Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by M.V.E.i. (talk | contribs) at 19:32, 7 October 2007 (→Recent editing by PalestineRemembered). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Purge the cache to refresh this page

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

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

• Refining the administrator elections process
• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Potential problem conerning episode articles

I am not certain if this is our expected behaviour or not however I am bringing this to admin attention anyways:

User seems to be mass merge tagging articles and later redirectifying them. That seems to be the case for the past 5000 edits at least. Is this acceptable behaviour? Are episode articles banned?

-- Cat 21:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Individual episode articles aren't banned, but they still have to meet WP:NOTE just like every other article. That is, they don't get a free pass on notability just because their parent show is, if you get my drift. There are currently vast numbers of individual episode articles which could never meet WP:NOTE and thus should be merged into their parent "season" article instead of on their own.
WP:EPISODE lays out the procedure pretty well. Bullzeye 21:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

They are not merged. They are blanked/redirectified. WP:EPISODE doesn't require mass merging. And I see no centralized discussion for such a thing anywhere. -- Cat 21:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it kind of does...there's a logical progression here that has to be met. Series, then season, then individual episode. Each one must meet WP:NOTE. A lot of people assume that since multiple independent sources can be found for the series and the season, that means every individual episode deserves it's own page. This is, obviously, not the case. Merging (mass or otherwise) is the appropriate policy-approved way of dealing with a non-notable episode from a notable season (or notable series). Bullzeye 22:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I see no "policy"-approved procedure for this. Guidelines are there to help us write better articles. They are not licenses for deletion without discussion. -- Cat 01:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm using merge tags, and waiting for discussion, so yes, it's fine. This has been up here many, many times for when I was being WP:BOLD in redirecting, so it has come down to that. To answer your question, by WP:EPISODE, most episodes have no chance of ever needing to exist. We have somewhere over five thousand episode articles (possibly way more) that need to be taken care of, so that is what I am doing. TTN 21:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Your idea of taking care of is removal of over "five thousand" articles without undergoing any deletion procedure. Such AFDs will most likely fail if my experience is any indication. -- Cat 21:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could try something constructive like coming up with a reason that these articles are notable? Otherwise, TNN is just engaging in cleanup. Shell 00:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I am uncertain what to say here. What is the metric for notability for episode articles? If all episode articles are to be deleted, I want to see a general discussion for it. Or else someone, if not me, will mass revert the mass merging. -- Cat 01:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Under WP:BOLD, he can redirect as he pleases. If people push back, he needs to discuss. There is no special notability for episodes- just the standard form. He should, if people revert, discuss individual groups of articles on the List of Episode page. — i  01:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

i disagree. TTN is editing way too fast on tagging and redirecting the episode articles. Being bold is one thing but redirecting an episode without checking if it has sustained its notability is another... TTN, please stop and gain consensus before redirecting any more articles. --D_arkF_alls 01:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no way I or anyone can discuss at the rate of his tagging. I would think any show with the cultural impact as 24 to be notable. I do not know what reason is needed to establish notability... Why is Shakespeare's Hamlet notable? Why is any book or movie notable? The idea that a show itself is notable yet none of its episodes are worth a mention simply baffles me. If something is not notable, why is not AFD used? -- Cat 01:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, the pages are not being merged. "Merge" implies that all or at least some of the content is being moved into the target article; this is not the case, they are just being redirected. For such a large list of articles, there should be some sort of centralized discussion, possibly one discussion per series as to: should they all be merged (some episodes may have notability for specific reasons that others in the same series do not), what content should be merged, etc. I think this is taking WP:BOLD a little too far and bordering on WP:POINT. Mr.Z-man 01:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that this behavior is quite disruptive. Particularly disturbing is the fact that AWB is being used to make controversial edits. IronGargoyle 01:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Notability. There has been centralised discussion about the notability of episodes: WP:EPISODE arose out of one such discussion a couple of years ago, and has recently been rediscussed (see WT:EPISODE). The guidelines for establishing notability of fiction articles is undergoing discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (fiction), and the actual necessity for separate guidelines for fiction is being discussed at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability. As to centralised discussion about the appropriate action to undertake regarding articles which fail the above notability guidelines, then this can be found at the talk pages of WP:TVE and WP:TV-REVIEW, Misplaced Pages talk:Television article review process. If anyone has a concern about any issues about episode articles, regarding notability through to the processes surrounding such articles, then it's probably worth checking out any of those pages and contributing to constructive debate there. Gwinva 01:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:EPISODE does not say that this is what to do. It says how to determine if episodes should get articles. This is just mass redirection of episode articles with little or no review. WP:EPISODE does not say whether or not each of the episode articles redirected was notable or not, nor does it say that episodes should not get articles. Mr.Z-man 01:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Having just randomly reviewed ten of the most recent thousand edits made by TTN (talk · contribs), all the episode articles I saw generally had zero references and no real world context. Likewise they were chock full of things that WP:EPISODE says to avoid, including trivia sections, quotations, in-universe writing, and extremely detailed plot summary sections. Again, this was only a 1% spot-check, but I did not see any issues with TTN`s clean up work. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see why redirecting articles without checking the notability is considered "clean-up work". WP:EPISODE is a guideline on creating new articles, it is by no means a guideline set for deleting articles. WP:NN clearly states that discussion must be present, and that suitable consensus must emerge for the redirection of articles. --D_arkF_alls 02:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed something, so please bear with me. Lets take Indian Summer (Dawson's Creek episode), one of the articles in question that I reviewed during my spot-check of TTN`s clean-up work. On August 25th, TTN added a {{mergeto}} tag on the article that included a discussion link to Talk:List of Dawson's Creek episodes#Episode notability. After 34 days, consensus was determined and two days later (36 days after the article was tagged) the episode was merged into the episode list. Reviewing the final, pre-merger version of the article shows it to be a textbook example of what WP:EPISODE says to avoid: quotes, featured music, zero citations, no real world context, and a decorative fair-use image. Looks like a pretty clear cut case of cleanup to me. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

He also redirected all the episodes in List of 30 Rock episodes, and multiple reviews can be found for every episode. This was discussed and ignored on the talk page. Lots of shows episodes, especially older ones don't have second party information, but some do, and it doesn't seem to effect his redirecting them. - Peregrine Fisher 04:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Some of these articles were really bad before he redirected them. That said, regarding the discussion linked to above he closed the debate himself and claimed consensus despite two people disagreeing with him and only Ned Scott agreeing with him. That's not consensus to merge/redirect. As for articles containing trivia the correct approach is to merge that into the rest of the article and then delete the trivia section, not simply to merge/redirect. EconomicsGuy 04:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Reviews for episodes does not mean you will have real-world information to place in said articles. As for the reviews themselves, they were somewhat questionable, being from http://tvsquad.com and http://buddytv.com . A consensus does not just include the discussion on the immediate talk page, but also what the community at large had decided about excessive plot summary (WP:PLOT). -- Ned Scott 07:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

True but then what is the purpose of starting a debate if the outcome is predetermined per consensus on WP:PLOT? I'm neither jumping on his back nor am I disputing that most of these articles were bad. What I'm disputing is the way he did this. If he was going to be truly bold he could have redirected without wasting other editor's time with futile debates the outcome of which he was just going to ignore anyway. What is the purpose of tagging so many articles using AWB when the debates were futile and the obvious outcome was to redirect rather than merge? EconomicsGuy 07:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

When you have a group of artilces, of which say 10%, 20% or 50% can have their notability established, do we have any guidelines on how they should be dealt with. Is summary redirection based on BOLDness the correct way to deal with this? - Peregrine Fisher 03:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

And before more people jump on TTN's back, I'd like to point out that he has yielded to past requests, taking more time with these issues, giving fair notice, and starting discussion about these redirections before they happen. -- Ned Scott 07:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Has anyone asked the relevant TV-related wikiprojects what their opinion is on this issue? >Radiant< 11:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • That would be Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage, a Task Force in WikiProject Television. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ignore me if someone else has said this, but TTN is not deleting anything, since the episode articles remain in the revision history. I don't believe s/he's an administrator, so s/he isn't actually capable of deleting anything. Merging is a completely acceptable action for anyone to perform on any article they feel it's appropriate, and is in fact suggested as an alternative for deletion (here and here). There is nothing about TV episode articles that makes this any different, and there is no special guideline regarding editing episode articles. WP:EPISODE is only concerned with notability, so beyond that they are subject to all the normal editing rules, including the deletion policy. So this discussion (which should take place somewhere else, since it requires no admin intervention) should take into account the fact that there is no reason episode articles are special or otherwise exempt from the normal rules and practices. Natalie 13:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit point

Let me reword my original argument since there seems to be a confusion. When an article is low on quality, you improve them. I do not mind several article improvement drives on episode articles. We do not have a deadline so in the course of several years this can lead to multiple good articles. If an article does not immediately have adequate sources, the recommended action as per community approved procedure is written here. In this case that was not attempted. In fact the last three steps were avoided all together. Process is important. There are many low quality articles on wikipedia. Each suffering from valorous problems. Unless an article suffers from an urgent problem such as WP:BLP it is almost never blanked. Blanking is a last resort not the first.

Usage of {{merge}} is entirely improper as nothing is ever merged as a result. I also observe that all these mass merging is preformed by a specific group of editors that impose their consensus to the "local" people working on the articles. An imposed consensus is no consensus by very nature. Some of these users have no other contribution.

The WP:EPISODE guideline was drafted to help guide editors to better write articles and was a decent resource if used for this purpose (I am not madly in love with it mind you). While the guideline was never community approved (no community wide discussion), I think it was adequately worded on the 16 April 2007 version. Between then and 26 September 2007 article underwent a major rewrite, based on what I do not know. It was originally a MOS guideline (and should have stayed that way) and now is been turned into a notability guideline . I am uncertain if there was an extensive discussion by the community as a whole for this abrupt and extensive change. I see no evidence of it. Guidelines and policies are not written by an elite group of people but are derived out of a consensus from the entire Misplaced Pages community as a whole.

-- Cat 18:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

When an article is low on quality, you improve it. When there are hundreds or thousands of articles on very similar subjects (like TV episodes), all with the same problems, all for a long time, you merge them. Nothing is lost, and we get a lot closer to following our content policies (WP:NOT, WP:V) and guidelines. I have redirected episode articles the day they were created, without discussion, as people felt the need to create articles for episodes that wouldn't be aired for two months.... The problem here is not that these stub articles should get more time, but that less of these should be created in the first place. When someone is willing and able to make a better article, with out-of-universe content and reliable independent sources, then the merge can be very easily undone. Until then, these articles are only bad examples for new editors. Fram 19:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

From where are you getting the idea that merging is never appropriate? I note that the very page you linked suggests "if appropriate sources cannot be found, if possible, merge the article into a broader article providing context." The notability policy, which has been derived out of consensus by the community as a whole, is the policy by which these articles are being merged. I would also like to underscore Fram's point by noting that the sky is not falling and all of these articles can be retrieved by anyone, since they are not being deleted. Natalie 20:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

See, I think what we have here is a breakdown of communication all around. In my mind, at least, the problem isn't necessarily that these articles shouldn't be merged; it's that what TTN is doing is not merging them. Merging implies that information from the article being eliminated is incorporated into the article it's being merged into. TTN's standard practice seems to be to simply redirect articles en masse without any effort to incorporate the information into the article he redirects to. I've noted a similar modus operandi by other people who have been redirecting many articles while citing WP:FICTION as a reason, and think that there may be a need to clarify this point, since we end up with people angrily editing and creating lots of AN/I and AIV reports as a result. Rdfox 76 21:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that's the point exactly: it's only a merge when you actually retain some of the content in the article. Many of TTN's edits have not even vaguely been in line with that statement, and even then regardless of the merits of the actions themselves his (her?) handling of the situation has been "counter-harmonious" to say the least. I understand exactly where White Cat is coming from on this. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 11:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

And when there's nothing worth merging, we redirect. So? Fram 15:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

TTN has merged over 5000 articles such that none of the content from the individual article was retained in the merged article. Statistically and logically it is impossible that none of those articles had content worth retaining. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 11:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

A large number of these articles contained identical or near identical summaries from the List of episodes article. Also, summary is easy to generate, and we have no shortage of editors willing to do it. -- Ned Scott 07:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

So what's your argument here? It's okay to completely blank an article because eventually someone else will perform the rest of the merge for you? That's wildly irresponsible, and a crap argument to boot. If TTN is so hard-pressed to merge that many articles then he needs to put in the time to do it properly. Right now he's just wiping out whole swaths of information and dragging the overall quality of Misplaced Pages down, regardless of how "easy" it is to find the original article content in the edit history. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 01:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I notice TTN has been noticeably absent from this discussion, yet he continues to redirect articles. I've asked him to comment here. Mr.Z-man 23:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

User:TTN has said on his talk page that he will not comment here. Mr.Z-man 00:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There's not much more to say, he's not doing anything wrong. -- Ned Scott 07:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Mass removing article content is a problem. Some of these allegedly merged articles contained enough information that disqualifies them from being stubs. So they are "full articles" and not stubs. Altering a guideline and converting it from a "MOS guideline" to a "notability guideline" without adequate discussion is a problem. TTN isn't even willing to discuss the matter which is also a problem. There most certainly is a problem. -- Cat 11:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

TTN is even revert waring over his "bold" action despite the lack of consensus. In this case a discussion was overwhelmingly against a merge or let alone a redirectification. was redirectified anyways despite having enough content to disqualify even as stubs. Granted these articles are not featured they aren't stubs either. -- Cat 11:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

His priorities--his choice of which articles to modify first--seem very shady for someone not doing anything wrong. In trying to determine what the actual, practiced standard for episode notability is, I looked over the television shows which have featured articles (as I take it those are supposed to set the example for other articles in the category). While I did not look at all of the shows, I looked at enough to realize that virtually every featured article for a television show on wikipedia has a full complement of individual episode articles that contradict TTN's interpretation of the guidelines for notability, but from skimming his extensive edit history, he doesn't seem to have even attempted to apply his modifications to shows with featured articles--other than his very recent (10/4/07) attempts to apply those modifications to The Wire, with its famously small audience--although he has applied many thousands of them to articles with lower traffic.

Although I can see how his interpretation may be valid, it contradicts the example set by most or all featured articles in this category, and I am inclined to respect their combined example over his individual objections. If his interpretation is widely acceptable by wiki standards, then it would be more honest for him to apply it to the featured articles first, and have it demonstrated as part of the standard for featured television articles. While I understand his stated objection that he can only modify so many articles at once, it looks like bad faith editing when he attempts to change the de facto standards for the entire category of wikipedia television episodes by altering all of the articles with low readership first, and intentionally flying under the radar of the featured articles with high traffic.

He has also stated explicity that he will sneak in "silly messages" on low-traffic talk pages to prove a point, something wikipedia seems to expressly discourage. Apparently it's an official wiki policy that the number of people interested in a subject does not in and of itself constitute noteworthiness, contrary to TTN's own guidelines for modifying or deleting these articles. The more I look at his history, the closer it seems to systemic vandalism and selective modification of articles where he believes he can get away with it (as shown by his "testing the waters" with silly messages to see if anyone will revert them), rather than trying to apply criteria uniformly across the entire category of articles. Wiki describes bad faith editing as "deliberate disruption just to prove a point, playing games with policies, and vandalism", and TTN's modifications seem to be edging very close to this precise description, although I have the impression that he believes these practices are constructive when he's doing them. --24.90.146.245 11:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed there certainly is a problem. -- Cat 11:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

TTN has stated on his own talkpage in a discussion regarding WP:FICT that he doesn't see much chance of being able to pull off his redirection-without-merging and "discussion is unnecessary, consensus is unnecessary" tricks on high-traffic topics. He specifically says that he plans to mostly stick with "picking off smaller ones," because he feels that "once the weaklings are fully gone, it'll probably get easier to deal with the larger ones." The way I read it, it appears to me that he's trying to establish a precedent of eliminating episode and character articles by working "under the radar" on lower-traffic topics before attempting to do anything to the ones that would attract a lot of attention. Looking through his talkpage archives, I also see dozens of comments and complaints per month about his method of indiscriminately mass-redirecting episode and character articles to lists without any discussion or even an explanation in the edit summary, including ones from before WP:FICT went into effect. I don't know how often he's gotten warning templates put up as a result, because he has a habit of deleting them, and digging through the history to find them is enough of an annoyance that I didn't try it today. Rdfox 76 15:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm missing something... how exactly does TTN have special authority to decide how the standards will be applied, and enforce his decision over any and all objections? I understand that he thinks his application of the notability guidelines is valid, but it is obviously not accepted practice. He demonstrates his awareness of this by avoiding the most popular shows, for instance generously decreeing that all the Simpsons articles can stay, because "they have proven themselves with a few featured articles and around thirty good articles". I don't know how the notability of several articles in a category gives automatic notability to the others, but if anyone can see the hidden sense in that, I'd like to hear it. It sounds more like an excuse to avoid articles where he knows he won't be able to unilaterally enforce his own vision of what wiki should be. If he doesn't need consensus to enforce whatever interpretation he pleases, then does anyone else need consensus to revert his changes wholesale (much as he applies them wholesale to begin with)? And at what point can it be blocked as vandalism, since apparently he is engaging in revert wars in the process? --F.dolarhyde 15:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

After having looked further into the issue, there are several things I want to underline. I can see how TTN feels his interpretation is backed up by the guidelines, but it would be much less offensive, less destructive (fewer people would spend days and weeks typing up information that will only be discarded), and less devious, if: 1) TTN weren't taking it on as his sole responsibility and mission to bulldoze through thousands of lower-traffic articles, but was backed up by other notable contributors sharing this duty; and especially 2) it were applied to the highest profile articles FIRST, not after he's wiped out the pages for hundreds of less-popular series.

If I'm a new user, unfamiliar with TTN, and I want to create a set of articles for a new series; I'm going to read the guidelines, and then look at the featured, high-profile shows to see an example and confirmation of how to construct accepted articles for a television series. If I see that they avoid creating articles for most individual episodes, I'll think twice before doing that for a new show. But what I actually see now, is that they nearly ALL have articles for each individual episode, and that nobody is putting "merge for lack of notability" warnings on most of them. As a new user I'm not likely to go look up one of the several hundred obscure anime series that TTN has seen fit to reshape to his idea of the notability standards; I'll look at the highest-profile series for examples. I may then spend weeks typing up information for individual episodes, thinking that it's in line with the approved, featured, high-traffic show articles, and then have him come along with his back-door bulldozer and wipe most of it out.

This practice creates an unwelcoming (if not outright hostile) environment for new contributors, and without good cause. His talk page shows many dozens, possibly even hundreds, of users he's discouraged by his way of going about this--several who have entirely abandoned wikipedia as a consequence. If he's as sure of his version of the notability guidelines as he claims to be, and does not intend to harm the site in the process, then the high profile articles--which serve as role models for new articles--need to be retrofit first, before the countless deletions he's applying to lesser-known articles.

This would serve both as a good test of whether his reading of the guidelines is a sustainable practice, and serve to spare new contributors: from working hard at finding, creating and contributing content in good faith that will mostly be swept away by his interpretation of the guidelines. The only argument in favor of his doing the low-traffic shows first is that it's easier for him to get away with unpopular changes, even at the cost of substantially damaging the "good faith" of this subset of the wiki userbase. Rather than show any compromise or respect for the community that has created all of these pages, his talk pages show something close to an eagerness to spite most of those creators en masse. It may be a rewarding power trip for him to single-handedly reshape the face of WikiProject Television from underneath; it would be much less destructive for the contributors (and would generate much less destructive ill-will and mistrust in the community) if he joined with notable contributors who share his views on fiction guidelines, and together they approached these changes head-on, starting with the highest traffic articles, where everyone can be aware of the changes from the top down. --F.dolarhyde 17:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

WP:NOT#PLOT is an official policy. WP:EPISODE is a derived guideline backed up by consensus. User:TTN enforces both. If he took all episdes that do not assert notability to AfD, fans would scream bloody murder for not following WP:FICT ("Non-notable information should be deleted only when other options have been exhausted"), and those AfDs usually end in no consensus or keep anyway because there are enough fans to outvote the PLOT policy. Tagging all nn episodes results in complaints about his behaviour at ANI. Going for the "small" shows first to evade major fan outcries (that would again outvote the policy) results in accuses of POINTy and biased behavior. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, I'd say. Fans who really care about their TV shows should spend their time in establishing notability and create real world content, maybe write a good episode article, but not create excessive plot summaries. The redirects allow fan-editors to recreate articles with their notability asserted in the case they can. If I had more time and weren't that thin-skinned, I'd support the enforcement of WP:EPISODE much more than I already do. – sgeureka 14:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"when other options have been exhausted"... Which any other option is even attempted? Yes that is right none. Mass redirection is unhelpful. The more productive way to deal with poor quality articles are through article improvement drives. How many have been attempted on the episode articles before the merge (not merge in actuality mass-redirectification)? I find it hard to swallow that all of the episodes of the 24 TV series is automatically non-notable. All movies are automatically notable even if they haven't even been produced yet, why are episodes of TV shows that aired internationally for multiple seasons automatically "non-notable"? More people watched them than theater movies so they received a greater reception by simple logic. This mass redirectification based on how "lowly" fans are is disruptive. It is not in line with WP:FICT at all. -- Cat 18:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Also with your approach we would not have any intermediate steps between a featured/good article and a stub. -- Cat 12:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems you're confusing wiki-notability with real-world notability. Wiki-notability is established by reliable sources. As far as I can see, TNN gave fans several weeks to find third-party reliable sources for any episode. If they can't or won't do that for at least one episode, that's a pretty good sign that (1) no such sources exist, making the episodes non-notable by wiki-standards, or (2) no-one cares to improve the articles in the immediate future to establish notability. In both cases, "other options have been exhausted," allowing deletion. But the articles aren't deleted, they only get redirected. And you're right, movies (exactly like most TV shows and books) are notable, so they get an article. But not every act of a movie gets an article. Not every chapter of a book gets an article. And not every episode gets an article, unless wiki-notability has been established. – sgeureka 01:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not confusing anything. Notability isn't temporary and if something is notable in real-world, it most certainly is notable here. Every article on wikipedia starts out as a stub. What you are doing is banning stub articles on fiction.

As for your point number one: how do you know weather or not they exist in all of the 5000+ articles that were mass removed. They might not exist right now but they might be added in an article improvement drive. We do not have a WP:DEADLINE.

As for your point number two: that attitude isn't how wikipedia articles are written. With that rationale all stub and start class articles would need to be removed.

Every chapter of a book and every TV episode is not the same thing. TV episodes also have acts and arts. A TV episode or two occupies the same time span as a movie. It is a series of movies. When you add up every episode of a TV show they almost always add up to something much much longer than an average movie.

Why should each individual harry potter book get an article? Because it is a series of books. Or how about Star Trek movies? Why should the episode articles be destroyed when there are eleven movie articles? Even Tribble gets an article. I see no requirement to mass merge TV episodes in general into one article.

Then you start asking the questions "What makes the list notable if the contents of the list is non-notable?" or "What makes the show notable if it's episodes aren't notable".

-- Cat 10:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

As an example of the overzealous attempts at enforcing WP:EPISODE that TTN is carrying out, see the discussion of his recent merge-tagging of Category:Kim Possible Episodes in its entirety, with his immediately shooting down any attempt to justify any particular episode's existence. Note that some of these episodes first aired as recently as three weeks ago, yet he's claiming that the episodes will "never" manage to be able to demonstrate notability, regardless of how much work is put into them. Rdfox 76 13:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Edited to fix my screwup that resulted in no link to the category, and ANI being miscategorized at a KP episode. Whoopsie! Rdfox 76 13:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Randomly surveying twenty of the articles in that category:

• None of them had any third-party references (eighteen of them had no references whatsoever).
• None of them had any real-world information (barring trivia)
• All of them were composed of plot summary, trivia, quotations, or some combination thereof.

Forget merge tagging; If I had the time/effort/tools/patience to deal with inclusionists, I would have merged all of them on sight. If you want to help out, just type up paragraph summaries for each episode and stick them on the episode list, as is the step recommended before splitting into individual episode articles. That was half of the point of the merge tags. TTN is doing nothing wrong in terms of merge tagging and redirection. Just like Durin and his crusade against nonfree images, TTN is simply enforcing poorly-enacted Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines on a massive scale and getting loads of crap for it. There might be something to say about his unwillingness to discuss, but that's about it. You Can't See Me! 02:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

We do not immediately delete articles without sources. If that is an argument all stubs must be deleted right away. Also articles like James C. Jones should also go. As for the guidelines as demonstrated above, they never had any consensus for such an alteration to begin with (Sure I can alter any MOS guideline to a Notability guideline and butcher an entire topic of my choice). It is simply an article development procedure. Please do not complicate this exclusively for fiction related topics. -- Cat 10:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You can't compare the deletion of images with the deletion of articles, You Can't See Me. With "Durin's crusade" against unfree images, these images will have severe copyright problems if they are left unattended by admins. With articles, the same implication doesn't apply and needs suitable consensus before deletion. TTN is redirecting articles without consensus. The process of finding lack of notability is illustrated at Misplaced Pages:Notability#Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines, and TTN is not trying to find sources for the articles, merely redirecting. --D_arkF_alls 10:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessary agree with the approach and rate that TTN is tackling these articles, but there is fair-use concerns (among other issues) with excessive plot information; yes, it's not as strong as the need to protect WP from non-free images, but it does exist (see WP:WAF#Fair use). There is timeliness needed for non-free images as by April 2008, WP's board has stated they all must be tagged with rationale, or be deleted. There is no such timeliness for plot descriptions, but still, the less time they spend in such a state, the better. --MASEM 17:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

TTN is also failing to follow the rules set out in WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE for dealing with non-notable episode articles. He does not bother with the {{Notability|episode}} templates, nor does he actually merge the articles he tags for merging after asking one of his preferred admins to close the discussions, he merely redirects the articles en masse without any merging of information from the article or transwiki-ing the material to either the Annex or a specialty Wiki. He also asserts that the implementation of WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE constitutes a "larger consensus" that automatically overrules any objecting consensus that may be developed on article discussion pages, thus making it impossible to defend any article that may actually be a stub--or possibly passing the notability requirements--as inappropriate to merge or redirect, thus completely ignoring both WP:IAR and the facts that consensus can change and that contrary opinions need to be considered in building it. WP:CCC particularly applies; the first I had heard WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE came after they had already been implemented. I don't see any links in the current new-user welcome templates (or the policy articles to which they link!) to the locations where such policies are discussed and developed; I suspect that, like me, many Wiki editors don't even know where you would look to find out about impending policy changes, much less contribute to discussion about them. How can a true consensus on the issue be gained if most of the userbase doesn't know where to look to participate? Rdfox 76 15:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:EPISODE does not have a "large consensus" or any consensus behind it as a notability guideline. It should be reverted back in being a MOS guideline. If an episode notability guideline is necesary, that can be drafted separately and be put into use if it receives approval from the community (everybody, by that I don't mean a 'select' group of users). -- Cat 16:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Timeshift9 trying to "out" User:Prester John

User:Timeshift9 is repeatedly trying to reveal or "out" what he believes is the real world identity of User:Prester John. The latest example is here.

This transgression and his repeated personal attacks such as this and this should earn him a long wikipedia vacation. Prester John 00:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Politely but very firmly warned. For the sake of symmetry I'll keep an occasional eye on your own behavior as well, which a quick check suggests has been somewhat less than exemplary. Raymond Arritt 01:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

PJ has had a long history of firm trolling, and going by his userpage userboxes is totally here to troll. He advocates one position, then totally contradicts with another. I will not make the observations I made above again, but in the same token I make no apologies for having done so. Timeshift 01:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

How is this above comment acceptable? on the ANI no less! This user really needs to be blocked, his incivility is quite astounding. Prester John 02:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's acceptable to me. Your own trolling behaviors have been the subject of previous AN/I threads. I see above a lack of particular repentance, but acknowledgement that futher behaviors will result in big trouble, and an agreement to stop. ThuranX 02:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Further, After commenting here and a few other edits, I went to Recent Changes to watch for vandals, and I found this: ], wherein Prester John is engaged in that same sort of problematic editing referenced about. ThuranX 03:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that, Thuranx. Can another editor politely remind this aggressive fellow Prester John that my talkpage is my talkpage (not his), that he has no right to persistently revert his trollish comments on my talkpage, that he can engage in content debates on the article talkpage, and if he wants people to be respectful to him as an editor that he needs to start behaving respectfully (for example, see this shocking pre-emptive strike against me personally). --Brendan Lloyd 06:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, just look at that history. Prester John is well into harassment territory on your page, and I've given him a serious warning. Bishonen | talk 09:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC).

And now, he's removing legitimate warnings from his talk page... Nwwaew2 (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 11:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwwaew2 (talk • contribs)

Some of the userboxes on his user page are downright problematic, too. Orderinchaos 16:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

More on Prester John

Prester John has a history of being an uncivil edit-warrior. Please see his block log, in which he was recently blocked. Also, "Leftist scum". I have tried several times to add that link to User:Prester_John/slideshow, but he has reverted me. Is that slideshow page appropriate, as its only purpose is to insult other users?--71.141.106.98 17:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Continued Incivility...I find it unusual that someone like 'Prester John' would complain about others' incivility, when he is continually uncivil and has himself previously been blocked for incivility and personal attacks. Prester is famous for leaving snide remarks on article talk pages. However, in recent days I was appalled to see Prester John using the Talk:David_Hicks#Satanic_symbols page to taunt another editor (User:Brendan.lloyd). The practice of taunting is listed as one of the more serious incivility issues, and in this case it has disrupted other editors' ability to use the talk page for legitimate purposes.

'Prester John' filed this ANI report at 00:49 1-October. Prester was warned on this page (that his behaviour is being watched), by admin Raymond Arritt at 01:22. Yet only an hour and a half after that warning, at 02:50, Prester John was clearly harassing User:Brendan.lloyd on Brendan.lloyd's talk page , which continued for some time afterwards.

I'd like the admins to consider the seriousness of taunting and harassment by User:Prester John (both on private and article talk pages), to consider the fact it has continued after an admin warning on behaviour, and also view it in light of the previous history of Prester John, Here and Here. --Lester2 23:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

His badgering of User:Brendan.lloyd was plainly over the top and I sincerely regret not having seen that. Checking in occasionally, I had only seen where he went around changing "Makkah" to "Mecca" and the like (which is entirely correct per MoS). I'm not going to block since the incident was a couple of days ago and blocking should be preventive rather than punitive. Since I can't watch this guy all day long, and he's given to serious incivility and badgering, would any other admins care to keep an eye out? Raymond Arritt 01:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone here consider this to be a violation of WP:CIVIL? Does categorizing another user's good faith edits as a "drive by" constitute civil discussion? I have never met this user before, so I don't know what provoked such a thing. Can someone explain?--Mostargue 01:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this guy has quite a history.--Mostargue 01:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Not being polite is not quite the same as being uncivil. Also being polite or being uncivil does not mean that he's wrong. ---- WebHamster 01:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what that has to do with anything. The actual discussion that I had with him is irrelevant, I only wanted a third opinion on his tone. Also, WP:CIVIL states "Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another.". I am wondering whether or not calling another user's good faith edits a "drive by" is considered civil. Because according to my interpretation of the term, it refers to a situation in which a person drives a car and shoots at people. That doesn't sound like a very nice analogy.--Mostargue 01:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I believe that using the term "drive-by edit" is not something that is inherently uncivil. It's actually quite a common expression and effectively describes a certain situation quite succinctly. From what I've seen from the discussion and what led up to it, I'd say his usage was contextually accurate. In this instance I don't believe his past (or future) behaviour has any relevance. He didn't call you names, he wasn't foul-mouthed. The worse that could be said was he was a little curt with you but WP:CIVIL doesn't say you have to be sickeningly sweet with everyone you talk to. ---- WebHamster 02:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's not any one thing but all things taken in consideration. I hadn't seen much of his behaviour until recently, but his editing at John Howard and David Hicks (a reasonable representation since wannabekate says they're his two most edited) as well as a recent discussion at Talk:Family First Party, and together with the userboxes on his talk page and his edits to Islam-related topics, suggests someone who is not likely any time soon to be able to edit within Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines on a consistent or meaningful basis. He frequently calls for people to be banned, desysopped (eg this) etc merely for disagreeing with him - yet stridently defends those on his side of the POV fence (witness this one) when they inevitably cop a block for their actions. This and this are also interesting reads for sheer non-AGF. Orderinchaos 01:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I would have expected that after 3 days of discussing this, everyone would at least try to be civil, but incivility continues on the Talk:Bill_Heffernan#Climate_Change_.2F_Asian_remark page.--Lester2 03:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigh! I share the frustrations of Lester and others. Prester John and I recently came to an amicable accord over dissatisfaction with each other's language and edit actions. To see that he has gone to other articles and talkpages, continuing with exactly the same tone and language that he well knows, by now, is uncivil doesn't reassure me that his apology mean't anything other than to avoid collecting yet another critic of his aggressive negative behaviour. Closer scrutiny from admin users would be greatly appreciated. --Brendan Lloyd 04:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: For OTRS respondants, see this ticket which relates to this discussion somewhat. Having been on the opposite side of content disputes with PJ, I'm not going to answer the ticket or take any action in this discussion, but if anyone wants to (and has access to OTRS) then that link may be of interest. Cheers, Daniel 05:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of PJ's attitude, outing another editor is unacceptable. This ANI is starting to turn into a bit of a witchhunt. I agree with the warning given to Timeshift. Outing any editor is just unacceptable. Just because PJ may have an attitude problem and/or edit wars, doesn't mean that he can be outed. If there are geniune problems with PJ, this should be start of a new AN/I or taken to a more appropriate forum. Shot info 06:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This AN/I has moved on from the Timeshift issue - that was resolved 2 days ago when he received a warning. There is no indication that he has been "outed" - the allegations are old and have been repeated on other occasions over past months, although I'm not entirely sure from where they originated - i.e. whether PJ raised it himself somewhere or not. That being said, we're on Misplaced Pages, and the key issue here is on-wiki behaviour which is contrary to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Orderinchaos 11:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In the 3 days since the warning, 'Prester John' has taunted on the David Hicks talk page, harassed on Brendan's talk page, and been generally uncivil in numerous places. Now he's launched some kind of Misplaced Pages campaign called 'FREE MATT'. He's made a new Userbox for it here-> User:Prester_John/Userbox/Free_Matt. It seems to me to be some kind of campaign to whip up dissent in support of a comrade who was recently blocked from Misplaced Pages. He's sent the Userbox to numerous peoples' talk pages. Judging by the reaction on User_talk:Prester_John#Please_stop, some other Wikipedians have objected to being sent these campaign messages. --Lester2 12:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No, an admin has decided it is his business to interfere in that. No one has complained. Arrow740 01:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the status of this section? ThuranX 03:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It was closed. Orderinchaos then removed the "resolved tag" and ethically forgot to inform me, allowing all and sundry to have a nice little gripe about me without giving me the chance to respond. Not that there is much to respond to. Do I respond to the UserKirbytime ip sock that is upset I reverted his changes to my userpage? Do I respond to Orderinchaos who erred in not informing me of his unilateral decision to reopen this case? His misrepresentation that I called for the desyoping of Hesperian because I "disagreed" with him. (I in fact was calling for an apology for calling me a racist. There was no apology so I question his constitution for adminship). Do I address his absurd insinuation that because the "allegations" of my outing have been repeated over the past few months, that "I" somehow raised it myself? Do I address the nonsense of serial edit warmonger Lester2 who would do anything to get me blocked just so he could continue his BLP violating POV pushing slandering of current Australian politicians? Or shall I just wait to see how this hatchet job turns out? Prester John 05:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

huh? you complain about someone not going out of their way to give you the opportunity to respond and then sarcastically outline that you are not going to respond... very odd PJ. You're editing across the board is becoming more and more counterproductive to the writing of a good encyclopaedia and the encouragement of people to contribute in good faith. WikiTownsvillian 11:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally I removed the resolved tag after most of the discussion above - merely because it seemed to no longer correctly describe the route that the discussion had taken. It was more an acknowledgement of events on the ground, as it would have been puzzling to some that an ongoing discussion had a "resolved" tag on it. Also, the "allegations" bit has been misunderstood - a claim was made about your real-world identity, and I had no wish to repeat the claim. My argument on that was only that one is only "outed" if the claim is true, and as the claim has not been established as either true nor false, it remains an allegation. (I would also argue that even if true, more info would have needed to be released to qualify.) That being said, I strongly agree with the warning - that is not the level at which we should be conducting debates on Misplaced Pages. Orderinchaos 03:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Free Matt userbox MfD

I saw that via the Jehochman RFA, and nominated it for deletion. Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Prester John/Userbox/Free Matt. • Lawrence Cohen 23:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I added a notification of this MFD here to ANI, but it was removed here by User:CO. I am re-adding it here, as it is directly relevant to the harassment of Elonka and Jehochman. the Userbox appears to be a response to this old ANI thread where this user is blocked for harassment. Two other userboxes this person made before were deleted for being inflammatory: User:Prester John/Userbox/Hate & User:Prester John/Userbox/Moman. More are located at User:Prester John/Userbox. If it's significant, this happened a long time after I posted it and he left me note about that removal. • Lawrence Cohen 05:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Religious Hatred: Those prior Prester John userboxes that Admins deleted in May, were the cause of religious flamewars among Wikipedians. See this prior ANi for one case of a Wikipedian who tried to retaliate after being baited by Prester John. I see a disturbing pattern of religious intolerance from Prester John. Here's another ANi involving complaints about Prester John's anti-Muslim edits. Yet the anti-Muslim theme still continues with Prester John's Misplaced Pages activity. Just skim down Prester's edit history and you'll see that 95% of his edits involve articles about Muslims. You'll notice Prester John editing articles to cast Muslims in a poor light, or praise politicians who have taken a perceived anti-Muslim stance. Even as this current ANi has been taking place in the past few days, let me point out Prester's latest article, and the talk page will explain what's wrong with it. I ask the admins to look at whether this sort of slant is good for Misplaced Pages. --Lester2 13:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Please back up claims of "religious hatred" with specific evidence in the form of diffs. Your post borders on incivility and trolling. Arrow740 03:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Even though I voted to remove the user box (and, it was intended more as a "probably not the best idea" rather than "delete now, no matter what"), the "Free Matt57" box controversy is getting a whole lot more attention than it deserves. I say we move on. If there are other issues (which you seem to be talking about) then they need to be addressed properly - not here tacked on to the ultimately pointless "Free Matt" user box issue. The whole idea of user boxes is a joke anyway, hence i keep mine to an absolute minimum - just the projects, and no politics. --Merbabu 13:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it should get a lot more attention. It demonstrates that some admins think that admins' actions should not be disputed by non-admins. That is a very worrying attitude. Arrow740 03:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Since I blocked Matt, I suppose I should record that I don't object to the userbox and I certainly don't feel offended in any way. Its fair comment imo. Spartaz 20:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Disruption via overzealous copyvio tagging of free images

Videmus Omnia (talk · contribs) whose overall activity on enforcing the free image policy I am not in a position to evaluate, is repeatedly retagging the PD images as copyvios. See Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/2007 October 4/Images under "PD-UA-images" thread. All official symbols in Ukraine are PD according to the Ukraine's copyright law as elaborated at {{PD-UA-exempt}}. The user claims that the images' being found at some commercial web-site that claims copyright over everything it hosts makes the images non-free despite the user was explained that an exact reproduction of the pre-existing image does not generate a new valid copyright claim.

What comes next? Someone placing an image of Mona Lisa at his MySpace site with "All rights reserved" disclaimed and forcing us removing the image of the Leonardo's (d. 1519) painting? Someone please help sorting this out. --Irpen 16:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit-conflicted report by Videmus Omnia

I tagged the following four images (among many others) as copyright violations from http://www.uniforminsignia.net; that website contains an explicit copyright claim at the bottom of all of its pages stating "The information on this page may not be reproduced, republished or mirrored on another webpage or website without written permission from the editors." Irpen (talk · contribs) is repeatedly removing the {{Imagevio}} tags from the image pages, claiming that they are public domain. I'm sure that a public :domain image can be made or obtained from another source, however these particular images are copyrighted by uniforminsignia.net and our use without permission is a violation. I'd appreciate an outside look at this, as I intend to tag another couple of hundred images downloaded from this site as copyvio as well.

Images

• Image:Ukr viceadmiral.gif
• Image:Ukr admiral.gif
• Image:Ukraine VDV branch.gif‎
• Image:Ukraine radiation branch.gif

Thanks - Videmus Omnia 16:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

We do not need to obtain the public domain images "from another source". The PD images remain PD no matter where we find them. This has been a long standing view both among the copyright lawyers and in Misplaced Pages. See Mona Lisa example above. Our {{PD-Art}} tag explicitly refers to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. which, as well as Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, is a must read for everyone who goes out to an image copyright patrol. It is a pity that even the self-appointed image patroller did not bother to study the copyright-related issues before going out of his way to enforce his view on the copyrights. --Irpen 16:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that anyone can take a public-domain work, modify and/or improve it, and then re-license it under copyright. That appears to be what this website has done. Videmus Omnia 16:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

These images may not be public domain themselves. If they were made from scratch in the likeness of a public domain image, I believe the copyright belongs to the image maker. For example, the US flag is a public domain image, but a photograph of a Jasper Johns painting of a US flag is probably copywritten. - Crockspot 16:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A photograph/scan/other reproduction of a two-dimensional work is deemed to have insufficient creative input to be worthy of copyright. A photograph of a Jasper Johns painting has no copyright protection; the original painting does, but the photo has no additional protection. If the artist were Leonardo da Vinci, or someone else dead for a hundred years, there would be no copyright whatsoever. Which seems not to prevent websites from insisting that their .jpg of the Mona Lisa is "copyrighted" and can't be used without the website's permission. - Nunh-huh 17:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Jasper Johns' painting is not an exact replica of the flag. It contains a good deal of originality via presenting the painter's view and creativity. The images at the web-site, however, are nothing but generic replicas with no originality whatsoever. --Irpen 16:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be reasonable to get an opinion from Mike Godwin about that question. In any case, we have several people who could make high-quality SVG images from scratch to illustrate these things. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that uniforminsignia.net created these images themselves, using official descriptions of the insignia, rather like coats-of-arms. They don't seem to have scanned actual insignias, so Bridgeman doesn't apply. Is uniforminsignia.net's claim of copyright valid? I don't know. A judge could rule that the amount of creative, original work in their gifs is de minimus, and they therefore have no enforceable claim to copyright. Or he could rule that the copyright is valid. That's a chance the Foundation would have to take, since it would be the Foundation who gets sued, not you or me. In this case, uniforminsignia.net is clearly claiming copyright, and it's entirely plausible that their claim could hold up, and it would be relatively easy to recreate the images in a way that is unambiguously free. When it comes to putting my own butt on the line, I can choose to play it safe or I can choose to be gutsy. But when it's someone else's butt on the line, it's no virtue to be so cocksure. It's safer to recreate them, so that (in my opinion) is what we should do. – Quadell 16:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And why exactly "several users" have to put aside time to recreate a yet another version of a PD-image. Because Videmus Omnia does not understand the copyright concept? Not good enough a reason for me. Mike and the foundation repeatedly refused to step in similar debates and I see no reason why the would make an exception. I would welcome if they do, though. We have very clear Misplaced Pages precedents, in fact every "PD-Art" image is a precedent.

It is important to keep in mind though, that indeed not all military insignia is PD. It depends on the national laws and some may be copyrighted by respective governments (not in Ukraine though). But no national symbol gets magically copyrighted by an arbitrary person who places it on his/her unaffiliated web-site. --Irpen 17:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• The copyright claim on that website appears to be a blanket one, covering everything even if it shouldn't. In other words, the website maintainers might put public domain stuff up there, but they aren't going to make the effort to modify their blanket copyright statement to say "oh, except for the public domain stuff we have used, you'll have to work out for yourself which bits those are". Blanket copyright statements are depressingly common, but it requires judgement to work out exactly what they are applying to. Assuming it applies to everything on a website is a very narrow and blinkered (if easy) option. Carcharoth 17:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I understand that, but in this case it appears that the website created their versions of the insignia from scratch (certainly nobody has shown anything to dispute that), which leads me to believe that their claim could be valid in this case. Can anyone point to a source that this website could have taken the insignia from? Videmus Omnia 17:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The point is that it does not matter! The Ukrainian law states that the Ukrainian military insignia is not copyrightable. Whether the image is jpeg, gif, png or a paper-copy, it reproduces the non-copyrigtable intellectual property. If they created the calligraphic artistic work based on the insignia, there would have been a copyright on the modification. But they state themselves that all those images show are the insignia itself. In Ukraine the insignia is PD. They may also claim a vlaid copyright on the "arrangement" and "collection" of the images, just like the art albums do. But art-albums by claiming such copyrights in no way overtake the copyright claim of the painting themselves that they depict. --Irpen 17:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A judge might agree with you, Irpen. Or he might not. And I don't think you or I should intentionally provoke a copyright dispute between Misplaced Pages and another party, when it would not be difficult to recreate these. If uniforminsignia.net were not explicitly claiming copyright, I might feel differently, but by using these images we're putting Wikimedia at legal risk for no good reason. – Quadell 17:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the points that Quadell has made. Whether or not the website's copyright claims are valid, the website is certainly making those claims. Misplaced Pages's policy on image copyright is generally to play safe when in doubt. By the way, if the images really are PD, and that website just found them somewhere, reproduced them, and claimed copyright, can't we find them somewhere other than on that site, reupload them, and claim PD? ElinorD (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

We are not mindless machines here. We should use our brains to a reasonable degree. If I happen to find the image of Mona Lisa with the better resolution at the web-site that makes a blanket copyright claim and the poor thumbnail copy at the web-site which reminds its readers that Leonardo is long since dead, I do not have to use a poor-quality image just because someone makes a patently false copyright claim. Copyright for the military insignia belongs to the governmental bodies which, depending on the country, may be PD, restricted, permission required, etc. Arranging those images in illustrative or informative form in the work about the military insignia may create a copyright claim for an arrangement. But there is nothing anyone can do to start owning the image itself that is free to begin with. Arrangement, collection, artistic collage - yes. The original - no. It is crystal clear. In no way I am able to copy the entire Misplaced Pages to my web-site and claim "all rights reserved" on it. I mean, yes, I can do it by typing "All rights reserved" and clicking the "save" button but by doing so, I will simply make a meaningless claim rather than derail the Misplaced Pages project. --Irpen 18:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The point is that you have no idea whether or not they have altered these images in a sufficient way. If they've drawn up these insignia from descriptions, there's artistic merit there, even if the officially produced ones are public domain. They claim to hold copyright over them, and their claim could hold up in court. Given that we can produce free versions, this seems like a silly point to argue. --Haemo 18:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If they altered the image in any meaningful or artistic way, yes, you would be right. But their own web-sites claims that these are just insignia, clear and simple, and insignia is not copyrighted in Ukraine. --Irpen 19:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Insignia, like coats of arms, are subject to creative interpretation. The design is public domain, this is true, along with official versions in some instances, but individual artistic takes on how they are portrayed is different, and can be copyrighted. --Haemo 20:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not and artistic take. They do not even attempt to claim this as a "creative interpretation". All there is to it, is the generic image. The mere reproduction of a free image does not generate a new copyright. Read again {{PD-art}}. --Irpen 20:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. The detail and depiction of the elements of a crest or a coat of arms are artistic, and can be copyrighted. For instance, look at version of the Canadian coat of arms] versus the official Canadian government one. --Haemo 21:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree with Videmus Omnia here. Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. says "exact photographic copies". These appear to be hand-drawn (well, computer graphic program drawn) pictures. Not mechanical reproduction without creativity. What exactly is the contention that was copied? Following instructions is not copying. --AnonEMouse 21:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

As I read Feist_Publications_v._Rural_Telephone_Service#Implications, works lacking significant creativity fail the test of copyright. As it's already been conceded that these images, if constructed by the website, were exactly according to the descriptions to be identical in information to an image of the item. Per the recipe metaphor, reproducing the enire book, even in your own words, fails it. As this site's entire purpose is to represent exactly the catalog of insignia of a nation, according to the official descrpitions, and to mimic the sewn items, how is there any creativity to judge by? A further example:

This seems little different than following the Revell instructions to the letter. Are you really an artist if you follow them? If you do so carefully, and accurately, you're a good modelbuilder. It would take deliberate variance from the instructions to create your own touches to get far enough away to claim artistry, including, but not limited to- servos in the fuselage to get the rotors and blades to spin, LED systems for timed lights,exceptional research for perfect paint jobs... lacking that extra effort, you're just following instructions.

As such, I think this is best handled by contacting the office. If they choose to NOT comment, then the images stay. If they opt to remove, then do so. This shouldn't be undertaken by 'just any editor/admin', but by those most qualified within the poject to decide, which makes no judgements about Irpen, Omnia, or anyone else debating here. ThuranX 02:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The Office has offered few comments with regards to copyright. They are not trained international copyright lawyers (note that nowhere in the "Mike Godwin" biography does it mention international copyright law). I doubt they will comment on this issue. Most copyright issues on Misplaced Pages and Wikimedia Commons are resolved by editors. I think postponing this issue to wait for comments from the Office would be fruitless (either for or against the deletion of this particular class of imagery). --Iamunknown 05:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I am going to redraw the Admiral insignia now. If that image is satisfactory, then I will complete the rest described here. User:Zscout370 19:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

How is Image:Ukraine Admiral shoulderboard.svg. User:Zscout370 20:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That looks excellent, Zscout. Thank you for finding a positive solution. (Shouldn't the image page have a little more information so that someone won't come along and add {{nsd}} to it?) ElinorD (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I added me as the author of the image, you're welcome to add the URL of that uniform-insignia page as the source image. Anyways, I have dealt with these images before in regards with the US Military Insignia. I managed to replace the images from that site with US Gov't images. It will work differently for each country, but I will suggest to replace images from the website in question as soon as we physically can. User:Zscout370 22:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ukraine Vice Admiral shoulderboard.svg also made. Two down, some more to go. User:Zscout370 23:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Image:Ukr Rearadmiral.gif may be another one. ElinorD (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ukraine Rear Admiral shoulderboard.svg. User:Zscout370 01:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

First some basics to which it is useful to return once we get carrried away into complexities. Misplaced Pages needs to accomplish two things at the same time: being a valuable source of information and being a source of free content. It sometimes happens that on a specific issue these goals are mutually exclusive and enwiki allows fairuse as a compromise of freedom for the sake of maintaining the value of the enwiki as an information source under certain conditions. In this case the compromise does not need to be (and was not) invoked to begin with. The information was free all along.

However, I don't mind replacing one free image by another free image of the similar or better quality. If there are editors willing to sacrifice their time on redrawing images of uniforminsignia.net and releasing them under their own free license, fine with me either way as far as these images are concerned.

But this discussion needs to be settled with some meaningful global outcome since it is unlikely that Zscout would redraw all images from this site used in Misplaced Pages as well as all similarly redrawable images just because some overzealous users misinterpret external copyright claims or take blatantly meaningless claims literally.

BTW, if the original images were copyrighted (which they were not) Zscout cannot redraw them since that would be a derivative work of non-free content. He would need to use the Ukrainian law and draw from scratch. This is just a reminder how little sense this substitution makes except, of course, that they were not copyrighted and Zscout's images are clearly better information-wise.

Nothing can change the basic facts that:

1. a free image remains free
2. the concept of copyright is based not on the skill and amount of work spent by the drawer but on the originality as already decided by courts and the consequences of Bridgeman and Feist are thoroughly ingrained in our policies.
3. the copyright claim on the sum content of something (collection in this case) does not apply to the separate components of that content if they are free to begin with.
4. the copyright claim that is nonsense on the face value (Mona Lisa example above) can and should be ignored if it interferes with the Misplaced Pages's ability to provide the readers with the information as good as we can make it within the copyright law and our policies that are by far stricter than that.

Foundation refused to intervene in by far more contentious a far-reaching copyright debates and it is unlikely to change. If we need to hammer out a separate policy that would address the issue (a-priori free content hosted at sites that make blanket copyright statements) let's do it. But the deletion should be held off until past that point. That said, deleting the images redrawn to a better quality can be done at any time provided the new image is not a derivative work of the copyrighted image. So, is it or not? --Irpen 02:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Your entire comment presupposes that they were not copyrighted, and that the copyright claim was invalid. As a number of other editors have pointed out, it's not a clear-cut case; you're basically presuming that the amount of creative content which went into the creation of the images was de minimus when it's not clear that it would be. In cases where we have images which may, or may not, be copyrighted and we can reasonably produce free versions of the images which are not under copyright, then we should produce those free images. Misplaced Pages should be a 💕, and that means that the images we use should not be incumbered by legal claims, no matter how much we disagree with them. If editors, in good faith and good reason, believe that a given copyright claim is not prima facie invalid, then we should take a step back and work on free content instead. --Haemo 02:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Even if your supposition made sense (which it does not) the solution you offer makes even less sense. Free images "produced" based on the copyrighted ones is a derivative work and cannot be released under a free license if the original's license is not free. This Catch-22 can only be seen through if we understand (correctly) that there is no copyright in a generic reproduction of a a priori free intellectual property. If it was unfree, Zscout's effort, while a noble one, would remain his wasted time. --Irpen 06:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you it is not wasted effort. Making the base image took about 20 minutes and the other images took about 3 minutes to refine. User:Zscout370 17:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

But if you used these "supposedly" non-free (according to some) images to make yours based on them, than your images are derivative work based on non-free content. The only way out of this nonsense is to recognize the freeness of the original ones which they are of course. But then, they should not be deleted in any case except if a better quality replacement is made. The replacement is indeed of a better quality but it is just as free (or non-free) as the original. --Irpen 18:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I used a program called Inkscape to make the images, it is very easy to make the star shapes, zig-zags, and plus, they used the same pattern as Soviet ranks. I have PD drawings by the US Navy at my house of the Soviet naval ranks. User:Zscout370 18:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

But did you base your work on the verbal description provided in the UA-law or the images under the discussion to make yours? Because in the latter case and with the presumption that those images are non-free, the derivative work produced on their basis cannot be released under the free license. Point is that they are free to begin with, but if we proceed from assuming otherwise, your solution won't work. --Irpen 18:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Kevin Hotfury = User:Asadaleem12@hotmail.com

Hi, my name's JuJube, remember me? With a bunch of free time on my hands and less interesting places on the Internet to go to, I've found myself editing here anonymously. Anyway, I should turn your attention to a user named Kevin Hotfury (talk · contribs). He's rather blatantly a sockpuppet of hoaxmonger User:Asadaleem12@hotmail.com who has a long history of hoaxmongering, and his edit history shows he's at it again. I made up an info page on him here. He's never been officially banned, but it should probably be considered. JuJube 08:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, WP:CSN is that direction if you want to go further with the ban suggestion. -- Anonymous Dissident 09:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back. —CrazytalesPublic talk/main/desk 11:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

He has another sockpuppet at Wiki Florida 2007 (talk · contribs). This is getting out of hand. I'm starting to think I want an admin to help me out on this. Is JoanneB still around? JuJube 02:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be worse than I thought, as that sockpuppet has edits to Kevin Hotfury's user page as well as a few other accounts opened for the sole purpose of assisting him with his wrestling fantasies. JuJube 02:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know any of the history behind this, but what should be done with all the User:Wiki Florida 2007 subpages? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

American Family Association 2

Hello all. Part of the reason for making the American Family Association notification above yesterday was due to the personal attacks or lack of good faith remarks made involving the accusation of lies and deceit: (edit summary), talkpage text: and recently on my talkpage . To begin dispute resolution, RFC was instigated by user AniMate (AniMate) and has been helpful for supplying a venue for constructive discussion. Nevertheless the accusation of deceit continues as mentioned before . In the interests of constructive discussion, I leave it up to administrators here to intervene if necessary. Regards Hal Cross 11:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

He's right though. You're arguing, for example, that this "Charity Navigator" is a reliable source, when in fact it repeats verbatim what the AFA says about itself, and most of that data is not relevant (ie financial figures, categorization of the group, etc). Claiming that the AFA supports traditional values, has broad public support, or is not homophobic, based on the fact that it's listed in an aggregate data system about charities is a huge leap in reasoning. The source is not appropriate, not for the claims you seem to think it supports - how on Earth does financial information cherry picked from the AFA's tax forms in any way absolve the AFA of being labeled anti-gay? It seems to be totally irrelevant, at best synthesis and at worst, nonsense. A spade is a spade - if you're being nonsensical, saying so isn't a personal attack. You don't need to create an ANI report or an RfC every single time someone disagrees with you - especially since this is still subject to an ongoing RfC and is still related to your previous ANI post. --Cheeser1 15:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This is more about lack of good faith, especially as further evidence is arriving on Orpheus' stated refusal to assume good faith Hal Cross 09:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what is the purpose of the Homophobia cat? WAVY 10 Fan 15:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

To categorize articles related to Homophobia. It is a social phenomenon verifiably linked to dozens of organizations, historical events, legislative actions, litigations, etc. Like any category, it tags articles that are related to such a thing. If you think the category is being abused, take it up on the category talk page, although there are already guidelines laid out there about appropriate use. If you think the category itself is a problem, I'd say nominated for deletion, but it failed a deletion and a move, not more than a month ago. Repeatedly nominating something that just passed a CfD is a disruption of Misplaced Pages to make a point. Obviously consensus can change, but these concerns have already been addressed only a few weeks ago. And if your issue is that you think it's mean, unfair, or you don't like it, that's really not our concern. All of this, of course, has little relevance to the ANI. This is a dispute about a category, and it belongs on the category's talk page. Administrators aren't here to jump in and settle every single dispute or disagreement that anybody has. --Cheeser1 18:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

To address the claim that Orpheus allegedly did not assume good faith (a matter perhaps for the WQA, if anything), the comment in question is here: . Orpheus clearly and civilly explained that Hal has repeatedly added sources known to be unreliable in order to make claims that are highly dubious and extraordinarily partisan. To say "I can no longer assume good faith" is what happpens when people don't edit in good faith. We assume good faith. If and editor's behavior indicates that our assumption was not correct, then clearly there is good reason to question whether that editor is behaving appropriately. --Cheeser1 18:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Bold Fortune deleted by DragonflySixtyseven

14:48, 5 October 2007 DragonflySixtyseven deleted "Bold Fortune" ‎ (spam)

XPLite (a program one has to pay for, no less) has an article in Misplaced Pages with an external link to where one can purchase it.

nLite has an article in Misplaced Pages with external links posted. (Although Bold_Fortune, and reference to his guide and its external link, were removed from it.)

But a major work like Slimming Down Windows XP: The Complete Guide has no mention whatsoever in Misplaced Pages. And if it is mentioned, it is removed.

Now you tell me what's wrong with that picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bold Fortune (talk • contribs)

• Nothing is wrong with this picture. Everything that has happened has happened within Misplaced Pages's policies. I've left you a message on your talk page to explain in more detail. ➔ REDVEЯS was here 12:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I am NOT selling a product. Slimming Down Windows XP: The Complete Guide is free to the public to use. Take one look here, and you'll see, I'm sure.

You are looking a four-hundred pages in print of five years work on my part which I have given to the Internet freely. That is why I created it. It is my gift to those who always wanted to know which files they can delete from Windows XP, but couldn't find their answers.

• Advertisements do not always have to be aimed at selling something. Misplaced Pages is not a billboard (regardless of what /b/tards might tell you), and just because paid products get articles doesn't always mean the equivalent free-product article gets equal press, especially if it's below the radar. -Jéské 21:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

FreeSWITCH and comments about me personally are false.

The user Calltech has posted comments that are false and make me and our project look bad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:FreeSWITCH#86.92.134.171_comment

http://en.wikipedia.org/WT:WPSPAM#Newbie_briankwest_.28aka_86.92.134.171.29_gone_wild

I want these comments removed as they are false. If I must i'll have the community post comments and back me up on this one.

Briankwest 18:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Which community? —Cryptic 21:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't this be construed as an intent to disrupt the project through recruiting meatpuppets? -Jéské 21:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

What comments are false? Who are you? What project? What community? If you want Misplaced Pages administrators to help you solve your problem, you have to state your case clearly and succinctly. You need to explain what has happened, what has been said, and what you want Misplaced Pages administrators to do. Until you do that (it's not very hard, I don't know why you haven't already) then it's not unreasonable that your complaint lie idle. -- 217.42.190.82 21:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Just about everything but the first sentence of the briankwest_gone_wild link that says I'm Brian K West and I admin the FreeSWITCH.org site. The rest is totally false about me as it was some other person and NOT ME. The FreeSWITCH community is what I'm talking about. Briankwest 00:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I heavily doubt recruiting meatpuppets (as you say you are willing to do) is going to make your edits any more accepted. If you have a concern with regards to personal information, go see Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight; don't try meatpuppetry. -Jéské 09:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Briankwest's indignant behaviour here is incredible. He and another member of the FreeSWITCH development team User:Trixter ie have been posting comments on my talk page and on the FreeSWITCH using anon IP addresses as well as their WP identities creating confusion while concealing their association with the FreeSWITCH article. Just today trixter revealed his true identity and the use of the anon ID 86.92.134.171.29 in question. They both have been employing sockpuppetry techniques to conceal their association with the project in an attempt to avoid WP:COI. They created the confusion on my talk page, one by posting under his identity and the other following up with an anon IP, appearing to be speaking as (or for) the other. Now claiming that his reputation and his project's reputation is being damaged after trixter, a member of his project team, made abusive comments here Talk:FreeSWITCH#Suggestions for Improvement is laughable. Calltech 18:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, because of the high number of SPA contributions on this article's talk page and because of the apparent sockpuppetry and WP:COI tactics used by some users, a complaint was lodged here WP:COI/N#FreeSWITCH.E2.80.8E by editor Cryptic contributing at Talk:FreeSWITCH. Calltech 19:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for block review.

I have blocked Saracity123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely as a spammer. Please review, paying special attention to deleted edits. Can be overturned without my consultation if there's consensus to do so. Thanks. Chick Bowen 20:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware that the first three letters of spam just happen to be an acronym for Simple Persistent Activity? Support indef block, it doesn't seem that the individual wishes to contribute in any other area of the encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU 20:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

While I heartily endorse the salting of his target article and deletion of the copy in his user space, I can't help think that blocking him won't do anything except make it less obvious the next time he comes back. The very best thing it might accomplish is 24 extra hours of peace if he doesn't notice the block before the next time he comes back to plague us and doesn't have convenient access to a different IP. —Cryptic 21:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block, an obvious spam-only account. From my experience, only the most persistent spammers come back after a block to continue spamming under different accounts. This guy seems fairy run-of-the-mill. Mr.Z-man 21:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

What the hell is this?

Impersonator blocked, take the rest to your talk pages please, or better yet, just do something else -- Samir 23:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

OK, there's User:Tasco O, and there's User:Tosco-O. Tosco-O left me this message. I don't care what the hell is going on, if someone's impersonating Tasco O or something, I just want them to leave me out of their problems. --- Who's the one you call Mr. Macho? The head honcho, swift fist like Camacho 21:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It's actually User:Tosco-0 and User:Tasco 0 I think (zeros, not Os). Probably should be blocked for having multiple accounts if that's what's going on. Confusing to say the least. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

At least note that, per WP:SOCK, having multiple accounts does not inherently violate wikipedia policy. Someguy1221 21:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I blocked Tosco-0 (talk · contribs) as an impersonator of Tasco 0 (talk · contribs). If it's a valid alternate account, that can be sorted out later. - auburnpilot talk 21:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Good, at least they're leaving me alone now. --- Who's the one you call Mr. Macho? The head honcho, swift fist like Camacho 21:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

A bit off topic, but your signature is way to long. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 22:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Lets get things clear

• First of all, this must be read: Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#213_.28group.29
• Second: this comment also must be read to understand User_talk:Tasco_0#Confused
• This also should be read User talk:Tosco-0--Tasc0 23:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• This "impersonator" does not write the same why I do. This can be seen in User_talk:Dead_Wrong#Report_User_.28October_2007.29. Just an example, I use apostrophes when "don't". I use a capital "I" when I'm refering to myself.
• I'm going to report all the users I think are responsibles for this. I am not going to accept this.
• The user page Tosco-0 was a "copy-n-paste" of my user page. If I was the other user and I don't want to get detected I wouldn't do this. It's just stupid.
• The "impersonator" does not uses the edit summary as I do. I do not use the words "rm". I do use "rmv".
• Administrators should really take action of this behavior. It is stupid and childish.--Tasc0 22:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• The impersonator also did a "copy-n-paste" of my signature. That can be seen in User_talk:Dead_Wrong#Report_User_.28October_2007.29--Tasc0 22:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Here, User:Dead Wrong thinks the user who made this was User:West Coast Ryda.--Tasc0 23:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

He thinks I'm in their group because I also happened to talk about hip-hop with them before. While I can assure you I did not take part in such a thing (look at my editing history), it does look suspicious since they went straight for me. Should've just let them impersonate him a bit more. --- Who's the one you call Mr. Macho? The head honcho, swift fist like Camacho 22:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You personal attacked me, and that's a reason, at least for me, to report you.

And what exactly do you mean with "Should've just let them impersonate him a bit more."?--Tasc0 22:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. --- Who's the one you call Mr. Macho? The head honcho, swift fist like Camacho 22:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't reply in my talk page when I'm asking the questions here. Thank you.

And you did not aswer me the question. If you can, would be great.--Tasc0 23:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It would also be great if you look into WP:AGF. With that being said, I'm going to remove this page from my watchlist, so I'm not even part of this discussion anymore. Admins, if I am going to be blocked, you know where my talk page is. --- Who's the one you call Mr. Macho? The head honcho, swift fist like Camacho 23:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, this has gone beyong assuming good faith. It is curious you started the thread in my talk page and the impersonator started another one in yours.--Tasc0 23:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Like I said on your talk page, this is also the last time I'm replying here. How is it curious, honestly? It was obvious he was an impersonator, since he copied your signature and when I checked the history, his user name was different. So what if I notified you of what was going on? I just assumed you would want to know about something like this, because I sure as hell would want to know if there's another guy claiming he's Dead Wrong around here. The only reason anyone would even think I had anything to do with this was because he (I told you who it was) went straight for my talk page. I only realized it was him after I reported him here. WP:AGF. Enough said. --- Who's the one you call Mr. Macho? The head honcho, swift fist like Camacho 23:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks -- what to do?

I apparently alienated two editors over the article Drapetomania which I nominated for AFD - Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Drapetomania (which I understand now was a mistake) and then withdrew it shortly after. Several editors, including User:Addhoc have improved the article overnight so now it is in good condition. Meanwhile the two users filed Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Mattisse 2. Even so, their personal attacks continue against me. ] This would not be in its self something that I could not overlook. However, another editor deleted the personal attack which I appreciated. Now the attacker has reverted the deletion of the attack under the edit summary "rv vandalism". I am requesting someone to intervene before this escalates further, as each edit by one of the two editors has a negative statement about me. Both User:Malik Shabazz and User:Cyborg have repeatedly accused me of bad faith, which, whatever my mistakes, is not the case. User:Malik Shabazz is making racial comments to me. The following is copied from Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Mattisse 2: - - Malik Shabazz's comment that Mattisse's opinions were 'very white' with the edit summary of 'thank you massa' lampooning slave dialect is an example. If I am being wimpy and should just over look this, then I will. Thanks, --Mattisse 23:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean User:Cyborg Ninja, per your comments at WP:AN, rather than User:Cyborg - who does not seem to have edited in any of the above categories. If it is Cyborg Ninja, I would comment that they have declared that are withdrawing from the matter and I suggest that they are no longer a party. LessHeard vanU 23:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse is being somewhat less than honest in her description of the facts. At the AfD and since, she has repeatedly called me ignorant, she accused me of WP:OWNing the article when I had made only a single edit to the article (and she continued to do so after I told her so), she nominated the article at AfD to make a WP:POINT, here she ignores the contributions that Cyborg Ninja and I made to the article, and she threatened to nominate the article again if it wasn't edited to her personal satisfaction. In light of her imperious comment that "because of the last two edits I am removing the POV tag", thus ignoring 32 intermediate edits including many by Cyborg Ninja and me, I feel my comment ("thank you massa, thank you") was appropriate; she acts like she owns the article and deigns to grace us by approving of our edits.

And to think: this all started because Mattisse got her nose out of joint when a plebeian without a Ph.D. in psychology had the temerity to revert one of her edits. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think all the parties should allow the RfC to reach its conclusion, consider the conclusions/take whatever actions are deemed appropriate, and let the matter drop. A liberal application of WP:COOL would not go amiss, either. Please, let this be my last comment on this... LessHeard vanU 00:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Mattisse 00:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

I'm kinda new here and I recently came across the page David Scott (politician) while using the recent changes tool. It appears to me that the user Ninjme is making edits that are both nonconstructive (removing the /references template) and potentially libelous (changing the word "also" to "not" like here, which is against what the source says). Now I noticed that this user has made edits only to this page. What should I do in this situation? Any help is much appreciated. Thanks. -- LoyalHawk 23:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I gave Ninjme a warning on his/her talk page. If it continues, report at WP:AIV (admin intervention against vandalism). — Edokter • Talk • 00:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm killer

User:Umm killer has been blocked and the guy's begging for an admin to come, and he's not patient. Could someone please attend to him? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 02:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this user should be blocked

Take a look at Essex men 55 (talk · contribs). His user page says he's a sock puppet of an indef-blocked user, and he's apparently trying to give away his password (?). Also vandalizing userpages and creating pages with 'Truth'. The way, the truth, and the light 02:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Report it to WP:AIV; they'll apply the banhammer. -Jéské 02:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Why has no one replied here? I see that this user has been blocked some time ago by User:EI C, who for some reason has not thought to reply here informing me. The way, the truth, and the light 05:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. Why do you need a personal update on an AN/I? ThuranX 05:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Not only do people not usually report updates directly to someone who reports something to AN/I (it's your own responsibility), but you didn't even sign your post (you used 5 ~s instead of 4), making finding you all the harder. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even notice my mistake in signing (now fixed). I stated that the update should have been posted here, not to me personally - I of course have AN/I on my watchlist. The way, the truth, and the light 05:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's quite possible that El C ran across Essex elsewhere; I know I certainly don't come running to AN or ANI to look up every vandal I block. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Uncivil anonymous editor

Some time ago I removed an image from the article Turkic peoples. I have explained my rationale on the article's talk page. An anonymous editor keeps re-adding the image, but refuses to engage in a meaningful discussion. Instead she or he puts rude (and crude) texts on my talk page and in edit summaries:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Lambiam&diff=prev&oldid=160912618
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Turkic_peoples&diff=prev&oldid=161842132 (see the edit summary)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Turkish_people&diff=prev&oldid=161934707 (see the edit summary)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Lambiam&diff=prev&oldid=162140390]
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Lambiam&diff=prev&oldid=162335702]
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Turkic_peoples&diff=prev&oldid=162776846] (see the edit summary)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Lambiam&diff=prev&oldid=162777942]

The first is from 88.233.22.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), the next four from 88.233.181.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and the last two from 85.101.255.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The edit patterns are so similar that I am convinced this is all the same person.  --Lambiam 02:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Although I can't read Turkish, the manner of edits, including use of non-english and the repeated use of Lambiam's name like it is, clearly directing edit summaries at him, then again directing even comments on Lambiam's talk page at him by name, the poor english grammar in multiple comments, and so on, incline me to concur. This isn't particularly a content dispute because there's no apparent discussion going on that multiple editors could weigh in on (because the IP uses Turkish and broken english to insult, not discuss). I'd support a rangeblock, as it looks like they're coming from the same range of IPs. (I could be wrong, my technical IP intarweb-fu is lousy, I just tighten the nuts on my intar-tubes to get less static, and turn the steamvalves for more bandwidth.) ThuranX 03:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the Whois data, the range is 88.233.0.0/17, which is 32,000 IPs. If it continues, we can semi-protect the page. I've removed the image for the time being, citing Lambiam's talk page comment, with which I agree.--chaser - t 05:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The most recent edits are from the 85.101.128.0/17 range anyway.  --Lambiam 06:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

All 3 IPs belong to Türk Telekom, and are routed through the router named gyt_t2_2-gyt_t1_1.ttnet.net.tr (seen from my house), so it's likely they are in the same city, but there doesn't seem to be a closer relationship between them. We can't rangeblock a major ISP. --Alvestrand 06:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, so s a rangeblock isn't particularly viable. What other options do we have? Semi the Turkic Peoples page for a while, and Lambaim's user talk for a week? I don't like semi's on talks, as it stops legit IP's, but case-by-case, it might work for this situation? ThuranX 18:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Ccccprescott

User:Ccccprescott is continually injecting what is very clearly POV material to The Dartmouth Review (, ). After two reverts, I tried to explain Misplaced Pages policy on neutrality to the user (), which was followed by an immediate revert by the user of my reversion (). That's where things remain. (I responded: ). I've reverted twice, and I'm reporting here to avoid violating WP:3RR. Due to the similarity of names, I suspect that the user may be a sockpuppet of User:Cccccnash, who has made similar edits (). No edits or response have been made since my second comment on the userpage. Please, can someone (1) assess The Dartmouth Review and revert to an appropriate version (I know which is appropriate, but again, don't want to violate 3RR) and (2) perhaps inject some admin authority to prescott's comprehension of policy? Dylan 04:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, in the interest of disclosure, I've reverted the same user's edits to Dartmouth pong (). Dylan 04:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely.--chaser - t 05:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Group of users blanking Star Trek character articles

Administrators, there appears to be something strange going on with articles about Star trek characters. Worf and Geordi La Forge have been hit in the last couple of days by a group of users (or perhaps the same user with several different accounts) who are reverting the entire article to a version from months ago. The reason for this isn’t clear but the edit summaries contain phrases like “resetting article” and “returning to stub”. There was also a border line personal attack where one of the users called another “a lazy tagger”. Now, I don’t know a great deal about Star Trek, but this looks like vandalism. And even if there is some kind of justifiable reason to repair these article, or remove bad info, reverting to a months old version, wiping out everyone else’s changes since then, doesn’t appear to be the right way to do it. -OberRanks 04:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Deanna Troi and Data (Star Trek) also being hit by the same people. -OberRanks 04:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You could probably make a convincing argument for a checkuser case. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they're socks. The only three I see doing this are Cromulent Kwyjibo, ShutterBugTrekker, and Anton Mravcek, all of whom have been around a while and have different editing interests. Perhaps they just agree. I see a note here, but brief notes to those three editors asking for discussion of the issue would be step one. They may not have even noticed the talk page thread.--chaser - t 06:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I repeatedly asked the user(s) to stop re-instating the bold changes, and there is a thread at Talk:Data (Star Trek) about it, although I don't think s/he responded. I'm disturbed by this "it's all the lazy taggers' fault" nonsense. The article can be cleaned up just as easily as it can be "rest and fixed." If anything it's just as lazy to gut the article - they're not taking the time to clean things up either. But seriously, why not have disorganized information than no information? These three people keep referring to some magical theory that a stub is better than an untidy article, but I don't see how that's necessarily true. Unless they have consensus support, they should stop making these bold edits and discuss the changes they want on the talk page. --Cheeser1 06:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I've actually seen this before. Basically, the issue is over the fact that the articles are primarily written with an "in-world" style. The 'vandals' are removing all the information that goes against this (like the entire fictional back story found in Geordi La Forge) and leaving a stub for a new article to be created. The "lazy taggers" comments are because I've seen those "in-world" notices for months, if not years and I guess it's one way to force the issue. No real opinion but hopefully just making it a little clear for all. It's basically another version of the WP:FICTION content disputes we see in other places. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Holy trapped in a box and can't get Out Of Universe, Batman!... seriously though, is there a WP:Star Trek to whose attention this can be brought? I'm gonna go look, and if so, let all know. ThuranX 18:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. I've notified the project regarding this thread, and the larger issues at hand, hopefully the three day weekend will yield a cleanup. ThuranX 18:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

anonymous user 88.246.150.66 should be blocked, undo all edits

Linkspam (with broken links, even!) Shoehorn 04:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The Anon hasn't edited in several hours, so no block (if anyone disagrees, feel free to block). I've reverted the additions. -- Flyguy649 _contribs 04:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Please report things like this to WP:AIV; the whole purpose of that page is to report vandalism. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Leuko

Diffs below. Issue not resolved. Bstone 15:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to bring to the attention of the adminship the user User:Leuko. Recently Leuko has been using bullying and extremely uncivil methods in an attempt to get his edits to be the final ones. Moreover, he has come to using various level 3 warnings on various editors' talk pages for "vandalism" as a first-resort when trying to get his position to take hold. These warnings imply that he is an admin and has the ability to block us. This is extremely disturbing to a casual editor such as myself. I wonder if someone might be able to take a look into this and perhaps talk to Leuko about his heavy-handed attitude and his absolute improper use of the warnings. Thank you. Bstone 06:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• see related discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#Non-admins issuing warnings -- Flyguy649 _contribs 06:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Level 3 and 4 warnings do not insinuate that the issuer is an admin, as has been pointed out at WT:UTM. No comment about Leuko's actions. -- Flyguy649 _contribs 06:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It fooled two of us. That's all I can really say about it. In addition, however, and quite separately than the "fooling" issue, is Leuko lack of civility and bullying (vis-a-vis the bogus vandalism warnings). As well, Leuko saw it fit to edit my user page just a few days ago. This was uninvited and certainly not approved by me, yet he did so anyways. In short, Leuko is a loose cannon and must be dealt with. Bstone 06:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Bstone, if you really want something to be done, help everyone out and get links to the diffs that show us exactly what happened. Basically, if I could get a "I did this, Leuko responded with this warning, I did this, etc.", I think it would be more effective. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to provide the diffs that show this case, but anyone who's interested in knowing what happened can start here and follow the trail. Someguy1221 07:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're unhappy about his editing your userpage (which, incidentally, you don't own; anyone is free to edit it), you should bring it up with him on his talk page, not here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I may not actually own my talk page, but I believe it to be clear that any unauthorized editing of my talk page can and, in this case, would be considered vandalism. One can see the changes as follows:

Leuko's unauthorized and unapproved editing (aka vandalism) of my user page]. Looking at this link one will notice the high number of bogus "warnings" issued by Leuko to me ]. Bstone 15:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Resolved? The other editor who has harassed and bullied by Leuko hasn't gotten a chance to post here as he was probably sleeping. Please reactivate this. In addition, I will be adding the links and diffs (see above). Thank you. Bstone 15:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Eckoman120

Hi I am reporting this user because 7/8 of his edits have been vandalism, this includes deleting whole articles and using homophobic language. Special:Contributions/Eckoman120. Realist2 07:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This actually isn't the best place for that. You should basically issue the proper warnings (it's not as complicated as it looks) and if he keeps going, posting to Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism will get a much faster response. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sm565 complain for Adam Cuerden.

(forum-shopping redacted) by ELIMINATORJR 16:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC))

I deleted Sm565's POV tags because he just simply tagged any bit of criticism as POV, and then refused to say anything actually wrong with it when asked, other than it was unfair to criticise homeopathy. He then spent most of the last week making facile and pointless objections wasting all the editor's time. I tried to archive some sections, but was repeatedly reverted, so I just did what is done with other examples of trolling on heavily-trolled pages, and put it in a {{hat}} {{hab}} to try and allow editors who aren't a meatpuppet for George Vithoulkas like all the ones we had descending a few months ago to actually edit productively. Adam Cuerden 08:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not anything wrong. I did not revert anything besides the tag POV ONLY after other users you agree with removed the statement which the main editor ( AFTER reaching a consensus) put in the article. You did not take any action against that. Whoever visits the talk page in homeopathy he will understand. --Sm565 08:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

His actions seem to me within the boundaries of civility, making this nothing more than a content dispute. Follow dispute resolution if needed. Please be warned that attempting to place homeopathic practicers on the same pedestal of reliability as the NIH or the AMA, as well as attempting to dismiss modern science as mere theory, will be generally fruitless. Someguy1221 08:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• The essay by Sm above was posted to WP:RPP; I turned it into a protection request for him in good faith. If anyone objects to me making the request, feel free to get rid of it. Sm, forum-shopping is very much frowned upon on Misplaced Pages. -Jéské 09:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• The article is already protected anyway. Adam Cuerden is correct; a quick scan of the article history and talkpages reveals quite clearly that the only tendentious editing is occurring from User:Sms565 and other POV-pushers, amongst other things adding {fact} tags to clearly cited material. Thus, I have redacted the forum-shopping posting above, make a comment on Sms565's talk page, and marked this item as resolved. ELIMINATORJR 16:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This is totally unfair and inappropriate.Only the fact that you avoid addressing Adams behavior in the talk page which the main complain is a sign that you reading is not in good faith.

A good faith reader who will go through the discussion , my complain and the request will not find the EliminatorJR|< statament objective. The request is to protect the under dispute sign in the article and to restore my comments. "a quick scan of the article history and talkpages?" how you went through so quickly it is a extremely long discussionin which I have participated only for a month!

Whoever sees the quality of the comments of the group of the editors including Adam he will agree with this.

Tendentious editing??: The cited sources dont state what is claimed in the article. Thats why I had to copy and paste them in the talk page and explain why. Even Adam agreed. Examples:

Please another administrator intervene - NPOV needed--Sm565 17:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop trying to ask another parent. Although the essay here predates WP:RPP's essay, you're simply trying to find a way to get Adam in trouble. Do all of us the honor and drop it. -Jéské 18:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Peter morrell

I was actually writing this up when the last thing got posted, but, oh well.

Peter morrell (talk · contribs) is on probation after an .

He's now reverted fully to his old ways.

• "science zealots" and trying to pull others in to POV-push
• Editing my statements to change their meaning
• And reverting me when I object

Other examples include Talk:Homeopathy#more Quote mining (caught by ornis) and the lovely opening to Talk:Homeopathy#Molecules, where he shows himself completely unable to look at the mainstream point of view rationally:

Much of the above talk about straw man germ theory and dilutions is theoretical nonsense. Nobody knows what matter is or what happens when something is diluted. Hahnemann and his followers believed he had hit upon a genuine new discovery about matter in solution. Who is really to deny this? Chemistry and the molecular theory is merely a model of how matter seems to behave; we do not know all the answers and to claim we do is dishonest. Maybe some molecules do remain at 30c who knows? To deny this is to assume that the avogadro limit is absolute when in reality it is merely an average. On average no molecules remain after 10 -23 but in reality nobody knows. Nor does anybody know what the shaking does. Violent shaking of the solution is certainly regarded by homeopaths as crucial to the potentiation process. Adam Cuerden 08:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Plz take a look at protected template

I think there's a template for getting admin attention on a protection page but I don't know it. I don't know how often this page is watched, but please see this. Milto LOL pia 08:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You can use {{Editprotected}} on the talk page, or post your request here. Someguy1221 08:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I fixed the issue. -- lucasbfr 12:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent editing by PalestineRemembered

A few days ago I noticed an editor, PalestineRemembered, on a few articles regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His edits concerned me, as they did not seemed make the articles more neutral or more informative, but instead more according to what appeared to be PalestineRemebered personal point of view regarding the conflict: . Another thing that concerned me was that he was using the edit summaries for personal political comments and soapboxing: "Internationally recognised as Occupied - a status having significant daily effects on the life of all who live there."

Due to these concerns I decided to take a closer look at his efforts and found them to be very concerning. Many of his edits were in clear violation of Misplaced Pages's policies regarding neutrality:

• The Hebron Massacre refers to the death of sixty-seven Jews (who "died of natural causes" in a violent mob riot?).
• - he removed information sourced by several reliable sources.

On the discussion pages he was soapboxing and made no secret of his personal opinions and intentions on the articles regarding the Israeli-palestinian conflict:

• "I think you're playing the propaganda game of the Israelis with this listing. They're proud to be so effective at whatever they turn their hand to, so your list is further evidence of that, but contributes little to understanding what was going on. In 1947, they could excuse all their actions because they were fighting the British for blocking immigration and not giving them a state. In April 1948 they had no real excuse for slaughtering predominantly women, children and the old."

• "You're taking the side of the bullies in this affair, the people who are ethnically cleansing the Palestinians, and want the massacre of 1929 in Hebron to be twisted to prove that Arabs are diseased. The fact that real practitioners of Judaism lived in peace with Arabs is poison to their way of thinking, and they apply heavy pressure to stop that evidence ever coming to light."

He also aggressively promoted the use of partisan websites such as jewsagainstzionism.com as sources on Misplaced Pages: "Defenders of Israel have huge problems with www.jewsagainstzionism.com because these folk are outraged that their faith is so horrendously abused. The fact they they're real practitioners of Judaism"

Browsing some of his edits, I also noticed that PalestineRemembered has had a mentor for quite some time. However, as the above diffs makes it clear, this has failed to change his behavior into something that is even remotely acceptable. I therefore request that an admin now step in and ensure that PalestineRemembered do not continue his disruptive behavior and policy violations.

As it is obvious from his discussion page and his extensive block log, which include no less than eight block from this year, for disruption, 3RR etc, he has already been warned extensively about soapboxing and biased and confrontational editing. -- Karl Meier 09:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This looks like stirring for the sake of it, PalestineRemembered is well aware that his editors come under heavy scrutiny, take it to the article talk pages. Catchpole —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 09:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I don't agree with everything PR has done, it's a little unfair to criticise him for removing references to www.hebron.org.il (a settler website) but also for adding references from www.jewsagainstzionism.com. Several Israeli contributors have insisted on (and got away with) using partisan sources such as CAMERA in the same way that PR has referenced jewsagainstzionism, i.e. in cases where it is directly quoting people/documents. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what CAMERA or POV of other editors have anything to do with this ANI, I did however see this new article which makes me suggest that, together with all the rest of the evidence, perhaps this user should be topic banned. --Gilisa 14:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hated Google Test is a complete waste of space and I would hope that PR requests {{db-author}} asap. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have speedied the article as pov-pushing, an attempt to prove a point and a neologism with no assertion of notability. Aecis 15:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The above comment by Karl Meier is largely consistent with what was described at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered. That RfArb was closed early with no further actions taken, "as the dispute being arbitrated has been satisfactorily resolved by the major parties." It might not be such a bad idea to reopen the RfArb. Aecis 14:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Where the allegations here are true, they are minor and not actionable, and where they are serious and actionable they are false. Going point-by-point:

• PR absolutely did not allege that the Hebron victims "died of natural causes"; indeed, in the very diff you have linked, PR stated that '"Killed in mob violence" or "died in riots" are correct, "mass-murder" is not.' His argument, which one can agree or disagree with, was apparently that "mass murder" implies a level of systematic intent which may not have existed in this case. Nothing to see here.
• The first reference is not in any way reliable; it is the website of the Hebron settlers, a tiny extremist group of radical Jews who occupy the center of Hebron along with a huge number of IDF soldiers and Israeli police. They are widely treated as such in world media, including centrist-conservative Israeli newspapers. See On tape: Palestinians harassed in Hebron ‘cage’, Yedioth Ahronoth, Hebron settlers filmed throwing rocks at Palestinians, Yedioth Ahronoth, Hebron Settlers Attack Palestinian Neighborhood, New York Times, Jewish settlers in Hebron claim they have history on their side, Sydney Morning Herald, etc etc etc. The second reference, while seemingly reliable, says that one Palestinian policeman joining in the melée, while the article contradicted it.

Those are your serious actionable claims, which ring hollow. Your other claims are true but irrelevant; PR should try to keep his opinions to himself when they don't directly relate to improving the article, but such statements are hardly a serious disruption, let alone one worthy of administrator intervention. Furthermore, one of your examples is a semi-private discussion in his own user-space - who cares?

Finally, you report the blocks, but ignore the context. Three of those blocks were completely erroneous; PR was falsely accused of copying citations from a neo-Nazi group; he in fact cited a newspaper article which he hadn't read, instead of citing a credible scholarly book which he had read, and which cited the newspaper article accurately. Subsequently User:Jayjg called him out as a Nazi sympathizer without any evidence, and a "lynch mob" atmosphere almost prevailed until PR proved beyond any doubt that his source was not the neo-Nazis. Prior to that, Jayjg blocked him for making an on-topic editorial comment , to the effect that prominently labeling Israeli politicans by ethnic or sectarian identity was "harmful in society and ... damaging to the project." And most recently, we have a 3RR block which was overturned as an ambiguous situation, and a fifteen minute block "to think about which mentor you would be choosing. Anyone can unblock you if you come up w/ a name before the block is expired."

In summary, these charges are inflated beyond all reason, and the discussion here should be closed. Oh, except for the "Hated Google Test" thing, I don't know if he meant that to be in WP: namespace or what, but it's just weird. Maybe we could, you know ask him instead of handing out the pitchforks and torches, again. <eleland/talkedits> 16:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered is grateful not to be blocked with prejudice as has happened repeatedly before

I'm doing my best to act in a responsible and consistent fashion in articles and Talk. Edits such as this (the first one I'm being challenged on) strike me as entirely proper. If a particular notable commentator (or public relations spokesman - or even propaganda operative) has commentated on a particular incident in world affairs, we should use his terminology for the event. His terminology is likely to be POV - so what? To quote him in any other fashion raises all kinds of issues, perhaps including BLP. The encyclopedia should not be going there.

The second charge against me seems to relate to standard international useage of the term "occupied territory". It's hardly POV on my part to assert that we use the recognised term - in fact, it's more than a teensy-weensy bit disturbing I should be taken to AN/I for defending a standard useage.

I won't bother going through the rest of these accusations point by point, I think we can take it as read that they are trivial. (Has anyone, ever, been taken to AN/I for creating an article? Particularily one that most editors would probably like to see included as policy - the thing I've called the "Hated Google Test"?)

But I will comment on the CSN and subsequent ArbCom Workshop and ArbCom evidence on the case that bears my name. I pleaded that the Committee examine the case properly and arbitrate definitively on the accusations against me. Opinion for doing so swung in my favour, reaching 4-1 (my memory, anyway?), before swinging back and being defeated. I will continue to assert that if vile accusations of "taking views and references from Holocaust Deniers" are bandied around in a reckless and provably false fashion, then they should be unequivocably retracted and apologised for. Simple justice demands no less.

Lastly, I have a plea of my own - it is clear that there are editors around who damage the encyclopedia (I don't include my current accuser in this case, I'm not aware our paths have ever crossed). Such editors:

1. Take ownership of articles to the exasperation of other editors.
2. Take ownership of TalkPages, persistently re-formatting them over everyone's protests, and leading them in artfully unproductive directions.
3. Ignore the results of TalkPages when the conclusion goes against them.
4. Drive off good, literate editors in frustration with nonsensical arguments in Talk.
5. Drive off useful editors by personalising attacks on them.
6. Harm the general ambience with extensive disruption of the TalkPages of other editors.
7. Archive TalkPages in an obviously POV fashion
8. Edit articles about which they appear to know nothing atall.
9. Attempt to cause trouble for other editors on trivial or completely false grounds.
10. Encourage collusive and damaging behaviour from other editors.
11. Insert foreign language sources into articles making WP:verification impossible.
12. Insert foreign language sources into Talk, making sensible collaboration impossible.
13. Appear unable to understand or operate other core WP policies, particularily reliable sources and original research.
14. Show racism against Palestinians and the French.
15. Make False accusations of sites as "hate-sites", while referencing to much more blatant examples themselves.

All in all, there are really serious problems, up to and including outright disruption, going on in the project. But I'm small fry indeed in the scale of things! PR 18:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't see anything here but an adventitious act of prosecutorial wikilawyering bullying based on spurious evidence, and am ashamed that such trivial accusations should be raised to clutter up the machinery of arbitration, which is better dedicated to serious matters.

Worse. Karl Meier's factitious jeremiad includes two pieces of 'evidence' involving passages in which I was in conflict with User:Palestine Remembered. I have some tough and stubborn all-Israeli(i.e.'Hear no evil, see no evil' attitudes) adversaries in these controversial pages, as full of POV as a po (and no doubt they see my editorial work in a similar light). I have personally seen however no grounds for taking these adversaries to arbitration. One fights these things out on the talk page. It's the actual page that has to be free of POV, not the talk page.

Since I have just noted, and been amazed by, this snooping, dossier building and then 'denunciation' to the authorities, I haven't given this much thought, since I thought that went out sometime before the end of the first half of the last century. But if the frivolous character of the accusation requires close analysis, I'm ready to weigh in with one, starting with the fact that on long-standing pages, Great Britain was (until I noted it casually this morning) arraigned (in the most objective prose, NPOV) as being corresponsible for the Holocaust. I could multiply such examples by the hundreds, and with this absurd POVing in NPOV dress throughout wikipedia, anyone who undertakes to clean it up gets, while no doubt having a POV hidden or otherwise of his/her own, into huge edit battles by people more familiar with wikilawyering than the principles of forensic evidence and the rules of neutral historian writing. Nishidani 18:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

'As someone who lives in Israel, i will tell you something about those "Palestinians". They dont work, and live on the money of Israel. Israel offered them to completely become seperate (which means, to stop getting money from Israel), and they started screaming it's racism. First, there is no such people Palestinians. They are Syrian and Egtptian Arabs. Palestine is a historical name of Israel given' by the Romans. Where do Arabs get in the picture?? They were first refered to as Palastinians by Hittler. There was an Islamic and arabic leader, a total creep, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni. He supported Hittler , who promised him: "Palestine will be yours", and he then starting to invent an identity Palestinians. Before that Arabs here were NEVER referd to as Palastinians. He vent to the Balkans with many Arabs from here to fight for a free arabic state here (the 31th already to the Arabs??) by murdering Croation Jews. Israel not only ain't brutal enough to the "Palastinians", but it is polite to them. They bomb out Sderot ands israel instead of Bombing the hell out of them, sends soldiers to die there so "inocent citizens" wont die. There in school from the age of zero they are tought they live to kill Jews and fight for the Jihad. Here in Israel they teach us noncense that we have to "respect them and try to achieve peace with them". M.V.E.i. 19:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Page 'The Carpenters'

• Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Incomplete and contested proposals wanted someone to histmerge Carpenters and The Carpenters, which I did:
  • Delete Carpenters : OK
  • Undelete Carpenters, but not edits which were redirects : OK
  • Delete The Carpenters : OK
  • Move Carpenters to The Carpenters: OK
  • Undelete The Carpenters : OK

One step remains to do: In The Carpenters, revert off the last edit (09:43, 7 October 2007 Anthony Appleyard), which is trash created by the histmerge. But every time I try that, my Firefox crashes, likely because Misplaced Pages's server is taking "an age and a snail" to finish tidying The Carpenters's edit history after the deleting and moving and undeleting. Anthony Appleyard 10:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit you mentioned. Please contact me if I have made a mistake. Thanks. Tbo (talk) (review) 10:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks. The revert was correct. Anthony Appleyard 12:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

user:Rorybowman, violation of WP:BITE, inappropriate tagging of a user page

• See inappropriate actions by Rorybowman (talk · contribs), at the user page for User:24.0.42.27. Isn't trying to find out and expose the off-line identity of a Misplaced Pages user a stringent violation of policy ? Thank you for your time. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 11:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

Yes, someone rv'd it and I've warned him.Rlevse 11:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for acknowledging that attempting to expose a Misplaced Pages user's ID is inappropriate. But Rorybowman (talk · contribs) has reverted my attempt to remove his inappropriate ID exposing info, at User:24.0.42.27. A block of Rorybowman (talk · contribs) might be in order here, to stop this reverting and attempts to expose someone's offline ID. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 12:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

Obvious sockpuppet

• Moleman1870 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MolemanR1870 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Probably not the correct place to be, but can someone block these two users as obvious sockpuppets as each other. The contributions for both (mainly with the edit summary "caps") says it all. Davnel03 11:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. It looks evasive to me because the sock was created after he was warned by Orangina2. Rlevse 15:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

User:VartanM

...is assuming bad faith , falsely accusing me of insulting and baiting someone by my edit comment here . Just want to indicate that User:RaffiKojian, who insulted me on my talk page , is also editor of Armeniapedia.org, a non-Misplaced Pages and non-neutral external Wiki, which I simply called unencyclopedic and POV in my edit comment. Atabek 12:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Atabek has baited User:RaffiKojian here. Then when Raffi tried to defend himself he was reported to ArbCom. I am the third user in the last 24 hours to be reported by Atabek ,, . His assuming bad faith left and right and then reporting people when they're trying to defend themselfs. --VartanM 12:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This is how Raffi was "defending himself". Thanks. Atabek 19:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Atabek

I moved the report to Arbcom noticeboard --VartanM 13:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

USER:Marhawkman

During this deletion discussion USER:Marhawkman has been acting in a manner some would consider disruptive and/or incivil. In this diff he says "STFU NOOB" and proceeds to paste an entire gudeline into the discussion. /Blaxthos 13:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack certainly. He could of easily given a link to the policy. Seeing as he isn't acting in good faith, I'm given him the UW AGF1 warning. Davnel03 14:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If you actually read WP:AGF, you might realize that assuming good faith has relatively little to do with acting in good faith. —freak(talk) 16:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Still, I wouldn't say saying "STFU NOOB" is assuming good faith, is it? Davnel03 16:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it really hasn't anything to do with assuming good faith; he's not making any suggestion imputing malign motive to another editor, for instance, but is simply being incivil. It is possible for one to attack another untowardly without questioning the latter's intentions (that's not, of course, to suggest that one is more pernicious than the other—although ceteris paribus a failure to assume good faith probably is less collegial and more acollaborative than is the making of a one-off personal attack—but simply to make a semantic distinction). Joe 17:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

IP's from Mercedes-Benz headquarters in Spain vandalising Lewis Hamilton article

• 195.235.246.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All of this IP's contributions have been vandalism to Lewis Hamilton's article. According to IP-Adress, this traces back to Madrid, Spain, but more importantly, Mercedes Benz headquarters. I suggest the IP should be blocked to avoid future edits like this; also so that this doesn't get out into the media, and possibly suggest that Mercedes aren't against Hamilton winning the 2007 Formula One title. Thanks, Davnel03 15:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, the media would have a field day with this one--Jac16888 15:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The page has been protected already.Rlevse 17:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Why would we hide this hilarity from the media? :) --Golbez 19:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Two accounts assisting in promotion

Brianlane‎ was recently caught mass spamming links to a website he has created. Upon further looking through his edits, he created an article on Chuck Wolber...which was then edited by Chuckwolber. That user, Chuckwolber, created the now deleted article Brian Lane (developer) and has been adding information about a Brian Lane Embedded Developer to the Brian Lane article as seen here. These two account appear to exist primarily to promote themselves and each other with a clear conflict of interest. IrishGuy 18:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Users informed about WP:AUTO and WP:COI. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards