outcome is a neutral article. Shouting biased! at an editor is about as useful as shouting dog! when you see a dog. It's not the dog that's important, it's the holes he digs in your flowerbeds. Thatcher131 21:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe but when JzG blocks me for it, it becomes more than mere "shouting". Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 21:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Or at least it would be, if that was what I blocked you for. But it wasn't. It was for a completely unambiguous three-revert violation on a biography of a living individual, posted on the incident noticeboard, reviewed and endorsed by other admins. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Guy - for the sake of peace and quiet, perhaps you could ask one of the other admins to step in and carry out any admin actions involving Fys, at least for a little while? As you're engaged in content disputes with him, it probably shouldn't be you carrying out the admin actions. Please note you've done everything right, and by the book, and I don't want to imply otherwise. Proto::type 13:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

By the book? Which Wikipedia "book" permits an admin to call another editor an idiot and tell him to f_ck off? I fail to understand how blatant personal attacks and incivility should be tolerated just because the offender is a well-known and well-liked admin. WP:WPA and WP:CIVIL violations should never be accepted under any circumstance. It is shocking how quickly the other admins dismiss this behavior from JzG, when any other user would get a significant ban. ATren 22:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup, it's perfectly fine to tell someone to fuck off when they are trolling. Now fuck off :o) Guy (Help!) 00:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You'll note that I brought it here instead of taking any action. Fys is an argumentative sod, and so am I. I've also taken it to the mailing list rather than rely on my own judgement. I am not at all convinced, though, that Fys should be editing the article on a member of an opposing political party. But I feel bound to point out that I was not, until I removed a link form the article this morning, engaged in a content dispute with Fys. I had never seen the article before Fys' WP:AIV posting, and I was not even the first admin to tell Fys that removing poorly-cited negative content form a WP:LIVING article is not simple vandalism. The fact that Fys is constitutionally unable to accept any point of view other than his own is likely to make any kind of enforcement action against him an exercise in frustration; I guess that all he has to do is edit war on 1,000 articles and we run out of "uninvolved" admins. Guy (Help!) 00:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

When I die they will probably put on my headstone "Hic jacet an argumentative sod" and I shall be very pleased. Meanwhile I will point out that, in every case where I have been blocked over an editing dispute, it has ultimately been resolved in favour of the position I was advocating. Judging by the state of opinion on the mailing list, this one will be, too. It's not that I am unable to accept alternative views about editing (I'm very able to accept them), it's just that there are some disputes in which the alternative view is clearly wrong - and there "it may be necessary for me to .. insist" as Martin Landau's character says. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 09:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

username (email) blocking policy dispute

I am requesting clarification of the blocking policy, particularly regarding usernames.

My basis for the dispute is the following excerpt from the username policy: "Existing usernames with the sign are not blocked, but editors should be encouraged to change their names as the sign interferes with some MediaWiki functions."

Dispute Summary

A user with an email address username was blocked indefinitely by another admin. I have requested that the ban be lifted and the admin denied my request. The indef blocked user was in good standing and has made only positive contributions in articles that were in great need of editors to expand the topic area. He has never caused any disruptions, and has only acted in good faith.

I would like clarification of the policy, because as it stands, it seems this indef block was unjust in the situation, and has a genuine possibility of alienating a new Wikipedian with great potential.

Dispute Details

Zoe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has first warned [30] Mihailo.stojanovic@amis.net (talk · contribs · logs) by having email address as username, and upon me questioning him [31] and no response from the user in question, he has blocked the user with an expiry time of indefinite and the reason {{usernameblock}}

I have since requested that Zoe unblocks the user [32], but unfortunately he did not agree to unblock the user and he suggested I post here. [33]

Thanks in advance to all who comment on this issue. // Laughing Man 21:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Making and clarifying policies is not an administrator's function. This discussion belongs on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for posting here then -- I would like to point out that Zoe directed me to post here. [34]. Essentially this is a dispute with an administrator. Is is appropriate to report disputes with administrators at the Village Pump? // Laughing Man 22:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say this thread is more appropriate here. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The user's first edit was 4 days ago, so while they must have signed up before the change in the code, they didn't start editing, which probably makes this an unanticipated situation so the exact policy doesn't really apply. The initial warning didn't make it clear that they were being asked to change names, it looked like just a friendly suggestion, so Zoe's messages could have been a little less harsh (see WP:BITE). It's probably best that the block stays until the user chooses a new name and asks to be renamed, or creates a new account. --Tango 23:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

How is the user going to request a renaming of his account? I doubt anyone is watching his talk page, so I'd say the best recourse to take is to unblock him and to direct him again to WP:CHU. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

There are various templates outline in the block message and {{usernameblock}} which outline this and so an unblock isn't generally necessary, though in a case when the username is not "offensive" is generally a non-issue to unblock them. --pgk 07:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments everyone. What is the proper procedure to request an unblock of a previously blocked user? // Laughing Man 04:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You start a debate on the Administrator's Noticeboard... --ais523 10:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that not what I did? Can someone please unblock this user then? // Laughing Man 16:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Litvinenko poisoning

I was bold and split off Alexander Litvinenko poisoning by moving the old Alexander Litvinenko article. For some mixup the article was tagged fit AfD. The article is now on the Main page so the issue should be sresolved speedily. -- Petri Krohn 02:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Spam links for http ://utube-videos.com

I've noticed an IP user adding this link to user pages of 4 legit but inactive editors. Is there any way to look for a larger pattern of spamming or PageRank link farming? --Dgies 04:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Special:Linksearch Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

utube-videos.com appears to be cleaned. You can report these kind of spam findings at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam too. -- ReyBrujo 04:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like I got them all. For now it looks like a one-off episode of spam. --Dgies 04:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Boomboom75

I have just reviewed the contributions of Boomboom75. I have formed the view that it is a vandalism-only account and have blocked it indefinitely. Would someone else please have a look and exercise any mercy that you consider desirable, or confirm my judgment, or whatever. Metamagician3000 06:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm borderline on this one, unless its a likely sock. I'd lower it to a week, and see if there is a repeat..this is the first block and they appear to have made at least a couple of non-vandal edits. — xaosflux ^Talk 06:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not averse to reducing the block to something less harsh, but are you sure you were able to find genuinely non-vandal edits, as opposed to sneaky vandalism? See for example his National Australia Bank contribution and edit summary. (Edit: It does look like his work on King David School, Melbourne is legit., so that is in his favour.) I'll review this tomorrow in the light of any more comments. Meanwhile, if someone bites the bullet overnight (my time) and reduces the block I won't be offended. That's what bouncing these things off colleagues is for. Metamagician3000 10:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, having slept on it, I've reduced the block to one week starting now. Despite the record of vandalism, some of it sneaky and malicious-looking, there are also some edits that seem legitimate and it is the first block. However, I respectfully suggest that we don't show too much patience with this account in future. This person has fairly consistently been editing in a destructive way. Metamagician3000 21:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Backlog at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion

There's a backlog of 10 days at CfD. We've got plenty of bots willing to do all the actual heavy lifting and stuff, just need more admins to close the discussions under Pending completions, and list the results on the working page. Input on current discussions is also very welcome. the wub "?!" 13:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please Tell Her to Just Leave Me ALONE!

I know that people seem to believe that I am a sockmuppet and a troll. I don't precisely know how to prove that I am not a sockmuppet except by good behavior and building up a reputable edit history, neither of which can be done overnight. However, in the meantime, I am respectfully asking that administrators ask a fellow editor to leave me be. Following my withdrawal from a MfD in which a contentious discussion took place with me and an editor named Dev920 (see approximately a third of the way down the page), she left a message on my talk page saying, "I will be watching your contributions." Given the exchange on the MfD in which she had become rather aggressive (admittedly, that is my view), I felt rather unpleasant at her comment, as if she was going to be following me to pick a fight. After Googling things to discover appropriate policy, I suggested to her that if she feels I need observation, it might be better to hand it off to an admin, as the material I had found on Google suggested. She replied with this, and then, precisely what I was concerned about, has now begun to pick fights with me about small topics. It's this sort of contentious nitpicking that I was specifically concerned of when I asked her to leave me alone. Listen, if you guys want to observe me to make sure I'm not out to wreak havoc or whatever, fine. I don't know where it's coming from, but I can't alter people's emotions regarding me (as discouraging as they may be), so I'll just deal with it as it comes. However, I would simply like an administrator to tell Dev920 to leave me alone, because my efforts to civilly warn her off seem to have not made any difference, and having someone following me around picking fights isn't going to help improve my Wikipedia reputation any. I thank anyone in advance for their assistance. — Whedonette (ping) 17:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Despite my clear requests for her to leave me alone, she's not. Please, an administrator's assistance simply to tell her to back off would be quite appreciated. — Whedonette (ping) 19:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Distasteful. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 19:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

She continues despite a second, firmly worded request for her to depart. Again, I respectfully request that an administrator indicate to her she should discontinue. — Whedonette (ping) 20:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd be quite interested to see what other people say about this. --Deskana talk 21:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be best if these two stayed away from each other for a while and let this cool down. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree. This isn't worth going to RfC over. Both people just need to cool down. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 21:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh drama. Just go back to editing, eh you two? JChap2007 21:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahem. If Whedonette and Dev are going to argue, I would support a short 24 hour block to get them to calm down. I just suggest they keep away each other. Cheers, Yuser31415^@?#&help! 01:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point, Yuser31415. I'm specifically asking Dev920 to leave me alone so that there is no argument. And given the MfD, why am I so very much not surprised you'd support a block action against me? — Whedonette (ping) 03:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think as long as you two stay off each other's user pages (and you did post to Dev920's user page also, so this does go both ways) and refrain from responding to each other on other talk pages, and preferrably refrain from making comments about each other on any talk pages, then no blocking and no further action or discussion is warranted. It seems from the statements you both have made that this is what you both intend to do, so I think we can all just let this matter die a silent death. Please, let's have this be the last post on the matter. —Doug Bell ^talk 03:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Victorino Matus

Another user has been removing my {{unsourced}} tag from the Victorino Matus article. My contention is that, since Matus is a writer for the The Weekly Standard, and since the only sources in the article are the Standard's website and a blog, the sources fail WP:RS, and the tag should be there. The other editor contends that the Standard is a reputable publication, and should be acceptable as a reference for its contributors. I will bow to consensus on this, if it's felt that a publication can be used as a reliable source for articles about itself and its contributors. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• A reputable journal that happens to be the place of employment of an editor seems like a fine source for uncontroversial statements about him. (Note he's not just a writer, he's an assistant managing editor - not a WS link, and here's another.) Is there something controversial in his article that I'm not seeing? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Not controversial, no, I'm just trying to gauge consensus on using the publication as the only source we have for the person. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm the other editor who created the article. My position is (1) that common sense should rule, and it's absolutely commonsensical to trust a reputable publication to give reliable (basic biographical) information about its own writers on its own Web site (one caveat, the web site can get outdated as to titles, but I checked the current masthead of the print publication); (2) not many Wikipedia articles would meet Zoe's standard; (3) the relevant guideline on reliable sources, to the extent it's relevant here, states that professional journalists can generally be trusted (unless, I suppose, there are explicit reasons not to trust them); (4) even if there were a problem with the sourcing, a notice saying that the article lacks sources is wrong -- every statement in that tiny article -- every syllable -- has a source either in the "Notes" section or "external links" which easily back up each statement. What Zoe means (she has told me) in putting up that notice is that there aren't enough sources. I think that's overkill.Noroton 18:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If that's how you interpreted what I said, then I apologize for not making myself clear. I am not saying there are not enough sources, I am saying that the sources that are there are not reliable sources under the dicta of WP:RS, because one is a blog and the other is the employer of the subject of the article. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Then what you wanted was the {{unreliable}} template, not the "unsourced" template. Please review the notice at the very top of the WP:RS page, which explicitly states that it is not made up of "dicta" and that anything said there needs to be interpreted with common sense. See also this paragraph from that page for what it says about both a commonsense approach and sticking up an "unreliable" notice:

In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources that are available to its editors. Common sense is required to determine what sources to use; this guideline cannot be applied robotically. If you have questions about a source's reliability, discuss with other editors on the article's talk page, or if the source is already used in the article, you can draw attention to it with the {{unreliable}} template.

I probably should have mentioned that the "Galley Slaves" blog by Matus and two other Weekly Standard staffers is a "source" to the extent that it exists and identifies itself as being written, in part, by Matus -- that's it. I didn't think it was worth sticking a footnote on the sentence that says he writes for that blog, but I provided a link to the blog in the "External links" section. I didn't footnote the top paragraph either, and all for the same reason: WP:DUH! — Noroton 23:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

And here I was trying to kep the discussion civil. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I am exasperated though, and with WP:DUH!, well, it's just so funny I couldn't resist. I didn't mean to sound uncivil. Again, I'm sorry. Noroton 00:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You guys do realize that by arguing here, you have made it less likely that you will actually get the feedback you were allegedly looking for, right? (See the bolded statement right at the top of this page - experience shows it to be quite true.) AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)