Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:03, 22 May 2007

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:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • 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)

• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

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

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

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

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

Atlant 18:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If the issue is that the images do not contain the fair-use rationale, then the burden is on the uploaders to fix the situation. The images are not embedded in articles, they are resources that are linked to as needed. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Why did you bring this here first as opposed to Betacommand's talk page? --Iamunknown 18:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Because I wanted advice and guidance before taking action. Atlant 18:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Iamunknown 19:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

that is the problem Boiler plate templates are not fair use rational. if people would actualy follow policy and take the time to write a one or two sentence explaining what the image is and why we need it the problem would be solved. as it is images need valid FU rational and templates dont do that. Betacommand 18:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• One problem is that many images were uploaded at a time before it was made clear by Jimbo and/or Misplaced Pages policy that a justification beyond the template was needed. Rather than tagging at bot-like speeds, it would be better if someone could go through individually to check fair use images. If there is no justification but a good one could be made, then write it. If the image violates fair use policy, nominate it for deletion. Crotalus horridus 19:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  Bots are for large scale operations like this. Atlant wants someone to either draft a boilerplate (not a good idea, rationales should be written on a case by case basis) or "tell us exactly why this doesn't fall under fair use." The latter is obvious: if nobody has written a rationale for using a non-free picture, then fair use cannot be justified. We have had these images on-site for years now in such cases, and nobody has bothered to justify their use. Time to get rid of them. --Tony Sidaway 20:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Bots are impersonal and rarely even describe the problem adequately. I've had at least one bot that never really gave me specific pointers in a peer review, just a general dump list of what needed to be done period. And in that list, I actually fulfilled 75% of the list. Even if you added a human element, we'd still have problems. --293.xx.xxx.xx 20:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• I've always wondered why people, instead of tagging en-masse and causing problems, don't simply create the fair use rationale. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There is certainly something unclear here, not so much about the policy but about what people think the consensus about its interpretation is. Do we believe that the practice of routinely having a logo image on each company etc. article is justifiable? In that case, a single type of valid fair use rationale could be devised that would apply to all these images in pretty much the same way (and the demand of having it written out individually in each case would be not much more than an enforced symbolic bowing down to policy but of little practical value, and we could really just as well have that standard rationale templated.) Or do people think that logos should be used on company articles only in special cases, for instance where the design of the logo was of particular encyclopedic interest? In that case individual rationales would be crucial but, first and foremost, 98% of all existing logos would have to be deleted. This is a real question. What, in people's opinion, would be a valid fair use rationale for a company logo? I honestly don't know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Creating a fair use rationale takes time and thought, tagging random logos with a no rationale tag cuts out the latter requisite. The greater concern is to make sure that logo usage complies with Misplaced Pages:Logos. In my experience, simply deleting an image is unlikely to deter anyone from uploading a poorly sourced duplicate. So why not create a blanket rationale for the majority of cases? Asking individual contributors to cobble together a rationale that complies with policy as well as copyright law ignores the fact that the majority of users are not too well familiar with either. If we assume a janitorial role with image uploads, then lets address our own concerns. ˉˉ╦╩ 20:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Per Anetode. If WP:LOGO is appropriate then I don't understand the problem against a boilerplate FU rationale specifically for those logos (I thought there used to be a pulldown choice for uploading logos, which was implied FU, before they rearranged all that stuff). If we want to be more hardass about refusing FU images (an idea that I sympathize with) then the problem is WP:LOGO, which would need to be redone with the result of getting rid of almost all of the logos in the encyclopedia. I don't see the need for a handcrafted FU rationale message for each logo given that the actual usage is about the same in almost all cases. This particular bot operation looks ill-advised. I'd add that backlogs of stuff like this get large precisely because of the thought required to handle them correctly. Stuff that can be crunched through mindlessly usually gets taken care of quickly, either by hand or with software. So bots are usually the wrong way to deal with a backlog unless there's consensus to abandon hope of dealing with the backlog properly. 75.62.6.237 07:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

um there was no bots involved. Betacommand 07:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Then that's even worse. You could have left messages on linking articles' talk pages very easily, asking that the relevant images be tagged in accordance with the latest policy whim, and not cluttering main article namespace history. Instead, you simply commented each image out of each article, which is disruptive and at the very least vigilante justice, if not one step short of outright vandalism. VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 21:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand, that's amazing. I counted up to 7 edits a minute for hours on end. I wish I could do a neat trick like that without a bot. Nardman1 06:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not inappropriate to use something like AWB, or just old-fashioned tabbed browsing, to speed up the laborious process of mowing through fair-use images. It's a simple thing: if a page has no rationale and needs it, tag it with the appropriate tag and notify the uploader. It cannot be our job to write a rationale, which would require us to examine the image's use in every article in search of the critical commentary required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content#Images. That job has to fall to the uploader. (ESkog) 16:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it can be your job. It's not like only one person can come up with a fair use rationale. To not do due dilligence - check the image to see if it's appropriate, and then fill in the gaps if it is - is poor editing, and using an automated tool to go through the images - thus assuring there's no actual human review - is insulting to editors working on these articles and images. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to take the time to make sure that poorly sourced or poorly justified images can remain in Misplaced Pages, you can find them in the same place I do. I don't view it as my job to search for critical commentary, especially when it isn't even there over 95% of the time. (ESkog) 14:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I don't see the harm in asking the original uploader to finish the work they started. If we fix all of the problems, none of our other good image-uploading editors will learn the proper way to do it, and we'll have more problems to fix. (ESkog) 18:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree w/ you. I am one of the worst uploaders and i never complained to Betacommand about his frequent warnings on my talk page. I've just started to know how to do it. Thanks Beta. -- FayssalF - 18:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

VT hawkeye before calling someone a vandal why not read the Policy I was enforcing. leaving notes on talkpages doesnt get the job done. Commenting out the image and notifing the up-loader get a lot better feedback and results. as for Nardman1's issues its not a bot but a tool like AWB that I have written for FU image review. if anyone would like the code Ill give it to them as soon as I debug my most recent code change. Betacommand 13:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of the policy, thanks. I'm disagreeing with your method of enforcement. Common courtesy (not to mention common sense) appears to be rapidly disappearing from WP, and this didn't help. VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 15:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

maybe if uploaders did what they were supposed to do, per policy and copyright law this wouldnt need done. but because users are lazy/dont know policy it needs done. this is the best method of getting results. if you think just placeing a template or notice does it your sadly mistaken we have articles that havent had sources tagged since 2005. since this is a legal issue i thought a more direct action is needed. Betacommand 16:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if you actually reviewed the images and tried to fix the problem instead of tagging 7 images a minute following numerous concerns about similar edits, this wouldn't be an issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

hay jeff before making comments why not double check your facts. I dont tag 7 Images a minute, most of the edits are removing them from the mainspace and notifying the uploader. Betacommand 16:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

hay beta i did double check. If you're simply removing/tagging/notifying at a high rate without any real consideration, you're not really doing people a service. We allow fair use here, so if there's a fair use image being used that lacks a rationale, see if you can create one before tagging and removing. That's hard to do when you're making near-bot-speed edits. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I am, for someone not involved with either the image and related pages it would take 20-30 minutes to figure out where and why its needed. on the other hand someone who is familiar with the issue can do it in 2 minutes. also having only one person doing this would take years to review, on the flip side we remind users that FU images need rationale's and then they take care of that for all of the images they've uploaded. now jeff tell me what makes more sense one user checking and adding FU rationale to 360,000 images or having the community do it? Betacommand 16:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What makes more sense? Getting a bunch of people together to actually review the images as opposed to tagging them willy-nilly, undoubtedly. We are here to improve the content, after all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have to agree with betacommand here. Simply tagging the images, and hoping that someday, it will eventually get fixed per m:Eventualism is inappropriate in this case. This is a legal issue; we need fair use justifications, not just tagging it as being copyrighted. Leaving ourselves exposed to this sort of problem can potentially have serious impact on the project. Betacommand's actions are putting teeth into it. We might not like the teeth (even I don't like seeing some fair use images removed for lacking rationale) but it does have the effect of encouraging people to do it right in the first place. --Durin 17:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• First, it's extreme copyright paranoia, not a legal issue, and has no legitimate long-term, short-term, or any term impact on the project, let's stop fooling ourselves here. Secondly, no one's saying "simply tag the images," I'm saying actually review the images and attempt to fix the problem rather than throwing our hands up and insulting editors along the way. Make an effort, y'know? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, Betacommand just ripping through pages is not much short of vandalism. It is no wonder that hard working page/subject editors are giving up posting in droves when someone is ripping through their work. If you are that concerned about fair use rationales for something which are obviously sporting logos, then why no add the rationales yourself rather than wrecking the pages. How to wreck an online community in one easy lesson. If people get genuine pleasure in their self imposed task of correcting other people's image 'errors' at a rather alarming rate(each to their own), then why not be constructive and source the rationales. I for one know my subject, but not the in depth workings of Misplaced Pages and am not remotely interested. Instead of wiping images, why not form, for example, a sports logo rationale those of us who write about our chosen sport. A sports logo is a sports logo. Hammer1980 17:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• If doing this work is vandalism, then I suggest you have WP:CSD#Images.2Fmedia criteria 6 removed from that page as a blatant case of vandalism. --Durin 17:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That may as well be in a foreign language to me mate. Hence the reason instead of ripping pages to shreds, how about putting in these rationales instead. A sports logo on a page is not likely to be targeted for copyright violation on Misplaced Pages when just being on this project increases awareness of the clubs/organizations concerned. It 'is' paranoia. Hammer1980 17:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• de-indent You consider it extreme paranoia. Myself and others do not. There are droves of lawyers whose sole purpose in professional life is to go after people who violate copyright of their clients. I'm not terribly interested in running afoul of these people. We've tried for *years* to get people to appropriately tag their images without effect. If such an effort actually yielded results, hey I'd be all for it. That's one of the joys of Misplaced Pages; group effort. But, the group effort has categorically failed in this instance. We're long past the time when we should sit around and wish for it to happen with our hopes dashed. This is a legal situation even if you don't want to feel it's a potentially dangerous one. The right thing to do is to make this situation go away. Since group effort isn't working, deleting is a way of fixing it that will actually work. If you are offended by this, then by all means *please* form a group of people to go after these images that are tagged and fix them. But, I'll virtually guarantee you nobody will want to do the work. That's why this tack needs to be taken. --Durin 17:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• No, it merely postpones the issue and pisses people off, not to mention actively harms the quality of the project and the product we're providing. If our paranoia is so great that we somehow think that a possible (not even probable) DMCA request is going to be leapfrogged for a lawsuit on a site that's been high-profile for over a year, I'm not sure what to say. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I know, I was being tongue in cheek. I've learned my lesson on civility from my recent failed rfa so I was just trying to use a little humor. You might want to fix your script a little, it's leaving comments in image page code indicating that you are BetacommandBot (when it lists the pages the image has been removed from). Nardman1 16:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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

I do it where I see it, quite honestly, which isn't entirely often because I don't generally work with images. I also know that our extreme paranoia on copyright isn't nearly as urgent as about a hundred other things. More to the point - if there are people who actually see image patrolling as a valid use of their time, there's an effective way to do it that improves the project, and a lackadaisical approach that only stirs up more ill will for no good reason. If we can promote the former, we're better off. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I was really taken aback by the thoughtless way Betacommand stuck two boilerplate messages on my talk page yesterday, and then ignored me when I left a response on his own talk page. He should learn some manners. I also agree with Jeff that Betacommand would be better employed providing fair use rationale. RupertMillard (Talk) 18:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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

I have a template that just needs filling in on my talkpage for a good example of a simple FU rationale. Betacommand 18:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Pretty simple:

1. No free or public domain versionis available.
2. The image is of lower resolution than the original logo (any copies made from it will be of inferior quality).
3. The image does not limit the copyright owners' rights to distribute their product or image in any way.
4. The image has future historical significance, and is a more appropriate choice than any other image available.
5. The logo is only being used for informational purposes.

That covers 99% of any logos we have. Furthermore, most other sites on the internet aren't fair use retarded, so many popular logos could use a variation of "This image is used on various websites, so its use on Misplaced Pages does not make it significantly more accessible or visible than it already is." If, instead of tagging, bot users would simply replace the text with this rationale for most logos, we'd probably be in better shape, but they still need to be reviewed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff that rationale covers exactly zero percent of the images. per policy you have to state why you have to have the image on every page you want to use it on. Betacommand 01:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, okay, so add "the image, as a logo, is used as a visual representation of the organization, and therefore its inclusion in the article is an important visual representation of the organization" to the boilerplate (although obviously something better worded). Think about it, Betacommand—every single logo for an entity used on the article for that entity is used in exactly the same way. If we cannot make a boilerplate argument for the use of almost all logos, then we can't make an argument for the use of logos period. So, do you think we cannot make an argument for the use of an organization's logo, or not? It's really as simple as that. Lexicon (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary page break (FU images)

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

I aggree, I spent about 20 minutes fixing all the links to pages that his bot deleted images from in a flash, and placed rationales on the images. ≈ Maurauth 18:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, VT. Frankly, I do consider the damage Betacommand is doing to articles to be vandalism, and informed him so on his talk page. While properly tagging images is something that is important, the methods he is using to "enforce" these rules are bordering on disruption to prove a point. There certantly is a better way than to vandalize dozens, if not hundreds, of articles, but Betacommand refuses to consider them. His talk about "if only people would follow the rules" as a defense is particularaly hilarious given his own history, and that he was already slapped by an admin yesterday for deliberately tagging images with improper tags. Resolute 00:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree. Fair Use, even though it is a vital, robust part of U.S. copyright law, which governs Misplaced Pages, is under systematic attack on Misplaced Pages by anti-fair-use zealots. This is not a good development, and unfortunately, it has the result of diminishing the quality of Misplaced Pages in order to promote a rather radical agenda. --MCB 01:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually Im improving the quality. wikipedia is the FREE encyclopedia having images that violate copyright law hurts use a lot. if even one of these copyright holders sued the foundation, it is very likely wikipedia would shut down forever, as the Foundation probably doesn't have the financial support to fight such a legal battle and then pay the court ordered fines. Betacommand 01:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"Radical agenda"? Absolutely not. here Some Wikipedias do not allow fair use at all. Fair use is a slippery slope; after a while, the project will be completely dependent on it. When you look under the article's name, you see a little bit of text. This text reads "". I agree with Betacommand; With fair use images, Misplaced Pages is not free. It may be a necessary evil that we must endure, but we need to stop sitting on the fence and decide one road or the other. Sean William 01:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again, it is not your intentions that are being questioned, it is your methods. You are unnecessaraly disrupting dozens of articles in the process of conducting your latest crusade. Resolute 02:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

disruptions are not always a bad thing. I have gotten a lot of support from numerous admins and even one ex-B'crat for that Im doing and how im doing it. if the images in question were not so screwed up I wouldnt have to do what im doing. Betacommand 02:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And you are also being questioned but several admins and numerous users (some rightly, some wrongly) for your tactics. In your arrogance, you simply refuse to listen to anyone, or consider alternatives, and that is the true problem here, imo. You are still behaving like a rogue admin. Resolute 02:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not refuse to listen, I have considered the alternatives, show me a method that has a better result ratio, I would gladly use it. as for the complaints, I have yet to see any validity to them. they are mainly either complaints against our FU policy or from people who dont understand it. how is enforcing policy rogue? if inforceing policy is rogue then 99.9% of our admins are rogue. Betacommand 02:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalizing articles is rogue. I have already seen two suggestions offered: contact relevent wikiprojects when blocks of images with missing info is found, or place notifications on the talk pages of articles that such images have been tagged for lacking the necessary info. Show me that you have tried these methods. Show me what you have tried. And stop hiding behind "I'm just enforcing policy". The fact that you need to constantly trot this line out as an attempt to sidestep your vandalism pretty much shows me that you have no legitimate defense for your actions. Policy says FU images need proper tags, thats fine. Policy says that newer images without a valid claim can be deleted in 48 hours, and older ones in seven days. Fine. Enforce this, tag the images. But your actions to disrupt articles themselves are what concerns me. Until you show me the policy that states vandalism is a valid method for enforcing policy, your defense is quite empty. Resolute 02:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

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

My understanding is that Orphanbot removes images that have already been tagged as lacking source/FU claim so an admin can delete the image - i.e.: once the 2day/7day time limit has expired. It does not remove those images as part of tagging them. You have adopted OrphanBot's activities, but have changed the order to suit your power trip.

Also, I did not state check for a wikiproject for every image, but for when you identify a block of images that belong to an easily definable group. ie.: sports logos. When you come across a bunch of NHL team logos, as you did yesterday, you could very easily find the relevent project, in this case WP:HOCKEY, and mention it. I sourced about 50 NHL logos yesterday after being made aware of the issue. One message on that project's talk page could have accomplished the same function, saving yours, mine and a lot of other people's time.

However, a more reasonable alternative, IMO, is for you to post a message on the talk page of an article with an affected image rather than removing the image itself. This accomplishes the same goal: note of a problem appears in the watchlist of anyone watching the article without the vandalism of the article itself. If nobody takes care of the problem once the 2 days/7 days expire, then the image gets deleted. That is policy. Disrupting articles is not. Resolute 03:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolute, I'd like to get something straight here. Removing no-rationale fair use images from an article is not, by any definition, vandalism. You might disagree with how it's being done, and if you do, you have every right to state your opinion. But continuing to call it "vandalism" is a personal attack, and will be treated as such. Seraphimblade 03:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Then call it disruption. Makes no difference to me. From my point of view, removing valid images - especially those that were uploaded well before the current rules were put in place - before their 48 hour/7 day time period is up over what is often an easily fixable problem does not add to the project. The point is, Betacommander's actions are overboard and unnecessary, and he has shown a complete lack of interest in considering alternative ways to accomplish his goal. At any rate, I've said my peace. I can only hope that at some point, he will learn that policy and the community can co-exist. Resolute 03:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

While I understand that Betacommand is simply implementing policy (regardless of whether we agree with it or not), I do find the “commenting out” approach unnecessarily disruptive and inappropriate. With images being placed in an article by different editors over a long period of time and these editors working on a great many articles, all of which are being steadily changed by other editors, it is not necessarily easily and automatically noticeable that an image has been “tagged” for review prior to removal – unless an individual editor has practically memorized the article and its images and their placement. Even if this does happen to be the case (and within the brief time to act and not altogether after the fact), that editor has to act on his or her suspicions of a missing image by scanning through the history to verify that suspicion and determine what image “disappeared”, and then check to see if the uploading editor (the only one being notified) remains active (and isn’t on a wikibreak, vacation, etc.); if not, then the editor – assuming they are familiar with the whole upload and justification process (which few are) – has to try to find a certifiably free image (however one does that) to replace the it (and finding the original image was almost certainly a hard enough and time-consuming task in the first place) – or else try to determine the fair-use rationale for an image whose source and status is unknown to them – all while the timer runs ever closer to zero … and other images in the same or other of the articles they’ve worked on “disappear” into the “commented out” void.

Frankly, there really should be a better way than “commenting out”. I can think of at least two options of which either – or both – would be preferable. First, instead of just notifying the uploader, also post the notice on the article’s talk page. Second, instead of “disappearing” the image, give it a red frame or some other marking that makes it immediately apparent to all and sundry that the image is “at risk”. That would at least give the editors watching the page a head’s up and the maximum time to try to remedy the situation. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he should have used something like this: {{speedy-image-c}}.

What betacommand's doing so far has been very counterproductive. Many uploaders have not editted wikipedia for a while and it's unlikely that they'll get around to add the rationale. Not commenting out the image in the main article namespace, which betacommand should have done, is a lot more useful because it at least gives editors who view the page a chance to add the rationale themselves. Again nobody is arguing about the legality of his motive, but his method at approaching this. I hope betacommand changes his massive taggings and start listening to the community because what he's been doing is not helping the project at all. Blueshirts 04:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Many uploaders have not editted wikipedia for a while and it's unlikely that they'll get around to add the rationale.. I'd say what if copyright holders come here before those many uploaders to sue the foundation? Please, think about it both ways and see which thing is more important. -- FayssalF - 05:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You're not getting it. The tag still targets the images for speedy deletion within seven days if nothing is done. What's different from betacommand's approach is that at least editors who view the page will have a chance to add the rationale, instead of having the images disappear from the article with a great number of their uploaders already missing. Blueshirts 05:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but i've got what you say as i've understood the whole mess since Atlant's started this thread. Betacommand is doing the job nicely and accurately. He notifies uploaders everytime he does so. He notified me today before i went to fix my pic at its roots before fixing what you are talking about above. It wasn't a big deal.

Think about something being straightforward: Tagging → commenting out → notifying uploader → Uploader fixes it.

Think about this now: Tagging → picture removed automatically after 7 days → no picture anymore.

The thing that doesn't make sense is if uploaders would be already missing than who would fix them? Uploaders are notified. If they are still here they have to fix it. If they are off than no one can do that job in their places because other users know nothing about the components. In brief, if the pic is tagged and the uploader is off, it will have 0 chances to survive.

Because i liked the way he does his job, i awarded him 3 barnstars at once. Yes, 3 and i believe they are deserved. -- FayssalF - 06:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Completely incorrect assumption. If the uploader is gone, or otherwise unavailable, a notification left on the article talk page can alert others so that if they can find the original source (as I did with many NHL team logos), then an editor other than the original uploader can correct the situation. Failing that, other editors could replace the images with alternatives, without disrupting the article itself. If after 48 hours/7 days, nothing is done to correct the image, then it gets deleted. The idea behind this project is to improve this encyclopedia. The improvement part is being lost by editors who do not want to work with the community at large to resolve this issue. Damaging articles and hiding behind policy is the lazy way out. We are asking that you take a look at an alternative that gives people an opportunity to fix an issue, not repair an article. Resolute 15:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not an incorrect assumption. {{Non-free media rationale}} has a component called "source" (the most important component) and i don't see how anyone would know about the source if s/he wasn't the one who uploaded it. -- FayssalF - 16:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is an incorrect assumption, and has already been proven such. I spent two hours Thursday sourcing about 50 logos where I was easily able to find the source. In fact, I can very likely find the source of nearly every team logo related to North American hockey, and failing that, find an alternative to replace it with. All of this would have been cheerfully done if BetaCommand or someone else had made the slightest effort to contact either the hockey wikiproject, or to place a note on an article's talk page indicating an issue.

That said, photos and other images are obviously different than logos, and can be harder to find the proper source. However, such images can likely be replaced within the time limit of the speedy deletion. This can be done without disrupting the articles before it becomes necessary. Resolute 05:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Yes in some cases I do remove images from company pages. the issue is that the images lack rationale and/or sources. per the FU policy every FU image must have a detailed FU rationale for every page that we want to use it on. If an Image fails policy I tag, comment out, and notify the uploader. when I tag the image I also leave a note of the pages that I removed the image from so that when/if the image's issues are fixed someone can go to those pages and uncomment them out. Betacommand 23:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The images he's been removing from articles, or at least the ones that have drawn the most ire, have been logos of sports teams, college athletic conferences etc. with obvious fair-use rationales that simply have not been attached to the images yet, generally because they were uploaded before WP's current rules to that regard went into effect. Are the individualized rationales necessary? Policy appears to be that they are, and IANAL (or even a Wikilawyer) to argue that point one way or the other. Given that, the problem is that he chose the most disruptive way possible to make his point short of overwriting/deleting the image files themselves. Furthermore, he (along with others in high places) doesn't appear to give a damn that anybody else might find this the tiniest bit antisocial or damaging to the content (assuming one might consider gaping holes in image boxes to be a problem). What are talk pages for, if not to discuss changes necessary to the article? VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 03:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

VT Hawkeye, you told me all I need to know, & wish it had been repeated a few times in this discussion. It is obvious fair-use to include a team's logo in an article about that team. No one would seriously object to that -- not the owner of the logo, not we Wikipedians interested in free culture. It is not fair use if it is used for other reasons. If the image was uploaded a while ago, & the rationale for its use has not been updated, the more productive course of action would be to update the rationale for the image -- not remove it; to paraphrase someone with more respect than me, never allow the letter of a policy to kill the spirit. -- llywrch 05:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This is almost the sole type of removal that Betacommand is carrying out in relation to logos. There are a couple removals that he has made that are otherwise. For instance, removing the logo of a soccer team from an article on the soccer league (which is not fair use). However, in these cases, he has left the logos of every other soccer team on that league's article. In these cases, if he's not using a bot, he's also not using his brain (or else he'd be removing all the logos, because they're all clearly not fair use). But, as I said, the majority of the removals are of logos of organizations, corporations, and the like from the single article the logos are on, that is, the article for the organization, corporation, or the like. I cannot imagine that his edits (which are often three-fold: addition of no fair use rationale template; commenting out image from the one article it is on; and informing uploader of image) are easier to do than to paste in a virtually boilerplate fair use rationale for the logo. That's the problem—there's no reason why he shouldn't be adding the fair use rationale instead, since, as a logo, there's only one rationale that applies to all. Lexicon (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding fair use rational is the responsibility of the person seeking to include the image. Betacommand should not have to do this when he is responding to an image that does not meet the FUC. You cannot "boilerplate" the rational, as the rational needs to be specific to the image/page. If people are upset by the removal of the FU image, they can just write a rational as should have been done from the beginning. He is responding to images that are not meeting requirements, just because you can think of a more productive way of doing it does not mean what he is doing is disruptive. 17:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

H, in a perfect world that would be true. But in a perfect world, we wouldn't be having this conversation about fair use of logos to begin with; & in a perfect world people wouldn't leave Misplaced Pages, never to return or be reachable about images that they uploaded when their rationale is deemed obsolete. As for "boilerplating" the rational, when the case falls cleanly within the guidelines we have have drawn up, expecting a specific argument in this case is, frankly, thinking like a bureaucrat & threatens to kill Misplaced Pages with a thousand cuts. Lastly, I think the argument that other Wikipedias do not allow fair use images may be spurious in this case: even though the German Misplaced Pages does not permit them, for example, they include the logo for Arsenal FC in their article on this soccer team. -- llywrch 18:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh my god, would people stop repeating over and over again that a fair use rationale has to be unique? This argument holds for the vast majority of fair use images, but not for logos. Could you explain to me what would be different in the fair use rationale of the logo of the Boston Bruins in the article Boston Bruins as opposed to the logo of Microsoft in Microsoft? Every logo of an organization which is placed on the article of that organization is fair use for the exact same reason. It is fair use because it is used as a visual representation of that organization in the real world, and so serves the very same purpose here on Misplaced Pages.

Now, as for your argument that Betacommand is not being disruptive simply because I can think of a more efficient way of dealing with the situation than he has, that's bullshit. Betacommand knew the second he placed the first "no fair use rationale" template on a logo's image page that it would require no more work to add the fair use rationale himself, so it's not just what I've thought of. As for the argument that it is up to the uploader or editor who eventually takes it upon himself to insist that the logo is fair use on an article to come up with a fair use rationale, yes, ideally, that is how it works. However, unless you feel that Betacommand actually desires to rid Misplaced Pages of all the logos he has tagged, then we should understand his tagging as an attempt to include the logos on Misplaced Pages, and therefore he has already taken the responsibility upon himself to deal with the images in the most efficient way possible, resulting in the least disruption to Misplaced Pages. The short of it is that the kind of editors we want on Misplaced Pages actually do the necessary work, they don't just tag and forget. Lexicon (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand doesn't know how to respond except for repeating the rules and dropping off a couple f-bombs. Is there anybody with the know how to automatically add logo-rationale tags using a bot or something? Blueshirts 01:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Another arbitrary break

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

Before you start name calling maybe you see: User:Betacommand/Sandbox that is what im using, (sorry the code is so ugly and messy without code comments) you might want a m:pywikipedia user to double check that. but that is what im using. (when you asked me to revert myself I said that I couldnt then, I had to go to work then, I said Id be back in ~12 hours and id fix it then, while I was away you mass reverted. I would have helped had I been able) Betacommand 02:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Name-calling? What name-calling?

2. That code (which took some time to produce, supposedly because you needed to make it look "presentable" for some inexplicable reason) proves nothing. I don't doubt your ability to write a script that could be used to perform user-assisted edits of this nature, but it simply isn't plausible that all of the edits in question occurred in such a manner (even ignoring the fact that they included a "BetacommandBot" identifier).

3. Yes, I said that you refused to act immediately. Eventually (more than ten hours after arguing that it was okay to insert the improper tags), you agreed to begin rectifying the problem twelve hours after that (by which point many of the images may have been prematurely deleted). Had you not deliberately inserted a false tag in the first place, none of this would have been necessary. —David Levy 03:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

you called me a liar. and that code is still shit, I wouldnt normally publish that. Ask any good programmer, that code doesnt have documentation, and still needs a lot of cleanup. but because you called me a liar, I decided to publish it in that form. I didnt deliberately inserted a false tag I looked for the appropriate template for the images, I coundnt find it. so I used the template that best fit. Betacommand 03:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

PS let me fix the code so others can use it then please prove me wrong and that that script doenst do what I say it does. Betacommand 03:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

1. No, I did not call you a "liar." I referred to your claim as a "lie."

2. Seeking an appropriate tag, failing to find one, and using one that you know contains an inaccurate statement is deliberately inserting a false tag. Why didn't you simply create a new template for this purpose?

3. Again, I don't doubt that the script does what you say it does. I simply don't believe that you've been using it to perform these edits. —David Levy 03:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well... let me ask, does it work as advertised? If it does with no bugs and it behaves the same, then I would assume good faith here. If it does not, then we might have issues. I assume the betacommandbot summaries would have been a one line change in code, just changing what it puts in the summary field. —— Eagle101 03:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In light of Betacommand's past infractions of this nature (which resulted in his desysopping earlier this month), I'm only willing to assume good faith on his part in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Nonetheless, I do believe that the underlying motive behind his edits is to improve the project. —David Levy 03:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, betacommand I think it would be best if you gave us a set of instructions on how to use this python code, It should be pretty simple, download python, get twisted python... etc, but if you could do this, then we would be able to verify by trying the code that it works as advertised. —— Eagle101 03:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to assume that the script performs precisely as Betacommand claims. But what does that prove? We know that he's a talented coder, and he had days to write it. —David Levy 04:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

(copied from the other board as discussion there is closed) I also doubt this is a fully automatic process, a fully automatic process could not tag something as no fair use rational, then in the next edit tag something as no source, then tag something as no rational. There is *no* way to make a bot do that type of determination by itself. All the bot can see is text and keywords which the programmer has programmed into it. See this link from 4 days ago here that I found. I think he has been using this script the whole time, either that or he has written a damned good bot that can some how make that type of determination (no source versus no fair use rational) with no errors. I think I'd lean to the former rather then the latter, as I don't think the latter is possible. —— Eagle101 05:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know which edit(s) you're referring to, but I don't see what's so difficult about determining that a page containing nothing but templates with no parameters lacks a cited source and fair use rationale.

Incidentally, there have been numerous errors. —David Levy 05:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I don't think you understand the difficulty in doing this task with an automated bot. How are you tell what to do on an image with a fair use rational but no source? A human is required to look and see "oh, there is no source provided". Same for no fair use image. Now I can understand a bot that tags inages as no fair use rational and no source based on seeing only tags. Thats something I could program in 20 minutes with the frameworks I have at my disposal. In addition the only errors that I have seen are to articles (ie orphaning problems), In short I'm not seeing any errors with the determination of no source, or no fair use rational given. In short David, can you supply me a reason that it is a bot, other then the fact that at one time he had the "betacommandbot" thing, which very easily could have been a programming mistake when he copied and pasted old code. (probably from the orphanded fair use image bot). —— Eagle101 05:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

1. It's easy to determine that a page containing almost no non-template text other than a URL includes no fair use rationale but likely includes a source citation (the aforementioned URL).

2. I just searched through a page of 500 edits to the Image namespace. I found three tagged only as "no source," and they didn't contain anything that would be mistaken by a human for a fair use rationale: 1/2/3

3. Betacommand didn't claim that the "BetacommandBot" notation was a mistake. He provided an explanation that made no sense to me (and ignored my follow-up questions).

4. By your account, most of these edits (the ones to image pages containing only templates) could easily be performed by a bot. Why would Betacommand devote hours upon hours to such a task?

5. Earlier this month, Betacommand was desysopped due to continual bot abuses. I have a difficult time assuming good faith on the part of someone who lost the community's trust because of precisely this sort of infraction.

6. The craziest part is that I barely care whether a bot was used (excepting the contrary claim). Specific implementation aside, this actually seemed like a good idea. As others have noted, performing these tasks manually would be less sensible. —David Levy 06:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well the way I'm reading point number two is that a semi-automatic tool had to be used. Thats just not consistent (and bots are anything but not consistent), as I'm sure there are instances where he tagged something with no fair use rational and no source as "no rational given". You are right though, a bot can and probably should be used for the vast majority of these. (those with no source and no rational given that the bot finds a) no text other then tags in the description b) no summary c) was after May 4 2006, if its before, take a different action). Frankly I still don't see evidence that it is a bot. —— Eagle101 06:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to reply to point number one :). If I did a bot to do that it would inevitably screw up on those with no url as the source. Not all sources have a url. Given that, a bot would mistag things in a very obvious pattern. —— Eagle101 06:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

1. I don't understand your response to my previous point #2. (Sorry.)

2. As I noted, there appear to be very few instances in which an image was tagged only as "no source." If this was done manually, I don't know how the existent text could have been mistaken by a human for fair use rationales.

My point was that a bot could safely assume that a URL is a source (even though it might not be), not that it could safely assume that text lacking a URL does not contain a source. —David Levy 07:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, ok, let me try again then :), sorry about that. You stated that you found 3 images tagged only as no source when they could have been tagged as both no source, and no rational. What I'm trying to say is that I'm sure there are instances where he tagged them as both no rational and no source, and some instances where he tagged them as no rational only. Thus his behavior is not consistent. If it were a bot it would do the same thing every time. Given a page with no rational and no source, it would tag it in a predictable manner, he is clearly not tagging these in a predictable manner.

As far as the url issue, thats exactly why a bot can't be used for such a task. It would tag articles with no urls as no source given, unless it were to use some other criteria. A bot can tag images that lack both a source and a fair use rational, as the criteria for that is clear cut, a bot however would have a very difficult if not impossible task of accurately tagging an article as missing a fair use rational, but having a source. I guess you could use the existence of a url for this, but it would not be 100% accurate, or anything very close to that A bot would not be able to tell the difference between the text saying "the source is" (or any of many other variants) from the fair use rational, and would end up screwing this up. But the other way around is not possible to do vie bot, and that is tagging an article image that has no source, but has a fair use rational. As not all sources have a url (say scanned book covers for example). Therefore I'm almost 100% sure that betacommand was using the semi-automated script the whole time, there simply is not strong evidence to the opposite effect, and some difficult challenges to using a fully automated bot that would not make predictable mistakes. —— Eagle101 07:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, let me try this again.  :-)

1. Did you view the three pages in question? They weren't blank. All contained text that could have been interpreted by a bot as possible fair use rationales, but none contained text that an actual person could reasonably perceive as such.

2. Again, I'm not suggesting that a bot would interpret the lack of a URL as the lack of a source citation. I'm suggesting that it could err on the side of caution by assuming that a URL (possibly among other keywords) is a source citation and tagging the image only as "no rationale" (if little or no other text is present).

3. I wish that we could return to discussing the other pertinent elements of this situation. As I said, I actually believe that Betacommand's actions were less sensible if I'm wrong (and he wasn't using a bot). I pressed the issue (among several others) because some users seem to feel strongly about it, but the core topic of discussion should be the edits themselves (IMHO). —David Levy 08:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, I was thinking of something else you said >.> In any case, thats still not possible to do vie by bot, as how can the bot tell if there is not a source in that text? (not all sources or URLs). In any case, I don't think there is a very strong likely hood of this being a bot, I don't see anything close to a smoking gun, and several difficult technical obstacles that would have to be overcome to even stand a chance of not being detected by an obvious pattern, and I don't see any ideas being put forth that would even make it close to possible, its just not technically possible to do that. In short he did not use a bot under his account. There simply is no evidence that he did. Now since we chatted about this, what were the other parts of this discussion? (other then the bot issue?) I have a feeling that he was using a semi-automated tool as the technical challenges to using a non-semi-automated tool are rather difficult, as I demonstrated above (in my last reply). Now if there are improvements or other ideas that can be given to betacommand that would improve the behavior of his tool such as not orphaning the image, and instead posting a message on the talk page (and logging the image somewhere for a checkup in a week or so for further action), please state them :) —— Eagle101 08:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of tagged images contained no non-template text. It's possible that Betacommand manually intervened for the few that did, but that would only make some of the edits in question more inexplicable.

Had Betacommand provided a logical explanation for the "BetacommandBot" identifier (such as your theory that it was a simple mistake) instead of ignoring my follow-up questions, I might have felt differently.

Please see the first message in this subsection (from 02:12 UTC) for the other concerns that I didn't intend to be overshadowed by this one (which matters to me the least). —David Levy 08:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Have I missed anything? If those points above were done, would there be any problem with allowing users to use this tool? —— Eagle101 09:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yet another arbitrary break

• It shouldn't break an article, like this as I pointed out in the now-closed WP:AN discussion. EliminatorJR 12:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

see I think that should fix that issue. But as Im doing some other upgrades (some that Ive been planning and some that I have gotten from user input) I havent had a chance to test it yet. Betacommand 12:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ive added the code for the five things Eagle brought up. #4 im using {{image source2}} and {{missing rationale2}} for talk page notification. Im still debuging and testing when I am sure those work Ill release the code. Betacommand 17:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Regarding "the five things Eagle brought up," multiple editors raised these points, and you basically told them to piss off (but often with much stronger language). It's nice to see you finally taking the community's concerns seriously (I hope).

2. Do you intend to answer my questions from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard (which you ignored)? —David Levy 18:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I added them to the code as a new option. that doesnt mean that I have agreed to change my methods. I didnt Ignore your questions, I guess I missed them. ill be glad to answer them. Betacommand 18:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, the fact is nobody complaining has a solution to fix the fair use problem, but Betacommand is fixing them. You guys have no reason to be so upset with him. Any image that does not meet criteria can be treated in this way. It is not his job to make images meet the inclusion standards, that is the job of people who want it included. 18:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No-one is saying that this isn't an important job that Betacommand is trying to do, but some of the concerns that were raised about the methods were definitely justified. Hopefully this has all been fixed now... EliminatorJR 23:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• How much of an image source does something like a video tape cover need? (I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say it was taken from the video tape cover). After Betacommand tagged Image:9tailors.JPG as no source, I wrote one. Do you think it's enough to satisfy him? -N 20:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Nardman, you basically need to say "hey I scanned it from the tape cover". From that we can figure out that the company owns the copyright. Source really is not hard to do, not as hard as some fair use rationals can be :) The whole point of the source is to help folks figure out who owns the original copyright to it. (whom are we claiming fair use off of?) Nardman an acceptable source goes something like, I got it from the cover of the dvd. You can even add the company that produced the movie as well if you want to be extra helpful :). —— Eagle101 23:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Nardman, I'm sorry for not mentioning this earlier but your fair use rational should have a mention of which article are you going to use it, and why is it needed there. (Its a simple rational I know, but the article's title in the rational would be nice), other then that its fine. —— Eagle101 00:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Mind you, it's not my image, I am just trying to clean out the fair use backlog Betacommand is leaving :) I'll add a bit about the title. -N 00:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, Nardman, I wouldn't be so quick to approve use of any images Isis uploaded. If anyone here (well, besides me) remembered her, they'd argue that her contributions were "shoot-on-sight" deletions. Details, anyone? Or shall I let you research her story? -- llywrch 01:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• • As far as I'm concerned, if an image is obviously from the cover of a book, recording, or other item & used in an article about said item, it deserves {{reviewedfairuse}}. I'm devoting about as much thought to this matter as Betcommand appears to be doing. -- llywrch 23:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Logos#Captions for all Logos about a proposal that all logos on Misplaced Pages bear captions to help prevent potential trademark violations. nadav (talk) 09:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Unwarranted and repeated incivility by User:Gwen Gale

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

• Gwen Gale says that my discussing a problem on an article talk page to be disruptive and abusive
• I request that she assume good faith
• A few posts later she tells me to "stop trolling this page"
• I ask her to refrain from personal attacks
• she refuses on the grounds that she was being honest
• So at that point I stopped that discussion. But this evening, when I asked her to stop ignoring the central point I was raising
• Her reply was to bring up someone else's strange and unjustified complaint about me. (The complaint was turned down).
• And I objected to that edit
• Whereupon she really lays on the personal attack.

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

Ok, and? -- Ned Scott 04:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL.. thanks for asking. I do not know. What am I supposed to do? Is uncivil behavior allowed on wikipedia or is it disruptive to the project?--Blue Tie 04:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Blue Tie, I guess nobody told you. Gwen owns that article so it would be best just to move on. It took me HUGE efforts just to remove the word "Friday" from the lead sentence. With over a million other articles, I wouldn't fight it. Cheers :) --Tom 18:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect for the patience of anyone who may be reading this and only for the record, as far as I know Tom (aka User:Threeafterthree) has made zero contributions to that article other than hammering away at removing the widely documented and verified day of the week from the article's lead. Why this is so important to him, I do not know. Gwen Gale 16:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is it so important to you to keep it in the lead? --Tom 17:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I replied to that rather completely over on the talk page an hour or two ago. Another editor agrees with me that it's ok to leave it in the lead. Gwen Gale 17:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

A number of other editors have weighed in questioning that addition. It seems that concensus was reached and article was stable as far as that goes until now. I guess we will have to revist this again? Oh well. --Tom 20:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I most respectfully but strongly disagree with your interpretation of the history of that discussion. However, I thank you so much for your helpful input about this. Gwen Gale 20:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that is a good way for wikipedia to operate? I was under the impression it should be different. --Blue Tie 01:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

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

You, however, are her friend and have participated with her in efforts against me, so I do not believe you are unbiased in the matter.--Blue Tie 14:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall having taken part in any effort against you.Proabivouac 21:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Your bias is demonstrably extreme. I do not mind that you like her (seemingly, she can do no wrong in your eyes) but you are not an unbiased editor on this matter. --Blue Tie 23:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Blue Tie, I'll grant you that some of Gwen Gale's comments linked above are sharp, perhaps unduly so, just as I would concur that your style of engagement is at times tiresome. There may be some merit in your proposed removal of the word "scathing," however that is a content dispute which requires the attention not of administrators but perhaps a few fresh pairs of eyes; an RfC on this point might attract them.Proabivouac 19:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

and are really beyond the pale, not "sharp." Dmcdevit·t 00:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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

You might not have noticed this, but some of those responses she gave me were where I had asked her if we should be involved in mediation. She was not very interested. But more importantly, mediation pages say that an assumption of good faith is required for mediation to work. The fundamental issue is that she does not assume good faith with regard to me but assumes bad faith. She calls me a troll. One of her edits, that I show above, has me requesting that she refrain from personal attack and she says it is ok to attack me personally because she makes her attacks in good faith. Another one, in response to a fair request, is to bring up her beliefs that I am somehow I am not representing myself honestly, and several times she returns to that theme - evidently believing that I am somehow some other editor with whom she has had problems. So Mediation, which requires good faith, does not seem to be an appropriate venue. Just asking her to assume good faith and be polite has not worked. What else would you suggest?

I want to work to write articles in a fair, neutral way, without things getting personal and unpleasant. I do not abuse people. I do not call names. I apologize frequently when I know that I have upset someone. I rarely report anyone. And in return I find myself regularly getting walked on. This is not the first time, but I am, after a year of this, starting to grow tired of it. Why can't wikipedia be a place where rules of civil behavior are appropriately enforced, so that the process is not disrupted? Is the right answer, like Tom says, to just let bullies drive you off articles as it did with him? How is that the way to write an article well? Is that how wikipedia wants to operate? I ask the question seriously because it seems so to me and it is frustrating.

Finding mediation not very fruitful in 4 past encounters and also not believing the conditions meet the standards for mediation, I have instead come here. Have I done it wrong? It seems Arbcom is a step past this and should not be considered or recommended yet. So, what have I done wrong? --Blue Tie 14:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It occurs to me that perhaps this is seen as "too light a problem". Perhaps that is because I have not included some history going back and only discussed the most recent issues. But I generally prefer to assume good faith and let past problems just go away. However, with this user, the problems continually repeat. The accusations of trolling and wiki stalking her are not new. I just have not complained about them or included them above, because it seems to me that it is ok to put up with things for a while, but after a while enough is enough and a reasonable concern posted here should get at least a bit of attention if not respect.--Blue Tie 15:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that accusations of bad faith, and calling others trolls, is a particularly unwarranted and needs to stop in order for the content negotiations to be fruitful. In theory, the response refused or failed mediation is WP:RFAr, for cases that don't require obvious fixes like admin blocks. I'm not sure there is much administrators can do here: our technical tools are blunt. I can block someone, but for problems like assumptions of bad faith in a certain content dispute for an otherwise productive editor, that is not likely to be a net gain for the project. Administrators (because of the limitation of this being a website) don't really have many options outside that, besides persuasion. Perhaps arbitration is the way to go, if it continues. Arbitration isn't just for bans, but is designed to be able to handle targeted solutions for specific problems, like assumptions of bad faith. Dmcdevit·t 00:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I never refused mediation.

Meanwhile, as I said on my talk page, if an admin would like to point out some specific aspect of WP policy which I have overstepped, I'll be happy to stop whatever it is I shouldn't be doing. Since arbitration is for behavioural issues, and I'm willing to instantly cooperate with the leadership of this public wiki in anything the leadership asks me to do, there is no need for arbitration. Finally, this all comes down to a simple sourcing dispute. Blue Tie seems to want a 100 year old citation being used at Mountain Meadows Massacre expunged. I think it wholly complies with WP sourcing policy. Gwen Gale 02:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Good, then I suggest you two try mediation before contemplating arbitration. If you want specific problems pointed out, as I noted earlier I think the trolling accusation was over the top and a personal attack. There's no reason to make accusations of bad faith like that, and if you do, the only effect you are likely to cause is to poison the atmosphere and make a peaceful resolution impossible. Dmcdevit·t 05:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Dmcdevit, if accusations of trolling are unacceptably uncivil personal attacks, why have you engaged in them yourself? In large point font and boldface, no less. If, on the other hand, "trolling" is a potentially legitimate characterization of user behavior - as I imagine you must have thought at the time you signed that - then the question is only whether the characterization is accurate.

You wrote, "Good, then I suggest you two try mediation before contemplating arbitration."

Of course, you are correct that mediation is the way to go here; however I must observe that the only one who has "contemplat arbitration" in this thread is you.

As you have blocked Gwen Gale in the past under questionable circumstances - again involving Blue Tie - it might make sense to await the participation of administrators who don't carry this baggage into the discussion.Proabivouac 06:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

First, quit the ad hominem. I'm offering a bit of advice, nothing more, and am not personally on trial just because you disagree. In regards to that ruling by the Arbitration Committee, there is no way it constitutes the assumption of bad faith that Gwen Gale's attack does, since he was trolling, and he stated so himself. Are you trying to say that Blue Tie is really a troll? Again, that is a very unproductive way of resolving a content dispute, making accusations of deliberate disruption, rather than addressing the debate at hand. Yes, that is incivility. Dmcdevit·t 16:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Dmcdevit, I assumed good faith with Blue Tie months ago, and in return, I am so sorry to say, I was wikistalked from Lisa Nowak to Mountain Meadows Massacre by a user whose edits (and even user name) were quite similar to a string of obvious sockpuppets. Nevertheless, I didn't bring any of that up until it became clear that what Blue Tie meant by a "serious meaning of the minds" and "good faith" was agreeing wholly with his notion to remove throroughly sourced and documented material from the MMM article. Many experienced editors watch and contribute to that article and Blue Tie is the only editor who has repeatedly objected to the inclusion of that widely known material (the content has to do with accusations of rape so it's very emotional and controversial, like the whole topic of MMM). What's more, Blue Tie clearly misread the source and this was pointed out to him by other editors. Meanwhile the citation conforms spot on with WP's sourcing policies, I never refused mediation and truth be told, one might understand how I could be a bit unhappy that my posts and edit history have been so wantonly misrepresented here. Lastly, I still think your behaviour towards me last month was a blockable offense but I let it drop and I'm still willing to let it drop because although I think you made a big docking mistake, I glark that from your perspective it was done from some wider aspect of good faith. Thanks for listening and cheers to you. Gwen Gale 17:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

A modest proposal: that spurious allegations of blockable behaviour be greeted with a block - David Gerard 17:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's spurious. I'm only defending myself under a blistering attack of what I sincerely think is misrepresentation of my edits. I've said I think he only made a mistake, other editors also objected to his behaviour and mentioned the same recourse before I did. I still assume good faith on the part of Dmcdevit. Thanks for reading this though, and for mentioning your concerns. I hear them. Gwen Gale 17:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Gwen Gale has a terrible disposition with a history of attacking other users. For example she deleted all of my critics and suggestions about the lesbian article. She dared to call those trolls who ask for a scientific and phonological section on the article.--Margrave1206 13:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Would saying someone has a terrible disposition be uncivil, a personal attack, or beyond the pale? Tom Harrison 13:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Haha! That's the pith. Margrave1206 characterized lesbian behaviour as an "imbalance" with zero citations to offer in support of that assertion. If Margrave1206 wishes to characterize my "disposition" as "terrible" for having removed Margrave1206's unproductive comments, which I took as baiting, from that talk page (and which comments another regular editor on that article also strongly objected to), I see it only as a typical MUD tactic for tricking a careless admin into doing something accidently untowards (like blocking me without warning for something I haven't done). So far as my editing history goes, who here hasn't had disagreements with fuzzy headed or PoV warring editors? Cheers to all though, Gwen Gale 14:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

which I took as baiting, - this doesn't seem like you're assuming good faith. Someone might be wrong, and muddle headed, and not have any sources for stuff they want included, but that doesn't mean they're baiting. Dan Beale 18:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you look at the diff? Are you familiar with the kind of stuff that gets luzzed onto the talk page of Lesbian? Are you aware that the article is more or less in a permanent state of semi-protection? Are you aware that, with all the editors who watch that high profile article, it's been a day and nobody has reverted my removal of that thread? Gwen Gale 18:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

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

Yes - what evidence? Where is the checkuser request? What is the evidence in her contributions? Who asked for this block? What is the "other evidence"? I haven't seen any indication from Gwen's edits that she is trying to evade a ban. Are you sure you're not drawing a hasty conclusion? alanyst 20:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The evidence is that she outed herself in her emails to me, Thatcher, Fred Bauder, and possibly others. Looking at the contributions confirms this. Only a cursory review shows that both have a similar affinity for, and made similar edits to, Nazism-related articles (Death of Adolf Hitler, Eva Braun, etc.), Pacific islands (Nikumaroro, Howland Island, etc.), sexuality-related articles (Lesbian, etc.), from which she is banned, Amelia Earhart, and Deborah Foreman. The link is pretty obvious to me. Dmcdevit·t 21:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Contributions are similar, indeed. And this is to Gwen Gale's credit.

Supposing Gwen Gale were Wyss, this would only further convince me of her value to the project. It is not every day that we see editors being topically banned because their citation standards are too high, particular where living or recently deceased people are concerned - a misguided decision were there ever one. Supposing Gwen Gale were Wyss, then this editor has spent not just months but years insisting that Misplaced Pages hold itself to the standards of a respectable academic enterprise. How backwards is it that serious citizen-editors like Wyss and Gwen Gale are targeted, sanctioned and hounded, while all manner of ignorants, cranks and fanatics are given welcome messages and a million chances, where frauds like Essjay are handed the keys of power and authority.Proabivouac 21:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It is inaccurate to say that Wyss was banned from all sexuality-related articles. The accurate wording from the decision was "banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality." She can edit articles on sexuality as long as it is not concerned with the alleged homosexuality or bisexuality of an individual. I have not examined the contributions of User:Gwen Gale to see whether she has been doing so or not, but let's not read the arbcom decision as saying things it didn't say. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you reading the ruling selectively? The rest of that ruling says "The clauses "any edit" and "related to homosexuality or bisexuality" shall be interpreted broadly; this remedy is intended, for example, to prohibit correcting the spelling of "gay"." I find it hard to believe that the ruling intended to prohibit spelling corrections of "gay" anywhere, but not repeated edits to lesbian for months, especially ones like this . This is also a violation: . Those were only from within the last week. She was violating the ban from the very beginning of the sockpuppet's creation, though: , , etc. There is no question in my mind of repeated violations. That ban was indefinite, and Wyss' edits would surely have been noticed had she not obscured them with an undeclared account. The more important problem, though, is that Gwen Gale has been having the same sorts of problems that got her into the arbitration case: namely, edit warring and assumptions of bad faith. If you are going to declare that the probation has expired, it would be nice for ArbCom to recognize the continuing problem that exists here (or we would never have had this discussion and found out that this was Wyss) beyond sexuality-related edits, and to make a motion to fix that. Dmcdevit·t 08:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"…it would be nice for ArbCom to recognize the continuing problem that exists here (or we would never have had this discussion and found out that this was Wyss) beyond sexuality-related edits…"

This strikes me as an alternate way of phrasing the fact that a hopelessly dated and completely unrelated arbitration case was used to attack and block Gwen Gale.Proabivouac 08:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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

I support Dmcdevit's summary. I'd be willing to be one of those 3. ⇒ SWATJester 21:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't Gwen be given a chance to answer the charge of sockpuppetry before being blocked? Are similar contributions considered irrefutable evidence of sockpuppetry? I can't see the emails in which she supposedly outed herself; can you quote the relevant excerpts? I think many of Gwen's contributions have been very beneficial to Misplaced Pages, and it would be a real shame if she were being falsely accused, and convicted without a chance to defend herself. I am, however, open to persuasion that you are right, based on what evidence you can cite and how she responds. alanyst 21:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support the above. There are two kinds of problem users: those who accept the restrictions and may eventually redeem themselves, and those who ignore them and continue their behaviour. The later kind? They can get lost. We have enough problems with people who do good stuff for the project without giving more chances to obsessives. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no evidence that Gwen Gale has disrupted anything.Proabivouac 22:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I currently find it a little inconclusive too, and that any disruption is a stew multiple hands have stirred. I'm going to see if I can discover the backstory behind some of this.

Furthermore, the probation would have expired in December 2006. Did any known new identity of Wyss behave in a manner that would have been subject to its terms before December 2006? If this can't be shown, Gwen Gale cannot be banned under the terms of a probation that has expired, IMO. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Per the case, probation is indefinite. OK, I missed the line in the case Should any period of one year pass without any such restriction being imposed, Wyss's probation shall automatically end. I wonder if that can be fairly applied if she was editing from a hidden account, so that no one knew there was an enforceable remedy against any disruptive or edit-warring type behavior. However it appears from the letter of the law that I should unblock. Thatcher131 01:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Probation has by its terms expired. There was no prohibition on creating an alternative account. Her editing to Lesbian had nothing to do with the issues in the Onefortyone case. I think she has been quite abrupt in her interactions with others, but has not committed any serious violation. I'm not for any sort of lengthening of her ban, but suggest a mentor might help. Fred Bauder 01:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The indefinite probation expires after a year with no violations.Fred Bauder 01:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

She says I encouraged her to create an alternative account to get away from the Onefortyone thing and I think that is true, so the sock accusation, while confirmed by checkuser, is not that relevant. Fred Bauder 01:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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

• Wyss was constantly edit warring in the past and frequently removed edits by others. See, for example, , ,,. She even deleted contributions from talk pages. See , , .

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

• Wyss repeatedly attacked administrators. For example, she accused administrator Mel Etitis of being a troll. See and .
• Wyss already violated her probation in 2006. She repeatedly contributed to homo- and bisexuality-related topics under the IP 194.146.111.10, although she is banned from making any edits related to such topics. For instance, she contributed to the Picnic (film) article removing the expression "jilted boyfriend" (see ) and frequently included the "disputed" tag in the sexualty section of gay actor Nick Adams (see , , , , ). Wyss even included a reference to her own book in the Lesbian science fiction article. See , . (The following edits to the User talk:Wyss page prove that IP 194.146.111.10 is identical with Wyss: , . See also the history of the Talk:Joshua Gardner page, where most contributions are from the pen of IP 194.146.111.10, User:Wyss and her other sockpuppet, User:The Witch.) Furthermore, Wyss was talking about Elvis Presley's alleged homosexuality here.
• Wyss is also a supporter, if not an administrator, of Wikitruth. In 2006, she repeatedly expressed her wish to become involved in this anti-Misplaced Pages project. See , . See also these edits expressing Wyss's alias Gwen Gale's opinion of Misplaced Pages: , , , , , . 80.141.192.57 02:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you've been saving these up for some time, given that some of the links you give have been long since oversighted by the looks of it.

Many of these links don't say quite what you imply them to mean, either. Many of them are from before the arbcom decision. Many more do not breach the terms of her restrictions or probation. Looking through the contributions of 194.146.111.10, I only see one breach of the probation conditions - adding a {{tl:noncompliant}} tag to Nick Adams on October 6, 2006, which User:Onefourtyone reverted.

On 22 November 2006, Wyss wrote: "There is no evidence EP (or Nick Adams) was gay other than unreliable, unsupported hearsay which has been published mostly in tabloid publications. I wouldn't be surprised if he was and I wouldn't care, but there's no evidence to support that notion." See . The "disputed" tag in the sexualty section of bisexual actor Nick Adams was added by Wyss's IP 194.146.111.10 at least five times between 25 June 2006 and 23 September 2006. See , , , , ). 80.141.229.225 13:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

As to the allegation that Wyss supports Wikitruth, I don't really see anything serious there, or in the list of 'opinions of Misplaced Pages' - are you trying to say we should censure anyone critical of the project? Rather, we should welcome rational criticism. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That IP is likely Onefortyone carrying a grudge; let's not let it distract from the legitimate problems raised above, however. Dmcdevit·t 08:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and possible wikistalking

It seems that User:Vlad fedorov decided to "get even" with me after returning back after 3RR block. Today he started reverting all my edits (or deleting large segments of sourced text) in many articles that I edited recently. Please see:

• He reverts my last 8 edits in article Tambov rebellion.
• He reverts 12+ my last edits in article Active measures
• ] same - Nikolai Koltsov. Here he "corrects" direct citation from Nature (journal) by replacing word between two "..." signs

rts previously protected version of article Boris Stomakhin that is curre* Deletion of HUGE portion of well referenced text from article Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation - without any discussion

• He reverts edits by me and others in Internet brigades
• He reverts even such minor thing as a category.
• He inserts poorly supported defamatory statements to biography of a living person, although two other editors disagree
• He revently under official mediation, see
• Another deletion of well sourced text without discussion
• He edits in a highly disruptive manner article GRU.

That is all he accomplished today. Honestly, I am very tired of that. Can anyone give me a piece of advice, please?Biophys 21:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What could I say? Look into Biophys contribs since 9th of May 22:47 when I was blocked. Biophys used this moment to revert all of my contributions and all of our agreements on the articles. So, if Biophys who wasn't stopped by anyone deleting all of mine contributions is not disruptive, then why my edits, returning back the hard work that I have done searching for reliable sources and contributing to the articles, are considered by Biophys as disruptive? Please also tell since what times adding contributions to Misplaced Pages by me is disruptive and deletion of sourced texts by Biophys is undisruptive? Calling your opponents editing disruptive, vandalous, etc. is very easy way to win the ordinary content dispute, right? I have never reverted your contributions while you, Biophys, was blocked for 3RR. Never! And it is you who is responsible for disruptive editing.

However, if User:Theresa Knott doesn't wish to look at the articles at the issue, let me show some diffs by Biophys while my blocking period.

diff Biophys deletion of sourced judgement of the most respective international organization - changing it to the local US nongovernmental organization judgement. Article Russia. See his comment:"(The statement by Gil-Robles is outdated (2004); the rating by Freedom House is recent (2007). But maybe this statement by FH should be moved to a different place? I am not sure.)".

diff deletion of text concerning the criticism of both the author and the book in Putin's Russia. See Bophys comment:"rv - please read talk page - this article is about the BOOK, not about Politkovskaya. There is a separate article about her. This text was simply cut and pasted from another WP article.)".

diff Deletion of absolutely sourced criticism on the conflict of interests in the organization. Article Glasnost Defense Foundation. See Biophys comment:"(irrelevant info removed, see talk page)". Self-explainable? Other editors - Mikkalai and Alex Bakharev found my information useful, but Master Biophys doesn't.

diff Deletion of the information about a case on which the whole book is founded. Article Blowing up Russia: Terror from within. See Biophys comment:"(remove not relevant information copied from another WP article)". Self-explainable?

diff Reinserting again extreme POV with violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Article List of political parties in Russia. Look into history of this article - Biophys does it systematically and doesn't want to compromise with other editors. See Biophys comment: "(rv - if you want to make NPOV version - please add more things supported by your sources, rather than deleting well referenced text (this may be considered as vandalism))".

diff Reinserting again the whole POV section full of allegations and moved by user QZXA2 to talk page for discussion. Article Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation. See Biophys comment: "(rv - large-scale deletion of well sourced text without discussion. "Too POV" is not an argument. You can try to make small changes if they are justified and supported by alternative references.)" WP:OWN? Self-explainable.

diff Article Tambov Rebellion. See Biophys comment: "(Removing large segment of text copied from another article, which is completely unsourced. It creates duplications and makes the article unreadable; other edits)". Self-explainable?

diff. Article Anna Politkovskaya - deletion of all criticism section. Comment by Biophys:"(removing a few defamatory statements supported by a single unreliable source and a couple of outdated comments by non-notable people; minor editing. This article is already too long.)". Self-explainable? Any critcism of Biophys political POV - is defamatory in Misplaced Pages and should be deleted according to him. But if he inserts his extreme POV in the article with violation of WP:UNDUE he than typically says add your POV. But afterwards he begins his campaign about defamation and unreliable sources.

diff Again deletion of the information, that Biophys doesn't like. Again article Anna Politkovskaya and again the same comment:" (Two more non-notable opinions; Mayorov is a sportsmen)".

Yevgenia Albats. All claims of Biophys about defamation and poorly sourced statements are false. All that I described in the article is a well known thing in Russian internet. You may ask both Ellol, Irpen and Alex Bakharev in order to ascertain this. All the sources are provided to every sentence. Most of the sentences have two or more sources.

diff Reinsertion by Biophys of the category "Russian dissident" in the article of terrorist Akhmed Zakayev.

diff. Again editing the article to his POV while I am blocked. Comment of Biophys:"(more proper categorization and more consistent with sources. He is former political prisoner according to Amnesty International.)".

diff Reinserting unsourced POV category. Again. But this time Biophys doesn't provide explanations since there are no sources in support of his category.

Political repression of cyber-dissidents. Boris Stomakhin was sentenced by the court because in his publications he called to exterminate all Russians without any mercy and was calling to commit terrorist attacks on Russian civilians. Therefore he can't be described as a political blogger. Mr. Osama Bin Laden is not a dissident, or he is? Methods of repression are claimed to be stalking, bullying and psychological methods? Well there are no such information in source Biophys inserts - Bagryansky. And the creation of internet teams is described not in Bagryansky but by Saydykov article - and iit is just pure allegations without any evidence - but I left them.

diff Reinserting extreme POV. Article Jeffrey Nyquist.

diff reisnerting absolutely POV opinion with violation of WP:UNDUE.

diff deletion of POV tag without my consent.

diff Again revert to his lovely POV version. David Satter. Comment by Biophys:"(rv to 162.129.250.1 (Talk) at 03:59, 15 March 2007. Same text but better English.)".

diff Reinserting "victim of political repressions" category into terrorist article.

diff Article Internet brigades. Deletion of my tag. As for Biophys claims of deletion of his edits. It is he actually who deletes information that I insert. Just look at that latest diff.

Please also look at the history of these articles - Biophys reverts continually reinsertions of my texts by other users - he continues his work in Misplaced Pages using the methods of elimination of the information he personally doesn't like. This is an issue in Operation Sarindar, Human rights in Russia, List of political parties in Russia,Anna Politkovskaya, Boris_Stomakhin, Yevgenia Albats. In all these articles Biophys is fond of just deleting of the information. See his edits in history of these articles. He doesn't contribute to the content - just deletes. Vlad fedorov 09:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

As for wikistalking see the history of all the articles involved - I have edited them long ago. Biophys allegations of stalking are very old indeed and see my RfC Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Vlad fedorov where even my strong opponents like User:Piotrus acknowledge that there is no wikistalking.

So I think even surfaced browsing of Biophys edits could really get you into the picture that I have described in Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biophys. Vlad fedorov 05:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Additionaly, for the first time on Administrators board, threats of Biophys.

Biophys regulary "threatens" to publish other such articles. Please see also his threats here http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Operation_Sarindar#Let.27s_make_small_changes_gradually_and_discuss_every_change_first. And by the way Biophys perfectly fits into WP:OWN definition. He regularly mentions that he created the article and other users are always disturbing him. I think WP:OWN is perfect description of his behaviour. See even the same suggestions that Biophys always writes do match perfectly there http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:OWN#Comments Vlad fedorov 05:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

WPIV  ??? Pedro |  Chat  21:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't look like vandalism to me, Pedro. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, article Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation had 65 references before his intervention. Now it has only 10. Still, I am not sure what to do.Biophys 21:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

So, do you think that his actions were just a normal editing? Then he will be doing this every day.Biophys 01:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This needs to go back to ArbCom. ⇒ SWATJester 03:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this was at ArbCom, but yes, something should be done. That said, we can wait a month or two for ArbCom to block the disruptive user, or just speed up the process... considering that Vlad back from his week-long ban is causing disruption and revert warring again, I really don't see why we should burdern ArbCom with an obvious situation.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  07:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And again a comment from a user trying to win content dispute with me on administrator's noticeboard. Piotrus manner to bandwagon his opponents is already a matter of arbitration against him . Piotrus, why reinsertion of my materials which Biophys deleted as shown up here is disruptive? Piotrus, however, also prefers not to explain why Biophys deletion of information that doesn't suit his political opinions is not disruptive. Should I invite my friends here too? Csloat? Ellol? QZXA2?Irpen? Alex Bakharev? And, please, Piotrus, considering that Biophys teaming up with you and your disruptive and tendentious editing are already a matter of arbitration Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus, please don't be quite hipocritical by making comments against me. It's typically, look who's talking. You also never explained why you consider series of Biophys disruptive reverts during my block period to be normal. Vlad fedorov 09:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Remain cool and assume good faith please, Vlad. These comments are not helpful in resolving this. --Kzrulzuall 10:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, why isn't user Piotrus assuming my good faith? Is good faith policy is applicable to Vlad Fedorov only? Assuming that I had not disputes with him over last 3 weeks, it is very unpleasant for me to see again how he tries to make revenge on me because of my contributions to Institute of National Remembrance, and because Biophys was blocked for 3RR and got two warnings for 3RR. Vlad fedorov 11:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

In a debate, everyone has to assume good faith. --Kzrulzuall 11:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I wish Piotrus having to assume good faith. Vlad fedorov 13:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

O, just by the way, Biophys why you haven't reported to noticeboard this English user http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:217.134.106.8? You gave him so many warnings. Why you haven't reported user QZXA2? You also gave him warnings? And how it comes that so many users disrupt your "editing", Biophys? Vlad fedorov 16:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever Vlad said, everything in my initial statement remains valid, as well as RfC about Vlad's alleged wikistalking submitted by User Colchicum. So, all of this will continue indefinitely unless something will be done about it. Biophys 16:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Has any form of mediation been tried? —Kyриx 16:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

First attempt was done here Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov by User:Colchicum, see also Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov#New_episodes_of_wikistalking_by_Vlad. As User:Colchicum said, "User:Vlad fedorov (and his alleged sockpuppet User_talk:213.184.225.28) is engaged in a long-term wikistalking (WP:STALK) of User:Biophys and User:Colchicum. Vlad fedorov has been harassing Biophys for two months (since December 18, 2006, when the Vlad fedorov account had been created) and Colchicum for several days (since February 14, 2007), allegedly being quite disruptive, and it is likely that he has never tried to touch an article that hadn't been contributed to by the aforementioned editors (see Special:Contributions/Vlad_fedorov). This is actually the main point. Regardless of whether his point of view was justified or not, he has been doing nothing but pursuing User:Biophys and User:Colchicum. Informal resolution was attempted at the numerous talk pages" And so on.

Second mediation attempt is this:

• Vlad reverts article under official mediation, see Biophys 17:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Biophys, dear, learn the definition of revert. Revert means undoing other editors contributions. As we look at these diffs, it is clear that I do not delete any edits. I only add my sourced information which you have falsely claimed to be violating BLP. Please do not clogg this page in order to make your point more visible. You complained about my reinsertions of material sterile deleted by you? Well, you've got an answer. You asked about stalking? Well, you've got an answer on that matter two months ago. Vlad fedorov 19:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

As RfC on me was filed by user Colchicum, could you please provide any links in support of your accusation that I pursue Colchicum? If you mean yourself, Biophys, I think that Bakharev, Piotrus and others on my RfC page made it clear that I am not stalking you. But if you choose to pretend you haven't got an answer on your decision, whatever. Vlad fedorov 19:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No, no one made it clear that you are not wikistalimg me. Just the opposite. It was not me who accused you of wikistalking (I only joined the case). It was Colchicum who accused you of wikistalking of him and me, just as now I think you are after Piotr. I must tell that Colhicum is the most neutral editor I met in WP - just look at his edits of rivers, lakes and Russian state officials. But you got him. Furthermore, you personally offended him at the talk page of Alex Bakharev - using Russian - to make sure that others do not understand. Biophys 20:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice. Biophys you've just made these claims at this noticeboard. RfC by Colchicum is just another instance now. So, if your allegations are false, you should be punished in some way. You tendency to accuse me and then to tell: "I never accused, but Colchicum did" is very interesting. If you are so sure you are right, why you attribute all these accusations to Colchicum? Have I ever edited rivers, lakes and Russian state officials? And this is an answer that your accusations of stalking are false. And it is you who stalked me at Freedom House, by contacting other editors of Freedom House article, and you have stalked me on National Remembrance Institute article, as well as Przyszowice massacre -- and this is a clear matter. Vlad fedorov 03:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have offended Colchicum? I learn everytime something new from you, Biophys. Could you provide diffs and we all would see what are you talking about? Vlad fedorov 03:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You just said "it is clear that I do not delete any edits". I do not know how to qualify this blatantly incorrect statement after this your edit yesterday:. We had an article supported by 65 references. Your "edit" left only 10. You simply think that no one will check your statements.Biophys 21:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I haven't deleted it. Together with users QZXA2, Camille Grey and Ellol we moved that section violating WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV to the talk page for discussion and editing. Anyone could look into the history of this article in order to ascertain this. And you, Biophys, is just trying to trick all readers and to defame me. Vlad fedorov 03:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone, please, see Biophys again deletes all my contributions in Misplaced Pages. Could anyone take measures against this disruptive individual? Is it no disruptive to delete so many content again?

diff Article Jeffrey Nyquist. Edit warring by deleting the sourced content. He is warring with me and English user 217.134.92.77.

diff Article Glasnost Defense Foundation. Elimination of sourced information on financing of this organization.

diff Article Anna Politkovskaya. Reinserting blatant original research not found in sources. Edit warring with other editors. Vlad fedorov 03:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions for Biophys

Now, Biophys, (1) please explain your reverts listed earlier by which you delete all my contributions to the Misplaced Pages which were done by you while my blocking period. And (2), please explain why you have stalked me at Freedom House, National Remembrance Institute, and Przyszowice massacre articles. Vlad fedorov 03:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I've looked through the first two links posted by Biophys. What can I say, I do not see significant changes between Vlad and Biophys's version. Questions are mostly technical. It seems however, that Biophys may still have an eye against the current Russian government, which he sees as continuation of strife against the Soviet Communism. With that, Vlad Fedorev's version (in first two articles) seems to be less politically engaged. ellol 09:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I also approve the fact that tensions between Biophys and Vladimir are significantly less than those yet several months ago. I think both users still need a bit more efforts of seeking for compromises, but they are on the right way. ellol 09:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Ellol. And by the way it is Biophys who protracts the mediation over Boris Stomakhin and Yevgenia Albats articles. I have asked him to provide his comments, but still he hasn't Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/Boris Stomakhin. Vlad fedorov 11:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

O'K. I have posted my mediation comment:Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Boris_Stomakhin#Biophys. This is relevant to the current incident.Biophys 16:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is very sad that all this time and typing is wasted on disputes by these two very productive and knowledgeable editors. If only Vlad would try and reach consensus on the relevant articles talk pages FIRST all this could be avoided. My suggestion is for an "umpire" to be assigned to each article that Vlad wishes to edit and Vlad promise to notify his umpire in advance if he wishes to edit an article he has not yet edited but has already been edited by Biophys until such time as he has shown that he better understands that WP can not decide or arbitrate truth - just provide a balanced summation of properly referenced points of view. W. Frank ✉ 10:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Then, you should also include articles edited previously by Piotrus, Colhichum, and perhaps other users, see Anna Politkovskaya for most recent example.Biophys 13:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Frank, please take a look at the edit just made by Vlad in article Freedom House. Vlad said: "Ultramarine you reinsert criticized Black Book of Communism in Tambov rebellion and delete reliable sources on criticism here? I though democracy is not double standards." . I must explain: Ultramarine happened to agree with me that Black Book of Communism is a reliable source in article Tambov Rebellion. So, now Vlad is coming after Ultramarine. Is not this clear and present wikistalking?Biophys 16:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Vlad Fedorov for a month this time because he started right up again with the behaviour that led to his previous block for a week. Block log. If any administrator can see any point to allowing his behaviour to continue, you know what to do - David Gerard 17:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Biophys needs to stop using Misplaced Pages as a tool to spread his anti-Kremlin POV. He has added absurd accusations to the Human rights in Russia and FSB pages and treats them as facts. He almost instantly deleted my attempted balances of these articles before I could add some sources and threatened to report me for "vandalism" TWICE on my user talk page. If anyone should be reported here it should be him QZXA2 18:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

While I can't fault David Gerards actions, I have to point out that Biophys is not blameless here either. It takes two to tango. Or editwar. ⇒ SWATJester 08:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Vlad's block may (or may not) be justified, but I can't see much difference between his behavior and that of Biophys. What's the point of blocking one opponent and absolving the other? Despite our best intentions, we should not appear selective in enforcement of guidelines. --Ghirla 12:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with every word, including the possible justifiability of Vlad's block but for a month? A unilateral blocks of such length are rather exceptional and in most cases the opinions should be solicited before rather than after the block.I wonder how much time DG spent studying the issue, I strongly suspect that very little and he relied on the "advise" he somehow received (from who and how?) in his decision. --Irpen 14:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If there is a wrongdoing om my side, please tell me what to do. Should I revert all my edits in question back? Should I limit myself by only one revert per day? Anything else? I tried to do my best to follow all WP rules and recommendations and make good (as far as I can) articles. Please tell me what to do, and I will follow your advice. Thank you. Biophys 15:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack User:Vintagekits

Also WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Action requested. - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Pot, kettle etc. All part of a bitter ongoing feud between what Kittybrewster calls "Irish nationalists" and himself regarding articles about Kittybrewster's family. Nick 11:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There are exceptions to breach of policy? - Kittybrewster (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack. Incivility, sure, but not personal attacks. —Kyриx 14:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly let let me say, I don't think I have ever edited a page remotely connected with Ireland and definitely nothing politically with Ireland. So I have no axe to grind anywhere, and I am far from ani-aristocracy. Vintagekits and Kittybrewster have given each other the same treatment. In fact Vintagekits observations on Kittybrewster's work does now seem to being proved correct. However now, Kittybrewster's edits and insults to other editors concerning their political beliefs are going beyond what can be tolerated, the most recent example is towards the end of this page here Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Arbuthnot_family - He seems to have a pathological hatred of the Irish and anyone who does not venerate his ancestors in the same way he does. Several have recently been deleted for non-notability after heavy and almost unanimous voting - yet still he cannot se any fault on his part and continues to blame the Irish and bad faith editors. This is plain rubbish.

I think he needs a severe warning regarding the consequences of such comments. He claims all those do no not agree with him and his views are either acting in bad faith or from ulterior political motives. I think he either needs to put his money where his mouth is, apologise or be banned. Giano 15:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Kittybrewster apparently maintsains a genealogy website and has created articles for many of his ancestors and relatives. This also relates to disagreements about whether simply being in a peerage book because of having a notable ancestor grants inherent notability. Some of the articles nominated in AFD have been deleted, and some have been kept, because in fact the individuals were in the Dictionary of National Biography and other reliable sources. Some have been deleted because they were only cited to such sources as a family history book by his grandmother or some such relative and his own website. None of the articles I have seen were about individuals of no notability whatever. Passions can clearly rise to a high level when it is one's ancestors or relatives up for deletion, which is one reason for avoiding such WP:COI situations by not creating articvles about oneself or one's own relatives. Nonetheless, it should be possible to keep the discourse on an objective level, without hurling accusations of bad faith nominations or impugning the nominator's motivations as rampant nationalism. Edison 16:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

He is now resorting to his usual tactics of reverting warnings from his user page unarchived , I expect it will all end in an arb com case, it would be nice though if that could be avoided, but unless his non-notable pages are alowed to remain I don't see how that can be avoided. Giano 16:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

<edit conflict, but comment posted anyway> Note that User:Kittybrewster has just blanked his user page to remove a final warning which I issued about Kittybrewster's latest personal attack. KB has also blanked his archive pages, to make it more difficult to find locate his previous warnings on this and other subjects, including as a previous final warning about personal attacks of a similar nature. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Leave them blanked (no use getting all hyped up reverting the blankings). The warnings still exist in talk page history. —Kyриx 16:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

True! I'm certainly not getting into a revert war. It's just a pity that it's a little more difficult for other editors and admins to spot the history of previous warnings. There is a risk that editors may miss previous warnings, and issue a level-1 warning when a final notice has already been given. In those circumstances, is it appropriate to block anyway? In the case of KB, I would have to declare too much of an involvement to implement a block, so I'm asking the question as a general policy issue which would be relevant to other admins monitoring this case? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Blanked warnings remain valid as long as they were issued recently. Blocks may be and have been applied in a future incident based on recently blanked warnings. —Kyриx 17:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• I notice that nobody has informed User:Vintagekits about this accusation here. It would have been the decent thing to do to inform them that they're today's 'feature' here. Notified ... - Alison ☺ 16:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think most people can see that since this discussion instigated by BrowHairedGirl 10 days ago that I have backed off these issues and also I have not !voted in any of the numerous AfD's on members of the "Arthbutnot family" despite the fact that those who are seen by some to be on the "other side" have continued. My issue earlier was to highlight the "lockstep voting" and AfD abuse of a small cabal - I am sure I did this is an overly aggresive way but that was because I had witnessed months of this. Any I have stopped !voting on the AfD's for now as I hoped both sides would have backed off and allowed the rest of the community to make there own minds up on these articles. Sorry that was a bit rambling but I hope you got my point.--Vintagekits 17:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • You edited Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alexander Arbuthnot (bishop) 33 minutes after writing the above. Uncle G 23:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The latest from User:Kittybrewster is this edit, altering other users' comments on my talk page. Minor, but out of order, and he's been warned about that before. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• I would like to put on record that I am very unhappy with the research of all the Arbuthnot pages and their sources. Yes those people existed, but whether they existed in the form portrayed on Misplaced Pages I am less sure - something is not adding up - probably nothing more that assumptions being made from poor 18th and 19th century records as to birth places, by modern day Arbuthnots anxious for some ancestors and credence - but frankly none of it is up to Misplaced Pages standards -it all seems to be assumption bases on supposition - and I think these pages need to be viewed with extreme caution unless they have been heavily edited by established and trusted editors Giano 22:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Then you should be looking for sources yourself, to see what additional ones exist. In looking for sources about Alexander Arbuthnot (bishop) (AfD discussion) I came across several 20th century sources that discussed Alexander John Arbuthnot. I see that no-one has added any such sources to that article. This rather implies that despite the expressed unhappiness, no-one has actually done anything about it. Uncle G 23:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Alexander John Arbuthnot is a completely different person to Alexander Arbuthnot (bishop), and no-one's proposing him for deletion - he's clearly N as a colonial governor. I don't think anyone's saying all the Arbuthnots should be deleted - the problem is that User:Kittybrewster is adding every member of his family whether or not they meet WP:BIO, and accusing anyone who questions this as being part of "the Irish Republican cabal" — iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
      • You are the first person to mention deletion of that article here. Please go back and re-read what Giano II and I wrote to see what we were actually discussing. Uncle G 15:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• I'd like to second Giano above; while I do generally try to keep anything nominated for deletion that's salvageable, Kittybrewster's articles generally seem to be sourced from a single family history, and from websites mirroring that family history giving the illusion of multiple sources when none exist. Whilst some of the Arbuthnot articles are of notable individuals which can be expanded, a lot more are of extremely minor figures (see the lengthy discussion here which I don't propose to rehash), and, as Giano points out, that family history does appear to make some dubious claims, throwing it into doubt as a source. As someone who's never made a single contribution to any article on Irish politics - and, as far as I can remember, no Irish article at all other than some minor formatting standardisation of the articles on Northern Irish railway stations - I have no political axe to grind at all, but I think that, since Kittybrewster is ignoring all warnings and attempts at discussion of the matter, this is going to continue to escalate — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There are really two separate issues here. One is the conflict between Kittybrewster and Vintagekits. The other is the quality and quantity of Arbuthnot biographies. We have adequate resolution mechanisms to handle each issue, but it becomes more difficult when they are combined. It would greatly help matters if Kittybrewster would stop engaging with Vintagekits on Irish Republican topics and if Vintagekits would likewise avoid everything to do with Arbuthnots. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 07:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

...and if Kittybrewster would avoid anything to do with Arbuthnots as well (due to clear WP:COI problems). Fram 08:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Merkey, again

Despite allegedly being on "wikibreak", user Jeff Merkey continues to be disruptive. See this diff, where he vandalizes a talk page based on unproven allegations of sockpuppetry against other users. *Dan T.* 16:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not vandalism. Jeff attempted to revert User:RhodiumMiner who was shuffling other peoples comments around the page. Given the name and edit history there isn't much doubt this is a single purpose trolling account. I'm reverting RhodiumMiner's edits and blocking him. --Duk 17:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the user was copying the comments. The comments stayed in their original locations, and a copy was placed in the Straw Poll, and only where they were germane to the poll. There were plenty of other comments that were against the removal of all the tribes, but did not specifically answer the poll, and they weren't copied. The first one copied supported Jeff's case, so it can hardly be seen to be trolling (apparent trollish username aside). The comments that were clogging up the poll were then moved to the bottom of the poll, and they were labelled where they came from. A note at the bottom explaining exactly what had been done was included.

Pretty useful all around, it was certainly much easier to see what was going on. If an individual user had a problem with their comments being copied, then that would be fair enough, and they could pull them out.

It doesn't take much to see that Jeff's wholesale removals aren't popular, and his arguments regarding WP:V are not convincing. His complete dismissal of the validity of anthropoligical evidence and insistance on a single criteria makes it difficult for any consensus with him.

The sensible approach would be to admit his valid point regarding federal recognition, and note those that have it, and include the other tribes where there is other sufficient evidence. SeparateReality 05:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This account is another sockpuppet of vigilant -- the name is from personal attacks "Merkey lives in a separate reality" used by vigilant on SCOX -- another single purpose troll account. These people have access to botnets so checkuser may not reveal much. Their editing patterns give them away. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 14:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It seemed from looking at the diff that Merkey was deleting several users' comments, and made the edit summary "Remove edits of banned user Vigilant", implying that he was being judge, jury, and executioner on an alleged sockpuppet (without actually going through proper channels of requesting a checkuser). *Dan T.* 17:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I assumed the removal was unintentional. The RhodiumMiner name comes from the SCOX message board. --Duk 17:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And your proof is???... I see nothing disruptive in the editing and yet Jeff is allowed to make edits while on a wikibreak and admins are around to support him. Jeff has no idea who the editor is and neither do you without a usercheck. --Jerry (Talk) 00:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser isn't needed for a single purpose trolling account with an inflammatory name that is brought in from an off-site conflict. I note that you are active on the SCOX message board so you should understand how this account name is inflammatory - and yet here you are saying that you see nothing disruptive by that particular username tinkering with a conflict that Jeff is engaged in? Jerryg, you might want to think about this. The only problem I see here is identifying the account as a specific sockpuppet, I'll remove that note. But the block is perfectly acceptable.

...and yet Jeff is allowed to make edits while on a wikibreak' Jeff may edit whenever he wants. He's not blocked or banned. Do you know what a wikibreak is Jerryg? It's when an editor takes a break and puts a wikibreak note up to let people know that they might take a while to respond to any notes left for them. --Duk 02:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Yes, I post on Yahoo! SCOX board. I post on a lot of boards. Jeff posts on a lot of boards, including SCOX, LKML and Wikireview. Jeff tends to make the assumption that *anyone* who disagrees with him is a troll and somehow connected with the SCOX board. Whatever you and Jeff have read while perusing that board means nothing, really. You *really* don't know where and who made the edits. If the name wasn't what it was, would the edits have been disruptive? Jeff's claims of owning a Rhodium Mine are fairly well known within a fairly large group of people, a large number of which have nothing to do with Yahoo! SCOX. In the end, of course, wikipedia admins will have the last say. I hope, for all involved, we don't go down the same path we went down the last time Jeff was here. I've had my say and am done with this --Jerry (Talk) 02:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not RhodiumMiner is a sockpuppet is one question, but it's not just him/her/it that Mr Merkey has been busily labelling. My account got a "sockpuppet" tag (I'm a sock of "Talks_to_birds", apparently). It's not the first time Mr Merkey has labelled me as such, my initial questions regarding his tagging everyone as trolls were instantaneously reverted out of his talk page. here and here. I have since explained my motivations (on Talk:Cherokee) in direct response to a question from Mr Merkey, but he still labels me as a sockpuppet. It would be nice if there was a reason for this other than "Mr Merkey thinks so".Teseaside 08:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This account is a single purpose troll account. The edit history speaks for itself. Also, talks_to_birds, based upon his claims to be the proprieter of finchhaven and his public statements on Misplaced Pages he lives on Vason Island in Washington, "next to T(h)e sea side". Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 14:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of these folks intent

I am going to take a moment to explain these folks from SCOX and their behavior. They have only one intention, and that's to "ambush" me here at Misplaced Pages and make life so miserable that 1) I leave or 2) I flip out to te point I get blocked. All one need do is review their posts at SCOX (thousands upon thousands) to realize these people are stalking. Their motiviations are blackmail, jealousy, and tortious interference. Several of them have sent letters, called me on the phone, posted demands in online forums, etc. demanding money or jobs or some other garbage to stop their stalking conduct. These gadfly's started following me around after I offered to buy out a Linux license for 50K for Solera Networks. Not for Gadugi or anything else. The most recent incident occurred two weeks ago when one of the more phychotic of the lot sent letters to the attorneys handling the lawsuit over Natural Selection Foods and the E Coli poisoning of my 2 year old son libelling me. This psycho then sent a letter to Randall Spencer demanding money from me or they would keep sending out hate mail. Most of these folks smell the money and that's what they are after. The rest of them appear to be bent on just destroying any enterprise I try to start. They send letters and anonymous emails to business partners, associates, customers, etc. Bottom line, its jealousy, greed, and hate directed at someone who succeeds as opposed to a bunch of has beens, fired employees, and jilted business associates from the Linux movement who tried to stick their hands in my pockets to take money out and got sent on their way. Hope this gives folks an idea. You cannot reason with them, you cannot teach them, most of them are over 40, you can only block them. Don't waste your time with them. Were I am admin here, they would not dare set foot on this site for the purpose of this conduct -- they know I would block them on sight. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 14:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

These gadfly's started following me around after I offered to buy out a Linux license for 50K for Solera Networks. Not for Gadugi or anything else. Really? Then why did you say at http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/501632 "The purpose behind the buyout was to convert as much Linux code over as possible to another open source operating system project which is sponsored at www.gadugi.org. This project is hosted by the Cherokee Nation and is sovereign under US Federal Laws. This project is merging the Linux Kernel with the Open Source NetWare project and distributing the operating system. The site is operational and the full code repository will be posted with the merged operating system after the Cherokee Nation Public License is published in January." Inquiring minds want to know.

Well, it's a good thing you're not an admin then... it's never a good idea for somebody with a personal involvement in a conflict to be exercising admin powers over people in it... that's too much of a conflict of interest. Can you actually prove such assertions as that people are demanding money from you to stop hassling you? I seem to recall that you made such assertions in the course of some of your legal cases, and never did back them up then either. *Dan T.* 15:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, but that's ok. As for your other question, yes, Randall Spencer has copies of two letters, one sent to Mordeci, the firm representing Natural Selections Foods, and another letter from this person sent to him, and he represents my son (not me). This person also called Randall Spencer on the phone. My wife and I are no longer involved in the case since its about our son. The first letter was a smearing attack on me and offer to "help" nsfoods "defeat" "my evil claims" about my baby boy being hospitalized for a month, nearly dying, and my wife in a state that is indescribable. The second letter demanded money from me for this person stopping "use of free speech" to continue these attacks. He then followed it up with a phone call the Randall Spencer making more forceful demands for money. All of this was reported to me about a week after it happened -- I did not witness it directly. My son has some permanent health issues from all this. For an individual, group, or community like SCOX to do such a thing over issues with an innocent 2 year old just to demand money from me is beyond evil. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Those who are interested in seeing what type of a person Merkey is, and what degree of credibility any claims of his should be given, should read his complaint in a past lawsuit, where he goes on and on about how the open source community is supporting Al Qaida and other terrorism (while also noting that he tried, and failed, to launch an open source project himself), and makes bizarre accusations of conspiracies to murder him (apparently one such case actually consisted of somebody saying in an online forum that Merkey should be put in an e-mail killfile, which he interpreted as a "list of people to be killed" physically). Thus, nobody should put the slightest scintilla of credibility in any assertion this guy makes. *Dan T.* 16:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Dan T. your last edit to this section doesn't belong here. Do you understand why that is? --Duk 16:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess it might be seen as a personal attack... though it's only a link to his own legal filing, not anybody's attack on it. *Dan T.* 16:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not it. The reason it doesn't belong here is that it's unrelated crap that you are dredging up to run down another editor. It doesn't have anything to do with the post that started this section. --Duk 16:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If Merkey can bring in stuff from other places, forums, and situations to justify his own attacks on other editors, why is it wrong when I do it? Are you going to give Merkey a warning for his "Explanation of these folks intent" section? *Dan T.* 16:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Because Merkey isn't stalking people who are honestly trying to do work here, it's the other way around. He's defending himself. He didn't open this door. And most of the stuff Merkey brings up is relevant to the stalking. Dan, I've assumed the best intentions from you so far, but that's starting to run out. --Duk 16:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)--Kebron 18:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No, Merkey is accusing ANYONE who disagrees with him of trolling, sock puppetry. It is irrelevant if the corrections are true or not they are removed. It is irrelevant is one has proof of sock puppetry, it is irrelevant that no check user has been done, Merkey is right. Sorry, this premise is unacceptable. According to a sitting judge, "Merkey is not just prone to exaggeration, he also is and can be deceptive, not only to his adversaries, but also to his own partners, his business associates and to the court. He deliberately describes his own, separate reality."

This is from a court document. A judge said this in an open court room. Merkey has been banned before for behavior similar to this. I fail to understand why now that he begins again EXACTLY as before, why it is NOW acceptable. --Kebron 17:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That document is a preliminary ruling in a case that was settled and never went to trial and that happened 11 years ago. Its also the work of a Judge who was removed from the case by the Utah Judicial Conduct Commission for conducting secret meetings with Novell and its attorneys. It was also written by attorneys at parsons, behle, and latimer and not the court (hence his removal). Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

To Kebron, Merkey was reverting a single purpose trolling account that was shuffling talk page comments around. What does some unrelated lawsuit have to do with that? Your last post doesn't belong here either, Kebron. I've assumed the best intentions from you so far, but that's starting to run out.--Duk 17:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again, why is HE allowed to accuse everyone and puppetry and of trolling without proof. --Kebron 18:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Kebron, are you honestly disputing that RhodiumMiner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single purpose trolling account? --Duk 18:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yet I was accused, where is the proof? DTobias was accused... once again... where is proof? I stepped away... watching the madness continue and it just gets worse and worse. It would not surprise me if HE would be doing it himself... has someone actually done a checkuser... on ANY account? --Kebron 18:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question, Kebron. This section is about RhodiumMiner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It's also now about your trolling. Tell me, Kebron, what does some court document from more than a decade ago have to do with Jeff reverting a blatant troll.--Duk 18:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the people demanding that checkuser be run are often people who know how to circumvent it. --Duk 18:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

OK... I agree... he is one troll.... but has anyone checked THE IP address of said troll, against the others or against Merkey. Court documents also give a personality of the person concerned. Merkey has been banned before as well. This has no relation at on on him? My edits were simply removed... why??? Because I was a troll according to him. It was irrelevant if my edits were correct or not. I gave up. I stopped. Now... DTobias is the next. As an admin could you do a checkuser on all the users concerned please? What are the results?--Kebron 18:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have check user authority, but you can request one at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser. My edits were simply removed... why??? Because I was a troll according to him. ... Well, you've been following him around on this website for a year and a half. --Duk 18:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Best method to ascertain who is who is to use ocams razor. Accounts which are dormant for months then all of sudden become active again simply to follow me from article to article and revert, argue, straw poll, etc. are single purpose accounts here to harrass. Kebron is one of these. You can simply review their utter lack of useful contributions. As I stated previously, trying to reason with these people is pointless. If you block them they just come back with a plaethera of sockpuppets. They also have insiders in the Community to act the same way they do. If they appear to be stalking, they they probably are. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Part of my taking the time here is for the benefit of the admin community. I mean, just look at it! Jeff reverts a simple troll and it brings down a hailstorm of indignant chest thumping that goes on and on and on -- by a never ending stream of sister trolls! Utterly amazing. --Duk 18:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If I was acting like Merkey, I could accuse you of being a sockpuppet of Merkey. But, I won't... Now, comments from Merkey like : "...I will remove any content about them placed into this article under WP:V. They are not indians, they are not Cherokee, and they make false claims they are Federally recognized. They may have their own article titled "Southern Cherokee Wannabees" or "Southern Cherokee Fake Tribe who claim they are Federally Recognized are are not" or some other title that drops the Federal BIA desgination "Nation" as unverified. Wikiality does not work with unverified materials. Sorry. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)" A debate the continues in the "real" world. It is not resolved in the "real" world. Yet... in comes Mr Merkey stating THIS is the authority, end of story. Unacceptable. Like I said before, I have had it. Y'all decide what you want. I am done. I have said my piece. Misplaced Pages and Merkey. A match made in purgatory. Enjoy each other. --Kebron 19:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This section is about Merkey reverting a simple troll. Did you miss that part, Kebron? -- Duk 19:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, one more think Kebron. This is at least the second time you've promised to be done with Merkey. here is you previous promise. Please try to be as good as your word this time. --Duk

Duk, you're somewhat wrong. User:Kebron isn't a troll in the manner that the User:RhodiumMiner etc are, or even the manner that I supposedly am (i.e. someone who watches this mess with interest and therefore is subject to the wrath of Jeff from time to time) . You have to seperate the very few people here (maybe just one) solely for the purpose of taunting Merkey, such as User:RhodiumMiner or User:SeperateReality, with people who are genuinely worried about some of his more pisspoor and self-aggrandising edits, his agenda-pushing, ignoring of consensus, his habitual assumptions of bad faith, his ridiculous accusations of vandalism, trolling and even spambotting and use of bizarre legal sort-of-threats to get his way. Jeff is just one big ball of Misplaced Pages disruption, even if you do disregard the actions of the one or two bona fide trolls deliberately goading Jeff (Jeff's vanity does make that an endlessly entertaining sport, alas). Kebron is a good faith editor who just happens to be embroiled in this saga. --Aim Here 09:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Duk, you're somewhat wrong. User:Kebron isn't a troll... Hmmm ... Jeff properly reverts a troll; Kebron responds with seething personal attacks and - you just can't make this stuff up - dredging up old court documents from some lawsuit. And you guys think Jeff is a little odd? As for the rest of your post, there are some grains of truth there, rolled up in trolling, personal attacks and intentional disruption. --Duk 18:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, since someone suggested a CheckUser, RhodiumMiner = SeparateReality = ThreeVryl, which was pretty obvious already. Dmcdevit·t 20:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What about the others? Merkey seems to be happily throwing accusations of "botting", "sockpuppeting" and "trolling" all over the place with blatant disregard for WP policy, and nobody is picking him up on this. His latest set of accusations are over on the Mountain_Meadows_Massacre page where he appears to be trying to get the mormons all riled up. Honestly, the biggest troll of the lot is none other than Jeffrey Vernon Merkey.

Mountain Meadows massacre is again facing protection because Merkey is perpetuating an edit war there, re-adding disputed edits almost immediately after the article was un-protected yesterday, and labeling the subsequent reverts as vandalism. He is also attacking editors (mostly via edit summary) who dispute his edits. I can provide diffs if requested. I personally feel that his behavior is disruptive, and I invite admins here to take a look and judge for themselves. Thanks, alanyst 17:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Definite edit warrior...

Alaexis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in edit war on Abkhazia, Gagra and many others. Check his edits first.

Insults in foreign language

User: Kuban kazak posts insulting messages in foreign language. Please help. Thank you.--Hillock65 22:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Don't search for truth in others when there is none in you
2. Please don't withhold from making childish allegations of so-called ukrainophobia, there is enough (heat) without them.

If anyone sees anything insulting in them please tell me so and ban me accordingly for personal attacks. TO Hillock, don't use WP:AN/I to tattle. --Kuban Cossack 22:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

We should try to work this out diplomatically, deplomesitically, and really get our ducks in a row. Just my two cents.EELVIS AARON PPRESLY 22:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Confirm Kuban's translations; I ran it through Google. So there's nothing insulting, although it's probably best to stick to English when editing the English wiki. There are already enough avenues for communication to break down as it is. When you have a problem with another edit, please contact them directly first; Kuban could have told you the translations on your own talk page without any accusations being made. --Masamage ♫ 23:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Zdorovenki buli, Hillock65, pryemno z vamy zapiznatysya. Here you forgot that you do not understand Russian. Budte zdorovi, --Pan Gerwazy 00:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Kuban Cossack, please don't leave messages to other users in any language other than English at English Misplaced Pages, except on a talk page of a user who claims to know that other langauge.

Hillock65, please assume that messages in foreign languages are reasonable, unless you have a good reason for thinking otherwise.

Od Mishehu 03:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Judging from his ability to interpret references in that language... and the fact that the locus of the dispute Ethnic Russians in Ukraine which seems to be Hillock's only article that he edits... I would guess that he IS fluent in Russian. On the other hand there is a very big dispute and his rather aggressive stance is not helping, and if someone likes to mediate then please do so. --Kuban Cossack 00:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, given continuous personal attacks from this user I cannot assume that messages in foreign languages from this particular user are a demonstration of good faith. He had been asked repeatedly not to bother me with messages in foreign languages, but insists on posting them anyway.--Hillock65 15:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Gurch: possibly compromised account

Former admin Gurch (talk · contribs) has just gone on an strange rampage of blanking several project space pages, and has been blocked as a possibly compromised account by Pharos. Checkuser may be in order here. Phaedriel - 02:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved – User has been unblocked and warned to be mindful of Arbcom-imposed restrictions N 10:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved – User given warning. -N 17:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved – Sock blocked. N 10:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved – Article deleted. N 10:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved – This isn't an actual administrative issue, just trolling. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Resolved

Resolved

Resolved

Resolved

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Non-talk pages automatically signed by HagermanBot