User talk:Morven/archive5

Archives: 1 2 3 4

---

Archived again. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong arbitration case

Hello, I see that you're listed as an active arbitrator in the Falun Gong arbitration case. We are eagerly waiting for the motion to close, but you have not indicated your stance to any of the proposed decisions. May I kindly request you to participate in the case? Thanks. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Minolta X-GM Edits

The pictures I added have copyright information and have much better lighting, and I added a different angle of the camera as well, there are now three photos, compare to the original two you had, I realize that you feel your work is superior in some way to mine, but why not go with the better.

Cheers,

Alex.joukovski 03:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Alex.joukovski

Camera template

Greetings,

After seeing User:Morven/WikiProject Cameras, I was wondering whether you would happen to know is we have a template for analog reflex, rangefinders, etc. ? I have found myself doing a few "oldies" recently, and I feel that there might be a need for such an infobox.

Thank you very much in any case. Rama 15:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong arbitration case

Hello, I see that you're listed as an active arbitrator in the Falun Gong arbitration case. We are eagerly waiting for the motion to close, but you have not indicated your stance to any of the proposed decisions. May I kindly request you to participate in the case? Thanks. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Rosetta Stone/Porl King edits

Yes I know I should, and myself and close friend are working on sourcing these/clarifying facts, but they are not to hand as source books/publications which include further clear biographical information are packed away/at his house (and it's 430am in the UK) and later history is mostly only obtainable from online sources - some of which are not archived unfortunately -mailing lists/usenet and personal experience.

Whatever can be found to verify as much of the facts as possible will be provided as soon as it comes to hand - however scrutiny of the pre-edited versions suggested that inconsistencies, and hearsay had crept into the article, thus giving it even less credibility than I expect was intended. Mention of the poll to reform the band for live gigs was removed as I am quite sure the initial intent was not a serious proposition on the part of Porl, as all other information provided by him regarding the band indicates he has no intent of reforming, and his sense of humour would suggest that this is entirely true.

Clarifications made are mostly minor and no less referenced than those which they have succeeded - removing the unverifiable hearsay as to the causative factors of the band's split seem consistent with policy on living people's biographies to exclude any potentially libellous comments, dates narrowed down from vague to more specific from both band/porl king's own web presences and ticket stubs/CD covers.

References to Dream Disciples activity timeline is admittedly directly from the band and archived in Yahoo newsgroup for the Dream Disciples and also on my mail server!

Photographs are something I am also working on obtaining - and they will of course be approved before submission as freely useable and not in violation of copyright.

It's just something that caught my eye the other day and has been bugging me since - "work in progress" I guess - and if preferred, temporary return to the original text would be perfectly acceptable though I don't feel it is any more verifiable or accurate.

Godgirl 03:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Godgirl

Yes I agree entirely - and unfortunately with any topic that includes what would be considered a "subcultural" as opposed to "mainstream" element, such a alternative music and independent music, verified published material in the form of official biographies, archived press and documented events are difficult to obtain without bias especially for post-internet age bands where a lot of the promotion/press/information is in the form of webpages/mailing lists/newsgroups which are not necessarily permanent - currently there is no official page for the band at all, as all previous sites have lost their hosting, the proposed new site is yet to be created - hence my reluctance to keep in anything which is definitely unsubstantiated or questionable but also my desire to clarify what I am aware is errorenous and seek to find what source material I can for conferring better quality to the entries.

I do intend for it to happen, pretty much as I'm sure the original Rosetta article as initially published and edited by Andrew Oakley probably was, but when a few contetious or errorenous edits have crept in, it is quite difficult to disclaim them entirely - removing the entire article doesn't serve anyone favours either, however, as it seems to be a primary reference point for those few current sites which are referring back to band history!

Godgirl 04:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Godgirl

Decline vote

In declining to hear my appeal, you wrote that you "see no reason to revisit the existing conditions". This is, however, not very helpful to me; if you feel I am still doing something wrong I need to know what it is. I am getting the impression from all these votes without reasons that the arbitrators acknowledge my reasoning, and therefore aren't engaging with it, but at the same time there's just too much bad blood or a very hardened bad impression of me that is leading you, as a group, to reject the appeal. If this is the case, you can see how exasperating it must be for me, when the ArbCom will not hear my appeal no matter what I do. If it's not, please help me to understand the reason(s) for the rejection. Everyking 03:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

From a fan

Morven, I am the fellow who shares your passion for the B-36. You can reach me at jj5498@gmail.com.132.181.160.42 02:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Images

A long time ago, you wrote, in reference to the use of promotional photos on Wikipedia, "All the picture has to be is sufficiently free. We will accept any sufficiently free license. 'Non-commercial use only', 'no modifications permitted', or 'use on Wikipedia only' are not sufficiently free licenses for our purpose." I'm trying to wrap my head around the policy regarding photos of living people and am having trouble. Here's my question: whats wrong with a "no modifications permitted" license on an image of a person for inclusion in Wikipedia? One could readily imagine that a celebrity would NOT be willing to release a photograph of him or herself completely to the public domain for people to draw Groucho Marx glasses on or paste the face onto a porno photo, but would be willing to license a picture to be used for any purpose so long as it isn't altered. I understand the desire to have a free encyclopedia. But do we need to be able to modify an image in order to use it in the encyclopedia? Thanks for any insights you can provide. Crypticfirefly 03:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Heatedissuepuppet userblock

Thanks for you comment on the AN/I regarding the above user. You may be interested to see the next stage, AKA, the perfect example of "attack the user, not the article" [1] Cheers! Sparkzilla 17:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: Nice car.

Shirdi Sai Baba and Kkrystian

User:Kkrystian cannot recognize reputable sources on the subject

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sai Baba of Shirdi [2]
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Kkrystian

Andries 21:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wyss

I don't know the backstory, but I would point out that User:Gwen Gale has acknowledged in e-mail to me to have formerly used the Wyss account. Also, per the case, probation was indefinite. Thatcher131 01:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I missed the line in the case Should any period of one year pass without any such restriction being imposed, Wyss's probation shall automatically end. I wonder if that can be fairly applied if she was editing from a hidden account, so that no one knew there was an enforceable remedy against any disruptive or edit-warring type behavior. However it appears from the letter of the law that I should unblock. Thatcher131 01:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Album cover images in discographies -- fair use?

Greetings, Morven. There is currently a dispute about whether or not including images of album covers in discography articles is allowed under the fair use guidelines. Some editors are removing the album cover images from the discography articles. Other editors feel that the images are allowed under fair use.

(1) What is your opinion on whether or not the album cover images are fair use in discography articles?

(2) Do you think this is an appropriate question for the arbitration committee?

Here is a discussion of this question on the talk page of a discography article. Here's one on a user talk page. I posted this question two days ago on the Village Pump here, but only one person has replied so far. Here is a lengthier discussion, on the administrators' noticeboard, of a different but somewhat similar question, whether screenshots are allowed in articles about all the episodes of a television show. To see an example of a discography before its images were removed, click here.

If you reply here I'll check back and see what you wrote. Thanks in advance. — Mudwater 01:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a complicated question, and not really one the arbitration committee is set up for. We generally arbitrate user behavior, rather than making or determining content policy. The arbcom on occasion has gone outside this, on issues to do with fundamental site policy, but it's not really our role.

That said, I have some personal feelings and opinions, of course! What follows is my quick opinion and should in no way be interpreted as anything binding:

It is Wikipedia policy to produce an encyclopedia that is free in all senses of the word. However, it's impossible to be absolute about this; producing a useful reference work about the real world means touching on topics that are legally protected in certain ways: by copyright, by trademark, by rights of publicity, moral rights of authors, etc etc etc. Unless we decide to not cover any topic that may be covered by these laws, we must determine how to produce a work that is both sufficiently free and sufficiently comprehensive.

For works covered by copyright, that means fair use under US law. We make fair use of copyrighted works all the time, including in text. We have rules on that, of course. For text used in an encyclopedic work, the rules of fair use are generally pretty simple and understood pretty well by everyone.

It's more complicated with images in terms of the law, and Wikipedia's policy on when we can use fair use for images is more complicated as well. This is partly because it's so damn tempting to use images under fair use. In text, it's nowhere near as tempting to use copyrighted material and claim fair use. For images, because they're much harder to acquire (among other reasons), and because it's very desirable for many editors to want to decorate articles and make them look better/flashier.

Many Wikipedia editions ban fair use images altogether; the English-language one has not, possibly partly because of the United States' fairly open fair use law. The rules have generally come down to forbidding them except when there's good reason; the article needs them (rather than simply looks prettier with them) and no free image could be made that could fill the same need.

Images in TV show episode lists have been controversial, but it does appear that the argument against them is carrying the day. Since no still image from an episode is uniquely identifying for that episode, for instance, the argument that an image is needed for identification is poor; similarly, in a list, there is insufficient discussion or mention of the image to justify it under that argument.

The case is, I believe, a little stronger for album covers in a discography, especially in the sense of identification. The images are instantly recognizable and are strongly associated with the album. However, there is no greater argument that there is any point or description in the text that needs the image to be complete, because a discography is generally an un-annotated list and does not discuss the cover art.

I think it also depends on several other factors:

1. Is the discography simply a list of links to articles on each album? If the discography is the sum and total of Wikipedia's coverage of that album, I think the argument is a little stronger.
2. Does the article go beyond being simply a discography? Is it more like a merged 'super-article' discussing several articles, all of which haven't enough text to really justify an individual article?
3. Is there is any mention of the cover art in the text?

In the end, the arbcom will simply make you all be civil when discussing and arguing whether this should be allowed under the fundamental tenets of our fair use policy. Better to simply make a good argument. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful response. If it's all right with you, I'd like to copy this dialog onto the talk pages of one or two discography articles. — Mudwater 11:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free, so long as this is not put forward as any kind of official arbcom position ;) Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've copied this dialog to Talk:Grateful Dead discography#Removal of album cover images. Thanks again for the discussion, I appreciate it. — Mudwater 23:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Minor RfAr editing suggestion

I saw the new remedy proposal you posted in the Hkelkar2 case. I think your proposal might be a little more clear with a couple of words added. How about: "As always, administrators should not use their administrative powers in conflicts or disagreements they are involved in. Administrators who are parties to this case are reminded that they should find an uninvolved admin to determine if blocks or other actions against any of the other parties to the case are appropriate, and should under no circumstances take such actions themselves." Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 04:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you re: User:71.112.115.55

I am writing to express deepest thanks for helping in this situation. I turned to ArbCom because I was getting desperate, in a "It's him or me" kind of way (I didn't raise that because I didn't want to seem like I was trying to force things to go my way). I have been absolutely puzzled by this trolling; not because of the trolling, per se, but because of its longevity and absolute obsession with me. I suppose it's always unnerving when a person exhibits unstable behavior directed at a person, but this has been odd behavior directed at me since March. Scribe has been a great help, and he has a lot of gratitude from me. But I was feeling the short blocks were not getting the IP to change their behavior, but focus it to WP:GAME policies and guidelines in more and more clever ways. As User:Thatcher131 pointed to a problem I was already encountering when trying to deal with each new IP manifestation of this User, that when I reported it to an admin, "Unfortunately, many admins who watch there will be unaware that this is an ongoing problem, and will react by suggesting that this is a content dispute that should be addressed by talking about it, or that it is not serious enough vandalism to block without first going through the warning levels." Exactly. What I needed I received, which was an unequivocal statement that this User is now banned, and a diff to show that regardless of what this User attempts to do, no matter the clever manner or gaming of policies and guidelines that make their trolling and vandalization not apparent, I can point to a conclusive judgment on them. This happened to day, when an admin e-mailed me about my reverting the IP's comments on my FA candidacy for Tompkins Square Park Police Riot (what the IP used as an example of my vandalizing on their talk page). This well-meaning admin wrote in an e-mail that my removal of this IP criticizing me and my "lies" as "Consider the act that the IP points to as vandalism by you. I hate to say it, but it looks like .... vandalism by you." I kept coming across this, and it was very frustrating, which is why I took so much time to reconstruct their relentless behavior in one location. So, I want to say thank you, thank you, thank you, for your help and understanding. This unbalanced behavior has been odd to witness, and to have myself be the focal point of it. It was also becoming too time-consuming and too frustrating when I have a lot of other things I want to contribute and work on with the website. I am also flattered by the admin suggestion; unfortunately, I don't think I have the best temperment for such a position (I don't know how you guys do it) and I relish focusing on using my creativity to improve the site. But I also have an artistic temperment. That said, Wikipedia's guidelines of behavior have not only improved my editing and relating on this website, but also in my own life. I find myself telling other people to "assume good faith" often ("Don't assume he didn't call you because he is playing games with you, assume good faith--maybe he's just really busy, or maybe someone died...you never know.") That's Wikipedia. Dave --David Shankbone 04:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Taj Pic at WP:FPC

Are you the Morven featured in the blog about Getty Museum? If so, could you weigh in on a similar problem we are having on the featured picture candidate at Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Tajfromriver1860bourne2.JPG. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fellowship of Friends (FoF for short)

Dear Morven,

The Fellowship of Friends is a spiritual school. The wiki article about them has gone through two mediations and the current article has issues which could only be solved by someone with the arbitration authority. The editors (which admitted to be members of the fellowship) have currently removed the following info which I listed below based on the argument that “it is irrelevant to the wikipedia's article”:

• That it costs every member 10% of their income to join the fof (mentioned on their own website as well as in a LA article and two books)
• That Robert Burton’s (top leader of the organization) annual salary is estimated to be $250 000 (mentioned in a LA article and two books)
• The fact that Robert Burton has written in his book that “the Fellowship is the greatest school in history”
• That cult-buster Steven Hassan has labeled it as a cult because of the control that the fof has over its members.
• That a Fourth Way writer and student, William Patrick Paterson, has written that the fellowship doesn’t operate as a “true fourth way school” and "uses advertising means to succeed". Note that fof website on their front page of their website writes that "The Fellowship of Friends is a true Fourth Way school based on the teachings of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky". In this case what Paterson says is irrelevant because even the fof website is not allowed to be used here because it doesn't support the email that one of the editors received (where it says that fof is different from the school represented by Gurdjieff and Ouspensky).
• That Robert Burton and the fellowship have been sued for sexual abusement and brainwashing by former members. According to the sources "the cases were settled out of court with undisclosed outcomes". Another source says that "The Fellowship of Friends' president stated in a newspaper article that one suit was dismissed and two others were settled by the organization's insurance companies to save the costs of litigation". This has been deleted under the claim that "because you can't prove what the president claimed is wrong, the cases were dismissed, irrelevant, and discredit a living person."
• That these sex scandals have prompted many members to leave. (mentioned in a LA article and two books)

Other things which are wrong here and can't be solved:

• An email is being used as a reference here, while the fof website is considered outdated only at places where it doesn't support the email (Even tough the website is constantly changed and modified)
• Criticism as a separate one section is not allowed to be on the article. When it’s added, someone says let’s incorporate it into the article as suggested by the mediator [3] [4], and then someone says “not relevant to the section” (this time the same editor[5])– this is ridiculous and every time criticism is deleted in this way
• Other than the last sentence, the entire article is based on the fof sources. While the sources criticizing them are not allowed to used as sources for information – they are considered trash, old or irrelevant.

I have written this same thing (here) and am asked you (and another wiki arbitrator) to please take a look at this section and state which of these points are relevant and should be in the article and what is really irrelevant. The last time I wrote something about "this article not working out", I was told by an editor that "You (Aeuio) are not working out" and nothing happened. Aeuio 20:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Paranormal Arbitration

I wanted to know when you would start working on the Paranormal arbitration. I also wanted to request that when you do, you add [[6]] and [[7]] to the "Proposed decision" area for arbitrators to vote on. This area [[8]]. Martinphi and Davkal are the main focus of this arbitration and the person who initiated it. I would hate to see their frequent violations of policy be overlooked because it was never nominated to be voted for. Also please add [[9]] and [[10]]. Thanks.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 11:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:British Rail Type 5

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Template:British Rail Type 5, by Megapixie (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Template:British Rail Type 5 fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

A3 - No content for the last 3 years.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Template:British Rail Type 5, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Template:British Rail Type 5 itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 03:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

GPS cameras

I was reading the mailing list (which I'm not subscribed to), and noticed your comment about GPS cameras: "I suspect the next generation after that, in 2 years or so, will have an inbuilt wireless transceiver and possibly even built-in GPS" - which is good for geographical co-ordinates. Why stop there, though? :-) I was talking to someone about this, and we agreed that altitude would also be a good thing to record, along with the direction the camera was pointing in. Would an in-built gyroscope tell the camera whether it was pointing north or south, or up or down? Air temperature and relative humidity might be going a bit too far... Carcharoth 23:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that some GPS units can derive heading as well as location. I'm not sure if they can do altitude, but it certainly wouldn't be out of the question. It'd be a good feature to have. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Altitude is easy if there are enough GPS satellites in range. I think it is four satellites for a 3-d co-ord system as opposed to three satellites for a 2-d co-ord system. Of course, to be really useful, you have to know the topography of the area. It's not much use knowing that you are 2000 metres above sea-level if you don't know where the ground level is... And the real use of GPS in phones and cameras is to track where people are, not to tell them where they took photos. The kind of stuff that is already done with cell phone records. Carcharoth 00:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

A lot of photographers are very interested in automated location recording, though. Plenty of professional applications, quite apart from the fact that people like sticking their photos on a map on Flickr or wherever. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Just imagine a zoomable Google Earth Map, and when you get in close, all these small arrows start popping up. Ooh, look, a photo from that location, pointing in that direction - and you get a choice of times (1910, or 1950, or 1990), and weather (sunny, cloudy) and season (summer, winter). That would be nice. Then translate to a video system. Then you have people recording their whole lives... Carcharoth 00:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Template camera

I have created a template for Wikiproject cameras Template:WikiProject_cameras

Diyako checkuser logs

• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Zanyar (Possible sockpuppets)
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyako (Diyako is stale)
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/71.222.81.30 (Diyako is still stale so no check was made to compare him)

You are receiving this because your username either appears on the checkuser list or you were one of the arbitrators that participated in the relevant Arbcom case (User:Dmcdevit, User:Jdforrester, User:The Epopt, User:Charles Matthews, User:Sam Korn, User:Fred Bauder, User:Jayjg, User:Morven, User:Neutrality).

Currently User:Diyako/User:Xebat is at a stale state for not editing over a month. User hasn't edited for slightly over a year due to an arbcom sanctioned ban. I have a reason to believe ([11], [12], [13]) there may be a connection as the edit pattern seems similar in many ways. Diyako's wikipedia ban has recently expired but if he is continuing a similar behavior as User:D.Kurdistani, there needs to be a further consideration either by ARBCOM or Community Sanction board (latter seems more appropriate IMHO). A successful checkuser would be very helpful in the decision making process on this issue.

This inquiry is to request if you have "personal logs" of Diyako/Xebat's IP's to compare with User:D.Kurdistani and possible other socks. This is NOT a request for the logs themselves but on weather or not you have them. Please reply on my talk page to confirm if you have the logs or not. User:Mackensen appears to be the only person to have preformed a successful checkuser but others may also have this info.

-- Cat ^chi? 10:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Shane Hagadorn AfD

I am reluctant to change any talk so if you could amend your text, and the unbundled articles are now all AfD. Darrenhusted 00:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sourced have appeared for the forced bisexuality afd. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Email

I sent you an email last week, did you receive it?--Konstable 23:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, no problem, I have re-sent it.--Konstable 09:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Timothy J Boham

Morven, mass deletion of a talk page and deleting material for having being 'unsourced' (when you deleted the sources) is, quite simply, vandalism. You might be a 'high-up' in Wikipedia but abuse of power is never the correct option. Nevertheless, I couldn't care less about 'legal advocate' Donna Thomas. However, I do care about the destructiveness toward Wikipedia such dictatorial edits are. Your mass deletion of the talk page is not simply arrogant and Vladimir Putin-like, it is also disrespectful to all that contributed and discourages future editing. Perhaps you've seen my name in last week's LA Times...control of 'Wikipedia' does not place one as higher than another. Believe me, this is not my area of prime concern but I will put in a word to a higher authority about this.Ryoung122 04:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me state this another way: we have had newspaper articles variously report widely discrepant information in this case. Not being a first-hand observer, we cannot know which is true (ie., is Boham 'homophobic', or not? Is his victim a good person or a bad person?). These are all OPINIONS, yes. However, all these opinions could be found both in the printed (newspaper) and visual (TV) media. The issue for me is that you are simply trying to 'clean up' by sweeping away everything. To me, this would be like a presidential debate where you have Democrats and Republicans, and instead of reporting both sides, you report neither.

The bottom line: I do not see mass deletion of a discussion to be appropriate, necessary, or fair. I do see taking a journalistic, objective approach to report the facts as third-person sources report them, with citations. Deleting citations to make something 'uncited' is really not the answer.

Part III

I do think there has been some misunderstanding. I recognize that some of the material you deleted appears POV (and I didn't write that, either). I was more concerned with the deletion of the information from the 'talk' page, and the fact that, while most of what you deleted is POV, it does appear that Donna Thomas did discuss this case on Court TV.Ryoung122 06:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC) Personally, the issue here is greater than Boham or Donna Thomas. It is about apellate procedure.Ryoung122 05:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Advice please

I’m one of the parties involved in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine. With SirF on wiki break and despite continuing to report ongoing [14] harassment nothing is being done. This harassment has escalated with the absence of SirF, [15]., in my opinion. It is now set to escalate with no sign of any intervention. Your advice assistance or opinion would be grateful.--Domer48 13:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CD-07_City_of_Denver.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:CD-07_City_of_Denver.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Merkey case

Hi. You skipped over proposed finding of fact 3 (Pfagerburg) without voting on it. Was this intentional or did you just miss it inadvertently? Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding the BadJPEG template to fair use logos

I noticed that you added the {{BadJPEG}} template to a fair use logo back in May (Image:Usclogo01.jpg). I know this was a while ago and I may not be the first one to point this out to you, but we deliberately publish fair use logos in low resolution because it improves the rationale for fair use, since these images are generally unsuitable for hardcopy printing at any size other than very small. Thus, requests to convert these to SVG are not really appropriate, since an SVG is effectively infinite resolution. Thanks, Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, SVG images may be used under fair use. Essentially, if it's possible to vectorize an image, then the image is simple enough that resolution is not of great concern.

Also, the image in question, Image:Usclogo01.jpg, has visible JPEG artifacts and should at least be cleaned and re-saved in PNG format. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Help

Hi Morven. I need advice: SqueakBox is driving me crazy. He systematically refuses to accept that maybe there are better ways of working then by driving a bulldozer through anyone who stands in his way. In the last week since his talk page has been on my watchlist I and others have been not so subtly accused of being pro-pedophiles in disguise, trolls, abusive admins, etc. He asked an admin to block me for speedy closing the NAMBLA AfD, insinuated that he was supported by ArbCom for his actions and has failed to listen to just about anybody. Were he not also a fairly productive user, I would have no second thoughts whatsoever in seeking a long block: his one year npa parole is either still running or barely over and he has been blocked repeatedly in that timespan for this very behavior. Alas, I'd rather have him as an editor doing, well, good editing which he certainly is capable of doing. But I simply don't know how to convince him that he can be effective without being such a negative presence. Help, Pascal.Tesson 22:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I didnt ask an admin to block, merely suggested if he was going to block me thatbn he should do so with you as well while I was still thinking you werent an admin (having checked on the admins list and you werent there). I dont believe blocking anyone iin this case would be other than counter-productive and dont understand why a perfectly legitimate afd has created so much negativity. If you have any issues with my behaviour please bring them to me with diffs as I dont wish to have bad feelings with any good faith editor. My parol was over 2 months ago, for the record, SqueakBox 22:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox, I appreciate your contributions, but the AfD simply was not legitimate in the least. The article itself shows the notability of the group, both in terms of sources, cultural references, a lawsuit that itself is notable enough for an article (Curley v. NAMBLA), etc. You don't like the group (nor do I), but either by Google hits, news hits, etc. you fail to show how they are not notable. It was, by far, not a legitimate AfD, and in fact, was disruptive. --David Shankbone 22:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

My other fd for today, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 31#Category:Child molestation victims is having more success and that is the way it goes in wikipedia, you win some, you lose some but we shouldnt be censuring good faith users, any of us, and if I have done so to you Pascal, my apologies. I think the other comments show the afd wasnt disruptive (ie both El C's and Will's and these are long term editors like myself). If Pascal wants to resolve things with me I would suggest Will as a good, impartial editor who knows my historyy here but wont favour me, or of course the emdiation cabal, SqueakBox 22:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see this as a "win some, lose some" issue, but one where you were harming the project by trying to get a good, well-sourced article (as Will pointed out to you) removed because you dislike the group and its members. That isn't what we are here for. Your other fd is perfectly legitimate; but this AfD was wholly without merit on any level, and it's troubling you don't see that, such that you went so far as to explicitly say Wikipedia is a corporate sex offender for keeping the article. I think everyone would feel better if you would admit your folly and over-reaching on this one and instead of say "win some, lose some" say "everyone makes a mistake - I was overzealous". --David Shankbone 22:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I just dont think pro-pedophile activists are notable enough for inclusion in this project, now it may be that NAMBLA are better known in America than I realised. And its not me who is claiming that wikiepdia is a "passive" corporate sex opffender its the criticism of wikipedia article here. We have been labelled as such, I dont like that and am trying to do my best to see that criticism removed from the web. The fact that I am not taking it to DRV (as Pascal is an admin I will accept his judgement) should IMO be enough, and if El C hadnt commented the way he had I would agree that nobody appeared to agree with me but he expressed my feelings absolutely. I think we all need to accept that we dont always get our way on wikipedia, hence my wion some loase some comment, I am not just trying to impose my view but be a part of thios community, SqueakBox 22:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Why should murderers be part of this project? Why should rapists? Why should dictators? Or gays? Or feminists? Or NORML? That's the whole point - you say you aren't trying to impose your point of view, but you start out with "I just dont think pro-pedophile activists are notable enough for inclusion in this project..." You are interchanging the word "notable" with "worthy" and this is your own subjective view that you are thrusting on the rest of us, regardless of Wikipedia criteria and guidelines. There are a lot of groups out there people would like to see others know nothing about -- we are here to educate, not conceal. You and User:El C are taking a very worth goal--removing POV pro-pedophilia edits--and turning it into a contemptible project. Do yourself AND your issue a favor and use your head, not your heart, when you edit. Or you'll quickly find your crusade will be seen as disruptive, as it was today.--David Shankbone 02:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I am doing my best to defend this project from becoming contemptible. And your comaparing criminals with gays and feminists does no favours to whatever beliefs you may believe you are promoting. And re this issue I've thought about it a while and am absolutely coming from my head, SqueakBox 06:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

User page

here my comments restored. I dont want to cause harm to nobody, SqueakBox 02:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you are a member of the Locomotives Taskforce. I am wondering whether you would like to comment/support/oppose the SR West Country and Battle of Britain Classes article, which is currently up for FA status, though I am not trying to canvass for support, only to raise awareness of the article. Any constructive criticism would be of great help. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific 17:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

SR West Country and Battle of Britain Classes article

I noticed that you are a member of the Locomotives Taskforce. I am wondering whether you would like to comment/support/oppose the SR West Country and Battle of Britain Classes article, which is currently up for FA status, though I am not trying to canvass for support, only to raise awareness of the article. Any constructive criticism would be of great help. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific 17:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox again...

Hi Morven. Look, I hate to bug you about this but you really have to do something about SqueakBox (talk · contribs). A few weeks ago, he clearly accused me of siding with pedophiles and insinuated that in any case he had the ArbCom's backing. A week or so ago, he posted this inflammatory accusation on an RfA candidate. His claim was thoroughly debunked (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Haemo) and he was asked to comment and possibly retract his accusation. He did return to the RfA, not to apologize but to make this friendly comment. Now another admin has questioned his actions and again he has responded by insinuating he's got ArbCom backing. Yes, SqueakBox is acting in good faith. Yes, the ArbCom is and should be wary of letting the NAMBLA supporters take over Wikipedia. But SqueakBox is out of control and he's made it clear that he's not listening to anyone except possibly the ArbCom. Pascal.Tesson 02:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo edits

Hi Morven, per your inquiry on ANI, I'd be curious to hear what you think of the following diffs:[16][17] As an arbitrator, your opinion carries a certain weight. I think you'll grant that there's a certain weight behind those edits as well.Proabivouac 10:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Railroad images

You uploaded a lot of images such as Image:BO EA 55.jpg. Do you still have a record of the grant of permission? If so, could you forward it to permissions@wikipedia.org so that we have a permanent record of what exactly was granted? I want to make sure that our claims of "we have permission" are valid, as some of them (like Image:CaseLogo2.png) appear bogus. Getting documentation for the grants of permission would be a help. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The railroad images are a large portion of the "withpermission" images. Once I have an OTRS ticket number I'll be glad to go through and put it on the image description pages myself. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

bureaucrat

I was wondering why you aren't a bureaucrat yet? I mean, your fully qualified, and if you want, I can nominate you. Please reply on my own talkpage. Dreamy ^\*/_!$! 00:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:BBEdit Screenshot.png

Thanks for uploading Image:BBEdit Screenshot.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

Morven, the central premise of your message is false: the Office, an arbitrator, and numerous administrators were fully aware of the situation. I have sent you an e-mail, to which I encourage you to respond. Please do not respond on-wiki: as it is the Foundation's ongoing publication, and now re-publicization, of disparaging material directed at living people which is disputed, to do so only perpetuates the problem.Proabivouac 08:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You cannot escape arbitration sanctions by starting a new username, especially since you clearly began editing the same articles as your previous identity immediately. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:ATSF_3461.jpg

I have tagged Image:ATSF_3461.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Alpta 17:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:No free image (camera).svg

This is not meant to be used as part of any upload system. The closest that is would be Image:Replace this image.svg.Genisock2 12:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If it is not, it should not say 'Click here' on it. The fact that it does seems to indicate, to me, that it's intended to be. Clearly it is intended to be a topic-specific substitute for Image:Replace this image.svg. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No. It was part of the process of creating Image:Replace this image.svg. It was never intended for actual use under the name "No free image (camera).svg" that is why there are so many different revisions in it's history (also why it is on commons rather than on en as most of the images actually being used in the fromowner system are on en). If you look at the final instruction in MediaWiki:Uploadtext/fogen you will see it relies on the name of the image to tell people how to put their image into the relevant article. If you start attaching random file names that stops working.Genisock2 15:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Then it should say so on its description page. If you'll note, though, I did not add the image to any articles; I saw it in use on camera articles as a place-holder image and thought that if it was going to be used, it should work as did Image:Replace this image.svg. I suspect whoever added it did so out of a mistaken belief that it was a specific missing-image image for camera articles only. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Mergul

This user is requesting unblocking. You blocked him/her for harassment, but I can't find any offending edits (even under "deleted edits".) Can you comment, either there or to me? Thanks. Mangojuice^talk 17:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom-related, I take it. Anyway, I'll leave it up to you to hard-block that IP, in case you haven't already. I'll inform the user. Mangojuice^talk 21:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Poke

Hi Morven. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Catalonia is able to close with one more vote on several proposals, and you're one of the three arbitrators active on the case who haven't voted. No pressure to vote with the five in favor of these proposals as opposed to vote with the two opposed, of course. Picaroon (t) 04:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Canon FD document project site down ?

Hi do you know if the [18] will come back to the net again? It had alot of useful repair-manuals that i mis (and probably alot of others too).. SNx 11:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure; I'll enquire among people I know. In the meantime, all its contents are available in the Internet Archive (www.archive.org). Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C)

Thanks, thats very helpful sending me to the Internet Archive. I will go there. SNx 11:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

For instance, I replaced the links in the Canon T90 article with ones to the archive.org copies. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cameras

This is to advise you that the above project, which you created, is being considered for deletion in accord with wikipedia policy. Please feel free to take part in the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Cameras. Thank you. John Carter 21:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Attack page arbitration

Hi,

On Fred's proposed principle #7 (removal of references to attack sites) you have voted support, with the caveat that the extreme cases clause is to be emphasised. However, a policy is meant to cover reasonably common cases. Truly extreme cases have always been left to case-by-case consensus, including use of IAR if appropriate. The removal of references clause has too much potential for abuse by POV pushers. In particular, it will be prohibitively difficult to conduct a meaningful discussion about a topic if even references to it are banned. Imagine filing a RfC about inclusion of an external link when you can't even mention which site you are talking about, under penalty of being banned. Please consider supporting #7.1 instead (which also has Kirill's support). I believe that Fred is taking too extreme a stand about this case. And this is an important case, a lot is at stake. Loom91 20:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sud-Est_Armagnac_2.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Sud-Est_Armagnac_2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 00:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Milwaukee F7 100.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Milwaukee F7 100.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist and User:Nondistinguished

Re [19], in reviewing their contributions I don't see evidence that the sock was used abusively; e.g., by evading a block, double-voting, or gaming 3RR. From all appearances it's just an alternate account that was used while the SA persona was on hiatus because of some of the hassle he had been subjected to. Per WP:SOCK there doesn't appear to be need for blocking. If there's more to the story please let me know. Raymond Arritt 18:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I was just about to raise this matter myself. I suspected that User:Nondistinguished was the same person as User:ScienceApologist (because I recognise that editing style! - one which I cannot help but regard as disruptive). However when I raised the question with Nondistinguished, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Talbott and also on his talk page, he deleted the talk page comments and accused me of harrassment, reporting me to admin User:Spartaz (see for instance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Feline1#Stop%20harassing%20me ). I now discover that User:Morven has indeed identified this account (and a few others besides) as sockpuppets for ScienceApologist! I have tried to ask ScienceApologist to explain himself, but he has just deleted my comments from his talk page and accused me of making a "personal attack". It looks to me as if ScienceApologist directly lied to me, and then tried to abuse wikipedia procedures and mislead an Admin into repremanding me.--feline1 18:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I consider returning to the same pages to continue conflict under a new identity after one has made a big fuss of "leaving" to be at least borderline, especially in a subject area that has been subject to several arbcom cases in which ScienceApologist was a party and was subject to admonition, although not probation; especially since it was likely to be before the arbcom again. Also, members of arbcom recently (in IanTresman's application for block review) asked all parties involved in the discussion to disclose any alternate identities, and ScienceApologist did not.

That ScienceApologist has been often right has allowed him to get away with behavior that would most likely have earned him more than admonition had it been done by the other side in these disputes.

I have more objection to the other accounts than I do to Nondistinguished; the others had deliberately provocative usernames and he was active with them near-simultaneously. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I may be speaking out of turn here, but in the Deletion debate I refer to above, we have an example of 'Nondistinguished' demonstrating himself to be a barefaced liar. When exposed, far from apologise to me, he responds with more wikilawyering threats against me for daring to confront him on the matter. I submit that this kind of thing is indicative of his (lack of) integrity as an editor and the sort of 'dirty tricks' he is prepared to use in pursueing his editorial agenda. This behaviour is disruptive and counterproductive, alienating other editors and wasting time on edit wars and griping (like I find myself doing now!). I find it disquieting how often his veracity and professed intentions are taken in good faith (yes, I know, WP:FAITH ;-) when he is engaged in ArbCom cases, seeking to censure and banish editors whom he considers to be his "opponents". It seems to me that, as Morven alludes to above, the community has frequently allowed itself to cast a blind eye to ScienceApologist's conduct, due to symphathies held with his valourization of scientific orthodoxies over unverifiable fringe material.--feline1 19:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Morven, I am a bit confused here - would you be able to tell me if your blocking of these accounts of ScienceApologist was accompanied by a "check user" test? It's just that the issue is being raised as part of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Workshop#Request_for_checkuser_on_User:ScienceApologist

Three other IP addresses and User:Philosophus are also mooted there...--feline1 15:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, these were after a checkuser, which proved quite conclusive to my judgment. I'll check out that debate. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"Also, members of arbcom recently (in IanTresman's application for block review) asked all parties involved in the discussion to disclose any alternate identities, and ScienceApologist did not." For the record, I did not participate in that discussion so did not have had the opportunity to reveal any alternate identities. I was only made aware of this request just now and had to go back into the archives of Ian's contributions to find out to what you were referring. I think you should be a bit more careful with your characterizations of history, especially as this matter is rather sensitive. ScienceApologist 22:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You had contributed to the discussion, as I recall, thus leading to the presumption that you'd seen the request. It also doesn't change the history of what actually happened. I think someone prone to accusing their opponents of sockpuppetry, as you frequently do - justified or not - should have resisted the temptation to use sockpuppets or indeed "leave" and then return to the same fights as a supposedly new user. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You recall incorrectly. Here is the diff to prove that I never was involved in that discussion: [20] If you want more information as to why I started new accounts, I encourage you to e-mail me as I requested in my evidence. I acted entirely in accordance with current policies and guidelines outlined in order to diffuse what had become a very problematic situation for myself in real life. I was counseled to do this by some administrators who encouraged me to stay on with the project because they lament the state of Wikipedia where editors like myself are hounded off. Note that I am not the only person who is in such a situation, I just may be the most visible. When the situation became more stable, I returned to my old account. ScienceApologist 16:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApolgist, I'm curious: how did your behaviour on wikipedia lead to you being harrassed in "real life"? Because there doesn't appear to be anything in your User page or anywhere else on wikipedia that could lead someone to discover your identity. I note that many of the editors you'd be arguing with were interested in parapsychology, ESP, and the paranormal. Could it perhaps be that some of this stuff really does work after, and they used their psychic powers to track your down?--feline1 16:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Feline, again, I'm not going to discuss this out in the open for reasons very close to what your current comments are indicating. If you want to contact me in private, e-mail me. ScienceApologist 18:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping to clarify this matter, Morven. I will now be able to present further evidence to the ArbComm in question with renewed confidence.--feline1 09:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

More below. Harald88 20:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

...for answering my question over at WP:ANI. Oops, I meant the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. :-) You have a '67 T-Bird? I had one around ten years ago. A yellow convertible. Bought it right after I graduated high school, and drove it around for a few years, until some doofus ran a stop sign and plowed into me! That stunk. Anyway, thanks again! MookieZ 22:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right about that. His pickup truck looked like it ran into a wall, while I was able to quickly fix mine (with the help of his insurance company). Sadly, I then sold it, and eventually replaced it with a '89 Mustang convertible, which is not as much fun. MookieZ 13:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ALCO 0900.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:ALCO 0900.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Need advise, have problem with a user

Dear Morven, don't know if this is a right direction to report an abuse. the user Behnam [21] attacks me with some cheap words (some of the words like "benamoose watanforosh" are in Persian which are very dirty that I don't want to translate) (see [22]). He/she removes the photos from [23] while these photos are still there, he/she himself has marked these photos as being from wrong source. Please guide what to do. Sodaba 09:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

IP block due to suspected COI

Morven, on October 12 2007 Yamla blocked an IP range because of suspected COI at the Fellowship of Friends article. A discussion was started at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard but Yamla hasn't participated for almost 2 weeks. Meanwhile, the IP block is affecting 3 editors of the page. Could you help decide if the IP block is appropriate? I am one of the editor affected by the IP block and strongly feel that Yamla's action was too harsh. Thank you in advance. Mfantoni 07:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Random page

Hi, while browsing Wikipedia through the random page function, I came across this. I thought it might interest you :-) Fram 09:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

ip address

The current ip aqddress whihc I am using starts in the hundreds and is not in the 80s so those edits cannot be mine.--Lucy-marie 14:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

IP addresses change, as you well know. Don't try this. The evidence is pretty compelling; however, what matters from here on out is how you behave now and in future, not what happened in the past. Behave better and there will be no problem. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The Invisible Barnstar

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Thank you for your hard work identifying and blocking sockpuppets of James Salsman aka Nrcprm2026. I was very impressed to discover how much work you put into it and how you didn't ask any credit for it. God bless you. John J. Bulten 16:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Morven, there's a current unblock request from the above user, concerning your indefinite block dated 1 November. Could you shed some light on this, and the reasoning behind your sock-puppetry block? Cheers, Anthøny 22:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser showed editing behavior, both logged in and not logged in, compatible with being a JB196 sockpuppet or "meatpuppet" (A term I dislike, thus the quotes). Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I came across this through finding User:Dannycali/In Popular Culture deletions, which is a useful list. Are we sure about this one? Carcharoth 12:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Alkivar RfAr voting

Hi. At Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Proposed decision, you voted on the proposed principles and remedies, but not on the finding. Was this intentional or did you inadvertently miss it? Regards, Newyorkbrad 14:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It was inadvertent. Fixed. Thanks for catching it! Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Q&A Page

Editors recognize that the Arbitrators do not have time to follow, in real time, all of the diffs on all of the pages of all of the arbitration cases. Editors recognize that questions that they would like to ask the Arbitrators would usually get no response, or a much delayed response, if asked in one of the several talk pages of the arbitration. In response to this, many editors will message Arbitrators directly on their talk pages, which garners a much faster response.

The problem with doing so is that, consequently, discussion relevant to the Arbitration is split from the remainder of the discussion. Those who haven't watchlisted Arbitrators' talk pages might not even be aware of the communication. I think that this is problematic, but I would like to suggest a solution.

I believe that a Question and Answer Page (by whatever title is appropriate) would be a useful addition to Arbitration. There, users could ask questions, and arbitrators could reply as needed. This resolves the current problems: it provides a clean space that arbitrators can readily keep track without getting lost in tens or hundreds of daily diffs, it allows users a place to ask a question and reasonably expect that an Arbitrator will see it, and it keeps all of the discussion within the Arbitration, instead of allowing it to get scattered across Userspace where some participants might not see it.

If you think this is reasonable, would it be possible to add it to the current Science Apologist and Martinphi Arbitration that is currently ongoing? Thank you for your consideration. Note: I am canvassing all active arbitrators on this issue because I feel that this is a neutral suggestion. Antelan ^talk 06:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Alkivar RfAr voting

Here I am again ... you voted in favor of a remedy banning Burntsauce, but there are some proposed principles and findings of fact associated with the remedy. It might be in order for you to consider and vote on those as well. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

think long and hard

I am not CBOrange. Blocking is to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. If you block just to show that you have nuclear weapons, this is not good on your part. See who in the world has the bomb. Some are irresponsible. Logical ideas and edits are the most important. There is too much of a clique in WP where admin stop editing and a few of them go on a power hungry binge of blocking others they don't like.Miesbu 17:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misread me. You are not one of the socks I plan to block. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Zleitzen a sockpuppet?

Hi Matthew, I just noticed on my watchlist that Zleitzen was identified as being part of a sockpuppet farm. I believe you may be in error, but I don't know the full backstory of his block, because the Zleitzen I know (at least before he indefinitely took a "wikibreak") was a good editor working mostly on articles regarding Cuba and South America, inputting well-researched, well written and balanced material. I believe he left over a content issue involving an article on controversial politicians in South America and accusations of a group of new editors of pushing his POV. Just to say, the Zleitzen I knew wasn't capable of being involved in something as childish as malicious sockpupetry. I think it would be a shame to block Zleitzen now, considering he has left Wikipedia and his numerous contributions, without him being able to defend himself. mensch • t 20:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll recheck the evidence & see if I could be mistaken on that one. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! mensch • t 20:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Rather odd. He has but a single edit during the checked period, but it comes in between multiple definite sock accounts on that IP.

Given that, I think I may unblock but keep a watch. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That's odd indeed. Maybe somebody hijacked his account or he used to edit from a shared IP. Anyway, thanks for reviewing the evidence. mensch • t 10:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser request related to the Alkivar case

Hi Morven. A checkuser case somewhat related to the Alkivar arbitration has been filed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JohnEMcClure. Deskana declined, saying it should be a committee matter; I'm leaving you this note because you've voted on the case and are a checkuser. Also, watch for a motion to close once a few more votes come in. Picaroon (t) 02:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration case

I have filed an arbitration case to get Eyrian emergency-desysopped per this CheckUser. Since you are the one who ran the CheckUser, I have listed you as an involved party. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 12:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There is also a thread at WP:ANI#Emergency ArbComm case involving desysopping Eyrian. It appears you checkuser confirmed User:Varlak = User:JB196 and User:Eyrian = User:Varlak on separate occasions, which would lead to the logical conclusion that User:Eyrian = User:JB196. Can you confirm?--Isotope23 ^talk 14:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Make WP:VANDALISM less vague, define "deliberate" & "good-faith effort"

Would you comment on Wikipedia talk:Vandalism#Make it less vague, define "deliberate" & "good-faith effort", please? Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 22:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

hi im kindom of crash and spyro,why did you block me?

idont evan know this guy and my real name is liam ask him/her what their name is but m & him arnt the same person where did you get the idea that im them.goodday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.196.70 (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

don't egnore me this is slander im not a sock —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.197.79 (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

pleese im not a sock of whats his face can you pleese un block me i haven't don anything —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.197.79 (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

and im british so i live in england so i can't be him/her —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.197.79 (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC) thank you & i swear on charles darwin not to make a sock pupet and on crash bandicoot not to make any vandilism--Kingdom of crash and spyro 15:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

On reincarnation‎

Is this article something you intended to create in the main space? I've tagged it for speedy deletion in any case, but it looks like it would be more appropriate as an essay. --Onorem♠Dil 11:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Mistakenly created in mainspace rather than userspace. I've restored and userfied. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 12:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Shortly after I left this note, I tried to go back and just move it into your user space for you...thinking you could move it back if you were going to try to make it into a regular article. Whoever is watching csd today is on top of things though, and it was gone before I had the chance. Sorry for any inconvenience. --Onorem♠Dil 12:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Spam in Kodak Ultima

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Kodak Ultima, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Kodak Ultima is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Kodak Ultima, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 17:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Click there to open your card! → → →

Dearest Matthew Brown (aka Morven),
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 137 supports, 22 opposes, and 5 neutrals. Your support is very much appreciated and I look forward to proving you right. I would like to give special thanks to The_undertow and Phoenix-wiki for their co-nominations. Thank you again and best regards.

Lara❤Love 19:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Credits: This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor's RFA thanks which was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

User:ScienceApologist and User:Nondistinguished - more

I just saw that you dealt with unallowed sock puppeting by ScienceApologist, and thus it's a bit late for me to report it. Apparently no measures were taken other than blocking known sock puppets. I don't understand why no other action has been taken.

Regarding the discussion a few weeks ago on this issue, higher up on this page, I have the following to add. In a nutshell: User User:ScienceApologist used a sock puppet of himself to suppress information that he had attempted to suppress earlier as User:ScienceApologist, and which he had agreed to keep. Next he attacked it again under the name ScienceApologist.

Details: Upon mediation concerning the article on tired light [24] and long discussions, User:ScienceApologist did not dispute inclusion of the information that he had deleted earlier. Talk:Tired_light/Archive_1#Totally_disputed_tag_2 + [25]. However, after a long time the same old disagreement started all over again, but this time it was with User:non-distinguished - his sock puppet, as it turned out. And he next (on 30 September, apparently before user:non-distinguished was blocked) again did the same under his original name [26]

When confronted with it, he did not deny it but neither did he offer his excuses for it: See Talk:Tired_light#Unreliable_sources_removed.

Moreover, in a new Rfa [27] he claims that he never abused sock puppets and that he had "left wikipedia". [28].

That is however not true (he continued under other names), and this untruthful departure is brought up as possible misleading the community so as to ban user:Ian Tresman). In that same Rfa, evidence is given that misuse happened more often [29].

As this doesn't have much to do with the abovementioned Rfa and his sock puppeting is already old news, I wonder where this should be reported. Please advice.

Harald88 20:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hoofheartedinthewinnercircle

NB: Request for Checkuser: Grazon —SlamDiego_←T 07:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If you'll go to Grazon's user page then you'll find a box of potentially useful information. And, of course, if you can show that Hoofheartedinthewinnercircle is an alias-of-an-alias of Grazon…. —SlamDiego_←T 08:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitely the same person: edits from CSU Chico computer labs. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there

Hi Morven,

I've just become aware of the continued discussions on the mailing list about me, and I've attempted my first post there in response. I thought I should probably come here out of courtesy, to have a quick word directly.

This is part of how I responded on the list, specifically to reply to your points;

"This is wholly inaccurate. I will happily discuss my history with those I trust privately - but please don't make such aggressive points without better information, it creates drama, and upsets."

Given your further post on the subject, I thought I'd paint another scenario for you other than your two negative options;

I've thoroughly enjoyed contributing to the wiki. I'm a person who, though calm on matters of principle, finds it very important to feel that my voice is heard. I'm also a person who gets a little personally stressed out when the going gets tough. It's horrible to be called a troll, or hypocrite, let alone being banned, and one's talk page protected etc.

Having read the 'heated issue' provision written into the 'sock' policy (being discussed right now at WT:SOCK), I decided to create an account that would focus those kinds of attacks away from a gnome who wishes to go about his business.

I have been entirely open about my editing history with Guy, Slim, Jimbo, Bishonen, and some other editors I know and trust. I continue to be furious that Guy betrayed that trust by sharing the information with editors I'm afraid I don't know, and hence cannot trust. I hope it's not taken as a personal comment for me to say that you're in that bracket - I just haven't met you before, and would be happier for you to accept the following.

I edit with one account only, I've been a good faith contributor for over 2 years, and I'm trying to be a good bloke. Come round my talk page if you'd like a cup of tea or a chat. Privatemusings 06:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Help?

I note you are active on the Arbitration Committee. We have a problem on the World Wrestling Entertainment page. Previous consensus amongst the WP:PW team has noted that no spoilers shall be permitted within the champions listing until the show actually airs in the United States. However, this week we had a title change on Smackdown, and Lid has decided to apply WP:SPOILER over the established consensus, and without getting an alternative consensus from the WP:PW team. I can't revert his edit without violating the 3RR rule, and frankly Lid - in my opinion - is pushing an opinion through these edits. Whether or not this opinion is true is beside the point. The consensus is yet to change and until it does Lid shouldn't be making the edits he is making - in my opinion. Your assistance would be appreciated. !! Justa Punk !! 10:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh - and I just noticed now that another user reverted Lid's last edit requesting a source. This could get very messy, and WP:PW may not respond quickly to the issue. !! Justa Punk !! 11:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The nexus of this content dispute is that some mebers of WP:PW have put in place a consensus that spoilers of professional wrestling articles are to be reverted on sight. I have started a debate on he topic pointing out that this concept is at odds with established wikipedia guideline WP:SPOILER and that the project can not write policy that trumps this for reasons such as "It's only a few days". Although that debate is still continuing the event in question, Friday Night SmackDown, airs in Australia on friday afternoon, about twenty hours before it is aired in the US and considering this event has passed there is no way the incident can be considered a spoiler still without the articles having a distinct US-bias on world wide entertainment. –– Lid^(Talk) 11:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

And until the debate is resolved - the status quo should remain (that is - the change stays off until Smackdown airs in the US). !! Justa Punk !! 11:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)