Here is my take on this situation. I know that I am as qualified as the other side, but I think my insides should be considered. First of all guys, the evidence posted here alone should be enough not even needing to read what is on Fedayee's page. The relation between Adil and the Lesar family should not have been exposed here. It is obvious that Adil made a mistake by choosing this name without the knowledge of the Lesar family. So it is understandable that he will try to do everything to prove he is not Adil. We are dealing with a potential usurpation from Adil’s part of the family name of one of his clients. I acknowledge that by saying this: I am not making things more simpler because now Adil will be attempting with more energy to prove that he is not Adil, but given the evidence, this leaves no doubt anymore. It is Adil’s interest to bring this to arbitration because he has nothing to lose. So all the administrators involved here should prepare more evidence (I don’t believe more is needed though). If the block becomes definitive, it is also maybe a good idea to contact the Lesar family to report Adil's abuse. It’s their family name which is used to post this nationalistic bombast and nonsense anyways. Regards, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will I be not assuming good faith if I point out that Grandmaster wrote above: with Armenian users, who want to get rid of one of Azerbaijani editors,... Correct me if I am wrong, but did I miss something? Was Ehud Lesar not claiming to be Ashkenazi Jew? If Grandmaster is admitting that he is an Azerbaijani editor he is basically admitting that Ehud Lesar was a fake name. I wonder what are the chances that there is an Azerbaijani Jew with a Sephardic name (Sephardics are a very small minority of the Jews from Azerbaijan) living in Texas mysteriously just like Adil, and where the Lesar family lives. Whitepages don't have any records about Ehud Lesar, and most if not all Lesar’s from Texas are from the Lesar family. One way is to contact David J. Lesar, he probably knows all the Lesar's from his hometown. But what I suggest is for Adil to drop this and leave it at that, because I personally will not accept some pictures which can easily be forged as valid evidence. I am just fed up with this, Armenian and Azerbaijani editors have enough problems to coexist on Wikipedia without Adil's disruptions. VartanM (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VartanM, your argument about Ehud Lesar's username has absolutely no relevance to the question whether he is Adil or not. There is no Wikipedia rule that says a contributor is not allowed to register a username of his choice. Just because MarshallBagramyan has a username does not mean he is Marshall Bagramyan. In fact, such arguments as questioning contributor's ethnic identity based on his username or to claim that person being a sockpuppet of another is simply a violation of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:HARASS and WP:PRIVACY.

Nishkid, your argument that only Azeri contributors are in support of Ehud not being Adil is an accusation without basis and an assumption of bad faith as:

• 1) You have so far produced no legible proof that Ehud is Adil, but only trying to justify the block after fact;
• 2) Just about every Armenian (that's opposite party) contributor above has been commenting claiming Ehud is Adil's sock, having no proofs either.

So there is an obvious interest to get rid of a contributor along national lines. And now you're essentially accusing myself or Grandmaster of lying that Ehud is not Adil, pouring accusation on a banned User:AdilBaguirov, who can't even defend himself here, and blocking another contributor User:Ehud Lesar based on VartanM or Fedayee's ethnic claim that "he is not a Jew" (as if that disqualifies someone from editing Wikipedia). This does not seem to be quite neutral administration, especially when you have no proofs for your accusation.

And it does not matter if 4 or 104 administrators support you, this is about finding the truth, clearing people of false charges, and preventing from future dangerous precedents of frivolous blocking. Ehud Lesar case should be pursued further, and if necessary, with the involvement of ArbCom and User:Jimbo Wales, until his identity and baseless charges against him are cleared. I personally will seek no further interest in editing Wikipedia, if people are just being blocked frivolously just because someone else accuses the person of not being Ashkenazi or Sephardic Jew. Supporting such reports by an administrative action, in my opinion, is a gross violation of any form of civility let it alone the definition of the term free encyclopedia. Atabek (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will be definitely be pursuing this further until the issue is resolved. But at the moment I'm trying to get the problem resolved by consensus with the blocking admins. If it does not work, we will have to take further steps prescribed by Wikipedia rules for the dispute resolution. Grandmaster (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are the diffs provided by Fedayee, Khoikhoi, VartanM and others not evidence? I have provided evidence. You claim it's all ethnically motivated (what does Geycha have to do with Judaism?). Also, am I not allowed to defend my own block? I've been more than willing to listen to people who debate the sockpuppetry claim. However, none of you have provided any sufficient evidence arguing otherwise. You have now resorted to accusations of ethnic discrimination and you claim that there is no evidence at all. Provide diffs or other proof. If you can't do so, then leave the matter alone. Your intimidation techniques are not going to scare me into unblocking Ehud Lesar without any proof showing that he's not a sockpuppet. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nishkid, the only evidence that Ehud Lesar is Adil would be establishing that they have the same identity in real world. THe diffs that you bring do not establish an identity. Example of what you're doing would be executing someone then figuring out if the executed was a criminal or not. The fact is Adil was blocked before Ehud, and his edits and arguments may have been just read/studied by Ehud. So what? These edits of Adil are publicly available, so why would you assume that just because someone is claiming Zangezur Geycha Republic, he must be Adil. Take this for website for example [70], is this Adil also?? Or is it Ehud?

Of course, you're allowed to defend your block, preferrably without accusing me or Gradmaster like you did above. But before asking for my evidence, let me remind you that I am not the one who took action to block Ehud Lesar. Hence the burden of proof remains with the accuser and not the accused. All I can tell you with confidence is that Ehud is not Adil, because, as you have been explained above, Adil lives in Washington, Ehud is in Texas. And if you're going to now accuse everyone travelling from DC to Texas as sockpuppets, then I doubt that would still justify your block of Ehud. You have no checkuser results and your block is based on a report of Fedayee, who has a vested interest in the conflict identified through his participation in two ArbComs.

And I am obvioulsy not capable of "scaring you", that was never my intent. I have only stated that the matter shall be pursued until Ehud's name is clear of these false charges. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek, please stop with your baseless accusations to begin with. If you have any further accusations I would like to read it before the arbitration committee. You confirmed what Grandmaster has been saying about Ehud Lesar being Azerbaijani and not Jewish. Your claim that someone can choose any username means the name may not be an accurate one. So how can we accept any evidence beside proving an Ehud Lesar exist. He pretended to be Jewish, so it wasn’t only a choice of username, but he also tried to find a background history with this name, which was inaccurate to begin with. If this is confirmed, it would mean he fabricated the name same way Adil did on various other occasions. Now he can claim to be anyone he wants, since he doesn’t need to prove he is an Ehud Lesar, he needs to prove that he is not an Adil Baguirov, with the several relations and people Adil Baguirov knows, neither a passport picture, webcam, phone call, legit ID or a driver license will ever document that he is not Adil.

So if both of you really want to take this one step further, you should start addressing the evidences provided fully and not discredit it by claiming that there is no evidence, because the arbitration committee won’t accept your "no evidence" argument. VartanM (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VartanM, I have explained my points that your and Fedayee's accusation against Ehud Lesar are along national lines. And you have proven those again in the paragraph above. So I see no need to add anything further in response to you. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continue with your baseless accusations, you are hurting none, but yourself. The fact remains that Ehud Lesar was a falsified identity, typical of the various other socks used by Adil. So far you have done nothing, but directly attacking those who provide the wide range of evidences, without having to address the evidence.

For the admins who may join, this is what has been shown so far.

• It was typical of Adil to create socks impersonating various nationalities
• That Ehud claims to be residing in one of the two places Adil resides.
• There is no Ehud Lesar living in Texas, and both Atabek and Grandmaster have indirectly admitted that the name itself is false.
• Ehud Lesar promoted Adil, claiming that one has to be impressed by him, even calling this positive.
• There is the wide range of contributing history, including Adil’s theory on Geycha, both Atabek and Grandmaster have attempted to address this, with one link which was actually incompatible with Ehud/Adil's claim. This again documented that the claim on Geycha was indeed specific to Adil.
• Ehud Lesar registered a couple of hours after it was obvious that Adil Baguirov will be banned. This also was ever addressed.
• There is the undeniable consideration that during the pick of Adil's sock creation, the sockpuppetry only stopped when Ehud Lesar appeared to edit. Just a coincidence?
• There is also what Khoikhoi has reported, which both I and Fedayee missed. The way of reporting users by both users is nearly identical.
• Batabat, yet another sock of Adil (see further on Fedayee's evidence page which was expended and will be expended more in the upcoming days) when blocked has used the same gimmicks by lobbying and pressurizing administrators that he wants to webchat or talk to them on the phone to prove that he is not a sock. Any administrator can view the evidence provided on that user. He too just like Ehud promoted Adil Baguirov, on Batabat case it was in the same post repeatedly calling him Dr. Baguirov.
• There are many other specific "coincidences", such as Ehud Lesar's myth of available materials in English language and the Armenian Diaspora. This was something Adil Baguirov in real life has been propagating for years, including his article about Wikipedia here.
• Various other evidences were provided here, in the arbcom noticeboard and Fedayee's subpage. All those will be added in the days to come.

Addressing those by making a WP:POINT [71] based on Fundamental attribution error isn’t going to do it. Now you and Grandmaster can continue with the argumentum ad hominem but you will have to deal with the evidence by actually addressing it. VartanM (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek, you are manipulating the Geycha situation. At least two users have told you that this link does not represent the position which both Ehud and Adil adhere to (but regardless the information from there comes from Adil also, as will be seen). You know that and were reminded on various occasions. In fact, the reference from the Flag Bulletin was purposely manipulated by Adil, as it refers to a 1992 fabricated map for a declaration of independence in 1992 and those were not even from the Azeri residents in both of those territories. Also in the link you provide, the information is coming from Adil too, he prepared it back in 2001, he prepared it and included it in his website [72], the link does not work, but the material can still be retrieved from internet archive here. Check at the bottom: The Government-in-exile of the Republic of Zangezur and Goyce. This was a fabrication prepared by Adil Baguirov. You see, when you and Grandmaster write about interests of Armenian contributors to edit specific articles, you are making false analogies. The claim of the 1992 republic was brought forward by Adil on the net. The claim of Goycha for pre-Soviet Union period was also an invention by Adil on Wikipedia. This isn’t even claimed in the Azeri press, it is a creation of Adil. While Hetoum and Meowy or all the similarities you find come from works, which you can claim biased, the Geycha reference was a creation of Adil not coming from any works, including biased sites. Your claim about Ehud possibly having read Adil is hardly convincing in the consideration of the various other evidences.

Also, you have removed the fact that Adil does not live only in Washington; he splits his time both in Washington and Texas. Also this: Nishkid, the only evidence that Ehud Lesar is Adil would be establishing that they have the same identity in real world is ridiculous... from this standard there is no way to prove sockpuppetry. - Fedayee (talk) 05:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user has uploaded an undetermined number of fair use files that have fair use rationales consisting of a few words. Needless to say, they do not conform to WP:FURG. I've already tagged three for di, but was unsure whether to continue (Twinkle adds a warning to his talk page every time... flooding etc). There may be a large number of others. --Thinboy00 @087, i.e. 01:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you do need to explain why these rationales don't conform with WP:FURG, otherwise your contest is without basis. If you think that these rationales are in some way deficient, please feel free to expand them or detail your concerns at the respective image description pages. The primary concern remains whether the current use of these images is consistent with the NFCC, the inadequacy of rationales is secondary. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that he has a large number of these things, none of which provide a valid fair use rationale. The first one was three words long. He is missing entire criteria in all three. None of the three are more than a sentence in length. WP:FURG is a guideline, and execptions are only made when there is an actual (common sense) reason for doing so. Laziness is not a reason. --Thinboy00 @096, i.e. 01:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think these rationales are not valid? Which specific parts of FURG do they violate? Don't judge a rationale by its length, there is no guideline that requires a set number of paragraphs and most rationales are plagued by redundancy. The concerns that have to be addressed include image quality, replaceability, and purpose for use; Norton's rationale of "low res, dead, no revenue loss" may be concise, but it does address these concerns. And please, don't throw out accusations of laziness. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent, ec, late comment) It did not address purpose of use on any occasion. --Thinboy00 @135, i.e. 02:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of using a photograph to identify a person is self-explanatory. Even so, if the lack of a statement on the purpose is your sole concern, then say so in the tag. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here I echo Wikidemo's comment (further down). --Thinboy00 @192, i.e. 03:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The guidelines are going to keep evolving, and new templates created. We shouldn't delete the older material, we should fix it each time a new guideline comes out. The purpose is to have a useful reference work. Any new editor can format the rationale to whatever the new standards are, but to delete the material is just silly, and does no service to this reference work. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict, rewrote comment) They (the images) are not old enough for that; one of them was uploaded last August: Image:HalRoach 001a.jpg. Did you read WP:FURG before uploading? This is what it looked like at the time. Even then it required a purpose of use. Not sure what you're getting at here. --Thinboy00 @134, i.e. 02:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The fair use rationale is there, just not formatted pretty. The pretty templates came later. And more changes will come in years to come, the question is ... do we delete what we don't like, or do we fix and upgrade to accommodate new changes. We don't delete articles with old infoboxes, we upgrade the article with the new infobox. Deletion is for ego satisfaction, fixing is for creating a good reference work. Why are we deleting an image because someone doesn't like the format for the rationale, why not fix? If everyone deleted, we would have nothing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, a little cut-and-paste work will spare the drama. I'm assuming good faith but the tone of the use rationales is a little dismissive. You can at least use a template or something. Also, the article name ought to be associated with the rationale, not the image as a whole (in case it gets used in more than one article someday). One criterion that's missing from your analysis is the explanation of why the image is important to the article (criterion #8) and not replaceable (#1). Neither "low res" nor "dead" explains that, and "no revenue loss" is a conclusion, not a justification. The area in which you're operating, historical photos, is one that is not an obvious case like record covers, logos, or book jackets. Wikidemo (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, that would be a good argument, except that there were templates when you uploaded that image. Click on my link. I'm still assuming good faith, but it's becoming more difficult. I still believe that there is a rational explanation for this -- specifically, you forgot to did not read the guideline. That's all I can come up with. Of course, if you have a rational explanation, feel free to post it. --Thinboy00 @918, i.e. 21:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The good faith explanation you're missing is this: ignoring instruction creep is entirely appropriate in some cases. The phrase "forgot to read the guideline" implies that you think every Wikipedian has your guideline on their watchlist, so they can do things differently every time it changes. Richard Arthur Norton has been improving the encyclopedia, so don't attack him for improving it in what you consider to be slightly the wrong way. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 10:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I did not mean to be interpreted that way. His explanation implied that he read, or at least skimmed the guideline ("The pretty templates came later"), and I was upset because this was clearly not the case (see my oldid link). --Thinboy00 @966, i.e. 22:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that the actions of this editor be reviewed. I still feel threatened and feel like I am being treated in a uncivil manner. I think this editor may have jumped the gun in warnings and threats when he knew that they were not necessary. I think he may have simply done the bidding of another user, chrisjnelson, who has been banned before for uncivil posts. I simply ask that those with power to block be fair and juducicial, rather than what I think may have been a knee-jerk, unfair, abuse of his powers. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this was Pats1's response to me when I said I wanted this to be reviewed . . . is this acceptable?72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't hold your breath for too long... Pats1 ^T/C 01:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you seem to be very interested in bringing this admin to justice... from reading your talk page and his, I think this is a misunderstanding at best, and an ip troll at worst. Of course we assume best case. I think you should read WP:AGF and objectively look at your actions. I advise you not to continue this dispute, as it may lead to blocking or banning, which we seriously don't want to do, but will if we have to. You might try Mediation. If you disagree with me and believe that there are widespread abuses, then ultimately you should go to Arbitration, but you should know that these cases are not accepted lightly, and you should attempt to resolve the issue outside of arbitration, through venues such as an RFC, or request for comment, which is slightly more formal than talk page discussion, and/or mediation. --Thinboy00 @175, i.e. 03:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guarantee this is not an "IP" troll, whatever that is. I have contributed to wiki and think I should be valued as much as anyone else. I do disagree with you, but I do not claim widespread abuses. I agree this is a misunderstanding. I think if you look at what happened, I have remained calm and deliberate. Pats1 was been the one who is, in my view, being uncivil and also keeps changing his story. If you would put yourself in my shoes for a moment you would see that this was a "gang-up" situation, where a misunderstanding excalated, due to Pats1, threatening to block me without a valid reason. I have tried to get Pats1 to be reasonable, yet as you can see, he is still defiant and I see no reason why it is me who is under the scrutiny. As you say I need to assume the best, but it seems to me, and this is just my opinion, there seems to be some "editor" protections I am not aware of. It seems that since I choose to be anonymous that my word is not as good as someone else's. I have asked for fairness. I admit that I am not perfect, however, it is I who have followed the rules. At every step it seems I have been blocked, pardon the pun, from what is fair and right. I cannot comment on how arbitration or mediation would be appropriate---I don't know the process of either. RFC is a new thing to me altogether. I guess I think it is fair that those in power are the ones who should help me in this process, rather than hinder it. I think other editors should look at Pats1's action objectively, not look at him as "one of you" are that he is part of a clique. I understand that is natural . . . but when it is Pats1 who overreacted to a request of chrisjnelson, then threatens to block, even though I had asked for a solution prior to that means that he may have been abusing his power. You see, it is easy to get your way when you have power. In that situation I was at Pats1's mercy. Understand? I had asked that the problem go to dispureresolution. Pats1 says that "means nothing" to him. Well, it meant something to me. SO, this is ultimately not up to me. I have zero power here. I cannot make anyone do anything they don't want to. In a sense, as an IP minority, I have no franchise, but I thought I had the protections afforded anyone else. Now, as far as RFC, Arbitration, Mediation I don't know. Clearly, the most informal should be first. However, it is my view that Pats1 will be defensive about ANY of those. I could not get him to talk to me before he threatend to block me, and he's shown his attitude by his posts . . .

[Special:Contributions/72.0.36.36|72.0.36.36]] (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't hold your breath for too long... Pats1 ^T/C 01:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

....So, if I am wasting my time by asking for a review, formal or informal, then so be it. Then it may be the above statement is considered CIVIL. In my book it is not. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've read about this whole issue, it seems to be about an incredibly minor issue. The whole conflict between 72.0.36.36 and Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs) I think could've been avoided. Based on my observations, correct me if I'm wrong, when Pats1 (talk · contribs) got involved with the revert war between 72~ and Chrisjnelson, I understand the basis of which Chrisjnelson, and later Pats1, made the reverts. I won't say who I believe was right or wrong.

Now, for 72~'s claim that he was unfairly warned/threatened. The two warnings visible on his talk page right now cite that 72~ had deleted portions of "page content, templates or other materials." The only thing that I've seen that 72~ did was remove {{trivia}} from the Ted Ginn, Jr. article. Now, here is my view of how the situation was handled.

I think that Pats1 knew that the edits that 72~ was making were disputed. The warnings that Pats1 gave out are generally used for users deliberately blanking all or part of an article in a deliberate act of vandalism. There is nothing that indicates to me that 72~ was vandalizing the article. It is my belief that the warnings Pats1 gave to 72~ were not necessary, and made the conflict into more than what it needed to.

In either case, Pats1 is a great contributor and a good admin. I don't think that anybody's behavior needs to be reviewed. But I do side with 72~ about the "unfair warnings", and that has nothing to do with my previous conflicts with Chrisjnelson or Pats1. I think that the best way to resolve this would be for both sides to just go their separate ways and try not to make this issue anything more than it needs to be. I see no reason why any action needs to be taken because this is just one incident. It's not indicative of anybody's overall behavior. Ksy92003(talk) 04:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is Pats1 attitude

Be prepared to stay in that mode for a long, long, long time (possibly forever, but research on the subject varies). Your AN/I entry has been archived and most likely won't be seen again - like I said before, but you didn't want to listen. Nobody is "looking at it." Pats1 ^T/C 04:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, okay, if that's the ruling, I can abide by that. I posted Pats1 most recent post to my talk page. It is not what I call civil, but there are often different standards. Like I said, I can abide this, no problem. I will go my separate way he Pats1 can go his. It is enough for me that there was some sort of review process and now Pats1 is aware that I will assume good faith, but not to a fault. Thanks Ksy92003 I appreciate the review.72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be prepared to stay in that mode for a long, long, long time (possibly forever, but research on the subject varies). Your AN/I entry has been archived and most likely won't be seen again - like I said before, but you didn't want to listen. Nobody is "looking at it." Pats1 ^T/C 04:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Ksy92003(talk) 04:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC) nobody? Besides Pats1 this conversation is between myself and Politik426. What exactly is the purpose for you to comment? That is another example, I think, of your bullying behavior and it is not civil and is yet anotehr example of you flaunting the rules in my face. I don't get why you do that. Perhaps you think you need to hold it over me that you have more power and connections in WIKI than I do, I don't know. I think you and I should take the advise of "nobody" and go our separate ways. I have documented your actions, someone has reviewed them and please go your way, I'll go mine.72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pats 1 uncivil?

Ksy92003 can read it or respond to it all he wants. You quite simply have a false assumption of how Wikipedia processes work and I've tried to help you fix that, but to avail. This is going nowhere. Pats1 ^T/C 03:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any evidence that Pats1 tried to help at all. I don't think that is truthful. He clearly does not thinkKsy92003's opinion is worthy of his attention. I find Pats1 attitude to be uncivil . . . however, if WIKI rules cannot do anything and other admins are not "peer reviewed" as it were then I can kind of understand why this kind of abuse can go on. The very fact that he has such contempt for the process is quite interesting in that it goes unchecked. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've watched this from the beginning and it's absolutely silly. Pats1 has done nothing inappropriate. --B (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

17-0. Wait, no, I mean I don't see what exactly the problem is here. The posting of other people's messages here is making this extremely difficult to read, and if this is just a problem one user has with an admin, then it's really no big deal. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 19:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has been much discussion about the Hezbollah userbox, and it has been deleted because it is offensive. I tried to bring up this issue there, but it was suggested I take it elsewhere.

However, there is another message that many would find offensive. It's on User:Boris_1991, one of the quotes that reads:

"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

So inflammatory was this quote, that it incited the Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy. Even His Holiness says he found the quote "unacceptable".

Why then is wikipedia, after cracking down upon those who support Hezbollah, allowing others to label Islam (and by extension all Muslims) as "evil and inhuman"? Should we not ban this as we banned the Hezbollah userbox?Bless sins (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boris 1991's user page does not violate Wikipedia:User page. Standards for userboxes are stricter than for user pages. Jecowa (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asked him to remove it: [73], which should have been your first stop. Viridae^Talk 05:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Standards for userboxes are stricter than for user pages". I've heard this from another user. What if someone merely copied and pasted the contents of a userbox into a quote? I don't see the difference it'd make.Bless sins (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(The following is as one user remembers and may be skewed by time and memory degregation.)

• Short answer: Offensive content is not allowed in userboxes to prevent Wikipedia from looking poorly.
• Long answer: Userboxes were first created to tag the language skills of Wikipedians so translators could easily be found. Userboxes were then expanded to be used to identify other useful information about editors, such as which editors are biology experts. In these days userboxes were stored in the template namespace. Then userboxes began to be created as jokes or to express users' opinions, such as "this user is an extraterrestrial" or "this user loves dogs". Some userboxes were offensive to some people, such as "this user eats infants" or "this user hates black people". Naturally, people protested this controversial use of userboxes. Since userboxes were stored in template namespace and reflected on Wikipedia as well as the individual users, controversial and potentially offensive userboxes were banned after much discussion. Even though divisive content had been banned, many people were still against userboxes. A long time later after much discussion, all userboxes deemed not useful for building an encyclopaedia were removed from the template namespace. Today, even though personal userboxes are restricted to existing in user space, they are still under the rule that prohibits free expression of offensive content, even though it doesn't make as much sense anymore, seeing that these userboxes would have to be stored in the user namespace. The only reason it could be said now that offensive content is allowed on user pages and not userboxes is that content in userboxes could be misconstrued as being representative of Wikipedia's opinion. Oh, by the way, the Hezbollah userbox you mentioned was stored in the main namespace, so that definitely had to be deleted. Jecowa (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really an incident, so perhaps we should continue the discussion elsewhere, however the page has been previously nominated for deletion. Given the user has stopped editing, if the page was renominated, I would 'vote' delete as his user page doesn't help promote a cooperative atmosphere. Addhoc (talk) 09:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Standards for userboxes are stricter than for user pages" is flat-out incorrect. A userbox, either in userspace or substed onto a user page, is part of a user page and subject to the exact same standards as other userpages. There are additional requirements on pages in the Template namespace, which is where the Hezbollah userbox was deleted. —Random832 17:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Userboxes prohibits anything divisive. Under this criteria User:Boris_1991's statement concerning Muhammad would not be allowed in a userbox as it was definitely divisive. As far as I can find in Wikipedia:User page, the closest thing that comes to prohibiting User:Boris_1991's statement concerning Muhammad in a user page is its prohibition of extensive use of polemical statements. One sentence is definitely not extensive. Jecowa (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(FYP) This is WP:BURO run amok. He can say that, but just not in a box? What if it was a big box containing other things, like his entire user page? Is it our policy that rectangles have magic powers, or do we a policy on statements written inside pentagrams that I've just never run across? -- Kendrick7^talk 22:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing putting that statement in any size box would be okay as long as it's not using one of the userbox templates. Jecowa (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per Kendrick7, I too find the policy "standards for userboxes are different from standards for userpages" to be very peculiar. If this policy is indeed true, then it should be changed.Bless sins (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it appears that since "If content is not appropriate on a user page, it is not appropriate within userboxes, and vice versa," the rules against incivility, personal attacks, inflammatory content, divisiveness, propaganda, advocacy, recruitment, opinion pieces, self-promotion, and advertising carry over from userboxes to userpages. A restriction on one venue automatically places a restriction on the other. Sarsaparilla (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess it should be removed, as inflammatory userboxes are.Bless sins (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Sarsaparilla, it does indeed say "vise vera". This is because User:Kendrick7 just added that "vise vera" bit yesterday. The Userbox page, however, doesn't seem to be the best place to list restrictions on user pages. If these userboxes and user pages are to share content restrictions, perhaps these restrictions should be listed on the same page. Maybe a page called Wikipedia:Content restrictions that all other pages could link to. It would be nice to have standard guidelines for everything on this matter. Jecowa (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is required to close this incident?

As the initiator of this incident report, I would be satisifed that it was resolved if all of the following were done:

• User:Willirennen either remove twinkle from his monobook or agree not to use the features for a period of time that will be adequate for him to study the CSD categories and other related policies, and a mentor assigned to advise him on when he can use it again (I volunteer). See User talk:Willirennen/Mentor
• The block of Eonon is revised to allow account creation.
• User:Eonon's user talk page blanked and only the uw-ublocked template readded Eonon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• User:Orangemike acknowledge this incident report (no action or detailed response comment required)
• East718 has already replied on my talk page and I am satisfied with his reply

JERRY ^talk _contribs 16:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the templated messages from Eonon's talk page, but left the welcome message and some comments. With regards to East718's comment on your talk page, perhaps he would wish to peruse Wikipedia:No angry mastodons#Edit when you're at your best?  :) I would also like to see the other things considered: TWINKLE, the block on Eonon and Orangemike's acknowledgement (and perhaps comments :-).

Also, with regards to one of your original questions, Jerry, "Am I just too sensitive? Maybe all this is really quite Okay?", I do not think that this incident indicates that you are too sensitive, and I do not think that this incident is okay. I think biting newbies is a very systemic problem, which needs to be curbed. Thanks for your report here. --Iamunknown 20:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the block on Eonon. Orangemike does not appear to be around.JERRY ^talk _contribs 21:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only purpose for my requirirng orangemike to acknowledge this incident is to ensure that he was aware of our proposed sctions (and actions we already hasve taken, now) so that he had an opportunity to object and provide information we might not have had available. He could do this by signing this page, replying-to or deleting the notifications on his user page, or making any edit to wikipedia, since the mediawiki interface will tell him there are messages on his user talk page. JERRY ^talk _contribs 11:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the block has been modified to allow account creation (good call on that, I think, since Mike is not here to respond quickly), I've left the user a modified version of {{uw-ublock}}, prefaced with a personal note to explain why it's there, on his or her talk page. He or she may find it useful, since it contains specifics about changing account name. I also left a note explaining how to place {{helpme}} on his or her page for quick attention. If you (or anyone reading this) should think that modified block template might in itself seem bitey (totally not my intention), please feel free to remove it. My hope is simply to clarify things. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone might also email the user? to let him know about all this and that he's ok with a new username? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already did that right after I modified the block. JERRY ^talk _contribs 11:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am not removing the latter, I will be happy to take up the latter but for how long, considering there is vandals that need to be dealt with, plus the amount of vanity garbage written on the site and if they don't stop, they will just continue. I will be happy to take the mentoring bit. Willirennen (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you accept me as your mentor? You may certainly choose somebody else who is willing. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am just using the TW on a limited basis, but not using it to CSD articles, but that user has just contacted me asking me to create a site for him, but trouble is I don't plan to until March, the question is, can he be allowed to recreate the article. Willirennen (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Eonon (under his new account name) may not edit the article again. He may participate on the article talkpage, however. I have explained this to him in my email. If he does come back as an SPA to recreate and/ or edit the article about him, then he will be indefinately blocked. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the requirement for OrangeMike to acknowledge this incident report before it can be closed. I decided that this would be too beaurocratic a requirement. We made a good faith attempt to allow him to have input before taking action, but he was not around, so he can read about this in the archive when he returns. I am certain he will be okay with that. This incident may be closed as appropriate action taken. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was checking Category:Wikipedians looking for help and noticed this. I believe there are several privacy concerns that should be addressed as well as possibly protecting the page. I would appreciate more eyes on this. Regards.--12 Noon ^2¢ 03:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user that wrote the comments seems to have some legitimate complaints. This looks like a clear WP:BLP violation. The article in question was deleted as a BLP violation it looks like. What more is to be done? Do we need to redact the users comments as themselves revealing private info? It seems a sad story, but what further action should we as admins need to take? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the article appears to resolve most of the situation. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to have been settled on the user's talk page so this thread can probably be marked resolved. Regards.--12 Noon ^2¢ 20:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

68.92.33.104 (talk · contribs) Corvus cornix_talk 03:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:LTA/MMB for the litany of IP addresses he has used since he was last reported to WP:ABUSE. -- Gridlock Joe (talk) 03:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now issuing death threats - [74]. Corvus cornix_talk 04:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And another death threat - [75]. Someone needs to contact the Houston police? Corvus cornix_talk 04:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you cant be seriosu they're is no need to coontact the Michigan police it sis obviously just an emotinally-unstable user who has taken some of the discusions a bit too muchto heart. it owuld be more effieincet and more effective to deal with im here on wikipedia rather rthan gettinga SWAT team deployed to hsi house, which just might pis him off enough so that he'll come over to your house and tryto harm you and your family. if the threats ezcalated, then i would recomend police internveiton but right now he should be warned and if that faisl he should be blocked. Smith Jones (talk) 04:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, what? You also need to read the history of Mmbabies before you comment. Corvus cornix_talk 04:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i think you are overactingi have no t read the history but i have recieved death threats on the internet before and there are really not that scary. Smith Jones (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if you look at his "threats" you wil not ice that they are generic threats made by millions of trols and vandals on tiwkipedia every single fricking day, he deifnitely deserves to be IP-blocked permanent-lieka but caling the police would jus t be a waste of time sincetheyd have a hard time tracking him down and there i s very little that ecan do to stophim from hurting or killing other peopl basde on a few weird coments on anencyclopedia. Smith Jones (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have great difficulty understanding you when you write like that. Can you use Firefox or something with a built-in spell-checker? As far as Mmbabies goes, this user has made many, many death threats on Wikipedia. It already has escalated, as the report shows. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has done this for a year, Smith Jones. I think it's pretty well justified for a police report. We've taken every action we can possibly take on this user, including range blocks for AT&T's Houston node, meaning for many users in the nation's fourth largest city, signing up for a username is compulsory for them to edit, and abuse reports to that provider that have gone unanswered. He has attacked my talkpage too and frankly we're all pretty sick of it, especially on WP:TVS and those dealing with Christian television (his favorite targets). Trust me, if this was just 'some kid', he would've been bored by now and gone away, but this user has left personal information, addresses and telephone numbers all over his sock edits. That's not 'generic' as you say, but dangerous. Nate · (chatter) 23:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will be sending an abuse report to their ISP in a moment. May not accomplish anything, but does get the problem on record. Will leave other responses to other people. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since last November, the following IP addresses have inserted the line "soulless bastard" at the end of the biography of Stan Polley. Although the person is quoting a line from a suicide note that had referred to Polley, the insertion by the following IPs attaches this as a personal opinion in agreement with the note. It is a persistent issue with the article and it needs administration attention. Thank you.-- ZincOrbie (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 163.231.6.85
• 163.231.6.88
• 163.231.6.86
• 163.231.6.66
• 163.231.6.67
• 163.231.6.68
• 163.231.6.65

The abuse is continuing and I had to make another revert today.-- ZincOrbie (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another revert again today.-- ZincOrbie (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's an anonymous IP user, 69.76.37.158, attacking other users at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine/Workshop (in multiple sections of the page). This user's posts, both there and at Talk:Matt Sanchez, make me suspect it is banned User:Pwok. Would someone run a checkuser to try to confirm or deny this identity and semi-protect the workshop page? Thanks. Aleta (Sing) 06:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected the page, after waiting a little while for the IP to withdraw the attack. I would also like to know if the IP is a regular user, in case the user is related to the arbcom case. John Vandenberg (talk) 07:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. One of the issues in the case is long term baiting by single purpose IPs and accounts, usually short lived. Durova^Charge! 07:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although the language is strikingly similar, I don't think this is banned User:Pwok at work here. Pwok was infamous for a dozen or so changes at once, as he refused to use the preview button and tweaked his posts a word or two at a time. Also, he used a Comcast IP address in Seattle, while this is a RoadRunner IP address in Wisconsin. A checkuser would be nice, but I don't think it will reveal much, since there are no other addresses with which to compare; I don't think it is any of the regular editors editing under an IP address. Horologium (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you for your insight, Horologium. Whoever this IP is, s/he is continuing to post comments very insulting to any editor who has ever worked on the Matt Sanchez article at Talk:Matt Sanchez, essentially accusing all of us of conspiring to lie about Matt and censor the truth about his "40 videos". Aleta (Sing) 19:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While it's not likely to be Pwok, I wouldn't be surprised if it was one of the handful of contributors to his attack site. (Exercising editorial restraint; it's not the first description that ran through my mind.) Can we just temp-block to IP to make him go away while we are running the arbitration case? I had not planned to continue adding evidence, but I may reconsider if Sanchez (and good-faith editors who disagree with the IP) continue to be attacked by halfwit unregistered editors. Horologium (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, Durova has removed the comment with the note that it *is* Pwok. I find that highly irregular. Do we routinely remove IP-comments even critical of Wikipedia on the presumption that they might be a banned user? I would also point out that this constant attack on Pwok who *cannot defend himself* here is pointless and without any merit. Wjhonson (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Jack Merridew (talk · contribs)

User has reverted my edits 5 minutes and 3 minutes after I made my edits. These were the users 2nd and 3rd edits today - rather unusual. Blanking of episode lists and character lists is common practice at the moment.

User has also voted on FLRC just 13 minutes after myself.

-- Cat ^chi? 10:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

White Cat has redirected the lists after TTN merged the characters to the list. This is an obvious WP:POINT. As to the timing, I had not even realized it, I just fired up laptop and looked at what was going on. --Jack Merridew 10:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidences... I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences. So why is it that TTN is allowed to make such edits and why is it that I am not allowed? -- Cat ^chi? 10:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that a reference to the movie Magnolia? --Jack Merridew 10:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just take contested redirects to AfD; all these edit wars are getting to be more than a bit disruptive. We have AfD for a reason. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All Oh My Goddess! character articles (nominated for redirectification by Jack Merridew and redirectified by TTN) and episode articles (nominated for redirectification by TTN and redirectified by Jack Merridew) were bulk redirectified.

As visible with this edit TTN makes such edits. Special:Contributions/TTN has more examples of mass rectifying. User has over 1000 edits this month - almost all mass redirectifying. If there is nothing wring with that, there is nothing wrong with my edits.

-- Cat ^chi? 10:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirecting articles, in itself, not generally a problem; edit warring over that redirect, potentially far more problematic. I'm not intending to single you out in particular, I've seen more than a few people doing this recently. Contested redirects should be discussed, not brute forced. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not reverted. Not once. Jack Merridew reverted twice on this particular case. If you check TTNs past 5000 or 500 or even 50 edits you will see plenty of examples of brute forcing. -- Cat ^chi? 10:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If you think the articles should be deleted, AfD is freely available; other than that, what's the issue, here? – Luna Santin (talk) 10:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TTN is mass blanking articles had been doing so for months. The problem is me trying to commit similar edits which upset Jack Merridew. -- Cat ^chi? 11:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not upset, I just undid your disruptive edits (on two different lists). --Jack Merridew 11:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will you revert similar edits by TTN? -- Cat ^chi? 11:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If he restores your redirects, at this point, I would probably talk about it; here, where ever. --Jack Merridew 11:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about this? -- Cat ^chi? 11:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what the feck that is. --Jack Merridew 11:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a diff where TTN recently blanked the content of an entire "list of characters" article. -- Cat ^chi? 14:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm rarely wins folks to your point of view. --Jack Merridew 14:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He redirected the merge targets, removing everything out of pique. I don't think anyone was advocating that. --Jack Merridew 10:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saw you mentioned that (haven't taken too close a look, but assuming your description is accurate that sounds worth discussion) -- I figure the AfD onus should be on those who want article(s) removed, similar to the situation with contested prods. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? TTN, Jack Merridew and other members of the club vote together manipulating AfDs. Happened before many times. -- Cat ^chi? 10:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that his disruptive behavior is the issue here and should be the focus of this discussion. This is far from the first instance of such conduct by this user. --Jack Merridew 12:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if I redirectify articles thats "disruption" if you or TTN does it thats good conduct? -- Cat ^chi? 14:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It is the perceived intent that is the determinative factor. --Jack Merridew 14:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belldandy for the prior fit. And note that it went to DRV, too. --Jack Merridew 10:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yet Belldandy is now a redirect along with every other character. Why can't I make edits such as this yet TTN can? -- Cat ^chi? 10:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

White Cat, it's pretty clear that those redirects you made was an attempt at scorching the Earth because you couldn't get your way. This isn't the first time you've done this either.

Also, if you have been paid any attention to WT:ANIME, you will find that there has been discussion about merging episode, and to a lesser extent character, articles that are unable to independently establish their notability. Neither TTN nor Jack Merridew have been a significant party to either of those discussions nor are they members to WP:ANIME.

As for the Beck article, I've reverted the redirect because the content of the article had not been merged into the target article, no equivalent content exists on the target article, and there has been no discussion to simply blank the redirected article either. --Farix (Talk) 12:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! I make edits like TTN and people yell at me! I do not believe TTN has even read those articles. No human being can read that fast. I did merge it in a TTN-like manner. I removed the crufty non-notable material off. Link article has all the "notable" material which may also be redirectified. -- Cat ^chi? 14:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are gaming the system. Seraphim ^Whipp 14:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well since the redirectors have been doing it for months without sanction it would appear to be the aproved method.Geni 01:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This behaviour is childish and WP:POINTY. If you believe the method that has been used, to be wrong (like White Cat has made clear), then you do not use the same method yourself. When have two wrong's ever made a right? Seraphim ^Whipp 01:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you view their method as wrong? If so why are you not takeing action against it?Genisock2 (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, no, I don't view their method as wrong. They are fixing a problem that just wasn't recognised unitl now...or rather it was recognised but no action was taken. There are two sides to this and believe me, I can sympathise with both. Many argue, "people come to wikipedia for tv episode articles and that's why our encylopedia is popular and useful". I can appreciate that and it has occurred to me that if we destroy the usefulness of our encylopedia, then in turn, do we de-value it? But on the other hand, making these articles comply with our policies is a good thing and there's a very good argument that, by removing non-compliant material (non-comliant because it is a WP:NOT#PLOT regurgitation), we increase the quality and respectability of wikipedia. Did you see the Smallville (season 1) page that Bignole wrote? That is the sort of high quality content we should be aiming for.

My point was that White Cat views their methods as wrong, so for him to use them, shows he is making a point. That does not benefit the encylopedia. Seraphim ^Whipp 02:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an idea; if you take your two lists to Afd, I'll abide by the consensus reached there. I promise to not oppose deletion. (not promising not to comment; this offer good for a limited time only. Batteries not included. Void on Texas.) --Jack Merridew 14:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This two inflammatory userboxes are present in different userpages. I do not know how these two userbox can be deleted. Please help. A discussion is going on in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MQDuck/userboxes/Right To Resist. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know the 2005 userbox war happened for a reason. Political userboxes and religions userboxes are not allowed. That was the consensus back then and I see no evidence of a change in consensus. People have started creating political userboxes in their userspace. I however heavly doubt ANI will offer a solution. -- Cat ^chi? 10:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Smoth 007 has a userbox supporting independence of Palestine and the above-=mentioned userboxes are present in User:Noor Aalam. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would think that someone who complains daily about userboxes (yet wanted to create controversial ones himself) would have learned about deletion process by now rather than complain here everytime something bugs him. EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You write: I do not know how these two userbox can be deleted. Please help. Yet you link to a MfD that you are aware of. Given that, what do you think the proper procedure would be? EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that this two userboxes are not constructed in one particular page. The userpages on which the userboxes are present, are written in raw codes. There is no specific template of these two userboxes. So what I need to do now? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot use MfD here because the userboxes are not constructed in a specific page. So in which process these will be deleted? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing as long as it isn't worse than it is now. If larger parts of the user pages turn into campaign posters then use MfD. You are very unlikely to get more out of this than sympathy for the idea that user pages shouldn't be used for this. Lots of people have the suppoprt for Israel boxes yet nothing happens to them - it takes more than that when they aren't transcluded on there - mainly because the lack of transclusion makes it harder to quickly list everyone who believes this or that. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't much wrong here. Sure, they could be considered inflamatory, but they aren't as badd as some. Though I would watch that userpage to make sure it doesn't get worse.--Phoenix-wiki 14:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really think this kind of thing is the definition of gaming the system. -- Cat ^chi? 14:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh FFS give it a freakin' rest. If there are support of <insert faction here> userboxes then it should be okay to have userboxes supporting the other side. WP does not take a political side, if you continually delete one side without the other then you are in effect determining a WP bias. So quit with the userbox posse and go do some editing. --WebHamster 15:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. According to your argument, a userbox can be created with a text "This user support nuclear war". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are telling that it should not biased, i.e. it should not be biased towards peace, or disruption. So the equation becomes:

• Peace = biased
• Disruption = biased
• Not supporting peace, not supporting disruption = Neutrality. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This two userboxes are definitely inflammatory. Who occupied Tibet? Who occupied Chechnya? What is going on in Tibet and Chechnya are sucsessionist movement and userboxes supporting them can not be tolerated. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't be tolerated by you, the rest of the editorship seems remarkably unconcerned. Look, they aren't hate boxes they are expressions of belief. They doen't say they are right, they don't say what should happen, they don't say kill the ruskies or the chinks. They say that the user believes in whatever they are saying. That is not inflammatory. Now please get off your high-horse and do something useful with your time. --WebHamster 15:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The practice is that a userbox can speak against, but only in favor. "This user supports GW Bush" is an acceptable userbox. "This user supports the impeachment of GW Bush" is not acceptable asa userbox. A userbox can support the american Army, or for that matter the Iraqi insurgents. We have no business deciding which one is an instrument of oppression. A user can not say: I support killing the American invaders" -- or for that matter "I support killing the Iraqi terrorists". DGG (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks an awful lot like User:Otolemur crassicaudatus is trying to make a WP:POINT about the deletion of several of his userboxes here. Which is a bad idea. MastCell ^Talk 21:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2006 called, they want their userbox drama back – Gurch 20:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right March.com radio broadcaster Bill Greene, who edits here as User:Profg, has made a podcast from an anti-liberal anti-Darwinist movement "conservative viewpoint" available at http://web.mac.com/profg/iWeb/Site/Podcast/7D1AFD6C-C07F-11DC-B69C-000A959E8368.html discussing Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The podcast opens suggesting using google to search for evolution or intelligent design, and you'll find Wikipedia near the top results, "But let me tell you, there's an incredible liberal bias there" then describes WP as being mostly edited by students and academics who don't need to spend their time trying to make a living, filling their heads with "liberal mush". Near the end of the podcast he says "But I wanna tell how how you can take action on this... The first thing you can do, on the issue of intelligent design, is go to wikipedia.org and go to, say, the section on intelligent design, and read it, and see if you could improve it. Or maybe it's the page on evolution, or creationism. Go to one of these pages and see if you can improve it. Anyone is allowed to edit it. There's a little bit of a learning curve, but really, it's supposed to be their premises, be bold, go right in there and improve it, but within five minutes, what you have written will be completely reworded, or kicked out. If you go to the discussion page and try to talk about it, you will be slammed. And if you get a little bit out of hand, because it's easy to get upset about these kind of things, you'll be kicked out. You're history. But you know what? Get a whole bunch of your friends to all do it at once. Everyone get on the phone in a conference call, or maybe get your iChat going or something, and everyone go in at once, because they can't stop, say, a dozen people, or 24 people, or 50 people, or a hundred people if they all come in at once and say 'no, we're going to do this' and they're concerted about it. Take action! Get it done!" ... dave souza, talk 11:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the case - is the identity with User:Profg proven? In that case, a good long block/ban is in order, as he was apparently already under parole for previous disruption, and this is as clear a case of disruptive behaviour as you can get. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[76] - it's self-admitted. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under these circumstances, and considering the existing parole imposed by User:B after a previous ban proposal (see User talk:Profg), I'd be willing to block for a longish period. How long shall we say? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still no block, though.[77] And to make this perfectly clear, the precise nature of this person's ideology is irrelevant. It's the attempt to canvass for a POV push that's important. Durova^Charge! 13:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just waiting for a bit of further input. There's no hurry. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last ANI discussion Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to take any action and don't really care one way or another what anyone does here except to say (1) by linking the podcast here, you've probably substantially increased his listenership, (2) a block would be punitive not preventative (not that I'm expressing an opinion on whether or not there is anything wrong with that, just that it is what it is), (3) if he is blocked, do a checkuser, and (4) if a block is made, make sure that it is for actions, not for bias - there are other Wikipedians that run attack sites sites that criticize Wikipedians or Wikipedia (google "nonbovine" for instance). --B (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about criticising Wikipedia. It's about solliciting meatpuppets. A block isn't any more punitive than any other block that is imposed based on past behaviour. You take past behaviour as a measure of the likelihood that future behaviour will be disruptive, and calculate block length accordingly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked to post both relevant podcast links: http://web.mac.com/profg/iWeb/Site/Podcast/7D1AFD6C-C07F-11DC-B69C-000A959E8368.html http://web.mac.com/profg/iWeb/Site/Podcast/9A7C2A76-9F89-11DC-880E-000A959E8368.html --Filll (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Community ban discussion

• A block won't stop the damage. Wikipedia does not need editors who declare war against NPOV and canvass for meat puppets. This is a cooperative project, not an exercise in unlimited free speech. He must be excluded until he agrees to work cooperatively. Jehochman ^Talk 14:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't edit the articles in question. I haven't even looked at the articles in question. I don't know the guy on the radio. However, the description in the first paragraph suggests that the article is POV and needs correction. So the assertion that the person is anti-NPOV is an attack. Whether it's an attack that can be justified is a different question. It's possible that the radio guy is looney. The fundamental question would be to put yourself in his shoes and ask "are there sections which are biased"? We should examine the fundamental question about whether this radio announcer has valid ideas that are being reverted. If so, then the talk of banning, blocking, and other steps are wrong. If the radio announcer has wacky ideas, that's a different story. Does the radio announcer's edits have reliable sources and are properly referenced? Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A short sprotect of any article that appears to have been edited vexatiously following the podcast would resolve any problem with undue weight/vandalism. Re Profg, although they may have violated the terms of a parole the effect can be easily mitigated and blocking them from editing Wikipedia is not going to stop them from their off-Wiki activities (and may encourage them). A month block may suffice to persuade the editor we are serious about countering disruption of articles, but provided the carrot of a return to editing should they not canvas further for disruptive editing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You are correct that the block may encourage more warring. That is why I have proposed a social construction: a ban. If Profg sees that we are unanimously against his methods, he may stop. If however, he sees support from any faction, he may view this as just another liberal-conservative battle, which is hopefully not the case. Jehochman ^Talk 14:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No, its certainly not a lib/con consideration; the template on Profg's page mentions a block rather than ban as sanction for parole violation, so I am being consistent with that. If the block is indefinite pending cessation of canvassing for POV pushing, with a month minimum tariff, then I could support. I would comment that the template doesn't directly address canvassing, but if the net result is to violate the terms of the parole by meatpuppetry then I think sanction on violation of parole is justified - it just depends whether we are considering keeping the key or not. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't need to split hairs over what's a ban and what's a block. If a block gets imposed on the basis of admin consensus after a discussion like this, it will by definition be a ban. A temporal one; I too would consider indef overkill in this situation, and possibly counterproductive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• We are not limited to the probation remedies. If he has done something else wrong, which appears to be the case, we are free to impose whatever remedies are necessary to protect the project and deter future disruption. That said, if he were to come here now or later and say, "Oops, I didn't realize this was wrong, I will issue a retraction," then the remedy could be lifted. Jehochman ^Talk 15:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Could I propose an initial block of one month, to be reviewed at the end of tariff for evidence of continued off-Wiki canvassing for POV pushing - which would then attract the indef tariff until such time as they agree to comply with the communities wishes - as a compromise? LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to agree and I would support a ban. This isn't just a case of seeking external input; Profg is explicitly seeking to recruit a large number of supporters of his POV and to use them to impose that POV in violation of NPOV. I'd call that unacceptably disruptive conduct, regardless of the effect it actually has in practice. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that a block or ban might encourage him, can we think of another option? Can we reason him out of this approach? And if that fails, then move to other thing?--Filll (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• How about we ban and block him now, and if he wants to come back, he has to stop actively trying to sabotage the project, and then we can talk. This is a project, not a public service. Editing is a privilege, not a right. You are certainly welcome to reason with him. I think a block by an individual administrator is problematic. We need a statement by the community that this behavior is highly objectionable, and that we will exclude him so long as it continues. Jehochman ^Talk 15:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think that banning people for telling others to edit and use Wikipedia would be a terribly productive use of anyone's time. Regards, [[Guest9999 (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
• A block/ban will simply turn him into a martyr, further enhancing his status with his constituency. And it won't help us because he can return as a sockpuppet anyway. Regarding edits by his audience, it's not necessary to respond instantly. The "slow revert" is a wonderful thing. So what if the article is lousy for a few hours, or maybe a day or two, before we roll back -- lots of our articles are lousy for much longer periods than that. They want to provoke a newsworthy reaction and the best thing we can do is not react accordingly. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps some administrator can be appointed to have a discussion with him explaining why what he did was out of line with Wikipedia community standards. Pending the results of that discussion, the administrator would report back what he/she thinks is the most appropriate way to deal with the issue. If it seems like there was good understanding and remorse (and perhaps even a correction made on the next podcast), take no action. If there is no remorse or no willingness to engage in discussion, take some action. Antelan ^talk 17:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I oppose the ban but could support it if there is a proper explanation. What is the offense that causes the ban? Wikipedians don't like wikilawyering and neither do I. However, we need Wikiprecision.

What is the behavior causing ban?

1. Is it "mention of Wikipedia to others will cause you to be banned"?

2. Is it "mention of Wikipedia in the radio will cause you to be banned"?

3. Is it "disruptive editing because of diffs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 is causing your ban."?

4. Is it "asserting that there is a bias in Wikipedia causing you to be banned."?

5. Something else?

This could be a clear cut and easy decision. However, it's not adequately explained here. Maybe it's because you know what is going on. Others don't. I haven't read the articles. So if you want a community ban and not just a ban from you and your fellow editor, then you should be more specific. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Off-wiki Canvassing for meat puppets to support a particular point of view is an illegitimate way to deal with a content dispute. A ban of this user would allow us to swiftly block any sock or meat puppet accounts that answer his call to disruptively edit the target articles. Jehochman ^Talk 18:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: I have never even looked at the articles in question so I am questioning the process more than the edits. In Wikipedia, calling someone a meat or sockpuppet is too convenient an excuse to block someone. Ideas, not number of editors, is of more importance. Does the edits have reliable sources? If so, they are not POV or can be made NPOV. "Others contend that .... < ref >" is the way to do it. The biggest question I have that needs to be answered for me to support a ban would be to show the diffs to demonstrate that they seem like POV and wouldn't likely have any reliable sources. A review of the opposing sides edits that have reliable sources would also be necessary. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrs.EasterBunny (talk • contribs) 18:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a ban. In the time I've been familiar with him, something like a year now, he's been an inveterate POV pusher. This latest demarche of his demonstrates a clear contempt of this community and the project's goals. Don't see a talking to making much of an impression on someone who holds such strong views and is willing to make such public calls to recruit meat puppets. FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a ban. -- Fyslee / talk 18:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Profg hasn't actually edited much for some time. I'd suggest that we run a few checkusers over the next month in case of sockpuppetry vandalism, and watch his account, but if we ban him at this moment, realise the gesture will probably end up being symbolic rather than particularly useful. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This is senseless. People are not AFD'ed. A one-line "support a ban" or "oppose a ban" type discussion is unhelpful. There were admins willing to unblock him before (I was the one that implemented it.) Is there any admin who would be willing to unblock him this time? I'm guessing the answer is no (as it probably should be), but if any admin would be willing to unblock him, that is what it is. Community bans are when no admin is willing to unblock someone - you can't treat people like articles and vote them in or out of existence based on whoever shows up. And for the record, I would (obviously) not be willing to unblock him this time. Canvassing on-wiki or off-wiki is obviously not an acceptable behavior. The issue before was that nobody could actually provide examples of Profg behaving in any way that would warrant an indefinite ban and no uninvolved user even supported the ban. Now, that's changed and I seriously doubt any admin would unblock him if he is blocked. I agree with Adam that it would be somewhat symbolic since he has not edited (at least not that we know of) in some time. But there's nothing inherently wrong with a symbolic action when it is a symbol that certain behaviors will not be tolerated. --B (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1 Month Block

I have implemented a 1 month block and informed Profg [78] that this can be shortened if the canvassing is stopped, or lengthened if we observe continuing problems. This seems to be the most appropriate remedy at this time. Jehochman ^Talk 20:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose We are acting like the thugs that killed Wei Wenhua. Even Jimbo Wales is against this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Statements_of_support We are acting like the mob trying to ban User:Profg. All he said was to edit Wikipedia to improve it. He did not say to write POV. His previous behavior is not the issue. Read the complaint at the top. They don't like him promoting Wikipedia. These people seem to only want POV, anti-creationist to edit WP. I am not a fanatic. See my edits. They are very reasonable. They call for fairness (including criticism of the film) and not POV one way or the other.

Other wikipedians do the same thing. IRC is one big canvassing media. So are talk pages and e-mail. As long as we are fair in what we edit, it is ok. So I support unblocking of Profg for his webcast. If he edits POV, then he can be blocked. Let's not do the same thing as the mob did to Wei Wenhua. Fairchoice (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On sprotects of the pages Profg suggests be targeted (per above discussion)

Probably unnecessary at the moment. Evolution has been sprotected for months, if not years (It used to be one of the biggest vandalism targets. A few persistent vandals may mean that it still is...) However, for the unprotected articles he mentions, there's hardly been a flood of new, problematic users. The only edits I can find that have a half-decent chance of coming from this are two edits by new user Sonseeker007 (talk · contribs) to Intelligent design. They were reverted, and that was it. There was also a little anon vandalism of Creationism ([79] - but this is pretty standard "Hi, X!" vandalism and probably unrelated. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, his announcement is of what he plans to organize in the future.--Filll (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the very first paragraph, a podcast quote says "If you go to the discussion page and try to talk about it, you will be slammed". Yet we are trying to ban him. A more productive discussion may be "Let's not slam newbies. Let's get all editors to use reliable sources for every statement, particularly controversial statements." I find it disturbing that we are trying to ban editors. I would find it more comfortable if we are banning editors for failure to use reliable sources and citations. We have to be careful because most articles, even non-controversial ones, are full of uncited statements. If we are banning him because of clearly POV statements and lack of citations (diffs needed) and failure to cooperate in fixing this problem, then that's a different story. If I were to give Easter eggs only to perfect kids, no kids would get Easter eggs. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but think of the reduction in cavities! On the other hand there is not always a benefit in numbers, sometimes WP can do without certain editors. --WebHamster 18:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, we don't want certain editors in WP! I don't want anti-Easter Bunny editors but would allow them if the anti-Easter Bunny edits had citation and were written in an encyclopedic tone. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I wasn't very clear: this is relating to the above discussion of Profg , not the users cited in the examples. Basically, if he was really that major of a force against Wikipedia, we'd probably have seen a bit more trouble by now on the articles he mentioned by name. I've changed the title of this section appropriately. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see how blocking him would prevent his solicitation of meat puppets via his blog. DGG (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too don't see how banning him would prevent meatpuppetry, all he would do is use the incident to say that it proves his point. However, from my experience in other controversial topics, new editors who come in and try to change an article to support their POV almost never become good editors. They either get blocked for disruption, POV pushing, edit warring, incivility/attacks, sockpuppetry, etc. or they give up after a few weeks of not being able to get their way. Mr.Z-man 21:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really, User:Profg was disruptive and unconstructive in the best of times, and was most recently unblocked on fairly strict terms of parole. Now he's soliciting a large group of editors of a particular POV to swarm and "overwhelm" a contentious article? Block the account indefinitely. He's already got his red meat on how he's been censored by the leftist hordes; an indefinite block won't materially change that. If he changes his approach convincingly, or if some admin wants to unblock him, then we can reopen a discussion. If the articles become problems, we'll semi-protect them as needed. MastCell ^Talk 21:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Storm in a teacup. I propose we do absolutely nothing. If we have a large number of newbie POV editors then we semiprotect, and revert to the last stqable version. But unless he is very influential, I doubt it will amount to anything anyway. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AGF. I am for reason and civility. As mentioned above, the movie article hasn't been subject to attacks yet censorship exists because it is protected. Fairchoice (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on the subject, is there any reason you aren't using your main account? MastCell ^Talk 04:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Onequestion. Jehochman ^Talk 05:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the articles on old toys/cartoon/comic book characters lacked pictures, and I had a big collection old toys and TV shows, so I had started to take pictures and post them under their respective articles. I used screen captures, box art and the like. At first I had trouble using proper tags, but eventually that was sorted out. There was a complaint that these images were non-free, and it was suggested to me that pictures I took myself of the toys of characters were a free alternative. I started to take pictures of the toys for the characters and post them as GDFL-self. I recently recieved another notice that the pictures of the toys themselves are not GFDL-self as the toy is considered a work of art, and owned by the creator. There are still articles out there with no or few pictures. If the picture of the toys are also non-free (and no free alternative does exist!) then should I just go back to screen captures and comic art and such, IF I work out a proper non-free image fair use rational? There seems to be no free alternative for some of these articles, and surely at least one non-free image per character IS allowed if you have the proper rational attached to it. I know I can't flood an article with non-free pictures, but some articles lack pictures all together, is that an acceptable reason to add a properly tagged non-free image?

Also, what about characters who changed siginifantly? Would I be allowed to post a picture of each of theirt changes over the years? Thanks for letting me know. Mathewignash (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If an alternative does not exist and these are needed to retain the quality of the article, you can still use them under our fair use rules. Jtrainor (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For instance there is an article on three different fictional characters who share a name - Dirge (Transformers). Can I safely add a non-free picture of each of the three characters (who look vastly different) to the article if I use a proper fair use rational? Mathewignash (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be more useful to photograph all three at the same time. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way the article is set up each character has his own section. I could merge pictures of their two modes into one picture, since they are Transformers they all have 2 modes. Like robot and jet. I could make those one picture. Mathewignash (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though one needs to be aware that while no one (currently) is adding up non-free use on a page, a single shot of 3 separate toys would be considered as 3 uses of non-free fair use (as the photo is a derivative work). But the advice you have currently is otherwise correct, you can probably get more info at WP:NFC and WP:ICHD. --MASEM 13:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since a toy is a three-dimensional work of art, wouldn't User:Mathewignash be free to release these two-dimensional photographs of these three-dimensional works into the public domain, under GFDL, and/or CC? Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ states, "For pictures of statues (which is, effectively, a translation of a three dimensional work into a two-dimensional copy) the picture taker has creative input into which angle to take the photographs from. Therefore, a new copyright is created when the picture is taken." Jecowa (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not. See the discussion and linked discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Any trademark experts?. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 16:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the first discussion you mentioned concerning Image:TARDIS-trans.png, User:WjBscribe said that commons is concerned with copyright, not trademarks. The photograph of a toy from that discussion is now hosted on commons. Jecowa (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you read through the discussion there, it specifically applies to the TARDIS (aka an old British policy box) because they cannot "copyright" that look - that look was in the public domain before the BBC created Doctor Who. It is a highly unique case. --MASEM 17:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems crazy to me. I know copyright law is byzantine at times all the time, but what if a picture were made, such that a toy were incidental in the shot taken. And then that photo (the one with the incidental toy in it) were released under a CC or GFDL. And then somebody else were to crop the freely licensed picture down the line (to include just the toy). . .does that mean that the cropped, derivative pic would violate copyright, but the original wouldn't? Or can one never release a photo if it contains discernible 3D --> 2D pixels in it somewhere? R. Baley (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, do I just added one non-free box art image to the Dirge (Transformers) page. Is there ANY problem with the way I did it? Please let me know. I want to try to get a general nod that I added a proper picture the right way to an article before doing another. Thanks Mathewignash (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a picture to the Bonecrusher article (which covers 7 different characters named Bonecrusher). Since the 6th had no picture, I used one sent out by Hasbto to promote it's sale. Is this okay? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonecrusher_%28Transformers%29#Transformers:_Universe_.28Deluxe.29 I think i tagged everything properly.Mathewignash (talk) 10:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They all look like they're done correctly to me, but I'm not a copyright lawyer. Jecowa (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woggy (talk · contribs) (currently blocked indefinitely for having an acid tongue and as a V-OA) has just posted a plea to be unblocked on his talk page. I'm not comfortable unblocking someone blocked for personal attacks; does this guy deserve a second chance? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 17:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COULD YOU please list which edits othat were causing him to be blocked?~~?~??~?~? 17

57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please be more civil, Smith? And please examine his block log (the link is at the top of his contribs page). He's been blocked for three months, and not by me. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should not that username be indefinitely blocked anyway, due to its possible meanings? Whitstable (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should guess that the username patroller was not familiar with UK racist terms - although it is just as possible neither is the account holder. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i think that he should be permanetnly bblocked from editing becuase it i clear from his block log hat he has not ientention of proiidnd useful edits and seems to have createdhisacount solely for vandalcism. not only that i agree with whitstable that his usename is obviously a racialist slur. Smith Jones (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not happening; the user has evaded the block as Wuggy (talk · contribs) (see below). Very bad move if you want an unblock. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this is a sock puppet account of User:L.L.King and he -like L.L.King and all the socks before him- has gone on page long tirades against me and my assault on the integrity of Wikipedia. He left a wall of text over at User talk:Alison about my abuse of protocols and followed that up at User talk:BQZip01 with a tear calling me a liar and a fool. He's left lengthy essays on both WP:IFD and his talk page (since deleted) again calling me abusive and downright evil. I don't think Alison has checked her talk page (she was the blocking admin for L.L.King), so I thought I would bring this request here. Thanks. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only just getting started here for the day. Initial glance shows that it's a bit more complex than simple sock vandalism, and that there may be BLP issues involved, too. Feel free to weigh in on my talk page, anyone ... - Alison ^❤ 18:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone mind telling this user not to maintain list of users s/he doesn't like? [80] The user claims it's not insulting, but it's clearly meant to be. Mønobi 18:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i just warned him for you. Smith Jones (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I told him to remove it and he renamed from "Worst admin ever" to what it is now, then told me he'd added me. I don't mind really with the way it is now, but it was bad before.--Phoenix-wiki 18:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point. I made a mistake calling it "worst admins", which of course was very offending, which I did not meant it to be. I was just a list for my own convenience, and for other users who either have had the same run-ins with those users, or who simply just needed to find someone who knew how the things work here. Besides, who can really define what is "offensive"? Is a list of random user-names offensive?? If you do not like to be on the list, fine. Write me and I'll remove you. I didn't say you were assholes or anything like that, just said the guys on the list were "attentive", and then defined what the word meant (someone who pays attention). Nothing offensive about that, unless you just WANT it to be so. -Which apparently many of you do. So I've had to remove the list from my page, which is a violation of my freedom of speech, but who cares about that anyway. If you ban/block me from the site for something as banal as this, then my point has been proven.KnatLouie (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Fuzzy Wuggy had a widdoo accident. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is related to the above post about Woggy (talk · contribs) unblock plea. Just after that was posted, Wuggy (talk · contribs) was created. Their first edit? Admitting to NawlinWiki that they were, in fact, Woggy. The second edit was making more personal attacks on Talk:List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes, which was a trademark of Woggy. I brought this here because I thought it was way too obvious to file an SSP report. NF24^{(radio me!)} 19:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a block-evading sock; although I will note that he was not using a personal attack on the Talk:LoSBSPE page. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, really? I took "Ever heard of proper grammar?" as an attack (though it wasn't to me) and was attempting to remove it when I edit-conflicted with you (while you were removing Wuggy's comments entirely). Good job. NF24^{(radio me!)} 19:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While it is incivil, it's not a personal attack. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this "Resolved" comment supposed to be cute? It's decidedly not. Frongle (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that he was given rollback, but just a few months ago I found thisWikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/HPJoker, which tells me he doesn't deserve the tool. Also all his rollbacks so far is reverting new users edits in the Wikipedia:Sandbox of all pages. Taking here for consensus. Secret ^account 19:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would endorse the removal of his rollback tools.--Phoenix-wiki 20:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? If he abuses it, remove it. No need for drama.--Doc ^{g - ask me for rollback} 20:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well he is only reverting new users on the sandbox on a costant basis, which is WP:BITE Secret ^account 20:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly why rollback sucks, here we are wasting time - go tell him not to do that. Ask him nicely, don't bring this useless drama here.--Doc ^{g - ask me for rollback} 20:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I had already asked the user to stop doing that and he replied "I know. I'm just bored.", but obviously chose to keep doing it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he's continued to abuse the tool, then simply remove it. No fuss no paperwork.--Doc ^{g - ask me for rollback} 22:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all. It appears that after this change was made, a whole bunch of active discussions on WP:RSN immmediately disappeared, including new threads. I'm assuming that this was not suppose to happen. I'm also assuming I'm not the only one who noticed, but FYI just in case. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A follow-up: Haemo already took care of it. It was some kind of accidental deletion. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being harassed by User:Coloane for making an unfavorable review at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Macau. The first step of his retaliation was to nominate one of the FA articles I've worked on at Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Indonesia/archive1. That approach failed with the review being quickly closed with the issues raised being dismissed outright, but he then threatened to renominate the same article again at WP:Featured article review on February 1st, 2008 ([81]). The editor clearly states their motive for renominating Indonesia is revenge here: ([82]). Another editor also unfavorably reviewed the Macau article, and the response from User:Coloane was the same: a threat to vote against one of the articles written by the reviewer at WP:FAC ([83]). There may also be a violation of Wikipedia:Canvassing by this editor - they have asked a number of other like-minded editors to vote at the Macau FA review : [84], [85], [86], [87], [88]. Blackmailing other editors and gaming the system to achieve FA status for articles should be a serious cause for concern.

There is an ongoing pattern of disruptive behavior with this editor. User:Coloane was recently blocked for violating the 3RR on Russia ([89]). Another editor expressed frustration that the editor was also being disruptive on the Singaporean articles: [90]. If you examine the edits made by User:Coloane, User:Fbmmsu and User:Josuechan there is a superficial case that they may all be sockpuppets controlled by the same individual. There is an overlap in the articles they edit and the style of their edit comments - all editors have a habit of writing "+" a lot in their edit comments, specifically "+ comment" or "+ com" for adding comments at talk pages, "+ ref" or "+ reference" for adding references, etc. Indeed, User:Coloane has previously been blocked for block-evasion ([91]), and User:Coloane and User:Fbmmsu have played tag team in reverting at Programme for International Student Assessment to force a 3RR violation block of another editor. A checkuser on these accounts would be helpful in understanding exactly what is going on.

Can someone help solve the ongoing disruption this editor is causing? (Caniago (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for your message you wrote me in my talk page. Excuse me, for what you claimed about sockpuppet(s) is groundless. Admin can check it. There is nothing wrong to notify my friends, collegues, or other ediors to vote and give me comment over the FAC page as long as I didn't force them to vote either support or oppose. The original spirit for blocking is to quench edit war and I don't think there is edit war over the page of PISA and it passed long time ago inlcuding Russia. For the article Singapore I already compromised with other editors like Huaiwei. For what you claimed about my first block evasion last year because I had used anyo. with Mobile IP, that is why the admin blocked me after I created my account. Caniago, there is nothing wrong for me to put the article Indonesia over the page of FAR. Actually that article is not in FA standard. Lead has no citation, I am not completely wrong. Thanks! Coloane (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are not in the business, if you do this for me I will do that for you! There are people I do not like, but I do not go to articles conserning them imparting my opinion. We must follow WP:NPOV and supress the evil WP:COI as much as posible to preserve WP:Notable, respect WP:WEIGHT and WP:AGF. Igor Berger (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed something wrong to notify friends, collegues, or other ediors to vote, for that can amoung to WP:MEAT if their sole purpose to be here is just that...engaging in revert-wars. And I do not consider him as having reached any "compromise" with me, after his failed attempt to abuse the WP:3RR policy [92]. which was the last time he chose to be disruptive in Singapore-related articles.--Huaiwei (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are not completely wrong. There is no black and white area here. It depends on the sitution. I invited them to give me comment. They can give me pos or neg comment; or they can even vote oppose. It seems to me I reported your case of abuse 3RR policy to noticeboard first, am I right? and at the same time, you got a warning message as well, am I right? well, I am not going to argue with you this matter because I forgot it and I am quite lazy (unlike you) to find out from my edit history. It seems there is some difference and you change something after the edit warring. Well, but I just don't care!! Coloane (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Coloane also harassed me after I made an unfavourable review on the Macau FAC and after I exposed his lying on another issue. User:Coloane declared - "OK! go ahead! I just don't care! I already illustrated my point. I am not going to revert it. RIght now I will try to make sure your article Russia fail and die from FAC. That is the most important thing."[93] and "whenever you nominate Russia or Russian article, I will surely vote OPPOSE or take them to FAR. This is the heavy price you have to pay"[94]. He encouraged other users to vote oppose to the Russia FAC that I nominated as revenge [95] (please vote "Oppose" to make sure his article Russia fail and leave the page of FAC immediately. His article is almost failed!!!! just give him a last bullet. I will come back and check it tomorrow!!) and here (I would like to suggest that you had better vote OPPOSE as this article also ignored many guidelines. T) [96]. He has made similar disruptive WP:POINTy edits on other pages, see User_talk:Coloane#Stop_the_disruption. User blanks his talk page to hide his history of blocks, disruptive editing, accusations of racism, etc [97] [98] [99]. Furthermore, see the comments written by other users about Coloane when he was reported for 3RR recently.[100]--Miyokan (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wow, last time you copied and pasted this message on 3RR noticeboard the day before yesterday. You copied and pasted on the FAC page and now you pasted it over here. It is much faster that you typed and pasted compare to the past but not much improvement has been made. Coloane (talk) 05:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I once again question this user's intentions on Wikipedia. His actions are centered on disrupting highly valued contributors, for the sake of pushing his national interests. I cannot see how he may bring anything constructive to the project. (p.s., this is charming, no?) Bogdan ^що? 06:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so? this is my IP from Ottawa, Canada. I don't mind much if you want to get more info from me. I am currently a neurosurgeon working in Ottawa. What else do you want to know? Coloane (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently on vacation, so I am limited in what I can write, but Coloane does have a limited fluency in English which restricts some of his editor interaction (and also wounds his ego when it is pointed out as a mitigation for some of his behaviour). If Wikipedians study the deleted portions of Coloane's talk page (visible in the History) it will become plain that Coloane's agenda is not always coterminous with that of our encyclopedia.

Nevertheless he does have useful contributions to make and I would suggest that outright blocks of whatever duration would be counterproductive and only give him a perverse incentive for puppetry. Better would be a voluntary undertaking from him to only edit Macau articles for 2 months while he learns a less vindictive style and that he seeks mentorship. Alice^✉ 06:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Alice, I am not interested in you. I wrote you already on your talk page. If you are seeking a boyfriend or husband, please refer to related classified online. You just disturbed me a lot. If you think your English is wonderful (though this is not your native language), congratulations! please go to ask some one if they can offer you a place as an ESL teacher. Good Luck!!! Coloane (talk) 13:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the above is a blatant and very public display of highly unacceptable behaviour, and a clear cut example of his tendency to launch personal attacks against others (and I find it difficult to imagine that he is doing so due to his lack of proficiency in the language). That he even chose to do this right here shows his contempt towards wikipedia policy.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen Coloane repeatedly cause disruption on Singapore-related articles, I am not surprised to learn about his conduct at the endless nitpicking and incivility that is FAC. In a discussion at Talk:2007 Southeast Asian Games, he made an anti-Singaporean personal attack, claiming that "Singaporeans...[are] basically semi-handicapped". He also edit warred with Huaiwei on Singapore Changi Airport. After both users broke 3RR, he apparently resorted to sock puppetry; the IP should be added to his CheckUser case. Communicating with this user is difficult, as he frequently blanks his talk page. Perhaps a RFC or arbitration case is needed to further investigate his conduct and determine what sanctions, if any, should be imposed on him. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well, you are still holding the grudge. I nearly forgot this incident which happaned long time ago. I think that I didn't go back to that article for sometime. Actually I did nothing wrong. For what I did is made sure the information up-to-date(i.e. report from 2007). I remember you Huaiwei also got warning of 3RR policy, am I right? of course I can blank or archive all conservation in my talk page, it is my account. For what you talked about sockpuppets is completely groundless. The IP your provided above I guess it is from Malaysia. My IP is from Ottawa, Canada. Anyway, I just don't want to waste my time to talk about this. Regards! Coloane (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Coloane (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came across Cculber007 (talk · contribs) after another user reported him for incivility. I responded with two instances of AGF/NPA-vios, and was greeted today by a rather harsh reply.

This has been brought up earlier but it is escalating amongst other users. Cculber007 (talk · contribs) has been warned many times and has been blocked previously for incivility and legal threats. Here is a list of DIFFs, also catalogued on my talk page:

• [101]: Belief that any warnings appropriated by users is nonsensical and would appreciate warnings/notices from administrators only, going against WP:VANDAL.
• [102] Wholly inappropriate edit summary, per WP:AGF.
• [103] Creative reuse of a header.
• [104] Ditto.
• [105] (the second message)
• E-mail from Cculber007 (66.230.200.216 (talk · contribs)) sent at Jan 12, 2008 6:20 PM: "That is not vandalism, that is my complaint. I think I contact Wikipedia about your bad faith. I am not accepting that you think I vandalised your pages but you vandalised my pages. I get news for you, You are not right person for Wikipedia. Remove vandalism words and changing to correct. if not, I will call you as vandalism on my pages."
• E-mail from Culber007 (66.230.200.216 (talk · contribs)) sent at Jan 12, 2008 6:26 PM: ""You start to make a fire, you do not want to finish this fire but you want to bring more fires." It means you do not want to solve the problem, you want to start flame war against me instead of others. I think you has something against me as a deaf person. This is last time, changing your comments in your pages from vandalism to complaints. If they are spams and vandalism then Wikipedia is deaf discrimination. Do a right things and solve them will give you a chance of Mediation Committee."

He was given "one more chance" for legal threats.

Prior reports at WQA (above) have generated the following AGF-vios: [106] [107]. I thought of just keeping this on the respective talk pages and working out a better solution, but after receiving the rather disturbing e-mails in successive fashion and after seeing the prior blocks, I thought this venue would be more appropriate. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cculber007 additionally — and anonymously — posted threats and insults on my talk page here, threatening an edit war calling me "Coward dolt" and promising, "I will continue fighting against you as you are deaf discrimianting [sic] dolt. ... Get lost". I hope he will not be allowed continued this pattern of abuse to multiple editors. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned User:Cculber007 for the message left at User talk:Tenebrae. I confess I didn't check the block log prior to doing so. Hiding T 21:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And here's your response: [108] [109] [110]. Appearantly, anyone who disagrees with him is somehow opposed to deaf people in general, per an e-mail I received yesterday and the comment he left in reply to your notice. His reply. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]