Eenispay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) really doesn't like a recent film. Username violation, vandalism only. I've engaged this person twice at his user page with no useful result. Who wants to ockblay? Durova^Charge! 06:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

LockedBay!, urovaDay SirFozzie (talk) 07:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Estbay. iffday. Evaryay! Eway eednay eadsthray ikelay isthay oneway ormay oftenyay :D Ajay.elanoyday^absgay_addsyay 07:06, 18 Octoberyay 2008 (UTC)

Ardonpay? Atwhay ethay uckfay!?

BTW: J.delanoy's comment said 'Best diff ever! We need threads like this more often :D'. Just to save you all the trouble of translating it. Dendodge|Talk^Contribs 09:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The igBay estionQuay: What's the Pig Latin translation for "Yay"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

"AyYay"??? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ones like this need to be in a book somewhere. I guess in the long run, it ucksay to be an enispay BMW(drive) 11:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm akingmay an ookbay of the estbay ikipediaway otequays - isthay is the irstfay entry. Dendodge|Talk^Contribs 11:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there some kind of wikipedia joke page somewhere already? Or there used to be. Meanwhile, I'm recalling Smokey and the Bandit, and the guys who made the bet with the Bandit: Big Enospay and Little Enospay. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:BJAODN eemssay otay avehay eenbay eletedday. At'sthay ayay ameshay. -68.191.214.241 (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

JRG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently POV pushing an unsource claim that CountryLink stops at Uranquinty, New South Wales[1]. They have also assumed bad faith by telling another editor to "go away please"[2] and I stand by my template warning even if the user requests that no one to post messages on their page since I have no other means to warn the editor[3]. Timetable listed here and here doesn't show "Uranquinty" and if Uranquinty was a requested stop it would be listed with an a, b, c, d or u next to it. Bidgee (talk) 12:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I will note here for the record that these are both good faith editors with an intent to improve the encyclopaedia and a long record of having done so - although obviously with strongly differing opinions on this issue. Perhaps some kind of mediation or expert opinion may be helpful here (I know nothing about NSW railways, sadly.). Orderinchaos 13:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Per discussion at User talk:Rich Farmbrough#SmaxkBot tagging redirect as stub, please place a temporary block on User:SmackBot until the problem described is fixed. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Not needed, leaving a message on bot's talk page is enough to stop it. Message left, no need to block. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 12:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Davidgothberg blocked User:The Anomebot2 for alleged violation of its bot charter a few days ago for inserting {{coord missing}} templates into articles as part of the Geographic coordinates WikiProject's article tagging drive. I don't believe this block can be supported by policy or practice; since the block, we've had a lengthy discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates.

I won't rehash the whole discussion here. The discussion has been linked from the Centralized Discussions box for some days, and I believe (based on another editor's comments in that discussion) has been advertised in the Village Pump. I believe the discussion has reached a consensus (or, at the very least, a substantial majority opinion) in favor of this being an activity which is both within the bot's existing remit and supported by existing Wikipedia policies.

A short discussion on Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group around the same time, seems also to indicate that this is not a bot charter issue, but a community issue.

I'd like now to seek closure on this by asking here for the block to be reviewed, and the bot unblocked. -- The Anome (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I find the whole {coordinates missing} drive pretty useless given that most editors have no idea how to add coordinates, It would be far better for the bot to actually find the coordinates itself. Anome does great work adding them on most articles but if a bot is to be run I;d rather it only added constructive content i.e the coordinates itself or just don't bother. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It does, wherever possible The bot has added coordinates to over 110,000 articles in the last two years, and adds about 5000 a month (irregularly, because of the infrequency of dumps). The articles being marked with {{coord missing}} are those which can be categorized as locatable, but can't unambiguously be located by the bot; there are about 102,000 of these. Since adding {{coord missing}}, this appears to have resulted in these being tagged, unprompted, by other users at the rate of around 300 a day. The idea behind {{coord missing}} is to hold a cross-WikiProject drive to eliminate the coord missing tags completely within a year. -- The Anome (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe have {{coord missing}} linking to the page on how to add coords and also have a category so those who know how to add coords can help out and add them to the articles that needs them? Bidgee (talk) 13:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and yes: already done. It links to a how-to page already (which is due to be revised to give better advice, see discussion on the WikiProject talk page), and all the articles are added to per-country hidden categories, which will be advertised to the WikiProjects. In addition, CatScan can be used to prepare more precisely targeted reports, such as this. A lot of thought has gone into this. -- The Anome (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I see no point in why the bot should be blocked seen it's helping the community (I've found it useful for articles I've edited and didn't know that they didn't have coords). Bidgee (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

This problem has two parts:

1. Human consensus - whether there is consensus within community at large to tag all eligible articles;
2. Technical - was this fixed?

So far, as far as I can see (sorry, I was terribly busy lately), number one is disputed, and number two is still prolematic. While both issues aren't rectified, I don't believe that the bot should be unblocked. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 13:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the coord missing template is particularly useful personally - when I do coord drives I tend to cover and check an entire region including those already with coords - the ones without them are actually the easy ones! Orderinchaos 13:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the dispute issue: my quick head-count of the discussion finds 10 editors in favor, 5 against, 1 neutral. Not quite a two-thirds supermajority, but close.

Regarding mis-tagging: yes, the bot has occasionally mis-taged articles; experience with the category matching has shown that it's about 99.9% accurate, so the errors should be a hundred or two articles at most within 100,000 tagged; I've been working on cleaning them up by hand, based on a combination of random sampling and responding to error reports from errors, and systematic review of similar articles to find similar errors. -- The Anome (talk) 13:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Then the same scheme as with WikiProject tagging should be employed: first make a list of categories to be tagged, then post them for review to the relevant project. All mistakes after that are caused either by lack of attention from reviewers, or by mis-categorised article - not by botmaster. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 13:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Miscategorization is almost the sole source of errors. For example, Igloo was categorized in Category:Buildings and structures in the Northwest Territories, using the convention used for actual buildings. If it had been categorized within this category with an empty category sort-tag, as is the convention for "meta" articles that are about the subject of a category rather than within it, or categorized under an "Architecture of..." tag, it would not have been flagged by the bot. -- The Anome (talk) 14:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell there is no consensus to do this task outside of the related WikiProject and, as has been stated so many times before, WikiProjects do not own articles. What's next, WP:WPSCH tagging articles with "Alumni needed - you can help!"? Or WP:WPBIO tagging articles with "Middle name needed - you can help!"? ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 13:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

If that's what bothers you, I can remove the solicitation, and just make it read [coordinates missing]. It's also about to get a globe link added, to give map-lookup by name.-- The Anome (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. It seems from the discussion here that there isn't a clear consensus in either direction, and more centralized discussion is needed. In the meantime, can someone please unblock the bot for use for use in its other roles coordinate-tagging functions? -- The Anome (talk)

 Done on the condition it sticks to its other approved tasks. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 13:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I can do better than that; I've now removed the displayable text entirely, pending a clear cross-community consensus for allowing a display element. Given that this appears to remove the sole reason for objections, I'd like to be able to add {{coord missing}} tags on this basis only; would this be OK? -- The Anome (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, the appearance of {{coord missing}} on one of "my" articles prompted me to add those coordinates. I'm pretty sure that's a net gain overall (Incidentally, we need to have the positioning made part of the stylesheet so that people using other skins don't have the text or icon sticking out in the wrong place— I use "modern" for instance). — Coren ^(talk) 16:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the positioning used a HTML class, so it could be CSS-styled. (As of my previous comment, the included text is now an empty string.) -- The Anome (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

User:CarloscomB has created multiple articles which are copypastes of text from the web, e.g. Stellar Planet Survey, Okayama Planet Search Program, Tautenburg Planet Search Program (which he created twice, the first version being deleted as a copyright violation of a different source). His user talk page and the archive thereof reveal a history of copyright warning notices, however these have apparently been ignored by the user, who doesn't seem to respond to any attempts to make contact with him (the user appears to have no edits in any talk namespace). Icalanise (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Block for 24 hours for persistent unconstructive editing. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 15:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure that will help, apparently that's been tried before with pretty much no effect. Icalanise (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Then block for longer, indef if appropriate. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 16:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I’ve given the user 2 weeks off to give them a chance to read and understand the copyright rules around here. —Travis^talk 17:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

68.41.179.90 (talk) has been editing Camp Tamakwa for several months, making additions regarding the death of Michael Greene, an 18 year old staff member of the camp. It seems obvious that these are his parents making the additions. Most of the edits are to add just a couple short sentences regarded his drowning. The only link is to the family's personal memorial site. In some recent edits, is the addition of a line that basically reads that they can be reverted (which they have been each time), but that they will continue to add the information "until hell freezes over". In the an edit today, they added a first person account of litigation, again without sources. This is also a potential BLP issue, as it details litigation being brought against two employees of the camp. I and [roux] have added notices/warnings to their talk page, and I've also added an offer to help them if they can provide me with sources. Unfortunately, these messages are being ignored. I've protected the article for a few hours, to prevent the IP from editing past their final warning, which was just issued. Considering the circumstances of the situation, I really think it would be best to avoid a block at all costs, however, with talk pages messages being ignored, I'm not sure the best way to accomplish this. Assistance appreciated. لennavecia 18:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• [4] iMatthew (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
• There are no BLP concerns, as it has been reported in the press that charges were laid. It is not BLP violation to present information on such things. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 18:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh good, a source! I'll see what I can pull out of that. Thanks. لennavecia 18:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

In case of linkrot in future, also add this to the reference (http://www.webcitation.org/5bfTLHj7h). To see how to present, refer to Ref. 11 at Action of 9 August 2008 --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 18:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I added a paragraph from the source. Hopefully that resolves the issue. I'm off to get ready for work. If anyone is watching the page now, I'm going to unprotect. If there is any additional disruption, please attempt to resolve without blocking. Regards, لennavecia 19:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

A red-link [5] has created what looks to be a "junk" category page. Perhaps an admin could look into this and take appropriate action. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed the link at Template:Wrong-license, so it make some time for the link to clear itself out. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It looked like an editing test to me so I deleted it and dropped a note on the user’s talkpage. —Travis^talk 18:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick fyi, i have deleted this page, Why wikipedia should get sued, and blocked User:Mikytheman indef for legal threats--Jac16888 (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Page salted as well, just in case. For what it's worth, any court filing with the word "lolgasm" in it would be thrown out immediately, but the account is definitely vandalism only anyway. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Good delete, good block, good salt. Endorse everything all around. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I am going to sue the living crap out of anyone saying this was wrong. ;-) --Gutza ^{T T+} 23:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Why would you want someone's crap? And how would you keep it alive? What is crap's diet? Why am I asking? HalfShadow 23:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I loved that he complained about people who "ban pages that have no purpose" - litigants usually blow themselves out of the water under cross-examination, in my experience, but it's rare to find one that does it in what would undoubtedly form part of their own case. Nice to get a good laugh, in fact I almost ... (but let us not go there). --Rodhullandemu 23:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't log into my account. My account is User:Schuym1. 65.103.94.3 (talk) 23:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a registered e-mail address? That is, on your registered account. --Gutza ^{T T+} 23:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be one: Special:EmailUser/Schuym1. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It worked! Schuym1 (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I recommend setting an email address for your account so this doesn't happen in the future. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Over the last week or so, I've been getting some pretty offensive vandalism from random ips in the 79.74.xx.xx range. After a bit of digging, it appears that most of these IPs were used by a banned user named Tom Sayle (talk · contribs) Is a rangeblock possible? HalfShadow 00:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to do a rangeblock, but i can offer you some protection instead, if you want--Jac16888 (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but that would only be making him not my problem anymore. Granted, he seems fixated on me specifically, but that wouldn't stop him targeting someone else. HalfShadow 01:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, never mind — that's a huge range. HalfShadow 01:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking over all of the relevent IP vandalism, both to your page and related to Tom Sayle in general, I am seeing that all of the edits seem to come from 79.74.0.0 to 79.74.127.255, which would be a /17 block. Large, but certainly within policy limits. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll accept whichever you think is the more efficient way to deal with him, but I'd rather not have him targetting someone else simply because he can't target me. HalfShadow 01:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I've semi prot'd Half's talkpage for a month. I personally think 32K IPs are too many to range block. I will try to CU this tomorrow and I think it'd be good if someone filed and RFCU on this. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The following material has been moved from my talk page. Material I placed in the Coal Mining article has been deleted, so I have removed all my other contributions to Wikipedia as well. See my user page for the reasons why. Apparently we have mathematicians serving in the role of copyright attorneys at Wikipedia. Mistake.

Thank you Elonka and Todd for trying. I'm not sure you can fix this. Farewell.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Copy and paste of talk page removed. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

previous comments viewable here.[6][7] --Elonka 20:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Um... What is the incident to report here, exactly? 207.80.142.5 (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently somebody removed it. I'll see if I can find it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mervyn Emrys (talk • contribs) 18:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[8]

I am removing a copy and paste of content from User talk:Mervyn Emrys. Interested parties can review that page's history. Charles Matthews (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) just blocked Mathsci (talk · contribs) for one week for attempted outing. To me, this looks like finished business. ANI is not for drama making; it is for requesting specific administrative action. I don't see what further administrative action is required here, as the IP above correctly notes. If you are sincerely concerned about an invasion of privacy, reposting the offensive content is a rather counter-productive thing to do. Jehochman ^Talk 18:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh... you can't "delete" your contributions. Attempts to do so have been reverted. seicer | talk | contribs 19:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, curiouser and curiouser. Apparently anyone can delete anything I contribute, but I cannot delete what I contribute? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mervyn Emrys (talk • contribs) 19:09, October 17, 2008 (UTC)[9][10]

I think this situation is resolved at this point. There was a conflict between Mathsci (talk · contribs) and new editor Mervyn Emrys (talk · contribs), some of which evidently involved a violation of WP:OUTING. Mathsci has since been blocked by arbitrator Charles Matthews (talk · contribs), citing the Tobias Conradi case. As for the edits at Coal mining and Environmental effects of coal, I think there was just a miscommunication here, and I've been working with Mervyn Emrys on this at our talkpages, and I think the confusion has been cleared up. I don't think there's any need for any further administrator action, so we can probably tag this thread as resolved. Any further questions from Mervyn Emrys can probably be handled via his own talkpage. --Elonka 21:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I was mistaken about Mathsci deleting a contribution to Coal Mining article. It was someone else, and apparently happened simultaneously with my discovery of it, so there was no explanation provided until after my message was posted.

However, Mathsci made outrageous accusations on a previous incident thread that is now archived, preventing me from responding to them. In that thread he attempted to “out” me. Subsequently he attempted again on my “talk” page to out me. There WAS a pattern. I'm disgusted.

It seems Mathsci does not understand copyright law as applied to U.S. Government documents. Nobody can acquire a copyright on any material published in a U.S. government document simply by quoting or paraphrasing it in a book published by a commercial publisher. The material remains in the public domain as public property. No publisher is going to come after anyone for reprinting material that is in the public domain, and nobody else has legal standing to do so.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Mervyn, on your user page you wrote, "This is my first online venture, so consider myself a bit of a neophyte here. I've discovered the more I learn in life, the less I know. Fortunately, there is always lots to learn." It is nice to see such an open and welcoming attitude towards advice and suggestions. Allow me to make a few. First, an important priinciple here is Assume good faith on the part of other editors. it seems to me that Mathsci assumed that you were adding relevant content in good faith, but were violating a wikipedia policy. I hope you can assume that matchsci was acting in good faith in removing material she believed violated policy ... above you make a remark that this has something to do with pleasing anti-coal-mining interests. Can't you instead see this as a question over Wikipedia policy, and interpreting and applying policy? What do we do if both of you have good intentions? We play it safe by removing content that may be copyrighted, that is just prudence. Since none of us are "authors" in the sense that wikipedia content is public and common and does not belong to any one of us, I am sure you won't take it personally. I do not see any harm in inviting people who understand copyright law thoroughly to review this and reach a consensus. We can easily restore anything deleted, so there would be no harm done. Many of us like you are academics and have published, and there are more complex issues when it comes to adding material to Wikipedia that we ourselves have copyright to. This may be salient if copyright is an obstruction to adding material to Wikipedia. IT seems to me that MathSci was trying to find ways to help you add the content you want to add. All of us have to make compromises to suit Wikipedia policies and also of course informal ways of working together at Wikipedia. But of course, you know that, you wrote, "This is my first online venture, so consider myself a bit of a neophyte here. I've discovered the more I learn in life, the less I know. Fortunately, there is always lots to learn." So I sincerely apologize if anything I wrote seemed out of turn. I just want to encourage you to stay and keep editing! Slrubenstein | Talk 00:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Slrub, I do assume good faith until I see evidence to the contrary, which in this case seems pretty clear. Repeated efforts to "out" somebody or bait them into outing themselves are not at all ambiguous.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Mervyn, I appreciate that. As I stated on the message i left at your talk page, there are ways to permantnely delete material you believe compromises your privacy. Personally, I think when Hans Adler raised the issue of a conflict of interest you could have pointed out (as other academics here do) that the source is verifiable and reliable and relevant to the article. This is the real issue and you do not have to apologize for introducing such sources, if they are used to support content added to the article. That you are knowledgable in your field indeed makes you a valuable contributor. Nevertheless, at Wikipedia we are all equals, and after the infamous Essjay case, no one has any reason to believe any claims an editor makes about himself or herself. But it doesn't matter! If the content you added was good, and the source reliable (which seems to be the case) that is sufficient, your identity or claims about yor identity are unnecessary. As for the problem with MathSci, I really think there was a serious and regrettable misunderstanding and I hope we can move forward. MathScie is right that it is highly unusual to add unedited a seven page quote from another source to an encyclopedia article. This does not mean that the contents of the quoted material cannot be added. But it is reasonable for an editor to raise copyright issues. MathSci's intention as he stated it was not to prevent you from adding content, only to ensure it is added in a way that complies with our policies. Other editors besides mathSci have shared these concerns and I repeat they are not about the value of the material or its relevance to the article. the question is, how to ad it in a way where there is NO doubt about compliance with our policies. This is why as Elonka and others have shared with you Wikipedia editors are not "authors" in the sense that any contribution is "ours." We work collaboratively, askine one another to edit one another's contributions and one's own contributions, until we have a text thatis supported by several editors. I really hope you will stay and join us in this collaborative and collective process. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has removed most of the Prods I added to BLP's that didn't have a single reference or external link. He has done so using rollback, which as far as I'm aware should only be used on vandalism edits. Is prodding unsourced BLP's now classed as vandalism? RMHED (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I'll grant that RMHED believed he was doing the right thing. However, what he was doing was not actually the right thing; these are perfectly valid articles with no contentious or objectionable content. I've rolled myself back on occasions when I've made a mistaken edit, simply because it's quicker. Under the circumstances, I feel that there was nothing inappropriate about this use of rollback. Furthermore, after asking RMHED to please stop what he was doing, I checked each article individually before rolling it back; I left one prod in place because the article made no assertion of notability. DS (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can contest a PROD simply by removing the tag. However, rollback is reserved for vandalism or otherwise "unworthy" edits. I find it hard to believe that restoring a tag that is perfectly removable counts as "unworthy"; although in the absence of a definition for such, it's moot, but I would consider it should apply to, say, pointless formatting edits rather than issues of process. The PRODs appear to have been good faith nominations, so I wouldn't regard their application as "unworthy". Certainly, you can ask RMHED to stop, but he's under no obligation to do so unless acting against good faith. I see no evidence of that here. --Rodhullandemu 00:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Might the better solution be to stick at least one reference in? This goes for both PRODing and reverting it without fixing the underlying problem. It is just as easy as doing either and helps move things on a step. I have left instructions on how to use {{gcdb}} on the talk page - all you need do is add the person's name to the template. (Emperor (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

I tend to agree that using rollback here was a violation of both the letter and the spirit of the rollback policy, but I think we also need to note that it's possible to use semi-automated tools to PROD at great speed (not sure if this is what RMHED was doing), so I'm not sure if it's fair to say that PROD tags need to be removed by hand, unless we're prepared to make the same assertion about their addition. On the prods themselves, I agree with RMHED here on the interpretation of WP:BLP - everything needs to be sourced, and anybody can remove unsourced material at any time. But I think he's completely misguided on what the source of the BLP problem is: the problem isn't that there aren't enough footnotes in BLPs: the problem is that anybody with an axe to grind or a sick sense of humour can come along and write anything they want in a BLP, and in a great many BLPs this will remain unnoticed long enough to get cached by Google and scraped by mirrors. Citations are important and valuable in cleaning up BLPs, but they don't really have anything to do with the root of the problem. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to note that all Prods and prod notices were added manually, no tools were used. RMHED (talk) 01:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree with the claim that RHMED was not basically in the right. Why is the BLP policy interpreted as "all BLP claims must be sourced" except when there are zero sources? How is proposing deletion of those articles not proper? sure, RHMED could have diligently researched each and every one and then added references for all uncited claims, but that isn't the mandatory route for unsourced BLP's. As I see it, the firm instruction is: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. Protonk (talk) 00:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Precisely. BLP admits some laxity, the keyword being "contentious", and the "negative, positive, or just questionable" doesn't really add to that. It's foolish to say that "contentious" means anything much more than "open to argument", and it's simple enough to apply common sense and say that the principle of "Do No Harm" requires that negative unsourced assertions be removed immediately, whereas there is little to be lost by retaining "X is the best-selling Bhangra artist in Heckmondwike". Some perspective needs to be retained here, I feel. --Rodhullandemu 01:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

But the rub is... "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material..." The mass PROD seems to hing on the lack of a source being the point of contention. If that were the case, then you'd think the BLP proviso would be to remove 1) all contentious sourced information and 2) all unsourced information. - J Greb (talk) 01:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I've always read that sentence with parentheses in different places than you apparently do: "(unsourced) or (poorly sourced contentious) material", i.e. all unsourced material, and poorly sourced material only if it is contentious.—Kww(talk) 02:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I've never thought it meant "all unsourced material", because that would be nonsense ("Jon Doe is a man"); but "Jon Doe is a gay actor<ref>yourblog.com</ref>" wouldn't cut it, whereas "Jon Doe is a gay actor<ref>jondoe.com/biog</ref>" would. That's how I see the policy intended to work. --Rodhullandemu 02:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important to note that regardless of whether RHMED was correct in prodding the articles, DF67's use of rollback was inappropriate. I'm going to go drop a short note on his talk page about that. — Coren ^(talk) 01:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait, RMHED is complaining about someone else removing their prods from articles? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I know we shouldn't encourage mass reversions, but it's possible to use custom edit summaries when rollbacking. For example in this case, it would be possible to use "contested prod" in edit summaries. It is unclear in the rollback guideline if this use is allowed for non-vandalism edits. Though using it for good faith edits seems inadvisable. It's the problem of semi-automatic tools: lack of review, real or apparent (since a user may still review pages manually beforehand). But in this case, we don't know if rollback is used or not, edits can be quickly reverted without rollback using tabs (with a tedious preparation), even faster than non-admin rollback since theirs is throttled. Cenarium ^Talk 03:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Whether rollback or a manually written (and belittlingly tautological) edit summary is used, the effect is the same, plus current procedure is that anybody can remove a "prod" tag for any reason, or for no reason at all. Recommend closing this thread. — CharlotteWebb 13:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It's important that the edit summaries be informative though, the "reverted edits by .. to last version by .." is too connoted and disrespectful. Cenarium ^Talk 15:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Heyheygimmemore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked once for repeatedly adding unsourced material and rumors to albums and single articles. I put him back at level 3 warning for [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashlee_Simpson&diff=245984977&oldid=245538794 adding a rumored single to Ashlee Simpson] yesterday. This morning, Ericorbit dropped another final warning on his talk page, perhaps for adding a fake album cover into Her Name is Nicole, but I'm not 100% sure that that is the offense being warned for. This afternoon, I see that he has added yet another completely unsourced rumor section to Identified.—Kww(talk) 19:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for another 2 weeks, with a warning that the next one's likely to be indef. Stifle (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You gotta love a self-prophesying user ID. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't guess there is any way we can find out who User:98.228.71.142 (and presumably the other vandal) really is? I note the edit summary was a deaththreat (or a prediction, but somehow I doubt that) against User:Cometstyles. Doug Weller (talk) 08:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't bother. You'll have better luck finding Osama bin Laden. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 10:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I think I saw him in Pioneer Courthouse Square just last week. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Infoart (talk · contribs) has made complaints and also passed on complaints from the Saatchi Gallery about the article Saatchi Gallery. See his text at Reply from InfoArt. He is complaining that the article is biased negatively against the gallery, which "would like their Wiki entry to be very current and concise. The gallery has asked me to pass on the message that unless this page is cleaned up and edited they will remove all Saatchi related content from Wiki and possibly instigate legal action." Infoart says that I have "a malicious agenda when it comes to Saatchi" and that the Saatchi Gallery have asked that I should be barred "from making edits on any Saatchi related pages".

Infoart has written a considerable amount of editorial material for the Saatchi Gallery web site, and in early 2007 created around 150 articles on wiki about artists in the Saatchi collection, mainly by copying and pasting material (totally unsuitable in style and content for wiki) from the gallery site, each article having an external link to the Saatchi Gallery. See discussions on User talk:Infoart. At that point LessHeard vanU was close to blocking.[11] These articles could all have been speedy deleted as G11 advertising, but I felt they could be an asset to the project, and I organised a clean-up task force to salvage most of them, so I do not, as Infoart alleges have "a malicious agenda when it comes to Saatchi." At that time I received positive emails from the gallery and from Charles Saatchi.

More recently Infoart has made substantial edits to Saatchi Gallery removing negative (and solidly referenced) material and inserting content in a promotional tone about the new Saatchi Gallery, which has just opened.[12][13] My analysis of this is at Recent edits by User:Infoart.

The history of the gallery is one of controversy and contention, covered extensively in national and international media. Infoart's edits create a sanitised, revisionist history, leaving out major events, and present what seems to be the gallery's current PR stance.

Ty 23:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The IP that posted the legal threat, 81.159.113.122 (talk · contribs), has been indef-blocked (AO, ACB) by User:Orangemike. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I've switched that to a 31-hour, for obvious reasons. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Endorse Ty's version, having watched the events on this & many other articles edited by Infoart, mostly from a distance. Johnbod (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

←The IP address is requesting an unblock, claiming that they were unfairly blocked. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Whilst not having unblocked, I have attempted to explain our position re independence of editing. It seems clear that although maybe not directly representing Saatchi's themselves, aligning with their position, and promulgating it, puts this IP in the (legal) situation of an authorised agent, and therefore WP:NLT applies equally. That's the situation in UK law, anyhow, until Saatchi's themselves resile from that situation. --Rodhullandemu 02:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You've blocked his IP, but the offending IP edit was headed as a "Reply from InfoArt" (link above), and pretty clearly was - should you not block the username too? Johnbod (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Having observed and participated in the help project Ty initiated last year to revise, and keep dozens of otherwise deletable Saatchi related articles I back and endorse Ty's version of events as does Johnbod (talk · contribs) above....Modernist (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Having dealt with Infoart extensively, although not as closely as Tyrenius, in the past past matter I have to admit to some confusion in respect of Infoarts latest editing; it does not seem to be the same character who both acknowledged and worked with the various editors to address the issues with the various artist bio's. That Infoart seemed to understand WP's position and desire to create appropriate articles. While I understand that the account is now editing the Saatchi Gallery article and is therefore likely more involved in its editing (and the wishes of the subject itself) it still seems to be a previously undisclosed aspect of this editors character. It is so different that I wonder if it is the same person editing from that account, or if the account (which was based within the Gallery, as far as can be ascertained) has been "passed onto" another individual with the same relationship to the Gallery. While this opens another can of worms (is it a Role Account?) I think an enquiry should be made to this account if they are indeed the same person who was involved in editing WP previously.

I also endorse Tyrenius' account of the prior situation, and also wonder if their previous access to Mr Saatchi might be of benefit in resolving this issue? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have posted an extensive rationale for the NLT block on the IP and also at Infoart. I have not blocked Infoart per se yet, and have no opinion on whether the account should be blocked along with the IP, but he has retracted the threat somewhat, and seems to be interested in pursueing the matter through the proper means (MGodwin) and not via talk page threats. Again, I have no opinion on any pending block on Infoart, but he seems to understand and wishes to abide by the letter and spirit of the NLT policy. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have also noticed the discrepancy between the IP and Infoart, as pointed out by LessHeard vanU, and have concluded that the IP and Infoart are two different people. This explains the difference in tone. It also explains why the IP didn't sign in as Infoart, when requested: he couldn't. Now the IP has claimed to be Infoart, Infoart has to cover up for him and pretend he was the IP. There's no evidence at the moment that User:Infoart as such is a role account (or there would have been no need for someone else to edit as an IP).

Infoart has worked for the Saatchi Gallery and provided them with numerous artist write-ups, which are on their web site. This is presumably not out of charity, nor is the creation of around 150 articles on Saatchi artists, a considerable amount of work, done in a very methodical fashion. It has to be assumed he is editing here for the gallery. He is a SPA and does not edit non Saatchi-related articles.

There is an agenda to use the article for the gallery's current PR stance, and ludicrous arguments are presented to try to justify this, such as "Hirst is only one artist of the several thousand who have been featured in the collection over the years", when Hirst is one of the most famous living artists in the world and has had a huge part to play in the Saatchi Gallery's history. Countering this sort of speciousness is a waste of other editors' time.

This has been happening since 2006, as can be seen on Talk:Saatchi Gallery. At that time 195.224.156.170 (talk · contribs) added to the article "we are closing the Gallery at County Hall and concentrating our efforts in preparing our new building."[14] Ktm10 (talk · contribs) admitted to being the gallery's web master.[15]

A number of other accounts display similar behaviour of edits to Saatchi Gallery and related (sometimes very few edits and then not editing again):

• 195.224.156.170 (talk · contribs)
• Angel vonrudolf (talk · contribs)
• Barkalama (talk · contribs)
• Paulx555 (talk · contribs)
• Johnpcarter (talk · contribs)
• 80.168.165.2 (talk · contribs)
• Jmdc (talk · contribs)
• 80.168.164.26 (talk · contribs)
• Bananaleaf0709 (talk · contribs)
• Nederhoed (talk · contribs).

Some of these edits have needed instant reversion. There is a consistent agenda, which is in the gallery's interest, but not in wikipedia's.

It would be preferable to work with the gallery, as we have done very successfully with User:VAwebteam from the Victoria and Albert Museum. This is dependant on whether the gallery is prepared to respect wikipedia policies, which to date they have not. As things stand, they should be restricted in the first instance to only posting on the talk pages of Saatchi Gallery and related articles. This limit should also be extended to any new user that displays the same behaviour.

Ty 04:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

New account Saatchi ben (talk · contribs) has been blanking the article or just leaving the beginning of it and adding a link to the saatchi gallery site, continuing after warnings. I have indef blocked. Ty 09:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

A new IP editor chopped a large bit of text with no explanation. I reverted to the version before, was requested to semi-protect, but as this is a content dispute and semi-protection isn't recommended in such cases, I've protected the article for 72 hours. I've said on the article talk page that if any Admin wants to change this they may. Doug Weller (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

IP is 87.224.35.130 (talk · contribs), who has previously identified as the Director of the Saatchi Gallery.[16] Ty 13:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

A whois on that address does show that it's from the Saatchi Gallery. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ty, I am aware that you have previously corresponded with Mr C. Saatchi; do you think it would be appropriate to tentatively enquire whether these representations do indeed come from the Gallery, and if so to request that these concerns be addressed to Mike Godwin? LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)The Saatchi Gallery IP that posted a "libel" message[17] removed it three hours later.[18] Infoart has disassociated himself from the original threat, saying his role was just a responsible heads up, and that he has forwarded Mike Godwin's details to the gallery.[19] In my emails with the gallery in the past, the gallery have not had any quibble about Infoart's part in the process, so I think we can take it that they have received the information. As things stand, then, there is no legal threat being made on this site. Maybe the gallery should be contacted by someone, just so it is all done by the book. It might be better if you did this. What is of concern is the COI SPAs that undermine the article, amongst whom Infoart must be counted. That needs to be addressed. Ty 01:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I shall mail the Gallery tomorrow (Sunday) to the address previously provided to you plus the one that appears on their website. I will request that any general WP requests should be addressed to either of us (anyone else willing to correspond with the gallery should note that here, and I will include links to userpages), minor complaints addressed to this page and major ones to Mike Godwin. I think I will need to be a bit firm about using the ip address to unilaterally remove content from articles which they disagree with, and explain that blocking is an appropriate response to disrupting the encyclopedia. If there are any salient points that you feel I should be aware of, please don't assume I will include them and note them here or on my talkpage. Other advice or comment on this matter is appreciated, by any reader. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The gallery needs to understand the basis of editing is WP:NPOV based on WP:VERIFY using WP:RS, and the resulting material is not a wiki editorial comment nor necessarily the view of the editor(s) of the article, which they seem at the moment to think it is. Nor will the article be tailored to suit the gallery's PR stance: it is about them, not by them. Ty 03:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Email sent. Let us see what transpires. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to piece together a socking investigation, but I need help seeing some of that stuff that only people with an admin bit (alas, not me for a while) can see. Can someone tell me the user ids that created Beverly Hills Kids and Teens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Talk:Beverly Hills Kids and Teens (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)? From the deletion logs, it looks like the talk page has been created independently of the article page multiple times.

Thanks.—Kww(talk) 12:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Alicia.Payan (talk · contribs) and FanRachel2 (talk · contribs) (it was created twice), and for the talk page, 200.88.94.136 (talk · contribs). The second account has several deleted contributions relating to Camp Rock 2 (film), if it helps. Orderinchaos 13:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Knowing that it is always the same IP creating the talk page confirms my major suspicion. Here's how it lays out:

• Alis.Payan identifies herself as a 10-year-old Dominican.
• Alicia.Payan identifies herself as a 10-year-old Dominican.
• 200.88.94.136 is a Dominican IP address.
• The only editors that have created any article called Beverly Hills Kids and Teens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)are Alicia.Payan and FanRachel2.
• 200.88.94.136 has created Talk:Beverly Hills Kids and Teens (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) multiple times.
• FanRachel2 has recreated Camp Rock 2 (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), while the very similarly named RachelFan2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a long series of edits to Camp Rock 2.
• There is a very similar buzz of activity around The Clique.
• Alis.Payan has been blocked for disruption, Alicia.Payan has been blocked for disruption, FanRachel2 has been indef blocked for disruption.
• I think it's time for a nice long block against 200.88.94.136 and all the user accounts. I'm tired of playing Whack-A-Mole with these.

I'll take it to WP:SSP if I must, but I'm getting pretty soured about the response time over there.—Kww(talk) 13:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that SSP or Checkuser would be needed to deal with these, as the situation is so obvious. In past situations like this Checkusers have declined the case per WP:DUCK. If however we're likely to be dealing with other accounts that need to be checked against these it may not be a bad step to initiate an RFCU, but we can still block all of them as sockpuppets tentatively until that's confirmed one way or another. (Note I am not a checkuser and can't speak for them, so am merely commenting on past outcomes I've seen.) Orderinchaos 13:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You're not the only one who hears quacking, Orderinchaos. A quick perusal of the edit history of Camp Rock led me to another obvious sock, Mikayla12 (talk · contribs). And based on the user creation logs, Alis.Payan is the sockmaster. I'm going to indef them all and be merry--that's an awful lot of disruption coming from a 10-year-old girl. Blueboy96 14:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I filed Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Alis.Payan to request a sweep on the IP.—Kww(talk) 14:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The Mikayla12 account ALSO has a claimed user page with the Alis Payan name on it and very similar edits. Also the IP 24.16.116.14 that vandalised Kww's talk page a couple of days ago edited the "Camp Rock 2" non-article on 20 August, at the time at which the Alis.Payan account was active. Orderinchaos 14:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Another one: Rachel.Lynn (talk · contribs). IP 200.88.94.194 has some interleaving edits with this user as well, interesting given its similarity with the above. Also ReginaRing12 (talk · contribs) (an older one) Orderinchaos 14:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

ReginaRing12 originally self-identified as a 10-year-old Dominican girl.—Kww(talk) 15:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear: Blueboy96 did not block the underlying IP, 200.88.94.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) or Rachelfan2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).—Kww(talk) 14:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

And a rampage last night from 200.88.94.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) emphasises the need for a rangeblock.—Kww(talk) 12:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

31-hour timeout ... Blueboy96 12:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

User:QBobBilly (aka User:QBillyBob) thinks he's in a playground: you can just verify it by checking his contributions. I don't know exactly en.wiki's policies, but I think it's a problematic behaviour. Moreover, the history of... History of basketball is full of vandalisms, someone should do something... Thanks in advance. --2diPikke 13:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2diPikke (talk • contribs)

I think it's duck-testable and I've reported him to WP:AIV. x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't vandalised since the final warning, but feel free to report him again at WP:AIV if he does. Stifle (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

He's now indef-blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I just turned in another sock of his called QiBobBill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

He gone too. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

EntertainU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been using Wikipedia for about a year[20] and has had a Wikipedia account since June 2008[21]. Since October 5, 2008, user has (i) Threaten to report a user if they do not agree to change their user name.[22]; (ii) Spammed more than 50 user talk pages between 7 October 2008 and 12 October 2008 to watch his video[23][24] and more than 50 more[25]; (iii) Made a significant number of inappropriate level 3 warnings between October 5, 2008 and October 9, 2008[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40] (iv) Posting 50+ welcoming message to users with no contributions at the time the welcoming message was posted, where the welcoming message thank them for their contributions[41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52], etc.[53] (v) Made a level 3 vandalism warning for a post that was 2 months old; (vi) Requesting others to remove their notice from a talk page of a now blocked sockpuppet[54], where EntertainU subsequently posted his own notices to that talk page[55] even though the user had not made any edits that would justify EntertainU's warnings; and (vii) Made a 02:42, 7 October 2008 dubious assertion of unconstructive edit to a 02:41, 7 October 2008 post to Wikipedia:Sandbox[56]. I can't help but think that these actions are driving away new users. Since I am unsure how this can be best addressed, I am posting it here. -- Suntag ☼ 00:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

This is has already been addressed, [57], his actions stated above, while misguided, are clearly in good faith, its quite obvious that he is trying to help out and simply unaware of how to do so correctly. Since he is now in the process of being adopted, User talk:Addshore#Adopt Request, and there has been none of the behaviour stated above in a week, i can't see that there is any action that requires taking--Jac16888 (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

What prompted my actions was Petebutt's 16 October 2008 reaction to the user name change request from EntertainU. EntertainU was blocked on 14 September 2008 for "using Wikipedia as a chat service". The events noted above occured on or after the 14 September 2008 block. I didn't realize that EntertainU's actions were discussed on 13 October 2008 at AN. From his post on my talk page after I notified him of this ANI post, he seems contrite. -- Suntag ☼ 16:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I previously reported here some problems with a single purpose account editing articles on The Syn and Steve Nardelli (lead singer of The Syn), subsequent to calls on the Syn fan e-mail list (14Hour) to correct Wikipedia. The main user account is Umbrello, but s/he also edits under the IP address 24.47.192.90 and RexerX appears to be a sock or meatpuppet (makes same sort of edits, had identical user pages for a while). I was concerned about a possible COI (Umbrello is the name of Nardelli's record label; and Umbrello's and RexerX's user pages were copies of the Steve Nardelli article), but Umbrello said otherwise, so I assumed good faith on that.

Some of Umbrello's edits have been useful, but many have been highly biased: see Talk:The Syn for details. (Some examples: unsupported claims praising the band (see diff), misrepresented what citations say (see this) and repeatedly sought to cut critical material, even when supported by citations (see here).) A flame war also broke out on 14Hour between me and the list owner (the list owner isn't user Umbrello and is generally a good guy but doesn't seem to understand Wikipedia; however, user Umbrello does also seem to be on 14Hour). Things seemed to have mostly died down, although I felt user Umbrello was gaming the system, with complaints about lack of balance in the face of anything less than glowing about The Syn. Then came THIS EDIT. (To explain some context, The Syn has connections with Yes and there was a recent falling-out between Nardelli and Yes/ex-Syn bassist Chris Squire; I have a website that covers Yes and, to some extent, The Syn.) As I've said, I have some history off Wikipedia, good and bad, with Nardelli and The Syn, so I would rather someone else patrolled this situation. Can anyone review behaviour? Bondegezou (talk) 09:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The prior discussion is archived here. I've also notified Umbrello and RexerX of this discussion. And to echo my previous sentiment about Umbrello, I still suspect he is or is strongly related to Umbrello Records- note Image:Steve Nardelli.jpg which is marked as {{pd-author}}, but is watermarked as copyright Martyn Adelman (a member of The Syn), and is taken directly from The Syn's website, which according to this, makes it copyright of The Syn. I haven't opened a PUI case for the image since I still suspect Umbrello is the original copyright holder, which might make that a valid PD release. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

This edit worries me lots. I recommend we softblock Umbrello (talk · contribs) for violating the username policy, and warn both Umbrello and his IP address that any 'cleaning' of articles in the manner he suggests will result in a block. Very biased editing here, probably from a member of Umbrello Records. I'm not a fan. Perhaps we can use WP:DUCK? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I've softblocked Umbrello's account. He can request a new username, but we can't have him editing under that username. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If he's engaged in conflict of interest, how will getting a new user ID help that situation? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It won't, but in the meantime it's a violation of the username policy. If you think it's a good idea, I can unblock him for the time being, until we've got this all sorted? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it's a violation of the username policy. But no, he should not be unblocked if he's violating conflict of interest rules. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a violation of the username policy because 'Umbrello' is linked to 'Umbrello Records', the record company who are linked with the band. The username policy basically states that you can't have a name that implies you're from an organisation. I'd like to make it a hard block, but in order to do that, I'd like to know another admins opinion on what would be best here. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

But if he actually is from that organization, then it shouldn't be considered a violation. If he's not, then it is a violation. Also, he could be from that organization and also edit within the guidelines, in which case it's not necessarily a conflict of interest. However, that does not appear to be the case. So you've "got him" either way - and if he comes back under a different ID he'll probably give himself away and put him right back in the same boat, as it's hard for a leopard to change its stripes. The endpoint being, I don't see how his coming back under a different name is likely to make things any better. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that User:Umbrello isn't Martyn Adelman, who no longer has anything to do with The Syn as far as I know. Whether Umbrello is linked to Nardelli/Umbrello Records or not (and I'm willing to accept his/her word that s/he isn't), I think the bigger problem is behaviour like this edit and a general lack of NPOV and gaming. That is, it doesn't seem to me to be principally a COI or username problem so much as a basic failure to abide by Wikipedia standards. By the way, any block of Umbrello should also cover the IP address 24.47.192.90 and RexerX. Thanks to everyone for their help. Bondegezou (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

43.244.132.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has bothered me for quite some time. It's the IP address of Dr90s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who got blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. He has now returned and is removing content without discussing beforehand [58], [59], [60]. He refused to start a discussion before reverting me multiple times. Guyinblack25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has also been involved with this person on Super Mario 64, and you can see from the page's history that he made the same disruptive edits there. Sephiroth BCR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked Dr90s for sockpuppetry, but since he can still edit with his IP address, he has returned and continued the same disruptive edits that got him blocked in the first place. On Super Mario Sunshine's talk page I proved that one of the sources was reliable, but he refused to accept it [61]. Now he has begun accusing me of attacking him [62], [63]. If someone could please tell this user to stop and leave me and Guyinblack25 alone, I would appreciate it. Thanks. The Prince (talk) 07:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you need to learn to write shorter explanations. I'm being really nice by trying to figure out what's going on. My first question is, what other log-ins was User:Dr90s using that got him block for sockpuppetry? There was no checkuser I see and I do see User:Handsome elite blocked as a sock, but I can't piece it together. It seems strange. For the IP address, fine he went WP:BOLD and removed the text and then went to discuss it on the talk page. I don't really seem much actually discussion. For two of his points, you said you would review it later and ignored him. For Gamecritics.com, you said that User:David Fuchs talked to them (which really doesn't qualify for WP:RS, and I don't see that being discussed at all on the talk page in the past) and then responded to his question of what exactly was this third-hand conservation with "you think it's not reliable, I said that another user talked to them and think it is, so it's on you to deal with it" which is not the appropriate path. What in the world did User:David Fuchs find from them? Just that they "fact check." That doesn't mean anything. From there, you began removing his comments and have now come to ANI to get him blocked. Am I missing something? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm sorry if I've been stepping on peoples toes here. I'll try to explain better now:

1. As far as I'm concerned, he also used 133.2.9.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in the sockpuppet thing.
2. I thought this was enough to prove that GameCritics is reliable. If not I can ask David Fuchs if he can help out. And about the other two sources: N-Philes is probably not reliable so I let that out, but Gaming Age is reliable [64]. So I added back the ones that were reliable and left N-Philes out. What I don't understand though is that he removed Allgame from the article [65]. He said it wasn't notable (which is is) and that the reviews box was "too big". I don't think that's a good reason unless the site's not important.
3. I didn't come here to get him blocked. In fact I agree with him that N-Philes isn't reliable and that Game Revolution wasn't indeed unreliable ([66]) and I can't see that I've used the word "blocked" in my comment. All I wanted was for someone to talk some sense into him, explaining how Wikipedia works. I know he's acting in good faith, but removing chunks of information without discussing or without a consensus is not right. I think we both can agree on that. The Prince (talk) 10:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Just forget it. I can't be bothered dealing with this anymore. IP address, you win. The Prince (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Prince, I will say this: remove his comments one more time and I'm blocking you. His request isn't unreasonable. Vague claims that anyone user has received an email from the site's author without any further details are just strange to me. Quit asking that he prove that it isn't reliable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I've posted information regarding the editorial policies of one of the sites in question on the talk page of the contested article. Either way, it's an editorial issue, and I don't think involves ANI any more. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The following report was made at WP:AIV, but is really too complex to be dealt with there. Does anyone have prior knowledge of this case? Any suggestions? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• 122.163.194.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - account is evidently a spambot or a compromised account. This is a user who was first banned as User:Vyaghradhataki. He then came back in many avatars and has vandalised Wiki time and again. Probably this user uses a dynamic IP provided by Airtel Broadband, so he does not have to worry about an IP block. I would like to request for a range block and reporting this IP for racist edits to the service provider to the admins.. Shovon (talk) 12:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked one month for vandalism and tagged as suspected sock of Vyaghradhataki. Can you provide diffs of the racist comments? — Rlevse • Talk • 19:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

So the bot just archived my discussion and only one person made a general statement on it? What should I do? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are absolutely convinced that it is critical to get action, please repeat the reason briefly. One short paragraph, no more -- people can read the archive if necessary. Usually when a topic gets no response, it's because no admin feels that a response is necessary. But sometimes it's because the complaint is so long and confusing that nobody wants to read it. (As I recall, your complaint was one of the hundreds of Balkan disputes that come here.) Looie496 (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well it was actually a civility complaint, but I'm tired of writing the same thing over and over again. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

But, errrr...doesn't civility go to WP:WQA first? BMW(drive) 23:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Summary[edit]

I'll summarize. Basically User:Imbris has brought personal attacks against User:Grk1011 and I into a discussion since August that were totally un-needed. They included comments on our religion, ethnicity, and stuff like that. (Greek, American, Orthodox Christian -- all of the cases are in the archive) We complained to him about it, but he used some attacks again just the other day which was the "last straw". He said something like since we are American and he was born in Yugoslavia, that we don't have the right information to comment on articles about that. And even after we commented on this notice board, he said something like "Our Greek friend missed..." on a talk page, which again was totally un-needed (mentioning Greek I mean), and which I take offense to. (The way it was written, as well as having nothing to do with the discussion at hand) Anyway, long story short, this has been very disruptive to our editing, and has made editing articles related to Yugoslavia very stressful, which is why we decided to jointly bring it up on the notice board. Greekboy (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you might have to explain more. I, for one, don't understand the conflicts between Balkan ethnicities. Are you saying it's offensive for another user to describe you as "Greek" even though it's in your username?

When I look at recent user-talk discussions between Grk1011 and Imbris, I don't see anything particularly hurtful being said. I was also looking for such discussions between you and Imbris, but there aren't any. I don't see anything so far that requires the involvement of admins, I just see a content dispute. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There were some diffs, but no one responded fast enough so it was archived. It may be a little more descriptive there. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC

As User:Grk1011 stated, there were some "history diffs" showing the conflict in the archived topic. One of them was User:Imbris bringing into a discussion that User:Grk1011 and I are both Greek-American, Orthodox Christians, and possibly could not be interested in the Eurovision Song Contest. To me, that is a personal attack. It had nothing to do about the discussion at hand, but yet User:Imbris felt that it was necessary to mention religion and ethnicity (in a negative way at that). Again, there is a better explanation with diffs in the archived section. Greekboy (talk) 04:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

• Answer
• First of all the concerns about my editing as portrayed by Grk1011 and Greekboy are false represented. I have never said those things they obviously misquoted. I am sad to see that those two editors are so impressionable by their own logic and not by the logic behind the sentences I wrote.
• In a similar way Grk1011 has been offended by [67] and I apologized even if there was no offence made.
• Grk1011 used Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive484#Disruptive editing as a way of pressure to finalize (thou politely) the debate on Talk:Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest by this last sentence ("Like I said, I applaud Imbris for his intent, but it is irrelevant in terms of Eurovision and he just needs to stop.") at that Disruptive editing title.
• I have no where written that non-former-Yugoslav editors should abstain from editing. I merely pointed out that acknowledgement of the facts about Yugoslavia should be greater than those portrayed by Grk1011 and Greekboy.
• Dzole expressed similar concerns about editing done by Grk1011 and Greekboy in Talk:Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest#Important (first sentence).
• Grk1011 has started even an AN Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive163#Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest before even requesting a RfC. Then Grk1011 commented that the question was resolved with "We reached a compromise" to play down that compromise a day or two latter.
• I have explained myself duly and completely on the ANI complaint and just have to add that the complete story was not productive and needed. Grk1011 and Greekboy will still disregard Zvonko, Dzole and me and our sources and editing.
• I must say that collaborating with Grk1011 is difficult and not rewarding because always outside help is wanted when the discussion gets longer than a couple of days.

Imbris (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Imbris is bringing in a dispute about a page into this, when the complaint at hand is a civility complaint about certain things being said by him, that were considered personal attacks. Even though this happened during that dispute, the dispute plays no role what so ever in the complaint at hand. Greekboy (talk) 02:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is in keeping with what the editor promised or agreed to. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

What did he promise to do? and where did he promise it? --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Lots of ever-changing things. I lost track after he asked for RTV. Input'll come. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

One thing: Since he's accepted the renaming, why isn't he creating a user page at the new account, rather than restoring the user page of the indef-blocked old account? The redirect to the new account name might have been useful; I don't see any use in replacing it with this. Deor (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Em.. if he's indef-blocked, why is he editing to start with? --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If you don't know the story here, perhaps you should refrain from commenting. Deor (talk) 22:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I know the story here, and I'm still perplexed as to why he's permitted to edit.—Kww(talk) 22:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep with one account people... reverted the changes, protected it from editing. We all know the history of the prior account(s) and the trouble they caused, there is no reason to keep the old page up. seicer | talk | contribs 22:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that closes it for me. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thinkandsee (talk · contribs) (also editing as 81.208.71.250 (talk · contribs) before he created the account) has been inserting material about an artistic term, technoetic, into the Technoethics article. I tried to explain on the article's talk page that separate topics need separate articles—that we don't throw the material into one article merely because the topics have similar names—but he doesn't seem to be getting it. I've already reverted him thrice and don't want to violate 3RR; could someone try to explain the matter to him better than I seem to have done? Deor (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the added material probably doesn’t belong in the article, so I reverted to the last version before the IP started editing. If the other term is indeed notable, it needs a separate article with a {{dablink}} to it from this article. —Travis^talk 15:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

User seems to have relented and has created the article Technoetic. —Travis^talk 02:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I blocked User:IslamForEver4 for edit warring/3RR. Then along came User talk:IslamForEver5, same edit, blocked indefinitely for attempted block evasion. I've just found this Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/IslamForEver2 (I can't find a version 3). First I guess, have I done it right so far? Shall I block version 4 indefinitely also? Can we do anything to stop version6? Should we? Add anything to this category? Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_IslamForEver1 I'm off to bed, if I've acted incorrectly in anyway, or haven't done something I should have done, feel free to take appropriate action. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Mah, block the lot. Username is a no no if nothing else. At least if Hinduims4ever kept reincarnating it would be understandable.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

So far, so good. There are at least 6 of them, by the way. —Travis^talk 21:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(Response to Scott MacDonald) In what way is the username a problem? It obviously passed scrutiny first time around. Good joke about the Hindu version, though... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

LHvU, I don’t know for sure what Scott meant, but my first though was that it was a username vio as too close to an indef-blocked user. In any case, I indef-blocked the rest as SSPs of User:IslamForEver1. —Travis^talk 02:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It could be said that a username that actively promotes a certain religion could be disruptive as it could create impressions of the user that don't exist. Anyways, the block is good. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Page-move vandal at Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 needs taken care of. Thanks, Grsz^Review! 01:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The vandal appears to have been slain. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Huzzah!! Grsz^Review! 02:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

(not sure if this needs to be moved to wikiquette or Ethnic/Cultural conflicts board)

Molobo is continously accusing me of misquoting sources and makes remarks, both actions directed at discrediting my edits as well as me as a person, and to push his personal POV.

Here is one allegation of Sept 21. Here is another one within a debate of Sept 27, if you look at comment (7) (they are numbered) you find the "nationalist-like and incorrect statement" allegation directed at me. Here is an allegation of Sept 28 directed at me where he accuses me of "removal" of sourced material and "misquoting" a source. After these discrediting incidents, I (pretty much fed up) asked Moreschi what I should do about it (read the link for some more detail; I chose Moreschi because he had unblocked previously permabanned Molobo under certain conditions) and dropped Molobo a note. Moreschi however was busy, and I decided to not take further action until I checked my watchlist this morning. Here Molobo again accuses me of misquoting (Oct 18), and in this deletion discussion I initiated, he advised me to “reach for a history book” (I moved this to the respective talk page).

I am certain you won’t find anything wrong with the way I presented my sources. I am also convinced the way Molobo adressed his doubts are incivil and an assumption of bad faith. If he really had trouble with how I quoted my sources there would have been other ways to talk about this in a productive and civil manner. Yet I fear that it is more about WP:IDONTLIKEIT of what the sources said, because Molobo did not hesitate to twist and spin sourced material I brought up to look the way he likes it even if contradicting the source (e.g. this and this diff (last paragraph)). I am not sure if this is even POV-pushing, because what he proclaimes at various occasions (eg here or here) is not a scholary, but his personal POV. Note that the disputes are not about my sources vs his sources, but my sources vs no sources but a strong opinion of him. After this, I think Molobo needs an advise in conduct. I do not want to be discredited at various talk pages or in edit summaries, I do not want to be target of a mud slinging campaign with the mud left in place without a comment. I am always open for constructive discussion, but not this way. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you attempted to seek outside input into the situation via either a Wikiquette Alert or request for comment or mediation of some sort? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

As I stated above, I have sought a comment of Moreschi, an admin who knows Molobo. Also, as noted on top, I am uncertain if I am in the right place here - I fortunately do not have any AN/I experience and Molobo is the only editor I repeatedly get in trouble with. Do you suggest to rather take this to the wikiquette board? Skäpperöd (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am only saying that in general, sanctions tend to "stick" better if you have exhausted all other options. Sometimes other users are unaware of the effects of their actions; having other editors comment on situations can bring new perspective. If its shown that one party behaves unreasonable DESPITE multiple attempts at dispute resolution, then there is more of a reason for sanctions. Admins should not be the first place that one goes to solve a conflict, they should be the last. I'm not saying you haven't exhausted all other methods of solving the conflict, I am only saying that if you haven't, you may get some successful results if you do. Or you may not, but you never know if you don't try. Also, if someone hasn't mentioned it, its pretty much a good idea if you notify people who are being talked about that they are, you know, being talked about... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I informed Molobo on his talk as soon as I posted here, and before when I asked for an opinion of Moreschi. Again, I will immediately move this to the wikiquette board if you tell me to do so, it really does not matter to me where I get some outside opinion if I just get one. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi People

It is very hard to deny facts on ground that Somaliland is not an autonom part of Somalia its an independent de facto republic. Mogadishu has no power or influence in Hargeisa. I recommended to change introduction in Somaliland topic and remove the biased political commercial secton about " maakhir " and " northland " both non existing entities solely created here on Wikipedia by a user called Ingoman.

Wikipedia will lose its integrity on this issue. Many readers are probably wondering about how user Ingoman can get away with this nonsense. He is solely responsible for the misconception of "maakhir" and "northland" the latter being completely non Somalia subject for a region name.

Further to use south somalia private websites as sources when some of them clearly are advocating their own agenda in these very talkpages against Somaliland I find it a bad idea. Somaliland has many enemies.. the worst being South Somalis in here masquerading under objective agendas trying to ' remove ' Somaliland identity. From Las Gaal caves and other cultural aspects certain wikipedia users here are fronting an edit war trying to remove Somaliland, which is very silly. Middayexpress being one.. just use the history lists and you will see the same names again and again in different Somali articles.

A proof of the edit war , the UNESCO worthy found of 5000 years old cave paintings in Somaliland has been hijacked by a user Middayexpress. This users is currently very active in other Somaliland articles carefully re editing any changes on ' his ' contribution.

By the way Las Gaal is south somali dialect in Somaliland where its found the pronunciation is Las Geel

regards Igor akb80 (talk)

What should we do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igor akb80 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly an edit war; there's only a dozen or so edits in the past fortnight. Have you considered dispute resolution? Stifle (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It's an ongoing content dispute and the user has found no one that will agree with him. I think the edit war has more to do with Northland State and Maakhir, both of which he has tried to prod more than once. It's been explained to him that there is only one per article and after that it needs an AfD. The claim about Middayexpress (talk · contribs) is new. I've notifed Middaayexpress, Ingoman (talk · contribs) and Gyrofrog (talk · contribs), one of the more active and probably the most level headed on the various Somali articles. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I would take Igor akb80's complaints with a grain of salt. The reason why he takes such exception to Ingoman's creation of the Northland State and Maakhir articles is because Igor is a so-called 'Somaliland' nationalist and believes his non-existent, non-internationally or even locally recognized, single clan (not even tribe; all so-called 'Somalilanders' are ethnic Somalis from the Isaaq clan that literally woke up one day and decided they were no longer Somalis but Somalilanders) secessionist region is, in fact, a 'country' of its own and that Northland State and Maakhir are a part of it. Unlike Ingoman, CambridgeBayWeather, Gyrofrog, and myself (all of whom Igor has at some point or another come into conflict with over his POV edits), Igor hasn't contributed and doesn't contribute in any appreciable way to the betterment of any Wikipedia articles other than to push his Somaliland nationalist claims, which, let's not forget, are not recognized by so much as one single country or international organization. What he has actually done is already gotten himself blocked for disruptive edits. I therefore suggest Igor actually learn something from this experience and take a good, long, hard look at Wikipedia's civility and especially its conflict of interest policies and see if he recognizes himself in them before he starts up again baselessly attacking other editors and administrators (notice how he threatens to 'report' the administrator CambridgeBayWeather for 'vandalism'! lol). Middayexpress (talk) 07:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I was just looking through Alabama, because it was the first page linked from the Coordinates template, and clicked on the WikiMiniAtlas icon. The only 'non-geographic article' on the map, Nigger, was linked at the bottom left. I don't know how something comes to be included in the atlas, so I don't know how remove it. Given the random way I found it, I suspect there is a much wider problem. cygnis insignis 16:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t know what you mean by WikiMiniAtlas icon. —Travis^talk 17:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing the same thing. I don't know much about this stuff, but I did a bit of looking and at m:WikiMiniAtlas it says that the map data is courtesy of GSHHS. So maybe there was vandalism to that database, inserting the word nigger in place of a town? Maybe posting at m:Talk:WikiMiniAtlas would help, or maybe the Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). To TravisTX: you see the coordinates displayed at the top of the Alabama article? Click on the little globe icon, and you get a map display; that's what's referred to.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Nobody seems to know much about it. I will post this at the WikiProject Geographical coordinates. cygnis insignis 17:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Fughettaboutit, I sort of thought that is what they were talking about, but I didn’t see the link until I zoomed in the map. —Travis^talk 17:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. "Nigger" seems to be located just across the river about 2 miles northwest from Baton Rouge, Louisiana, a little north of Port Allen. The settings suggest it is VMAP0's English layer, but I'm not sure where that is coming from. Orderinchaos 20:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It is coming from the sentence (now deleted) about Wilkinson Point – "The geographic coordinates are 30°30′46″N 91°12′45″W / 30.5126893°N 91.2126084°W / 30.5126893; -91.2126084" in an earlier version of Nigger. (It's also marked Nigger on Google maps - follow the links.) Changes to coords in Wikipedia take a while to filter through to external services. Occuli (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Just beat me to it. See Nigger#Names of places and GNIS entry on this place. It seems this was a genuine former name of Wilkinson's point, but I have a sneaking suspicion that its inclusion in the atlases in question is a case of fucking with the system. The place is hardly notable enough to include on a map of that detail. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the template from Alabama, can it be replaced without the atlas link? cygnis insignis 04:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted that - the name comes from an old version of the Nigger article, as explained twice in different places, and removing 1 template and/or one globe from Alabama is an entirely futile gesture. Occuli (talk) 13:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not seeing this in the map any more. Perhaps the problem has been corrected in the database. Jehochman ^Talk 13:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It's still there (from my POV) - see e.g. Wetumpka, Alabama. Occuli (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I just reverted you, then myself. Is it 3rr if I revert myself? Joking aside, I think it should be removed until this is resolved. cygnis insignis 14:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The map (and google earth) are independent of Wikipedia and we cannot 'fix' it apart from removing the coords from Nigger (which was done on 30 Sept) and waiting for external services to update their databases. Removing coords from Alabama will have no effect whatever. I don't myself care whether Alabama has coords or not. I also very much doubt if there was any malicious intent in this case (although I can see there is scope for gradual vandalism). Occuli (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

... and no way of removing that vandalism. cygnis insignis 15:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is a futile gesture to remove the link to the atlas from Alabama, it can restored when the external database is corrected. Any objections to me doing that? cygnis insignis 08:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Definitely futile (sorry). The Alabama article has nothing to do with it, the mapper has picked it up from the vandalism in the article noted above. You could try contacting the mapping service to ask for a purge, otherwise just hang tight for a week or two and their crawler will re-index. Franamax (talk) 09:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

And I've taken the liberty of refactoring and adding to your post at Meta. [76] Franamax (talk) 10:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. I wouldn't know where to begin in contacting the mapping service, or doing more than I have to fix a major problem. I contribute to wikipedia, not an atlas. Removing the external link doesn't fix the atlas, but it stops the problem occurring in a prominent wikipedia article. Sorry to disagree, it is not futile to remove the error. cygnis insignis 10:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody uninvolved with ScienceApologist please look at this? Thanks. What are we going to do to help editors understand that possible COI is not grounds for talking about editors' real life identities? There seems to be a lot of confusion in the community. Jehochman ^Talk 17:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The "outed" user - Pcarbonn (talk · contribs) - gave his own name on a previous version of his user page. His user name is extremely similar to his real name anyway and presumably someone familiar with that industry would readily recognize him and he is making no effort to conceal his identity. This isn't outing. --B (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

His username is a shortened version of his real life name, and he gave his real life name on an old version of his userpage. Outing? Hardly... Raul654 (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Pointing out his name isn't outing considering the above; he'd already released this info on-wiki. As to whether going and digging up a COI based on the user's personal life constitutes outing, I'm not for sure. I don't really see the connection between PC's off-wiki editorializing and the later claims SA makes in that thread... though I'm willing to bet they aren't difficult to find. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

How could it ever be possible to expose any sort of conflict of interest without some sort of "outing"? Looie496 (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be a fair questioning of an agenda based on a user's on-Wiki behaviour and claims offline made by the editor which would seem to indicate he is using his editing account at Wikipedia to further a point of view not currently held by a concurrence of reliable sources. Orderinchaos 20:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Have we checked with this editor to understand whether they NOW want their full name associated? That it was so associated in the past is not sufficient to prove they want it now... there's precedent for that in that we have gone along with the wishes of those who changed their mind about their name and ID being associated. In fact ScienceApologist himself is one such person. ++Lar: t/c 22:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ya, that's the problem. At the same time, I think this issue is subtle enough that we should not be blocking people right off the bat if they get it wrong. Jehochman ^Talk 22:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Get your policies in order and get back to me. In any case, as long as we have a conflict of interest noticeboard and I know of a conflict of interest, I'm going to report it. It is up to you to come up with a better way of handling this (either off-line, privately, etc.) ScienceApologist (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You can reference the nature of the edits and say that the user appears to be closely connected to the subject, or that they appear to be using so much promotional language that they are effectively acting as if they had a conflict. There is no need to talk about real life identities. If real life identity is the only evidence of COI, there really isn't a case to be made. Jehochman ^Talk 11:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That answer from SA is thoroughly unsatisfactory and unhelpful. I've broached this matter at his talk page as well and received no answer whatever. I think we need to resolve the COI issue but we also need to not lose site of the fact that SA is outing someone here. That is a double standard. Saying policy is inconsistent is not an excuse for outing. Not if one wants others to care about one's own traumas, at any rate. The name should be removed from his input at COIN pending a satisfactory resolution, and further, if SA is not willing to undertake to not do it again, I suggest a block for disruption is in order. ++Lar: t/c 15:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I think given the background, we could have expected ScienceApologist to be more careful. And I don't think his response above is appropriate. On the other hand, as a posting by someone else, or by ScienceApologist a month ago, I think ScienceApologist's COIN post would not have been remarkable in any way.

I would prefer to keep these two aspects separate, because it would be unfortunate for any decisions that are based on very special and unusual circumstances to become general precedents. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Rather than COI or outing what I see is personal attacks from both sides. PC attacks SA in the off-wiki article. SA brings the article to COIN on two separate occasions three months apart implying that editing the cold fusion article somehow is a way for PC to generate lots of business for himself. --Peter cohen (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If the user "Pierre" already "outed" himself, then there is no "outing" issue. That's not to say that ScienceApologist couldn't have handled it better - such as raising the issue to an admin via e-mail, rather than bringing it here and risking the possibility of red-herring distractions - such as the technically untrue accusation of "outing". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with that analysis. SA previously outed himself. But he subsequently retracted that outing, and made it clear he did not want his previously available information revealed, instead seeking to have it removed wherever practical, and we have honored that. Thus, to reveal information now is to out him, even though he himself revealed it previously. That seems widely accepted, does it not?

So in a perfectly analogous way, unless it is clear that the user being referenced in the COIN report is OK with his or her name being revealed (and the default assumption needs to be NO, they are not, since that information was removed from that user's userpage by the user), it is not acceptable to do so. If we do not treat all cases the same then we expose ourselves to charges of favouritism. I don't think that's a good idea. So it is technically untrue to say that it is a technically untrue accusation of "outing". It is more correct to say that this is a a possible outing situation that has not yet been satisfactorily disambiguated.

And THAT complicated and tortuous logic chain is why I favour allowing real names only, starting at some point in the future, at which time all users who are not willing to reveal their real identity no longer contribute. I realise that's not likely to happen in our current environment where it is impossible to effect much smaller policy changes, but it is nevertheless what I favour. It resolves a lot of issues cleanly (and introduces others, to be sure). But while we have a policy allowing pseudonymity, we must apply it consistently. ScienceApologist in my view is quick to ask for protection for himself, and laggard in scrupulously ensuring it is afforded to others. That needs to be pointed out and rectified, at every opportunity. ++Lar: t/c 17:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I wasn't aware of that double standard. I've now changed how I've refered to the second user. But I haven't noticed his complaining about being outed, as opposed to the repeated accusation of COI.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

He could hardly complain about it, since his user ID is merely an abbreviation of his presumably real name. The idea of requiring real names also implies that all users must register, which would wipe out the myriad of problems caused by IP addresses. But that would cross swords with the policy of "anyone can edit" (including from an IP address), so such a radical change in approach is not likely to occur in the near future. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The user has apparently associated their real name with their ID, voluntarily, on the COIN board. I suggested they make the association on their user page again to avoid confusion. By default in ambiguous cases we should assume the more privacy protecting choice. As for requiring real names being easy to implement, or even ever likely to happen, never said it was. Just that it should be the way things are done, IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 10:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Since it would rub out IP address edits here, in that sense it would be a plus. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved admin have a look at Marc Spector (talk · contribs)? He apparently thinks it's okay to smear various U.S. politicians' articles with his ridiculously slanted view about some Morocco-related legislation. Of course if folks think I'm crazy and that it's relevant to report that a Hawaiian congressman signed a letter in 2007 regarding Morocco and thereby "opposing self-determination and independence for a territory considered by the United Nations to be pending decolonization", let me know that as well. Seems hard to believe. Warnings have been given and he's been informed. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think that the fact that a member of the U.S. Congress signed a letter which was signed by approximately 170 members of Congress is generally something that needs to be mentioned in the article about each of those representatives, or even just the few that this editor has been putting that information into. (The legal status of Western Sahara is not one of the major issues in U.S. politics; I doubt it's even one of the minor issues in U.S. politics.) And that information should certainly not be expressed in a biased way. The place to discuss the Morocco autonomy plan for Western Sahara and which members of Congress have endorsed it is in one of the Western Sahara-related articles, with a link to a web site showing the list of representatives who signed the letter. We do not need a list of all of them on Wikipedia; we can refer readers who are interested to an external site for that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I've added a report at WP:AN3. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk about undue weight. All the average American probably knows about Morocco is that it was the setting for Casablanca and Road to Morocco. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you're confused here, Mr. Bugs - Casablanca was set in Casablanca, duh. Moroccos are those things you played in 1st grade music class. Badger Drink (talk) 05:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That's "maraca", Badger. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 10:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

We saw, we saw. That's called "Witnessing the Badger". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, ok so it's your raca, who cares?--Alf ^melmac 10:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Everybody knows Morocco is a jumbo-sized Sicilian hard candy. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That's the bunk -- "Morocco" is what audiences call out at the end of Little Caesar ... Oh, wait, that's "More Rico!" ... Never mind. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 11:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to be confused with Moe Rocco, a rejected Sicilian replacement for one of the Three Stooges. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Mo Rocca that whiney guy that shows up on Wait Wait… Don't Tell Me! and all those VH1 nostaligia shows? What does the U.S. Government have against him?!? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You do what you can with a limited budget. If you're Comedy Central, you get Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. If you're NPR, you get Mo Rocca. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No no no. That's what they shout at concerts when they want AC/DC to keep playing.

Oh wait; that's 'More rock'. HalfShadow 18:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"More rock." Oh??? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I like Moloko. That is all. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, like in A Clockwork Orange! Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 03:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh you people. In 2004, following the "success" of the "Rock'n'Bowl" concept, where bowling alleys would crank the rock music and include techno light shows for late-night bowling, a prestigious lawn care company in Butte, Montana came up with an idea: as a community event (and sales tool) why not have all residents in a neighbourhood cut their grass at the same time, whilst pumping loud rock music, and serving a variety of beverages. They changed the name of their company, and began offerring the service including music, drinks, etc. They are now known as the Mow-Rock Co. of Butte, Montana. Please, if nothing else, know your history :-) BMW(drive) 11:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Including the history of the Moroccan shaggy dog. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

ATTENTION EVERYONE: In accordance with the terms of the Geneva Convention, this thread will now be taken out into the backyard and shot. It will then be given a decent burial in an unmarked grave at midnight. Let us never speak of this again. (JEEbus, y'all. That was BAD.) :) Gladys J Cortez 14:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This morning I found a message on my talkpage from User:Simulation12. I had removed a "too long" tag he/she had placed on WordGirl. The tone of his/her message was a little...off, to me--"why can't I?"--but I decided to AGF and answer the question on his/her talk page. What I found there gave me pause--the repeated exchanges with Elbutler, and especially the sense of exasperation I noticed coming from Elbutler re: the content of those exchanges. After dropping over to Elbutler's talkpage I was getting less and less comfortable with Simulation12's mode of interaction. There were multiple references to his/her userpage, so I checked that out too: User:Simulation12. That was the final straw. This user has been counselled re: the tone of the userpage, and hasn't changed it at all; it's a clear violation of WP:OWN. (We'll leave the question of "is this really an elementary school child, and if so, should she be mentioning it so much?" alone for the moment.) So: should we do anything here? (I can't personally do anything, since I'm involved in a conflict with this user, however minor.) Or is this just a "keep an eye on it" situation? Gladys J Cortez 13:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like they're just a kid with little understanding of Wikipedia. You'll note I added a big wide "Welcomeg" template at the top of their Talk page. Young editors tend to not get the "ownership" and "why can't I" issues. We'll see how it goes ... BMW(drive) 14:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This is spot on what I was thinking. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm also deleting the userpage as an attack page, as it was being used pretty much just to call out another user. --Smashville^talk 14:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I just came across the article, Goud Saraswat Brahmin tagged for Copy Vio violation hence deletion by User:Wikidas, though as suggest by the template, the user has not placed the source at the article at the discussion page or at the deletion request page for checking! (Ekabhishek (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC))

Dealt with. It comes from [77]. Article needs work anyway - even before the addition of the copyvio, the sourcing is pretty nonexistent. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a really odd situation. I think we have a user who is both treating the site as a message board and is either sockpuppeteering or meatpuppeteering among multiple talk pages. I warned off a vandal the other day who'd been vandalizing Vackerman's talk page. I checked Vackerman's contributions and I saw only one edit to the article space. All the other edits have been to his own pages (such as they are) and back-and-forth discussion with User:Fusion MK. Not much from this account, either. They're even putting block notices on each other's talk pages. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: All of Fusion MK's edits have been either tit-for-tat with Vackerman or in one instance, page blanking of an inactive user's talk page over some electronic toy. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, it is generally considered more polite to attempt to engage editors in polite conversation regarding their actions, and waiting an appropriate length of time for themn to respond, before running to ANI to report them. He's likely a new user unfamiliar with the mission or goals of Wikipedia. I have left some friendly notes about appropriate use of Wikipedia for him, and left him a "welcome" template as well. Just because he behaves immaturely now does not mean we can't mold him into a good user with some appropriate guidance. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

OK by me and normally, I would likely have done exactly what you've done. The thing that prompted me to bring it up here in the first place was the very similar contributions by a third party, namely that of User:Poolpoop76. That's the user blocked for the vandalism to the Vackerman talk page. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• PS: Nice job on the warning. I may have to steal that text the next time something like this comes up.  :) Thanks again. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Did this editor actually get warned for attacking himself [78] ??? BMW(drive) 16:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, he was warned for leaving an attack message on his own talk page: [[79], but that doesn't mean that the attack was against himself. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I see a REM'd out comment, not specifically directed at anyone that could be identifiable. He was warned for incivility for making an invisible comment saying "Andrew is a fucker"?? Well beat me with a wet trout and call me "Dolly", that's new. BMW(drive) 17:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I know there's a policy on this, but I don't have a link handy at the moment. I came across User:ObsessiveJoBroDisorder. He appears to be 16 years old, and therefore, underage. He lists his full name, where he goes to school, his city, state, where he was raised, his birthdate, etc.

I'm 99% sure this is against Wikipedia policy for protecting minors. Hell, I'm underage (17) and I wouldn't do this sort of thing even if I was over 18. While I don't feel a ban, even a small one, is needed here, is there any course of action that should be taken? --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)-- 22:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Current guidance is here and reiterated as an essay at WP:KID. It's not a blocking issue, but one for advice. Have you had a word with him? --Rodhullandemu 23:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

He may be knowledgeable about film, but he's not too knowledgeable about the ways of the world. Although it's possible his "autobiography" is fictional, I wouldn't count on it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Reading his page I wouldn't doubt he is playing some kind of elaborate prank on a classmate. — CharlotteWebb 23:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Played it safe and deleted the pages containing the personal information, and recreated it without the violations. Should be clean now. seicer | talk | contribs 23:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The user ID itself could be read as having homosexual overtones. I don't know if that matters or if anyone cares. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok now that was offensive. Even if that were the case, could you be so kind as to explain why that'd be a problem? — Coren ^(talk) 23:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's not a problem. Not my call to make. Only pawn, in game of life, and wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

And if CharlotteWebb is correct that the user is playing a prank on a classmate, it definitely could be a problem, i.e. if the alleged real name of the user is actually someone else's real name. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Following Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Protecting_children's_privacy#Proposed_remedies, if a "provocative personna" is given off by a self-identifying minor who is in truth an adult, the user can be banned. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

But, of course, we have no way of knowing whether this is the case. --Rodhullandemu 23:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Not straight off but it means there could be even more to be wary about. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't had a word with the user because I was unsure how to approach it, which is why I came here. --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)-- 23:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If my yearbook is correct, the person that fits all the deleted information does not exist. —kurykh 23:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You go to his school? Probably a hoax, just another kid treating Wikipedia as a game. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If so, that might not have been the best thing to reveal. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

What is not the best thing to reveal? The potentially false information, or that I went to his school? —kurykh 00:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I was under the impression from your post that you were saying that you go to his school now. Never mind. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where anybody has approached him to explain the situation, nor to let him know about this discussion. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I informed the user that it was a dumb idea and what could happen if the info is readded. Rgoodermote  21:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Unreal

Is it possible that an Admin is having a look at that and the discussion to finally get a real solution for that? It seems that there is no end otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smirftsch (talk • contribs) 15:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

'S a content issue. Dispute resolution is thata' way. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Paid_editing.

Here's an interesting issue. The article John Safer seems to have been inserted by someone hired on GetAFreelancer to write it. This is an unusual case in that John Safer really is a notable sculptor, with large sculptures in front of the National Air and Space Museum and similar notable locations. The paid editing issue is being dealt with. But there's a second problem. The article contains many very good images of John Safer's works, all uploaded as "self-made" by Tomfolkes (talk · contribs), who also created the article in question. The images are very similar to the ones on John Safer's own web site. But they're much higher resolution than the ones on the web site, indicating access to better versions of the pictures. Now what? Send all the pictures to Images for Deletion? Put in an ORTS ticket asking that John Safer be contacted? Contacting the editor is probably futile; he's never replied to anything on his own talk page. They're nice pictures; I hate to have them deleted if we can keep them. --John Nagle (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

There's also another editor/account, Pilot03 (talk · contribs), who has claimed to act on behalf of John Safer (see e.g Image:Fantasy1.jpg), and has apparently filed permission into OTRS. This account also has email enabled - if the OTRS ticket exists, I suppose he too could be contacted. – Sadalmelik ☎ 20:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"Our staff has many IDs that are one-time usage so it is difficult to point out all that we have done over the years." I think that's begging for a checkuser... --Smashville^talk 20:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The messages at Image:Fantasy1.jpg indicate that Pilot03 (talk · contribs) sent an e-mail to "permissions-commons@wikipedia.org" back in August, but nobody from ORTS acknowledged receipt of that message by updating the image on Wikipedia with the appropriate tag with a ticket number. So right now, that image is scheduled to be deleted tomorrow. It's orphaned, anyway. Also, are Tomfolkes (talk · contribs) and Pilot03 (talk · contribs) the same person? What seems to be happening here is that a well-known sculptor wanted a Wikipedia article, and outsourced the job. This is unusual; most vanity articles are from non-notable people, and once noticed, are deleted. This would be a reasonably good article (although a bit one-sided) if we can resolve the permissions problem. --John Nagle (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

 Doing... I am taking a look into it, give me a little bit. Tiptoety ^talk 21:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, after looking over some OTRS tickets in regards to these images it appears that permission has yet to be granted, though an attempt has been made and it could be that Tomfolkes (talk · contribs) does have permission to use the images. But, until OTRS has a copy of those permissions: the claimed license from the copyright holder has not been verified. Tiptoety ^talk 21:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this user has created a new article in their user space, and then redirected the user page to the intended title of the new article. Could an admin sort this out please? Mjroots (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk page also needs sorting. Mjroots (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect was fixed by Tiptoety. I've dealt with User and Article Talk pages BMW(drive) 21:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That was odd. I'll have to fix that bug in the bot. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this User page a personal attack? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted, and account blocked. Tiptoety ^talk 21:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Requesting preventive block of 203.122.239.204 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • http • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks ). It belongs to Trinity College, normally the college uses 203.122.239.199 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • http • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks ) (which currently has a lengthy block) but the school is running of a redundant proxy causing traffic to go the colleges other IP's. Thanks 203.122.239.204 (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know whos askin :P   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

We don't do that. If there is abuse coming from that IP, we'll block it then, but unless a technical representative of the college who is named on the WHOIS report asks us through the OTRS system, we don't do advance blocks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody remove this edit from the article's history? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Done and  Request for Oversight sent. Thanks for catching that. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit oversighted. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually it hasn't been yet, it's just been deleted from the page history. Oversight probably has only just gotten the email, and it could be some time yet until someone actually sees it. In any event, NurseryRhyme, if you see private information such as that posted again, you can email oversight yourself - see WP:OVER. What you did here was correct, though, it's good for us to get it out of public view as soon as possible through a G6 deletion. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yip posted an attack page on Tommy Hsu which rapidly got speedied. However, they also posted on New contributors' help page. I have reverted it, but does it need to be oversighted to get it out of the page history.

And just seen the attack page back as TOMMY HSU. I'll put it on AIV, but please block this guy if you see it here first. SpinningSpark 00:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

User's been blocked, I've sent WP:OVERSIGHT an email about all the Hsu stuff. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I received a message from a concerned editor, regarding the leak of personal information on a wiki article. What should be done. . .Oversight? Admin deletes/restores the article without the revision in question? Could someone fill me in on this?

Also re: 80.121.64.29 (talk · contribs) - (the anon ip that leaked the info). What actions should be taken? In his message, the concerned editor (a personal acquaintance of the subject) mentioned that he along with the subject are almost certain as to who is behind this. Perhaps a block is necessary? --Flewis^(talk) 02:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Oversight, depending on the nature of the info will determine wether a block is required however convential wisdom says thats unlikly, are you reffering to [80]?   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No (see the offender's talk page for exact link) --Flewis^(talk) 03:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)x3 As the IP is dynamic, I don’t see that a block would help much. In any case, I deleted the revisions with the personal information. You should request oversight on the deleted revisions to make it permanent. —Travis^talk 02:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The edit in question was deleted 7 days ago. No need for action unless the IP does it again. I'll send the revision along to oversight. John Reaves 02:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The edit I deleted just a few minutes ago was a physical address. —Travis^talk 02:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

We've got a repeat offender. I just got another, on a different page. Blocked the IP for 31 hours to prevent repeats. Takin' this one to oversight as well. Cheers, guys. lifebaka++ 02:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake. It was made 7 days ago, I didn't pay attention to the log. I sent it to oversight a few minutes ago. John Reaves 02:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The exact data can be found on the second link on this talk page - (It appears to have been deleted by an admin already however) --Flewis^(talk) 03:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It has apparently been oversighted; it's not in the deleted edits for the page. So, calling this resolved? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, thanks to Alison for zapping the diff. WJBscribe (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Jesse Ventura's image has been deleted and needs to be replaced.--208.19.15.207 (talk) 06:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted on Commons and redlink left here. I found a new (albeit not very flattering) image on Flickr under CC-BY-SA 2.0 and have put it in the article. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 08:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Microchip08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Microchip80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The account Microchip80 appears to have been compromised as of 26 September 2008.[85] This was noted on Microchip08's talk page.[86] Microchip08 created Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/header, now at MfD. On using the email features from Microchip08's page yesterday to notify Microchip08 about the MfD, Microchip08's reply was to assert that he was canvassed.[87] The person validly entitled to use the Microchip08 account would have know that they created the template in May 2008 and saw my email as a notice rather than a canvass. The Microchip08 account appears to be compromised and, per the Microchip80 user pages, connected to Microchip80. I have a copy of the email sent and confirm that it was sent to Microchip08: "This e-mail was sent by user "Suntag" on the English Wikipedia to user "Microchip08". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents." The email feature of the Microchip08 account should be disable and other action considered to address this. -- Suntag ☼ 06:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if these are related, but see Friendofmicrochips (noted on talk page as sharing same email address as User:BlueJayLover123 with assertion of being sisters. User:BlueJayLover123 appears to have awarded herself a 50 DYK medal.[88]) and Microchips (blocked). -- Suntag ☼ 06:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I was left a note about this thread on my talk page, but I'm at a loss on what this has to do with the obvious vandalism-only account Microchips (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking into this further, I'm not sure what you are trying to point out here. Microchip08 notes in the MfD that he was emailed by you. If you emailed them and he picked up the message, I don't understand how you can come to the conclusion that their account was compromised. The alternate account Microchip80 may have been compromised, but the account hasn't been in use and having a public account compromised does not mean that the primary account was compromised. The use of the phrase "canvas" is a bit unusual by Microchip08, but that does not mean that the account is compromised. I also fail to see what you are trying to assert by bringing up the Friendofmicrochips and BlueJayLover123 accounts. They have nothing to do with Microchip08 besides Friendofmicrochips having the word "microchip" in the name. So what are you trying to say here? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll address the matter with Microchip08 directly. As for the other accounts, I wasn't sure if they were related. -- Suntag ☼ 07:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, all. I'm here after User:Tombomp alerted me on IRC. I'm currently retired from ENWP, as I'm now more interested in simple:. The only accounts I've used are Microchip08 and Microchip80; the others aren't related to me (although I authorise a CU if that's needed). Microchip80 is my public account, and, as such, I left a note on it's talk page that it could be blocked at the first sight of trouble. I'm interested in how "canvas" is an unusual word for me; I've been warned in the past about myself canvassing. I'm off to fiddle with my passwords. As per the /header, I just didn't realise until after I had said that it was canvassing that I had actually created the page. I don't remember creating it, but to be honest, I probably just forgot. I believe I have a SHA commitment on my userpage (or on one of my SUL userpages), but I'd rather not disclose it if need be. I'll ask someone on IRC to verify this if you like (as I have a WMF cloak on freenode). 86.137.197.104 (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

oops, forgot to login... Mⁱc_rochip ⁰⁸ 17:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser shows the Microchip08 unlikely to have been compromised but the Microchip80 account may have been left logged in on a school computer. As long as Microchip08 can reset the password of the Microchip80 account I'd say this can be closed. Thatcher 23:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Just after my 07:29, 20 October 2008 post above, I sent Microchip08 an email using the "E-mail this user" option at his simple.wikipedia.org account. In view of the above, it looks like this can be closed. -- Suntag ☼ 02:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

All passwords now changed. Mⁱc_rochip ⁰⁸ 10:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

BarbaraBowen (talk · contribs) does nothing but add links to various websites, all of which, judging by their IPs, are hosted on the same network (Worldlink). I've warned and removed the links that hadn't already been reverted, but I thought I'd report it here in case it relates to any other spamming activity. —KCinDC (talk) 06:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You can skip ahead on the spam templates. You don't have to go 1, 2, 3, etc. Report to AIV and then check afterwards at external links. If it's bad, it goes on the spam list and they cannot add them to the page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• BarbaraBowen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 67.168.52.33 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• color-medicine.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• therapycolor.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• cheap-diamond.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• chakra-colors.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• biowaves.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• biomags.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• misspiggyfans.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• candlehome.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• fireant.net: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I'll add them to XLinkBot. If the named account persists after today (it will not be reverted as the account is too old), I suggest an indef block (may already be a good plan) --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Indef'ed. seicer | talk | contribs 13:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What's up with this page: User talk:ADABALA? I stumbled upon it while following an indef vandal. As per AGF I did not (yet) acted upon it, but this should be moved to a subpage sandbox if accepted at all, not talk page. Opinions? -- Alexf^(talk) 11:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, it's kind of odd. Looks like it was posted by a user who has done nothing else except to post that - over a year ago. Like a test of some kind. What rule does it violate? What admin action do you seek? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Aha, you are an admin. So it's back to just, "What rule does it violate?" If it violates some rules, take corrective action: Blank the page, block the user, delete the user, whatever. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I found it odd. Not sure what action to be taken, other than move it to a user's supbage, hence my comment here. Talk pages are for Talking about articles and user's actions, not masquerading as articles or sandboxes. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not at all odd if it were the user page itself rather than the talk page. Most likely just somebody testing - a year ago. A "dead" user ID. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Middim13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I bring this here as a last resort before I go rogue and indef-block this user. Middim has long been a problem for the editors of WP:SHIPS. His SPA POV pushing, disruption, sock-puppetry and block evasion have been a chronic problem for over a year off-and-on. While his edits do have some merit, he refuses to discuss them in a calm matter and properly cite them at the time he makes them other than to assure us that they are true. He instead posts long diatribes on his talk page and the talk pages of the editors who question his edits calling those editors "misguided and biased". Based on his constant POV pushing of a certain American shipbuilder the editors of WP:SHIPS have long thought that he/she may be related to the historical figure and thus would prevent an extreme conflict of interest as well.

For more information related to these incidents, there are plenty of evidence to be seen:

• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Middim13
• User_talk:TomTheHand#From_Middim13:_Abusing_multiple_accounts_and_evasion.
• User talk:Middim13
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Royal_Navy_edits
• User_talk:Middim13#ONLY_WARNING
• User_talk:MBK004#Middim13_is_wondering_if_this_editor_is_biased_or_simply_.22misguided.22.
• I know there is plenty more to be found, but I'm not prepared to dig up over a year of talk page archives.

These users have dealt with the editor in some fashion:

• TomTheHand (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Parsecboy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• BillCJ (talk · contribs)
• Benea (talk · contribs)
• Bellhalla (talk · contribs)
• Maralia (talk · contribs)
• B.S. Lawrence (talk · contribs)
• And others I have forgotten to mention

I contend, and I believe that I won't be the only one to say that the patience of the community (WP:SHIPS) has been exhausted because of this editor (his edits require extensive clean-up and/or complete reverts because of the POV pushing and that time cuts into our article building and other activities). Several of the project members (some who are no longer editing) have tried to help Middim through his time here to get his edits to comply with our policies, but those efforts have had no visible effect. Unfortunately I must propose that at the very least a topic ban be imposed on Middim which would restrict him from editing any article related to a ship, shipbuilding company, ship operator (including navies), biographies of people related to the maritime industry, etc. and at the most an indefinite community ban. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• No comment about the behavior exactly, but can someone take a gander at Submarine? That is on my watchlist mostly for vandalism reasons, but he did add a lot of GD/EB stuff with some pretty odd edit summaries. I don't feel comfortable wading in and reverting to a version from months ago, but I will if the consensus is that what he added is bunkum. Protonk (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• Socking, disruptive and POV editing, uncited personal opinion in articles, and a horrible block log - why is this person still here? That last post on their talk page, entitled "Reasons why what is true will win out in the end", displays absolutely no indication that the editor understands the problems they've caused (or even believes that fighting for the truth is a problem). They've been given more than enough warnings, and been shown a remarkable amount of good faith, but this mustn't go on for ever. I've indefblocked the account as I don't think we need to jump through all the hoops on this one, though if you do want to go all the way to discuss a community ban and unblock so they can participate here, no problems ;) EyeSerene^talk 08:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• I think Middim13 should be topic banned. He is guilty of POV pushing on a certain American shipbuilder, but I analyzed his other contributions and found them to be useful. He is a troubled user but he can still help this project, so I'll not a support community ban. I would say let's give him one final chance. AdjustShift (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • My initial thoughts too, until I saw this undertaking not to edit 'ship' articles, followed by another addition of unsourced material to a ship article (for which a final final warning was issued). I wonder if the editor will be able to abide by a topic ban? EyeSerene^talk 14:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Let's give him one last chance. He has a POV on this issue. I've analyzed the edits of many banned users and POV pushing is often the reason for banning. Many banned editors have made some useful contributions. Maybe someone should try to make him understand the consequences of POV pushing. One of the reasons why I'm not supporting a full site ban is because he can help the project on other topics. He is not a vandal and he seems to be intelligent. AdjustShift (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
      • (ec)It doesn't sound like you've really dug through his edits—I don't believe he has any 'other contributions', and many editors have explained NPOV, RS, Fringe, and numerous other policies to him. He edits only articles related to his great-grandfather Arthur Leopold Busch, who he feels has not received sufficient credit for designing and building the first US Navy submarines for Electric Boat (a venture which he credits as being largely responsible for the success of the successor company, General Dynamics). All attempts at addressing these issues seem to fall on determinedly deaf ears; his response to any type of correction is to joyfully leap to the editor's talk page to repost some version of his screed, which includes such gems as "I must admit (however) that I am passionate about "setting the records straight" as never done before. Over the years I have made a considerable amount of progress in this quest of mine to bring the facts to the surface" and "It is time (that) somebody rewrite this slanted history in a corporate book (about General Dynamics/Electric Boat) and set these records straight for the good of doing what is right here in America." As EyeSerene mentioned, he indicated 2 days ago that he was "done with ships!", yet yesterday he joined WP:SHIPS with the comment "Going to try to contribute in an honest and sincere way"—and followed up an hour later with another unsourced edit. He is not going to edit in other areas, he is not going to use sources, and he is not going to drop his agenda. I've wasted enough time on him. I do not feel a topic ban would accomplish anything; as he doesn't edit outside this topic at all, it would effectively be a ban, which regretfully seems appropriate here. Maralia (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
        • I have to agree with Maralia. Middim13 has only ever edited to one purpose, to rewrite the history of General Dynamics/Electric Boat and the role of his relative to fit his version of the 'truth'. At many stages this has been explained to him why this unsourced POV pushing without any attempt to attribute reliable sources (indeed in his 'conspiracy theory' style edit summaries he often indicates that this is because they don't exist owing to some sort of sinister cover-up) is not acceptable. He has then begun to spread his net wider after being frustrated on some of his favourite topics, and has been adding his unsourced theories and claims of corruption/cover ups/shady deals to the detriment of his great-grandfather's place in history to an ever more diverse pool of articles, including the submarine article, pages related to the Royal Navy, the Imperial Japanese Navy, etc. The damage this is causing to the project is therefore increasing the longer he has been editing. Attempts to apply policies or requesting sources have resulted in accusations that the editors in question are misguided, ignorant or otherwise part of this conspiracy to suppress the 'truth'. He has also openly announced his intention to edit war until his version is accepted across wikipedia. He has treated the project as an opportunity to rewrite his ancestor's history, and has shown no indication that he understands his actions are unacceptable, nor has he made any attempt to move beyond this single purpose quest. Benea (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Maralia, you are familiar with Middim13. I'm not familiar with Middim13. I analyzed his edits for about 20 minutes, and it is difficult to understand the whole thing in about 20 minutes. So please don't say that "you have not really dug through his edits". I did what I could in about 20 minutes. My conclusion was "let's give him one final chance". After looking at the evidence of Maralia and Benea, it seems that Middim13 has caused some serious trouble. Editors who are familiar with Middim13 should decide whether he should be topic banned or community banned. AdjustShift (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
          • After doing more research, I feel the user has lost all his chances. He has exhausted the patience of fellow editors. AdjustShift (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
            • I don't understand your objection to my wording above. You first two comments were that you found his "other contributions" useful, and that "maybe someone should try to make him understand the consequences of POV pushing". From your analysis of the situation, it appeared that you hadn't yet gotten deep enough to see that he doesn't have any other contributions, and repeated attempts have been made at explaining the consequences of POV pushing. I never said, or meant to imply, that you hadn't tried, or that you should have known more already—essentially what I meant is what you later said yourself: "it is difficult to understand the whole thing in about 20 minutes". Peace? Maralia (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
              • Ok! :-) AdjustShift (talk) 09:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
                • I've got to agree with Maralia and Benea here. Over the past year and a half that he's had a registered account, he's demonstrated that his only intention on Wikipedia is to correct the perceived wrongs history has made against his great-grandfather. Despite a scores of warnings and a series of blocks, he has shown no inclination to modify his behavior. Enough is enough. Parsecboy (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Community ban?[edit]

←Is it safe to consider that Middim13 has been community banned and it is time to add {{Banned user}} to his userpage and his name to Wikipedia:List of banned users? -MBK₀₀₄ 17:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

An actual ban is a separate process. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd think we should initiate such a process since Middim is known to evade blocks through sock-puppetry and IP evasion. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• A community ban exists where no admin is willing to unblock, and that seems to be the way things are heading so far. I'd leave the thread open for a few more days, just to give any other interested parties time to comment. Just to be clear though, I see no reason to undo my block at this time, and endorse a community ban. EyeSerene^talk 09:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Just what I thought. Since you're unwilling to undo the block, I doubt that any other admin would after reading the above either. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• I've analyzed the disruptions caused by Middim13, and I don't think any admin would undo the block. He has also used socks. And he doesn't have any other good contributions. AdjustShift (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

A few days ago RonCram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) made a veiled legal threat that Worldnetdaily might sue Wikipedia if people claimed it was not a reliable source, in connection with his determination to source derogatory WP:FRINGE material about a presidential candidate to that publication.[89] A complaint was filed here (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive484#Legal threats by RonCram). The feeling here was that although it was a silly legal claim and he did not threaten to bring the legal claim himself, administrators felt it violated the spirit of NLT, which was to not use legal claims as a "bludgeon" to intimidate other editors out of making good faith edits. Warned that as an experienced editor should know better he would be blocked if he did it again,[90][91] he was more diffident than contrite,[92][93][94][95] accusing Wikipedia editors of liberal bias, hypocrisy, double standards, etc. Yesterday he did it again (two days ago depending on your time zone). Here[96] he starts a new thread at Worldnetdaily, saying he "would not be surprised" if Worldnetdaily sues Wikiepdia for calling it unreliable. He obviously did not get the message last time. He is hostile to me. Might someone deliver the message again? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 08:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked him for 48 hours. He knows what he's doing, and it's gone on long enough. Speculation on legal liability based on editing in any manner is inappropriate here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Good block, though it shows spectacular good faith to only block him for 48 hours. He's twice used the potential threat of legal proceedings in an attempt to force others to accept his side of an issue; this violates both the spirit and letter of WP:NLT. If he does continue to make these assertions, it would be well within the rules to indefinately block him until he retracts all statements about encouraging legal solutions to content disputes. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Jay. Once unblocked, if there's so much as a legal peep from him, I'd go to indefinite block. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 11:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think 48 hours seems reasonable - while he's mentioning legal threats, he isn't so much threatening legal action as he is simply being threatening - WP:NLT vs WP:HARASS. Either way he's certainly been warned more than adequately and a block makes sense, though. ~ mazca ^t|c 12:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No, he's not threatening that he will initiate legal action, but he's using the threat of legal action to intimidate other editors and shut down the discussion of reliable sources. This was my original concern, that less experienced editors who didn't know better would be driven from the discussion. Frankly, I'm surprised he's been cut as much slack as he has. In the previous AN/I (only a week ago), multiple administrators told him that if he even hinted at these legal threats again he would be blocked indefinitely. --Loonymonkey (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Support the existing block. As I see it, WP:NLT serves two purposes. One is to protect the WikiMedia Foundation in the case of real legal cases; the other is to prevent the threat of legal action being used as a tool to gain the upper hand in content disputes. The first purpose is served by indefinitely blocking parties who make clear legal threats or actually file a suit against WMF, with an unblock occuring if and when the threat is withdrawn and/or the case is resolved. When threats are vague and poorly defined, the second purpose comes into play. In this case, because the threat is so vague, I don't think an indef block is necessary. This is just a user causing disruption in a content dispute, and as such I think an ordinary escalation of finite blocks should suffice. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out that RonCram has been disruptive in subtler (and arguably non-prohibited) ways by continuously lobbying on talk pages to have conspiracy theories about Obama included in the article. I don't feel he has directly violate in policies other than the WP:LEGAL one for which he has been sanctioned, but he has certainly made himself a nuisance.

In light of the fact that RonCram is a longstanding and prolific contributor, an indef block may not be required even if he resumes the WP:LEGAL violations -- I think a block of 16 days would probably be all that is needed to reform RonCram into a productive contributor.... which would be set to expire, not coincidentally, on Nov. 5 ;) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

An excellent idea. After the election is over, the activity and rhetoric on these candidate pages should drop sharply. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the 48 hour block is fine, but I'd like to note that while RonCram is a longstanding editor, many of his contributions have been tendentious and borderline disruptive, particularly in areas related to Global warming and Michael E. Mann. I would not exercise much patience if he resumes disruptive behavior after the current block expires. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I only did 48 hours since this seems like the first time he's been in trouble for this issue. His last block was two years ago and I'm assuming he's been a decent editor otherwise. Frankly, his comment would have been perfectly fine (not useful, but not blockable) if he had just excluded those last two sentences. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Mattopia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has attempted to retract the license under which he or she contributed to wikipedia here. I have interpreted this as a violation of the license and blocked the user under WP:NLT. If folks disagree with this action, feel free to change the block. Note that the editor was previously blocked for harassment. Toddst1 (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's right; he didn't give up copyright. He still owns it. However, he licensed his works to Wikipedia under the GFDL, which is not logically revocable except by mutual agreement. It can't be done unilaterally. The NLT block is valid, IMO. --Golbez (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I would have blocked him for the disruption instead. There's no real legal "threat" per se. BMW(drive) 22:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of his contributions since have included threats, though: "Reproduction without permission is illegal."[97] --Golbez (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Although that is useful advice. Attempting to reproduce with someone without their permission can get you into a LOT of trouble ;) Lemon martini (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in case he didn’t notice, the text right below the edit box says, “You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the terms of the GFDL*.” (emphasis mine) Therefore, it would seem that his claim is baseless. —Travis^talk 22:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Great minds think alike ... I posted that on his Talk page LOL BMW(drive) 22:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... seicer | talk | contribs 00:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

When one hits the save button (more or less, given the edit then makes it into the database and so on), the GFDL licence is granted and cannot be taken back. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no turning back. It's a little like jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge. Or worse yet, sending an obscene joke through the office e-mail and accidentally CC'ing the entire company. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Or jumping off a tall building thinking there will be a trampoline or some other cushion at the bottom only to realize halfway down that you were mistaken. The block for legal threats is a good one. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, that square of concrete at the end of that jump turns out to be a permanent block. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

WHAT?! I forgot to attach the bungee cord before I jumped? My backpack contains an anvil instead of a parachute? NOOOOO! Irrevocable action! Edison (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) The claims above that the GFDL is irrevocable are a bit broad. No court has ever ruled on the issue and the fact that "irrevocably" was only added two and a half months ago doesn't help our case. It's fair to say that active editors who try to revoke it are likely to be blocked, whether for disruption, legal threats, or something else.--chaser - t 05:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• It's a logical issue though. And the image he had uploaded, he had released as public domain. I can't say something is public domain or free to use/copy/alter, and then come right back and say "Anyone who uses this/copies it/alters it is breaking the law!" It doesn't matter if the "irrevocably" has been recently added; it's logical. --Golbez (talk) 05:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

They returned claiming copyright violations as ButsuriDaisukii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Suzushii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), IDontWantToHereNoCriticism (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and 203.140.44.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), along with commons:User:FelixTepco. The main discussion is at User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Articles copied from textbook and User talk:ButsuriDaisukii#Copyrights. Basically they are now claiming the material is copied from a book, Island growth and Charge transfer insulators. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 08:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If this was a "user contributed translation" into English from a Japanese textbook, I doubt that the original Japanese author can claim copyright over it.

Besides, another user radically rewrote it soon after.

However, this is a copyright violation[98] of a thesis paper by a Lyudmyla Adamska. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

On translation and copyright: depends how much was translated. You cannot translate an entire article and claim copyright for yourself. Translation is a derivative work. Random example: [99]. For the same reason, translations from Wikipedias in other languages should be noted as such to comply with GFDL attribution requirements. VG ☎ 15:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

From what I saw, we have a few types of issues. This is a "translation" of very small segment of a book; a proper analysis of whether it is a copyright violation would require a pagescan of the Japanese text. And then this is a direct lift from an English text, so this users contribs need very close inspection. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 17:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone w more experience than myself check out this page. It looks like it has been butchered, but "possibly" in a legit way. ???????Aaaronsmith (talk) 04:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

See [100]. It looks like Wandalstouring (talk · contribs) went through and removed all unsourced numbers, which is annoying [stricken - too harsh] unfortunate because much of the removed material links to other Wikipedia articles containing the appropriate sources. I have reverted the user's mass removal of content. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute, take it to article talk.--Tznkai (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I also think it is unfortunate that you restored the content with the edit summary "rv per ANI", implying that it is as a result of consensus here. That is clearly not the case, the consensus here is "take it to article talk". The deletions from this article are a spillover from List of battles by casualties at which there is a discussion of this issue here. I think you should post to that discussion to explain your edits. SpinningSpark 16:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Same problem as in list of battles by casualties. There was lots of noise after I deleted all unsourced material, but now the article is sourced and growing steadily. If there is a link to sourced material use the same reference in another article. I have no problems with that, but wikipedia articles or links to them aren't sources. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Psiphiorg appears to be moving pages in violation of current guidelines at Wikipedia:NC-TV#Episode_articles. I'm not sure what the best option to do here is. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I read the talk page of Psiphiorg, and nobody has said to him not to move pages in violation of current guidelines. Perhaps you should tell Psiphiorg not to move pages in violation of current guidelines. AdjustShift (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

From what I see on that page, I am moving pages in accordance with the current guidelines. There are a number of Prison Break episode pages which have unique titles, but which were moved just yesterday from [[Unique Title]] to [[Unique Title (Prison Break episode)]], and I moved them back because there was no need to disambiguate. The page you linked to says "For an article created about a single episode, add the series name in parentheses only if there are other articles by the same name", and in each case, the episode titles that I moved did not have any other articles by the same name. --ΨΦorg (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Which is evidence that perhaps people should try to discuss with the user instead of taking straight to ANI...Psiphiorg is not violating the guideline...he's following it to the letter. --Smashville^talk 18:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, why Prison Break episodes need their own pages is a different question all together ... but one that shall not be asked here. -t-BMW-c- 18:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I have found myself in a content dispute/rollback issue and need an uninvolved admin to help out. Back in July I ran across User:Certh who was making what I regarded as tendentious edits to various medieval Italian nobility articles (linking them incorrectly to Imperial Roman titles). I rolled these back, and a good period of time went by before he appeared again and made the same edits. Last week I made many of the same rollbacks, and had been preparing to issue either a short block or do some page protecting. I was doing this under the impression that I was dealing with a vandal. However, it is now essentially a content dispute after Certh opened up:

• 1)Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#I_am_pursued_by_an_administrator
• 2)Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-16 Simeon of Moscow

1 was closed in deference to 2, which has just become Certh and I insulting each other. Several editors have weighed in constructively, and have helped me develop some compromise categories and terms that would allow Certh to make the type of changes he wants. However, Certh is unwilling to compromise. I'm not certain what steps to take next because:

• 1) Constantly reverting is unconstructive.
• 2) The information that Certh is trying to add to the articles is not accurate as he is presenting it.
• 3) User:Srnec and User:Johnbod have helped flesh out some compromise terms that would allow the information to be presented, without linking misleadingly into Imperial Roman terms.

Essentially, I'm at a dead end. I don't believe I can block the editor, or protect the pages because I am now involved in the dispute as an editor. Also, because I'm in the dispute, I don't have a good feel on whether Certh is even in need of a block to begin with. My goal is to stabilize the articles in question (which actually applies to a far larger number of articles than what is listed in the mediation cabal case), while helping Certh get his information in based on the NPOV suggestions of Srnec and Johnbod. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• I also join the invitation of neutral commenters but probably this would be better placed in another page.--Certh (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Please could someone take a look at this case? This user sent a message to WP:WPSPAM and a helpme request on his talk page three days ago saying that he was sending large numbers of unsolicited emails to WikiProject participants and wanted help getting around the spam filter. User:stwalkerster informed him that his actions qualified as spamming and advised him to find another way to collect his research data.

This morning, I received an unsolicited email from the user (press "show" if you're interested in reading it)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dear Sir / Madam, You are receiving this email because you are a member of WikiProjects. I am Aaron from City University of Hong Kong and we would like to invite you to participate in a survey assessing knowledge contribution in WikiProject two weeks later. This is also a part of my Ph.D. research under the supervision of Professor Matthew K. O. Lee. It will take you around 20 minutes to complete the questionnaire. As a token of appreciation for your participation, we have prepared a number of lucky draw prizes and each lucky person will receive a US$30 Amazon GIFT CERTIFICATE. Survey results will be made available to you on request if you participate in this project. All information collected will be analyzed in aggregate only and used for the sole purpose of academic research. It will not be used, distributed or disclosed to anyone else for any purpose whatsoever. We really need your help to advance our understanding of what makes WikiProject so successful. However, if you absolutely DO NOT want to receive a survey invitation two weeks later, please reply this email with the word “REMOVE”. Thank you very much for your support and attention! Aaron X. L. Shen Ph.D. Candidate [I have removed his personal contact details

I concluded that as the user has not attempted to follow User:stwalkerster's advice and is still clearly sending spam emails that a block was necessary. I have blocked his account indefinitely and prevented him from sending emails. Please could I have some feedback on this? I'd like to check that I haven't been excessively harsh.

Thanks,

Papa November (talk) 08:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite obvious to me that this is just a scam to harvest e-mail addresses by tricking users into replying to this with an "unsubscribe". I am astonished that the software does not stop him until he hits 100 e-mails. And then he only got advised to wait a few minutes. Presumably, he can then do another 100. That would mean he could get thousands out in a day. Laughably, he has only been stopped because he had the cheek to complain about it, and then all he has to do to carry on is open another account. Is there any legitimate reason for e-mailing 100 users at once? I think the limit should be five and even that should be checked by a spam filter for suspicious content. SpinningSpark 11:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that 100 is an obscenely large number of emails to send in a day from this site. I'd support stricter restrictions. I also set autoblock and prevented account creation - that might help if he's not dynamic. Papa November (talk) 11:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm reasonably confident that the research project is genuine. The email address is from the university he claimed to be, and I believe one cannot use any email functions on Wikipedia untill the email address has been confirmed. His name also appears in a couple of proceedings with his professor[101]. I would support unblocking if he promises not to mass-email... in addition to Village Post, I would also allow him to contact a handfull of the largest and most active Wikiprojects directly on their noticeboards (not spamming the talkpages of the members!) - lets say, ten projects e.g. MILHIST, LGBT... – Sadalmelik ☎ 11:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

We need more phishing here. Things are too quiet and calm. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Even if the research is genuine, I have some concerns. How could we possibly be sure that he isn't continuing to send spam mail? Is there a way to allow someone to edit but block them from sending emails? Also, the purpose of this site is to build an encyclopaedia, not to support someone's personal research. Papa November (talk) 12:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If y'all get really desparate, you could post a message on his talk page offering to unblock him if he stops spamming. Then wait for him to respond, or until the next ice age, whichever comes first. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I have to turn my AGF control up to full before I can believe that this is genuine research. Students can be involved with internet scams? who would have believed it. A much more normal way of doing this sort of thing is to post the questionaire, test whatever on the organisations internet site and then advertise the link to it. That way it is easy to check that it from a genuine organisation and there is no need to provide the canvasser with any private details. Even if it is genuine, it is incivil. If a charity worker wants to collect in a bar, they ask the bar owner first, if someone wants to canvass the workers in a factory, they ask the manager first. This should have been proposed on an open forum (eg Village Pump) first to gain consensus. As it is, I believe it to be a breach of WP:CIVIL as well as WP:SPAM and e-mail privacy. SpinningSpark 13:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

He's doing it again, under his sockpuppet User:Cityuwiki2. E Wing (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

For the fastest action, post it at WP:AIV. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I posted it. I'm just glad my e-mail is disabled. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I advise sending an email to Professor Lee, since his name is being used and there is a good chance that he is not aware of what is going on. I would do it myself except that I think it would be better coming from an admin. Looie496 (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've forwarded the email I got from Citiuwiki1 to him. Doug Weller (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. And Citiuwiki1 is now also blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

<- User:Cityuwiki1 and User:Cityuwiki3, created within minutes of each other have also been blocked indefinitely as suspected sockpuppets

I also blocked User:Cityuwiki2. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you detect a trend here? As a practical matter, is it possible to issue a block that will take out whatever IP address he's at, and choke off his "work"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, account creation is blocked automatically if he tries to so from any of his old IP addresses. No one appears to have spotted any new accounts since we started blocking him so hopefully this might be the end of the story. Papa November (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm frankly quite impressed with this scheme. The email I got had a legit email address from City University of Hong Kong, and as far as I know, the email addresses has to be confirmed before they can be used on Wikipedia. So evidently they have access to at least one email account there. I suppose one could also email their IT people... Why somebody would go to such lengths for a few email addresses is beyond me. – Sadalmelik ☎ 18:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, since he's being so naughty, barefaced and persistent, I'd say we should either threaten him with contacting the University, or actually contact them, or Checkuser and see if that throws anything interesting up. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 18:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Pravin97 (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely for making the above threat on my talk page [102]. It would appear that this is in result of his deletion of sourced content ([103], [104]) from the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World article. Since I am obviously involved, I am submitting this for block review. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Up with this we do not put. Good block. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 12:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What kind of serious action? 50 lashes with a wet noodle? Seriously, very good block, that sort of threat has no place on Wikipedia. Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, yeah. Good block. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, you gotta be careful when someone tells you that something is "none of your buissness". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

While Pravin97 (talk · contribs) was clearly out of line, he has some valid points. The Seven Wonders of the Ancient World article, despite a rather long edit history, is poorly cited, and the changes in the last thousand or so edits since [105] (mostly vandalism and reversion) haven't helped. The reference to Philo of Byzantium as the author of the list is questionable and contradicts the Philo of Byzantium article. Somebody with a strong classical background should review this article. --John Nagle (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully someone that actually speaks English. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

NickNbeezy is evading an active block block under the new name of NickNbeezy1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), engaging in the same exact actions that resulted in said block(s). JBsupreme (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Tag it as sockpuppet and report it to block. Keep the original block longer. More sockpuppets = less chances to be unblocked. --Mixwell!^Talk 15:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

done --Mixwell!^Talk 15:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

NickNbeezy1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) blocked indefinitely, NickNbeezy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) has had his block extended to one month from today. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Good block. User:NickNbeezy is guilty of disruptive sockpuppetry. If he evades block again, he should be blocked indefinitely from editing. AdjustShift (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Be careful, his next sockpuppet might be under a totally different ID, such as NickNbeezy9. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If that happens, NickNbeezy9 will also be blocked indefinitely from editing. AdjustShift (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs knows that. He was joking. BTW I've deleted and reverted his edits. I think that we should always do that as well as simply block the sock. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I know Baseball Bugs was joking, I don't like being informal on ANI. AdjustShift (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I do; in fact I'm in my underwear right now. HalfShadow 19:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a similar situation with the spammer, a few sections above. I just think there should be special handling for sockpuppets that use a variation of their previous user ID as the sockpuppet - like maybe a note to the parents, advising them that their child is too stupid to be using the internet. (And I realize that bar is pretty low.) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is stupidity at all. I think it's more likely defiance. They want us to know that we can't actually block them. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

My failure to even think of that possibility indicates either (1) too much assumption of good faith on my part and/or (2) maybe I'm to stupid to use the internet. :\ Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought there was a way to effectively block someone like that. Or are they doing this from multiple IP addresses? And why do I get the feeling I just asked this question elsewhere on this page? Wow, it's, like, deja vu. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

For example, the endless sockpuppets of User:Ron liebman can't really be stopped due to his use of the N.Y. Public Library system. But isn't this a case-by-case situation? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) In the event of repeated block evasion, rangeblocks are occasionally used to knock out the network or portion of a network a user is based on. However, as you might guess, this often leads to a lot of collateral damage and isn't always effective anyway, due to the ready availability of proxies, internet cafe's, internet phones, etc. In short, yes, it is a case-by-case situation, and usually left up to checkusers, since they have access to the IPs used and generally have a greater knowledge of how the networks operate. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Reading through some of the links related to the John Safer issue, which is being handled, I came across an ad on GetAFreelancer from Crown SEO.[106].

“

The key to success in Wikipedia is sleuthiness. Part of reputation management we do is to make exactly the kinds of links and copy enhancement you are seeking on Wikipedia and other, similar, wikis. Our staff has many IDs that are one-time usage so it is difficult to point out all that we have done over the years. But, we give a 100% money-back guarantee of satisfaction (see below) so we know you will be happy with our work. COMPANY BACKGROUND: We are Crown SEO, Ltd. We are 100% USA, located in Southern California. We are bonded and insured and rated AAA by the Better Business Bureau of the Southland. We are located at crownseo dot com. We are a full-service SEO firm and offer security, experience and desire.

”

I think they meant "sneakyness" or "stealthyness", but you get the idea. And yes, they actually do have a Better Business Bureau rating.[107]. I'm worried when businesses with some degree of legitimacy get the idea that it's OK to spam Wikipedia. --John Nagle (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If publishing their intentions and methods is their idea of sleuthiness, or stealthyness, or whatever, maybe they ought to consider another line of work. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Can't we contact them about this and inform them that we've got eyes on them now and will revert any spam on sight? -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 00:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes we can, Ill work on it   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah; good luck with that. I'm sure that'll bring them to screeching halt. HalfShadow 00:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No but a hardblock of thier IP range will   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC).

if we can get their IP range, can we also check to see what those IPs added and remove it? that will hurt them more than the block, actually, since the people who paid them will not want to pay them anymore. I'm not sure it will help, though - on some pages it's hard to tell what's advertising and what's not. for instance, I flagged (and eventually rewrote a bit of) the Carhartt page, but it still reads like advertising copy more than encyclopedia stuff. How do you write an article about a commercial entity without it sounding like advertising? --Ludwigs2 01:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Re Carhartt - I took out some uncited puffery, and added a properly cited reference to a New York Times article on the popularity of their jackets with crack dealers. Unrelated problem solved. --John Nagle (talk) 03:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

They may try and spam us, but what they're doing can do more harm than help. An IP hardblock, and giving them a clear warning NOT to use WP as a promotional vehicle, may do... It goes to show that there are people who are bent at doing dirty to make money... Blake Gripling (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

web-cite incase they change it. Ive asked Mike Godwin to comment here, as I think that this needs his counsel.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

These folks are not known in the industry. Spamming Wikipedia produces less return on investment than "real" web marketing because spam is discovered when it is placed in a high traffic location, and it does no good elsewhere. I predict they will not succeed. Meanwhile, at WP:COIN they or people like them are spotted all the time, reported, investigated and cleaned up. If you are concerned, help out at that board. Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 01:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

69.43.203.189 - 69.43.203.193 all belong to Crown SEO.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 02:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• 69.43.203.189 (talk · contribs)
• 69.43.203.190 (talk · contribs)
• 69.43.203.191 (talk · contribs)
• 69.43.203.192 (talk · contribs)
• 69.43.203.193 (talk · contribs)
• Yay links, for convenience. lifebaka++ 03:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Information I'm getting is that 69.43.128.0 - 69.43.207.255 belongs to Castle Access Inc ARIN-CASTLE-ALLOC (NET-69-43-128-0-1). Probably other people know superior WHOIS searches or something, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

network-tools.com trace results reveal the host name of the computer.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 03:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm .. I wanted to start here with 'Fun, SEO, I can do that as well'. But I don't have any additions of links by these IPs or any additions of the mentioned url 'crownseo.com' (if they are that good, then they did not advertise themselves very well on Wikipedia yet ..). The question is now, can we find any of their accounts or any of the companies/organisations they have been optimising for? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No particular comment, here, beyond pointing out Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Crown SEO since I didn't see it linked. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that possible? I ask as a ACC type question.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 04:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably depends on whether "Prevent account creation" is on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Mmm yes I am aware of that, at this point I think you cant, however is there a way that it could be done?   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 04:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe ask at the help desk since this isn't an incident. John Reaves 04:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd ask at VPT, since it's more likely someone who knows their way around MediaWiki will see it. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 00:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

So, 76.167.244.204 is under a two week block for self-admitted socking while permanently blocked, see User_talk:76.167.244.204 and Moleman 9000 (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log). He basically admitted that he'll continue to be disruptive once the block runs out ([108] and [109]). Wondering if any admin might want to look and maybe (silently) extend the block? Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Doing so is probably a bad idea. IF he resumes the problem behavior, THEN we can return the block quickly. Enough admins are watching this that I don't expect this problem, if it reoccurs, to last more than a few minutes. Covertly extending a block without just cause, except for the heat-of-the-moment rantings of the blocked user themselves, serves no real purpose. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I don't give a shit one way or another, because there's no if involved. Feel free to examine this users behaviour and please feel free to act or reject my report in one week, then. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If this continues to be a problem, a long hardblock on 76.167.244.204 may be helpful. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Given the fact that this user has created at least two alternate socks once his main account was blocked, then finally learned about anonymous editing, shall I pose the question? What would you consider of a user who is counting down the days until his block expires, and posting the count-down? What of a user who's been blocked for socking, had his IP blocked and account creation disabled, then asked an unblock, which was denied, and finally asked for account creation to be enabled on his autoblock? I'm being acerbic and I'll make no apologies for such, because this user has made it clear (if you would examine the links I gave above) that he has a singular goal, and will not stop at attempting to achieve that goal. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What of a user, who does all of the things exactly as you described, has his IP reassigned for some reason we have no way of predicting? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can answer that, but the ivory tower of Wikipedia policy prevents me from doing so. Thank you for your cooperation in this manner, see you in one week as I report this same IP address for the same behaviour. Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Made here and here. Very vague. Blocked and deleted. I don't think further action necessary. Toddst1 (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser  Confirmed and blocked as same user:

1. Wikipeedia is not notable according to WoW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Laughing Baby is notable according the Queen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Wikipeedia is the CCCP encyclopedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. Pelican Excrement is delicous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. MrTreasonandWoWunite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
6. Alison is gone yipeee. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dynamic IP. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Even if we had a very long discussion for consensus here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis#Tournament_names, he ever was likely the only one to deny it, and hes being reverting all the consensued-style to his own style (check this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rafael_Nadal&oldid=246663858 by him today), where he keeps doing the same as some months before, changing to SPONSORED tournament names, while 99% of the tennis wikipedian community does not want that style. Korlzor (talk) 23:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No admin action needed. Please seek dispute resolution. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

A couple of days ago I stumbled into a series of vandalisms of user:Doc Comic and user talk:Doc Comic, and after further vandalism I spotted a request that seems not to have been noticed back in May (unfortunately he didn't use a {{helpme}}). Can I suggest that someone restore his user Page to an unvandalised version and semi protect it? From the userboxes he used to have I think we need to treat this one as a vulnerable user, also adding to a few watchlists wouldn't hurt. ϢereSpielChequers 23:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have any idea whats going on here, for some reason there are over a hundred odd user talk/userspace pages tagged for deletion. They all have this, User:LAAFan/Barnstar userbox, deleted since LAAFan is appararently leaving us, on their pages, but they're still showing up in the cat. --Jac16888 (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

And now this page is too, apparently from me adding that dead link. Whats going on?--Jac16888 (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd assume the task queue (or whichever one is used for cats) is just a bit slow right now. Since the page is currently deleted, they should be out of the cat as soon as it gets around to updating. It's already much lower than one hundred. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I made null edits to remove some of the pages from the category (which explains this edit as I couldn't do a null edit properly, it removed a space from the start of the page). The AN/I page, and two pages transcluding it, were added to the category because the colon was omitted from the category link, as a result putting it into the category instead of linking to it. —Snigbrook 00:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh crap yeah, that explains the board being added, sorry. Cheers for the explanation--Jac16888 (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Olufemi01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I don't exactly know what to do here. The single contribution that this user has made is written in a way that I cannot assume that it is a spam bot, but I do wonder, as it seems the main goal in mind here is to obtain money for a church or organization. It's not the I believe the story is an absolute fabrication, but hey, I get my healthy dose of spam mail advertising large sums of money. People lie, sometimes the lies are very bad. In this case I don't know for sure, so, please, I know it's a relatively small matter, but I would appreciate some of your opinions in this case.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 00:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Nigerian scam. Blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Have to admit, this is a new way to work that scam. Wildthing61476 (talk) 00:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Freakazoid (2008 film) is a 4chan creation and has been subject to ridiculous amounts of vandalism within the past few hours. I have attempted to revert constantly, but I have grown tired of the task. The page was marked for speedy deletion, but the tag was continuously removed by vandals to the point that it could not be reviewed and deleted. I have done numerous Google searches and can find no evidence that this article is in any way true, but I do not want to mark it as it will simply be removed from the page. I truly have run out of ideas of how to stop this. While we could just wait for the whole thing to blow over, it may be easiest just to delete the page and salt it. Thank you. DARTH PANDA^talk 01:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I've seen that it has finally been protected as per my request and the deletion request has been readded. Hopefully, as long as the 4chan community does not decide to all go and make accounts, we will be fine. You can probably disregard this report. DARTH PANDA^talk 01:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, the page was deleted. Sorry for the trouble! DARTH PANDA^talk 01:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've already had this image deleted once. I give up. Would someone please take care of the image found on Wjmummert's talk page? He claims that it's not a copyright violation, and the lingerie models involved are his girlfriends. Right.—Kww(talk) 02:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

(User notified of this discussion.) I do, however, agree that the text in the image is quite devoid of civility and is a probable copyvio as a work derived from copyrighted images. —Travis^talk 02:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The model images appear to be professionally done (based on the lighting, which would require a decently expensive setup to achieve). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

My previous interactions can be seen here.—Kww(talk) 03:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

According to Google,"Go Fuck Your Hand" is a porno (lending more credence to the copyvio idea). John Reaves 03:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"According to Google", he says. :) Protonk (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh "ex-girlfriends". :) Anyway, the image has been deleted again. Sarah 05:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I actually didn't have "According to Google" at first but then I realized I was dealing with Wikipedians and their dirty minds <_< John Reaves 05:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

We can't be stopped. Next thing you know, Go Fuck Your Hand will be a featured article. Protonk (talk) 05:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"According to Google", or IMDB actually, that porn video of the same name has a different cover. Mummert's illustration looks like a cut-and-paste from Victoria's Secret or some such. You might want to check out the list of babes on his user page for some further "insight". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Recently I went through this user's uploads and had to flag the majority of them as possible non-free image use violations. He blanked then notice without comment.[110] The PUAs haven't been acted upon, though. Durova^Charge! 18:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you people have anything better to do? You are saying I can't have photo's of legs on my personal talk page? Good Grief, Charlie Brown. No they are not pics of my girlfriends. DUH!!!! I could not pull a chick that hot in my best days. Sweet Fancy Moses!!!! What is the real problem? I re-created the page because I was away for a few days and did not get the chance to place a hangon or contest the tag. By the way, GFYH or Go Fuck Your Hand is a saying that me and my college buddies from Illinois State have been tossing around for 15 years. Basically, it means "you are an idiot," "whtever," or "beat it" to a person who is a friend and knows what it means. Now someone has made a porno of that name? I should get royalites. You guys are something else. There are no faces, no identifying characteristics, nobody knows who they are, so tell me HOW this is copyright violation? It's just good old fun for MY talk page. By the way Durova, nobody acted on your tags on my uploads because everything I uploaded is 100% legit. Now, MY FRIENDS, I hope you all have a GREAT day.... and feel free to visit the new GO FUCK YOUR HANDS Wiki Page. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 20:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Civility? To whom was I uncivil? That's rich. Are you Cardinals fans? You have to be kidding me. Really? OY VEY!!!! Here I was having such a great day.... In case you have not noticed, I do a pretty damn good job editing here, but one thing I hate about Wikipedia is the "I'm gonna run tell teacher" mentality here when someone does something another editor does not like. I am not one of those guys. I don't let these PETTY things get under my skin. Teacher, he gots sexy legs on him talk page!" Good Gravy!!!! I will pray for you. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 20:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that no one at all is kidding. You cannot scan images, modify them, and upload them to Wikipedia without a release from the owner of the copyright of each image. Certainly, you can't then defend it by lying and saying they are your ex-girlfriends. And no, you cannot leave messages on your talk page telling people you disagree with to go fuck their hands. The first time you did it, I just took care of getting the violations removed. The second time you did it, it was clear that you didn't get the message, so I brought it here. Now, I think you are making it abundantly clear that you still don't get the message.—Kww(talk) 20:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

A look at his previous block log seems to indicate that Wjmuumert has had trouble understanding copyright for a few years now. Perhaps it's time for a fascist admin to give him the "if you upload one more copyrighted image, or say "go fuck your hand" one more time, you will be blocked indefinitely" speech. In fact, I think one just did. --barneca (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Make that two, because you beat me to it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Race you. Agree completely with barneca & my korn tasting friend. Community patience limit reached. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 21:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

He needs to understand, among other things, that even if no faces are showing, it's still a copyright violation, and could get wikipedia in trouble. That's why it's not allowed. It's also wikipedia policy that even fair-use images are not allowed on user pages, but only in articles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The possible unfree images entries I listed on October 3 for Wjmummert have not yet been reviewed. Would an admin please take a look here? Generally, he acts under the mistaken impression that he has power to copyleft license photographs he takes of copyrighted signs, sports team merchandise, etc. People who have attempted to engage him in dialog about these problems generally get either no response or an exceedingly hostile one. Durova^Charge! 05:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

History of edits to Nathaniel Bar-Jonah as of 21 Oct 2008 shows persistent vandalism from what seems to be an individual at the University of Lowell, Mass, adding spurious claims of war heroism, and recently, "humorous" mentions of boy-burgers. Protecting the page seems like a sensible thing to do here. __Just plain Bill (talk) 03:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to pass the buck here but Wikipedia:Requests for page protection might be a better resource. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll add that the vandalism seems to have stopped, but I'm watching the page now. If it starts again, notice me and I'll immediately protect it and start warnings. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Point taken about WP:RFP. Thanks for stepping in and helping anyway... __Just plain Bill (talk) 03:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I would like to make a report regarding frequent vandalism from a persistant IP vandal who has vandalized the user pages of three different users over the past while. Likely dynamic IP.

List of IP addresses used:

• 203.59.188.144 (blocked by User:VirtualSteve) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
• 124.169.122.126(blocked by Philippe}
• 124.169.18.137 (blocked by Philippe)

Master&Expert (Talk) 05:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

All three look to have been blocked. I'll ask Matt if you would like his page semi-protected. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the blocks and the semi offer. Things seem to have died down now, although it was pretty rough for awhile :D My page has been semi-protected for now, looks like the best way to go for now. Thank you for your time, MatthewYeager 05:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If it isnt a problem, would someone be able to semi my talk... we are running into more problems... Thank you for your time, MatthewYeager 05:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Based on the "warnings" by the anons involved (see: [111], [112], and [113] ... they appear to be determined to harrass anyone who interferes with their "fun" of vandalizing. Their stated goal is to get the user and talk pages protected ... although they appear to not realize the distinction between full and semi protection. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Time for WP:RBI then. They'll find something else to do eventually. However, I'd prefer not to protect talk pages for that long a time, but I'm not going to second-guess anyone. Also, a vandal "team" from a single IP isn't going to be particularly effective very soon. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a bad idea to sprotect his talk page for the next little while, though - at least until the vandals die down. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Either way, the sooner we ignore them, the sooner they'll find something better to do. I'd rather have short 1-2 day protections as I doubt this kinds of users have the kind of attention span to keep going after users for long periods of time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

yes, i appologize for my actions of editing flase information im really sorry, and i didnt know it was globel,i wasnt being smart and i wont do it again i didnt know what i was doin i was just trying to fool my brother with it i didnt know it makes wikipedia change i thought it makes your own computer's wikipeida change, im sorry for editing and almost ruining my familys usage of wikipedia and hope that you casn forgize me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xan1993 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I would guess this has something to do with an IP getting warned or blocked somewhere, but not being an admin, I can't track it down. Looie496 (talk) 03:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Tracking this down would take a checkuser, not an admin. That username's only made the one post (no deleted contribs). Presumably, yes, an IP was blocked, but since the above account can clearly edit, I don't think there's a problem. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Edits by 67.70.11.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) seem to be pushing a Serbian Nationalist PoV; but I'm not sufficiently familiar with the politics and geography involved to be sure in every case (I've reverted some, which were unambiguous). Could somebody more familar with these issues check, and issue the relevant warning if my concerns are valid? Also, if there is a better place to raise this, please move my comments there, as I won't be around for a few hours. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing his/her edits, they're mostly reasonable. Edits such as this one, changing references from Kosovo to Serbia, I generally revert. However, my personal policy is that since the Kosovo situation is still so fluid, I don't worry about such edits unless they are accompanied by edits like this. My two cents. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 14:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I would suggest talking to him first, which nobody has. Take it one edit at a time; if you revert a blatant POV edit of his, follow it up by dropping him a note. If your reverts start piling on and none of your notes are returned by the editor, then you may consider asking for opinions on WP:POVN. As it stands right now, nobody has spoken a single word to this editor to tell him his edits are inapropriate so I don't think any administrative action is currently needed. Also, it's considered courteous to notify someone that there is a thread discussing thir edits here. I will notify the editor. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I don't think I'll notify him of this thread because I'm afraid of scaring away a brand new editor and the issue will almost certainly not progress any further than this. He should be engaged in talk page and user talk page conversation before being thrown into an environment like the ANI. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandal is back. Please see history of Mother of God for his vandalism, and he vandalized my user page. New Ids are User:Pioneer sets a fire and User:Pioneer tells the truth. Please block and rollback. He will back in about 3 days with new IDs, if the past is an indication of the future. Thanks History2007 (talk) 11:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If he comes back repeatedly, you may want to open a checkuser request to block his IP. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, repeatedly is an understatement. I am writing a paper about it: User:History2007/Content protection. He gets a new ID every few days. Today he has 2 new Ids. But I looked at checkuser request and it seems to require a lot of work to get it. How do I get Rollback Rights? It would be easier just to rollback whatever he does. Today he removed several links by making them look like typos and changed spellings here and there to kill links. If I get Rollback, he will be slowed down. How do I get it? Thanks History2007 (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Rollback#How_to_apply_for_rollback. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Both blocked as blatant sockpuppets. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I’d like an outside admin to review this situation, and apply a cluestick (to me and/or the editor involved) or a banhammer (to the editor involved, hopefully not me!), as appropriate.

At Talk:Sawston (which I archived to Talk:Sawston/Archive1 when it finally reached the point where I realized the discussion had degenerated and was no longer going to be useful), Cuckoosnest (talk · contribs) has been trying to remove a description of Christ Church South Cambs as an Anglican congregation in Sawston. Petemyers (talk · contribs), (who has been up front about his real world involvement with CCSC), has been resisting; after an edit war over a month ago, I believe Pete has confined himself to the talk page. I originally entered this dispute as an outside observer, and have been bending over backwards to try to get two editors to come to a compromise, but with hindsight I’ve actually been enabling Cuckoosnest, a single purpose account with strong point of view, to relentlessly soapbox on Talk:Sawston and attack Petemyers and CCSC for too long. I’ve been gradually pulled into the discussion, so I no longer feel uninvolved enough to block him myself.

I recently gave Cuckoosnest a final warning on his talk page to drop the whole subject, and in particular stop continuing his dispute with CCSC on Wikipedia (my warning on his talk page is now only visible to admins, as he had it speedy deleted, I can only assume in an aborted attempt at RTV). But he continues to harrass, with recent posts to my talk page and to User talk:Petemyers.

Could someone with a little time to spare (really not complicated, just a slightly lengthy read) peruse the following threads? At this stage, I believe a block for Cuckoosnest is in order, for continually harassing Petemyers, but like I said I might be too involved now. If I’m way off base, and stifling legitimate discussion, I’d like to know that too. And if you think I deserve criticism for letting it go on so long, you'll only be confirming my current belief, but it would still be useful info.

Threads:

• The entire contents of Talk:Sawston/Archive1
• The now-deleted contents of User talk:Cuckoosnest (admin only; all but one edit were deleted earlier today)
• WP:RSN#Christ Church South Cambs on Talk:Sawston
• User talk:Barneca/Archive 9#Sawston and User talk:Barneca#sawston Churches

Thanks. --barneca (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Barneca asked me if I'd like to comment on this. I will only do so to point out three things -

1. Cuckoosnest has a habit of removing stuff that I or he has previously posted, and I've found - to my frustration - parts of our discussion to be changed retrospectively. This may, or may not, be helpful, but it just means sifting through edit history carefully at points.
2. Cuckoosnest has claimed that his comments about me, CCSC and Tim Chapman are not slanderous/or even negative at points. I have tried to avoid engaging cuckoosnest on what I don't like about what he's saying, other than to say things along the lines of "please don't say things about real people without WP:Verify" and "Wikipedia is not the place for WP:Battle". I won't go into detail here, but, I am very happy to point to particular things cuckoosnest has said that I am not happy with, and why, if that's necessary for this process.
3. Due to the complex history pages about this, I summarised the basic flow of the discussion for Barneca about a week ago. This is obviously written from my perspective, and is naturally disputed by cuckoosnest. But I'm posting it here just in case it is helpful for someone to "get their head around" what's been going on

I think there is certainly a pattern here, unfortunately. I originally put CCSC onto the page, just as one of the churches. I'm a wikiphile, and improving wikipedia is something I like to do. Someone (ip: 194.202.111.18) removed CCSC from the page for e.g.. I just treated this as minor vandalism and put it back on, but that's when I first flagged discussion of the issue of CCSC on the talk page, then, Cuckoosnest stuck a load of anti-CCSC stuff on, which when I found I immediately removed due to the Biography of a Living Person policy, this was the first time I removed something cuckoosnest put in, I'd point out that I immediately moved it straight to the Talk Page, and asked for discussion about it. On the 7th September, Cuckoosnest then made a lot of edits to try and say something inflammatory about CCSC, or to vandalise the reference to it in some way. The history of the Talk Page shows that, every time I undid an edit by cuckoosnest, I tried to call for discussion on the talk page (look at 7th September in the history)... but no discussion was forthcoming. Cuckoosnest's first contribution on the Talk page was only after I'd threatened to, and finally had to, report him/her to the admins. The page was protected after I'd reported cuckoosnest twice, and then you got involved. Petemyers (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, this is Cuckoosnest. I’ve read what has been said. I would like to be able to take the opportunity to defend myself if I may.

I have said why I posted to Wikipedia. I’m happy to be blocked, or to agree not to post again - but I’m not happy for personal insults, implied or overt, to be posted – e.g. – unable to listen to another point of view, dishonest etc. Also, I’m not happy for my motivations to be misrepresented. I don’t feel that I was continuing a dispute – I felt that it was fair enough that I should be able to put forward the reason I posted to Wikipedia, given that I felt I’d been misrepresented. I have witnessed harm come to people from evangelical churches, I had one friend years ago who committed suicide and I have experienced distress caused to vulnerable people from churches or organizations that have very strong viewpoints – and that is a real concern. I did feel, and I realize that this was rightly or wrongly, that people should know what they were getting involved with. It wasn’t my intention to harass, it was my intention to protect.

In my most recent post, I was not attempting to harass.

Please bear in mind that this is a sensitive area. This doesn’t just affect CCSC, it also affects the churches in Sawston . I am not part of the churches in Sawston. I don’t live in Sawston. I think, and would prefer please, that this discussion try and keep away from any comments which are also ‘slanderous and negative’ about other churches in Sawston, because I just feel that that is unfair. Also, there has already been a lot of pain.

I appreciate what PeteMyers is saying in point 2. I feel that I do have a fairly clear idea of what has happened from the persepective of several churches in the Cambridgeshire area. I do feel that I haven’t been dishonest. I do have evidence to back up what I say, but this is sensitive and confidential and so in that sense not verifiable. If PeteMyers wants to go into any further details about things said or not said about CCSC, then, at this point I feel I don’t want to comment. I really don’t want to have a discussion which involves any other churches. I was upset and felt responsible for the indirect comments made about other churches, and regretted my contribution to this. I have apologized for this both on wikipedia and also to the Ely diocese – but the wikipedia apology I made has been removed. However, I appreciate that that does rather mean I can’t comment on anything PeteMyers chooses to say in future about anything I’ve said about him, or CCSC, or Tim Chapman.

I take the point about verification. However, I do feel that if you have a verification rule then this needs to apply to every post, and not just those made by me. On the discussion about whether or not it was correct to say that CCSC were part of the CofE, Barneca asked Pete Myers whether ‘she was correct in thinking that there was some bad blood between the two churches’. Pete Myers said that there was a ‘history of tension’. I do know what happened, but obviously can’t say – but my feeling is that this description was incomplete and also made comments about the other church which I don’t believe are necessarily true, and which also ARE NOT VERIFIABLE . However, the decision on what should be put on Wikipedia was based on Pete Myer’s account of what happened. For example, “I think the very last reference supplied by Petemyers explained the apparent conflict well enough” and “The website of a nearby COE congregation which is, evidently, having a dispute with CSCC makes a point of saying they are the only COE congregation in Sawston”. I do think, but probably can’t say it , and I appreciate that this is my point of view – that it is the case that where you have someone who makes very polarized comments extremely publicly – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2801131.stm there is bound to be dispute all over, not just in Sawston. However, I really don’t know why there is one website saying that they are the only CofE church – whether this is because this is the case, whether this is simply because the website hasn’t been updated since CCSC moved to Sawston, or whether it is because of conflict. I did say that the website was last updated in March 2008, but Barneca didn’t ask PeteMyers the question of when CCSC moved to Sawston, which I believe was April 2008, but I may be wrong. (CCSC, when they were first formed, originally met in Stapleford, a nearby village, and only comparatively recently moved to Sawston).

PeteMyers says that things are ‘naturally disputed by Cuckoosnest’ – but I do feel that things I say are naturally disputed by PeteMyers – and that valid arguments I say are ignored. For example, in the discussion about whether or not CCSC is CofE, I did say that the Ely diocese website had the same url root as the other website – which indicates to me that they may be from the same source and edited bythe same person – but that was ignored.

I am new to wikipedia, and this has been a learning exercise for me. I’m not familiar with all the terms. I didn’t realize that you had to comment straight away.

I know this is going to sound like an insult, but I don’t know how to respond without doing this – but I have actually tried to engage in discussion with CCSC before in real life , and found that I wasn’t listened to – and also that it was ending up as a very polarized debate. I’m genuinely not trying to be insulting here – but I have found that they hold very strong views – and also that their arguments were in some senses legalistic. This is why I’ve was reluctant to engage in a discussion with PeteMyers. I wanted to contact wikipedia but didn’t know how. Cuckoosnest (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Cuckoosnest

Edit to prevent archiving for another 24 hours, in (vain?) hope someone besides the 3 already-involved people actually takes a look. --barneca (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Lav90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Originally posted at WP:AIV) Warned a number of times about issues including providing original research, questionable content without providing citations, and other disruptive edits that are constantly reverted. Today's contributions included deliberate factual errors to South East Queensland against the existing reference, and added Pp-semi-vandalism to Brisbane after a series of questionable edits (is not an admin). Been asked to provide edit summaries a number of times, which seems to be ignored.  SEO^{75 [talk]} 03:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, this user was blocked once for the uploading of copyvio images, then he/she created a new account which was subsequently blocked again for the same reason. After agreeing to review Wikipedia's copyright policy, this user was unlocked. I find one of the main problems with this user is his/her refusal to use edit summaries, and he/she has ignored the several messages on their talk page pleading for them to use edit summaries. MvjsTalking 06:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a diff of the specific edits to clarify. I'll notified them of this thread, but I'm basically close to a last warning and then indefinite block. The edit summaries are typical but this is frankly a block-evading user who should be blocked and told to ask for an unblock at User talk:Tasos90. If they stop editing/are blocked and resume again with another name, it's time for an immediate block and forcing them to pick a single name and stick to it. We've gone outside of policy long enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him. Between two accounts, he's had more than enough warnings. If he starts again with another account, tell me and I'll block that permanently as well. Someone should do a checkuser and block his IP address or something. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Archeopteryx (talk · contribs)

I noticed this users page when replying to a {{helpme}} tag on his talkpage. His user page appears to have his full name as referenced from a previous account he had, and it also gives his birth date, city and state he lives in and even the school he attends. He is not yet 13 years old and I believe he is providing way too much personal information considering his age. I believe the information should be deleted and oversight taken to remove the information from the page history. He is a new editor and appears to be very excited and active in adding to the project. Could someone please take a look at his user page and perhaps address this issue? Thanks. --JavierMC 01:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have left a message on his talkpage concerning this ANI and hope he will remove the information himself. But oversight and deletion of the page history would still need to be taken if he self deletes the material.--JavierMC 02:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Do we have any guidelines for youth? We have userboxes to identify editors as teens, middle-schooler and the like. We certainly can't be a safe haven, but we should give some though to youth protection. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 02:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah...I just read what I thought was a guideline/policy on this but it appears to have failed arbitration in 2006. Perhaps with the message I left on the user talk, he will select to remove the information himself as a protective matter. There being no policy in force, I see that the only thing that can be done is to suggest the user take the action themselves. There really should be some oversight when dealing with minors providing so much personal related data, but alas, there is none at this time.--JavierMC 02:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to make some policy that is clear in re: to this sort of thing. I myself was once ignorant enough to post that kinda information on my userpage, though Alison cleaned it up for me. Perhaps an alteration to mediawiki could display a notice advising user what not to put on thier userpage when they first make it is in order, thoughts?   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 02:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is the previous ArbCom case/discussion Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Protecting_children's_privacy#Proposed_remedies which failed to gain any support because of lack of consensus. I guess my protective nature was invoked, having 3 children of my own, and had thought a policy/guideline was enforce.--JavierMC 03:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Which sprang from Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy; there is also Wikipedia:Privacy and Wikipedia:Respect privacy. I know that on the Help Desk we redact emails and phone numbers for privacy, but there are no actual guidelines that I am aware of. We could start an essay on personal privacy that would include specifics for youth. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

<- I've deleted this user's page, it's pretty shameful that it took so long for an admin to get here. Children in middle school (or people claiming to be one) should obviously not be revealing this much about themselves because of the dangers involved for both us and them. I've offered to send Archeopteryx the last version of their userpage if they want to put one back up sans pinfo. east718 // talk // email // 21:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

On Juliancolton's page. diff [ roux ] [x] 02:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Saw it, blocked 'im for a week, feel free to extend. Ip seems to be claiming to be some big ex-vandal fighter/wikipedian--Jac16888 (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. And I have dwarves living under my house.

Seriously. I hear the little buggers singing at night. HalfShadow 02:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? I have elves in my attic, but they don't sing--Jac16888 (talk) 02:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Elves. Bah; stuck up little tree-huggers... HalfShadow 02:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:ELF? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

[114]?--Jac16888 (talk) 02:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Random ramblings, most likely? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I assume that's somehow directed towards me. Unfortunately, I have no memory for non-entities. HalfShadow 02:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he's a dwarf whose living under your house. Or an elf in my attic --Jac16888 (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Or a bat in the belfry. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Whatever you do, don't toss the dwarves out, as Dwarf-tossing is now an illegal activity. -t BMW c- 09:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

And if you do toss the dwarf, just don't tell the elf. Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Funny, I'd've figured you could get rid of the dwarf without pissing the elf off... -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 19:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• [Note: posted on behalf of Reeluser by Will Beback]

I have been blocked based (apparently) on my ip address by Will Beback, who maintains that since I am using the same IP range as a user that has been blocked, I must therefore be that user. I will state again, that I am not Sfacets, and do not know who that user is. I have requested to be unblocked, but have been denied and am therefore appealing. I don't believe a person's identity can or should be based on an ip address, and if Will Beback has in fact banned a whle range of IP addresses I think there are a lot of banned potential editors of Wikipedia in Sydney Australia. Reeluser (talk) 08:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• I had blocked 60.229.16.214 (talk · contribs) as a sock of blocked Sfacets (talk · contribs · count · api · block log), sock drawer. That IP account posted three unblock requests, all of which were denied. Later, Reeluser (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) complained that he was blocked as a result of the autoblock. He posted two unblock requests and when it came to my attention I blocked the account as well. He's requested another appeal, which I am posting here. There is considerable evidence that Reeluser and Sfacets are the same editor. They share the same IPs and physical location. They have edited in common the same seven obscure articles, even though Reeluser has only made a few edits overall.[115] Sfacets' socks have also tended to make repeated unblock requests. So the IPs are the same, the interests are the same, and the behavior is the same I'm posting this here instead of RfAR, because I expect the ArbCom wouldn't be interested in a routine sock block review. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

When was the IP used by Sfacets?   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 10:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

60.229.16.214 was used by Sfacets (or someone extremely similar to him) from August 23 to October 9. That makes the IP appear relatively static. Reeluser began editing September 10, and stopped when the autoblock hit him. FYI, he's also stated that he continues to edit anonymously using another IP.[116] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Given the level of commonality between their edits, and the fact that they share an identical IP address, I would consider it highly likely that they either Reeluser is Sfacets, or that he is editing specifically at the behest of Sfacets, and either way, the account should be blocked. Endorse the block... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 10:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Same IP plus same content plus previous indef block equals a quack at midnight. This is a good block. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Addendum - I am the administrator who indef'ed Sfacets back in December 07 - I reviewed all of Reeluser's contributions, and I agree that they're very strongly similar in both areas of interest, views on topics, and editing style... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Wacek40 contained personal details of a minor, apparently the owner of the account. Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Protecting_children's_privacy, I've deleted the page and recreated it without that info. If anyone feels this should be oversighted, please do so. I suspect this is enough. Toddst1 (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Since then, blanked by owner. Toddst1 (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the user's going to ditch this account altogether, which is okay by me since they made no problematic contributions. Is there a template appropriate to courtesy blankings, and if so, should it be used for their user & talk pages? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Why was action taken here, but as of yet ignored with my request above Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Archeopteryx?--JavierMC 19:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, there isn't any clear policy covering privacy of minors, only an arbcom ruling saying that identifying material "may" be deleted or oversighted, so admin responses to these matters are bound to be on a case-by-case, voluntary basis. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we get a one-week block on User:Austintruax13 (contribs). All edits by this person are nothing but vandalisms (example). Greg L (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You could ask at WP:AIV, but since they haven't vandalized since their last warning, and that was more than 2.5 hours ago, it is unlikely.  ★  Bigr Tex 20:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The user was warned, and has not edited since being warned. There is no impending need to block if the warning stopped the bad behavior. If the vandalism returns in the future, please report to WP:AIV. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. Clear vandalism-only account, so we don't need to worry about ticking all the boxes in the right order and filing forms in triplicate. Blocked indef. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 20:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Or we could just block the account. Good enough. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed User:Jvdomino adding fake references to a number of articles, all with the link www.mooty.org/rankmaniac. From that page it was clear that this is part of an course assignment to create a page with the highest Google rank for the term "rankmaniac". See "homework 6". Checking Rankmaniac, I see that it has been speedy deleted 3 times since the start of the assignment. Perhaps it could be salted? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks as though it has already been salted. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I guess I should have checked the logs before posting. Doh! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Has anyone told him/her that Google ignores outgoing links from Wikipedia? DendodgeTalk^Contribs 20:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Damn, Carnegie Mellon instructors might want to think through their homework assignments a little more, or rename the course "Introduction to Spamming". —KCinDC (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I thought this was a compromised account--before today, it hadn't edited since early September. Has anyone gotten ahold of the professor? Blueboy96 20:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear, it's not necessarily a Wikipedia page, just a web page. Of course, WP is like a fountain of Google juice, so I expect to see some more actions like this one. Since Rankmaniac is already salted, I don't think there's any admin action necessary. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't all that unusual. As Wikipedia articles regularly rank very high on search engine results, lots of non-notable companies attempt to increase their exposure by creating Wikipedia articles. Happens every day, we delete the pages, ask the users to stop, and block their account names. Just because this happened as part of some weird class project doesn't make it markedly different from the avalanche of spam the site is constantly fending off... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I wish to form an opinion on an unofficial RFC that has developed at Flag of the Republic of Ireland. There is a separate article Flag of Ireland; yet the page Talk:Flag of Ireland redirects me to back to the first article. It is too confusing to have one talk page for two separate articles. I believe (maybe wrong) this is as the result of Admin tools. Can someone unsort this? Lucian Sunday (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Not admin tools, just the redirect leftover from the move of Flag of Ireland to Flag of the Republic of Ireland. I've removed it, so you can now edit there. Note that there is no edit history at Talk:Flag of Ireland, just the redirect and my removal; you may wish to keep discussion centralised on the existing Talk:Flag of the Republic of Ireland page to avoid forest fires and further confusion. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 21:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The following has been copied from WP:WQA as it needs to be dealt with here. My original comments from the WQA are included. Your assistance is appreciated in advance. I have advised Mdd to restore the content, and not merge without consensus, but this has been ignored. -t BMW c- 22:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing (User:Mdd)[edit]

This user is WP:DE trying to oversimplify the broader subject of software development into the narrower scope of software engineering. This user has been making huge edits that lack WP:NPOV without getting buy-in from other users. It started when the user wasn't satisfied with a template that listed software engineering as one of many disciplines related to software development. So the user gave the template a double title [117], implying that all those other disciplines fall under the category of software engineering. Considering the edit history of the software engineering article over the fairness of the classification without certification, it's hardly a neutral point of view to suggest that everything involved in software development is summed up by software engineering. When I reverted the template to what has been accepted for years on wikipedia, the user became more disruptive by replacing the template on the main article and all related articles (again without buy-in) with a template which is obviously WP:POINT. When I reverted to the original of what was accepted yet again, the user got even more disruptive by merging the software development process article that had been active for 8 years into another article, waiting only 3 hours for discussion after the merge suggestion and having no by in. The user used the excuse of wanting to show the example of what the user thought the article should be, but could have used the WP:Sandbox to make the point. The user is now edit warring.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Oicumayberight (talk • contribs)

There are really a lot of false alligations here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Merging articles without consensus is an incredible attempt at WP:OWN. I would have honestly thought that Mdd had been in Wikipedia long enough to know not to do this. That said, this is NOT a civility issue, and should be addressed at WP:ANI -t BMW c- 21:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing (User:Oicumayberight)[edit]

The comments Oicumayberight just made is really the other way around here. I am improving all kinds of articles and he has been referting my work for the past two days.

He doesn't consider what I am writting on the talk pages, and hardly response there. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This appears to clearly be retaliatory. -t BMW c- 21:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Can a neutral administrator take a look at this proposal to move city articles on the AP Stylebook's list of exceptions and determine if we've achieved consensus or not? It looks like 73% of editors are in favor of the mass move, versus 27% opposed. But some of the opposers appear to be "filibustering",... Thanks! Dr. Cash (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

They're probably filibustering because it's a total waste of time serving no useful purpose. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Who needs filibustering? A mere 73% support is enough to torpedo the vast majority of RfA attempts. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

After the previous range block, which was discussed here, expired two days ago, the user is at it again by changing his IPs, this time with 82.132.136.199 and 82.132.136.205. I've been keeping an eye on this user and there's actually a long list of individual blocks before the range block, the former of which proved to be ineffective. It's about time to slam the door shut again, although I'm not sure about how long it should be. The first time was set for a couple of weeks, and it sounded pretty reasonable at the time. ~ Troy (talk) 02:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, and I should note that there should be no hardblocks under any circumstances; like Alison said, that would be too risky. ~ Troy (talk) 05:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's really sad, in retrospect. If I could afford to get an iPhone, I sure as hell would have better things to do than constantly switch it on and off to vandalize Wikipedia. What a sad existence. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's certainly a big waste, but the bad news is, it's still going on. This just happened today by 82.132.136.205. There needs to be an end to this nasty block of vandal edits, but the fact of the matter is that another rangeblock needs to be carefully placed so that there's no collateral damage. We're lucky that no one was negatively affected last time, but that just means that a similar block to the last one should be used; we'll see what happens from then ...and I'll just have to keep my fingers crossed so that we can dodge any risk of collateral damage this time around as well. ~ Troy (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

well, if I were feeling mischievous, I'd see if one of the checkusers could trace the IP back to his phone number, and then give him a call and chat with him about it. it is a phone, after all... or worse, trace it back to his parents (because with edits like that he can't be much over 16) and let them know what good use their son is putting to the hundreds of dollars a year they pour into that device. privacy is one thing, but sometimes you need to dump a little trash in your neighbor's yard to keep them from dumping trash in yours. --Ludwigs2 23:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, it doesn't get any sneakier than that XD But, I guess it's a good thing that he was gullible enough to brag about his iPhone. Actually, I only turned 16 myself a few months ago, to be honest. Still, I have the feeling that this kind of vandalism needs to be combatted in its early stages so that people don't get the idea that they can use just about anything to mess up pages on Wikipedia. I'm glad to have had a part in doing that, but it looks like this little bugger is still relentless enough to keep at it. What a shame. ~ Troy (talk) 23:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

lol - no offense to your age group. people of any age can be mature, but this kind of immaturity speaks for itself. personally, I wish there was some way to bring these people into the fold (so to speak). my guess is he or she is just bored and doesn't mean much harm; just looking for some entertainment by mindlessly annoying people. in the real world s/he'd get over it quickly (because it's really more interesting to work with people that to annoy them), but on the net everything is too distanced. such is life... --Ludwigs2 00:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

None taken, but I understand what you mean :) There does need to be a way to include ppl in my age group, but I'm (thankfully) use to Wikipedia's basic principles by now. Of course, we can't say for sure how old the guy is or what his/her exact motive is, or much else in that matter, but that's what would led me to a Checkuser. Alison did checkuser it before, though, just to clarify things. ~ Troy (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't usually like to report people but can somebody please get this guy off my back. He keeps branding afd message at me see here, I'm not interested and now he has become offensive and making fun of my contributions to wikipedia when I;ve tried to tell him I don't create articles which can't be expanded and have some encyclopedic value. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Mr Blofeld--if that IS your real name--I've done nothing except respond to the messages that you yourself keep leaving on my talk page. If you didn't want responses from me, you oughtn't have left messages for me. If you didn't want your contributions questioned, you ought to avoid bragging about them and using them as some sort of evidence of your superiority. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It was precisely because you were questioning my contributions and mocking stubs I have created that I replied to indicate you I am neither a newbie nor a lousy editor and happen to be one of the good editors on here capable of producing FA quality content. If you think my claims are unfounded and I am not experienced in developing good content and am not aware of what is suitable for wikipedia try asking around. What I don't like is being hounded and made to look like I'm the bad guy for trying to help develop wikipedia in all areas. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Both of you, please leave each other be if you can't get on. CW, please don't patronize or make fun of someone because of their edits here - and don't template the regulars. And Blofeld, don't engage in discussion if such messages annoy you. There's no admin intervention needed here - just both of you please stop petty squabbling. Thank you. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What Hdytto said. Leave each other alone, the pair of you. CalendarWatcher, if Blofeld removes your comment on his talk page, that is fine; it indicates he has read it, and you do not need to repost it. Blofeld, I suggest you stop leaving messages on CalendarWatcher's talk page castigating him/her for AFD-nominating an article you started. If the topic is notable, and the article shows this, it will be kept. You are obviously aware of this, so snarky messages don't help any. fish&karate 14:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have reposted nothing on Blofeld's talk page except the thread leading up to my last response--context is important, isn't it?--and that only once, so I resent the implication that I am in any way, shape, or form 'hounding' him: responding directly to someone's messages, one at a time, isn't 'hounding', it's reciprocity. As for templating the regulars, you'll have to take that up with the creators of Twinkle and have them put in an automatic 'experienced editor' detector for its automatic placement of talk-page messages. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was a bit premature bringing it here, it looked like I was going to be continuously drilled the messages which I removed. Not even editing anything related to it or the editor at the moment so problem over. Sorry to press your time. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please review this editors recent contributions ? They seem to have been editing and amending articles with little or no adherence to certain WP guidelines - WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:FAN etc. They have been repeatedly warned and even recently blocked for 24 hours for this activity, but it seems it's still continuing. I raised the recent edits with the admin who originally blocked them - their response can be seen here: User_talk:Jennavecia#User:_Shrik88music and, based on their response, have brought the matter here in case any further warning / blocking etc. is deemed appropriate. CultureDrone (talk) 14:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you please provide specific diffs as to which edits you find problematic, and can you explain why they are a problem. I spot checked a few, and don't see any blatant vandalism. More backround as to what the problem is, accompanied by diffs, would help us administrators act intelligently on the problem. Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry- yes, providing information would probably be useful ! Specifically, the edits to Rajesh Khanna, more generally the use of words like 'superhit' and 'superstar' with no sources to back it up - e.g. Babu (film). I'm sure Jennavecia could provide more background to earlier issues - but I'm unwilling to risk her blood pressure :-) CultureDrone (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note - I've just reverted the Rajesh Khanna article as the author had reinstated the previously unverified, unreferenced, POV, fan material. I'd rather not head into a potential 3RR, so any admin feedback would be appreciated CultureDrone (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I blocked User: Shrik88music for 72 hours for edit warring, as he has repeatedly attempted to return his preferred version of the articles over the status quo versions, and has not, as yet, attempted to discuss this conflict on any talk pages. As always, this is open to review by other admins. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so here's the background I have to offer. I came upon Rajesh Khanna while Huggling a few days ago and noticed what a mess it was, so I did some clean up, trimming and tagging. It was a battle after that. I had been discussing the issues both on and off-wiki with Shrik88music (talk · contribs · block log). I can't tell if the IPs working on the article are his or not. Ignoring the less important issue of the ridiculous spacing and punctuation that still has not been explained to me, I have warned him repeatedly to stop putting original research into the article, explained to him what additions violate NPOV, what our verification policy is about and what constitutes a reliable source. He ignored these warnings resulting in his original block placed by me. Off-wiki, he provided me with several sources, which I added to the article during his block. However, he did not understand why the sources were not good enough to cover all of his claims. I explained that they don't read what all he claims in the article, so that he cannot include such information until he finds a source that does. He seemed unable to understand that his contributions to the article were OR, so I explained our COI policy to him. Adamant that he does not have a COI, he asked me to please just let him be an exception so that he may share all of the information he knows about this legendary Indian Superstar to the world. That is, he said, he sole aim. (His words).

I ended up throwing my hands up at the whole thing. Among other things, I was frustrated with the hours spent explaining our policies and telling him not to make the same changes to the article that he made before; to take care to follow the MOS, or at least attempt to get the spacing right, not to list dozens of movies in prose when there's a filmography at the end, not to use editorializing comments and personal opinion such as "legendary", "great", and "perfectly" (i.e. "He easily used to put both simplicity and glamour in the each character played by him."), and I explained that he needed links to show what movies were successful and which were not, yet he continued to make the same changes. لennavecia 01:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Could some experienced admin take a look at this: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser#Possible_socks_around_Kuzhinapurath-related_articles. It may not be worth the hassle getting to the bottom of it, but if someone has the time to spare... Thanks, and (FYI) I'm signing off for the day. VG ☎ 23:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

GOOD GRIEF. User:Einsteindonut was involved? I knew he was disruptive, but I didn't see that one coming. He was in it with another user who used socks, but ...I didn't know he had a band of socks of his own. This happens far too often ...I'm sorry, but that's just SAD, how often this kind of abuse happens. ~ Troy (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? You response seems to be about entirely something else? --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes. Sorry about that. It was unrelated, but was on the same page. Still, I was a little caught of gaurd to learn that one. In regards to this issue, I guess I don't know enough about it to say much. ~ Troy (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

[118] - does anyone have anything to say about this? --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That guy sounds like a jerk. You could try talking to him, though. His editing looks to be disruptive, but more importantly, his block log says that one admin says he is a sock and another unblocked him with, of course, an honest reason for that. You could try notifying both of them about this. ~ Troy (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Making a new account that is notably similar to an established editor (and an admin in this case) = Block for Naming Policy vio. Wouldn't this fall under that same policy, since the user has expressly called out the connection? Arakunem^Talk 23:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked under WP:IU. If he wants to return under a new name, he can do it with a username that isn't a veiled attack on someone else. Black Kite 00:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Of course this user will probably return as a sock, but at least the problem is resolved for now. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I gave a stern warning to an IP address for a sneaky vandalism edit to Meghan McCain found here. Received the following taunt to my user page here. I would not like to receive these taunts in the future, suggest 24 hr block. Switzpaw (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandal 68.180.123.225 is active, see here. Switzpaw (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

They considerably overestimate their own anonymity. If this happens again, rangeblocking their entire apartment complex might help. Alternatively, you might want to point them to [119]. WHOIS is your friend. -- The Anome (talk) 01:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandal has resurfaced here. I'll cross post this to AIV. I don't want to go through the trouble of contacting the ISP's abuse, can't admins do that? Switzpaw (talk) 01:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked that one too. Bencherlite^Talk 01:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's see how big their DHCP pool is: I've just blocked 68.180.123.0/24. If they give you any more trouble, just ask here again, and someone will make wider blocks as necessary. -- The Anome (talk) 01:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

68.180.122.0/23 is within range.. diff Switzpaw (talk) 01:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. 68.180.118.0/23, 68.180.120.0/22, 68.180.124.0/23 should cover NET-68-180-118-0-1. -- The Anome (talk) 01:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep. That's what it says per WHOIS query on NET-68-180-118-0-1. ~ Troy (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Rodtheanimegod4ever (talk · contribs) is making threats to User:Metros. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I turned him in to WP:AIV. They might deny on the grounds that no warning was issued, but it's clear that it's a vandalism-only account. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked by User:Georgewilliamherbert. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this was clearly someone up to no good. Bye bye. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Relating to the thread above about Cuckoosnest (talk · contribs), but not wishing to derail it: this is the latest case of a user putting a db-u1 or g7 on their talk page and one of us deleting it. Twice in recent memory I've declined a U1/G7 on a usertalk page (but courtesy blanked), twice I've been reverted by the user in question and twice a fellow admin has come along and deleted the page. And twice the user has returned to disruptive editing, only now with a clean slate.

I can see many reasons for granting RTV requests, so long as the user actually Vs; but I can see little point in us extending extra rope to people to wipe their talk pages and then go back about their business as if they hadn't been told to pull their necks in. This is just gaming the system, AFAICT.

I may be on the wrong side of consensus on this matter, wouldn't be the first time, won't be the last, but I'm sure we used to say "no deleting user talk pages", yet now we seem to do it not uncommonly: even after a fellow admin has denied the request. Time for a change (back)? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 20:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo made the change to permit deletion of talk pages [120] in RTV situations, so I might ask him his reasoning. MBisanz ^talk 20:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Even with Jimbo's instructions on the matter, if a vanished user returns under a new guise, they are no longer "vanished". I see no problem with deleting a talk page for a truly vanished user; however once the user returns under a new username, then the old talk page history should be restored for all to see, and the connection to the new account should be made clear. As noted, RTV does not mean the right to return with a tabula rasa... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There was a pretty notable case regarding this recently, although the returned user -- who vowed not to return to disruptive editing practices -- has held up his end of the bargin. Not always true in other cases. seicer | talk | contribs 20:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jayron32, even if we're talking about the case Seicer mentions in which a return does not include returning to the same disruptive behavior. Otherwise we're creating a loophole where someone can "vanish" to get their talk page deleted, then come back in a week, whereas someone just asking to have their talk page deleted would see their request refused. Whichever we do, let's be consistent.--chaser - t 21:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Users only have a right to vanish if they stay vanished. If they reappear, whether under an existing account or a new one, then they just go back to being ordinary editors, and previously deleted talk pages should probably be restored. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above. Leaving a page deleted after an RTV user returns goes against the spirit of several other policies, including WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY, for one. In fact, I notice further down that page it explicitly states (under the "Clean start under a new name" header) "Note that the "right to vanish" does not cover this, and repeated switching of accounts is usually seen as a way of avoiding scrutiny and considered as a breach of this policy." Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I wonder whether there exists a consensus for the change Jimbo made; inasmuch as it doesn't appear that he was acting on behalf of the Foundation (although I suppose that the Foundation might informally take a position, at least to counsel deletion of the user talk pages of vanished users where an OTRS request is made), the community are, of course, welcome to overrule him. Practice, from which policy, descriptive as it is, should follow, has (or had) been, as Redvers observes, against the categorical deletion of user talk pages upon a user's vanishing (courtesy blanking [with history preservation] suffices to balance appropriately a user's desire to vanish against the community's interest in preserving user talk pages as records of discussions a review of some of which might sometime prove useful), and insular changes to that practice cannot be understood as reflecting a revision of the community's views on the matter (especially if deletions are being undertaken explicitly without reference to what might be the views of the community and only in view of Jimbo's having offered a clarification to [or, really, change of] RTV). Joe 22:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed before, at WT:RTV#Meta. That discussion was about individuals vanishing accounts and returning with new usernames and their old talk pages deleted and rejected the practice as bad application of RTV. That said, the discussion is against the apparent backdrop of admins deleting talk pages upon request under certain circumstances not stated at WT:RTV.--chaser - t 22:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The right to "vanish" is only extended to users "in good standing". I suggest that "good standing" be interpreted as "no negative administrative actions taken against them in the last year". If someone not in good standing requests that their account vanish, it should be blocked for a year, to keep their record visible, then vanished. This will prevent abuse of the right to vanish. --John Nagle (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It was allowed for users in very bad standing to allow them to leave with some remaining dignity. That of course means that they don't return. I have undeleted a talk page, when such a user has returned and advocate this as standard practice. Ty 07:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Extending the privilege of "vanishing" to users in "very bad standing" creates problems, which is why this discussion started. Anyone can blank their talk page, put up a "retired" box, and stop editing. Rarely will anyone look at the history of their talk page ever again. That's the normal way to leave quietly. Since we don't have real identity verification on Wikipedia, we have to rely on history information to identify bad actors who appear to leave but really are just using a new identity. There should be some significant delay before a bad history is purged. One year seems about right. --John Nagle (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

After looking at WP:VANISH, it struck me that Wikipedia doesn't offer any useful guidance on how to close an account. The essay right to leave isn't particularly helpful. WP:VANISH is in most cases overkill. Most of the time, the appropriate action is for a user to replace their talk page with a "Retired" box. But we offer no guidance that says that. So users are requesting a "vanish" as if it were normal practice. This is really a documentation bug. I've started a discussion on this on the WP:VANISH talk page. --John Nagle (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've always felt that we should only delete the talk pages when there is an issue. It's easy enough to rename and protect a user talk page, and they're no longer indexed (even if they were, we could use {{NOINDEX}}). Jimbo's "change" says they can be deleted, not that they should be deleted. -- Ned Scott 05:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where to report this. A user, User:Rlogan2 has been making some unconstructive edits. Specifically, he is going to pages and removing any redlinks he finds. I reverted them on a page with a constructive comment, but he reverted it back- in this example, the edit comment was "what is the point of having a link to a page that doesnt exist.". I then reverted again and placed a nice note on his talk page, which he promptly removed. This isn't just a problem with this one page- his edit history shows that he's been going all over wikipedia doing that- here are some samples: 1, 2, 3. Not all of this user's work is detrimental, but the redlink work (and ignorance of users who try to protect them) seem counterproductive to Wikipedia as a whole. I don't know what else to do, since I've tried to contact the user on his talk page in a nice manner. Tedder (talk) 04:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait on this one; he has not removed any redlinks since you messaged him on his talk page and while he did revert your edit to his talk page, users are generally given a great tolerance in how they manage their talk page —I think it is rather rude to just remove other users comments but we can not force them to host material they don't want there— and it is quite possible that even though he reverted your warning he will abide by it as it does not seem that he knew the Wikipedia policy on this issue, which you linked him too. Icewedge (talk) 05:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Icewedge. I'm more than happy to wait. I completely understand the tolerance about the user page. If the behavior continues I'll post a new thread here and reference the old one (assuming it has been archived). Tedder (talk) 05:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Got editconflicted but I notified him of this thread. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay here's the issue. I see red links honestly as more detrimental than not having them. I think it makes the site as a whole pointless if there are links to a page that people would like to see but haven't yet created...i feel it's pointless to keep them there when in truth they can search for a certain page, and create it themselves. if you had a business selling goods, would you keep a label there identify it and pricing it as if to sell it if there was anything there and more than likely wouldn't be there?? no you wouldn't and this is the exact reason to why i take them off..--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, that's the whole point of redlinks ...they're proof that Wikipedia is not finished, and they encourage others to create articles. 99% of the articles I have created (even as stubs) came from redlinks. -t BMW c- 22:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: I find your signature (which is not your actual userid) pretty offensive...-t BMW c- 22:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

And further, see the Wikipedia:Red link guideline: "Do create red links to articles you intend to create, technical terms that deserve more treatment than just a dictionary definition, or topics which should obviously have articles". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

(going back to the top of the thread, marking unresolved too). Note rlogan has reverted redlinks on another page, after the warning (but before he posted here). Tedder (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

And another one today. Tedder (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I left him a message on his talk page. The list one I'm concerned about. Otherwise, I mentioned the important of Wikipedia:Most wanted articles (which wouldn't work at all) and figure that everything else should go on an article-by-article basis, at least in my view. If it's still a problem (you've discussed it with him and things aren't changing and others agree), I'd suggest some other dispute resolution method as this is way too early for admins to get involved. All in my view though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem and I could use some advice. User:Simulation12 is running amok, creating all sorts of cruft, making bad redirects, removing content, being snotty, etc. She claims to be in elementary school, so I've cut her some slack. Well, looking at her contributions today, I could barely find a single edit that didn't need to be removed, reverted, or cleaned up massively. Near the end of my rope, I left a message on her talk page. Her reply was quite clear.

Clearly I'm now an "involved admin", so if there's blocking to be done I'm not the one to do it, but if you check out the histories of the articles she's been on, it's pretty clear that we have a seriously misguided user who is not in the mood to take advice. Maybe she'll take it from someone else, but from her talkspace edits I highly doubt it. Would anyone else care to try? Gladys J Cortez 01:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I reported at WP:AIV and recommended a short attention-getting block, but they might advise differently. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The admin blocked that user for 3 hours. We'll see if that gets the user's attention sufficiently. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I helped clean up the motion sickness thing. I think it was an ill-conceived and poorly implemented attempt to make it into a disambiguation page. She just copied the text to the newly created page rather than moving the page. And of course even if she'd done it that way it would have been a bad idea. So on that I'm still willing to AGF. —KCinDC (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yo, an IP claiming to be Edward Nilges, aka banned user spinoza1111 (talk · contribs) is disrupting the Rand article. If an admin could please stop the ban evading by technical means it would be most appreciated. Regards, the skomorokh 17:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The individual is now promising to "alter the Rand article at-will until it is locked". A semi-protection might be appropriate, along with an IP block of some variety. the skomorokh 18:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Article semi-protected by me[121], currently active IP blocked by Theresaknott: [122]. Keep us aprised if this spreads to other locations or IPs. Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much to you both. I'm certain we haven't seen the last of the esteemed Mr. Nilges.the skomorokh 18:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think admins need to put the talk page of this article on their watchlists and block and revert all IP edits on sight. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, but that sounds like a really bad idea. How about we revert all vandalism ip edits on sight? ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 18:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't make myself clear. Let's revert all edits that are obviously by him, and block the IP on sight. Any other edits by different IPs should of course be left alone. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

We could certainly use a few admins monitoring the page once a week or so—this episode has been going on for months and is likely to continue when the IP block expires 30 hours from now. I would be against semi-protecting the talkpage however, as the cost of annoyance is worth the potential benefit of valuable contributions from other IP's. the skomorokh 18:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I wondered when he'd turn up again. I suggest people watchlist his home ip (User:202.82.33.202), which is fixed. Its block expires next month.--Atlan (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

And he's back. This has been going on since 2006. Any advice from editors experienced in these areas would be most welcome. the skomorokh 15:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? 'Niggles' is racist? Since when? Doug Weller (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It's an affront to people who are not occupied with trifles or petty details ;-) Tan | 39 15:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

[ec]I presume it was meant in the British sense of "minor irritations" and taken as a slander against Negros, an ethnic group of which Edward is not a member. Doug, you're an admin, can you block the latest IP, per WP:EVADE? the skomorokh 16:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Beat you to it: [123]. Toodles. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

He has contacted my by email, when I replied that as a banned user he was not welcome to edit wikipedia he accused me of being a cultist. Oh well. I've blocked the latest sock and reverted his vandalism of niggle. Actually I don't know why we even have an article like that as it seems to be a dictionary definition. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely abhor situations where people try and play the racism card when it does not belong. Heck, even with my family background, I have someone referring to me as a racist on their Talk page after their argument broke down. Dang, I hate it. Get rid of the dictionary definition PDQ as well. -t BMW c- 11:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Good thing he wasn't accused of being "niggardly". However, keep in mind that "niggle" is a British expression that the user may never have heard of (nor had I, until this discussion came up), so he may sincerely believes that someone is making an epithet out of his name, or he may just be using this to further stir things up (either or both is possible). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he sincerely believes it at all. But no matter. Revert block ignore will deal with him. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 12:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Forsooth! Where's your AGF? (Probably headed south, like mine.) RBI. So it has been written. So it shall be done. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_October_23 - please continue discussion there
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If you'll have a look at the montage image in the upper right of that article Image:Companions EP vinyl cover.jpg is being used to portray all the various companions of Doctor Who. It's a montage of 38...yes that's right, 38...fair use images. Twice today I've removed it from that article, citing policy at WP:NFCC #3a regarding minimal use and WP:NFCC #8 regarding significance, and citing guideline at Wikipedia:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles which has a clear statement regarding strong opposition to montage images of fair use images to get around limitations on high numbers of fair use images. I've been reverted twice, once by User:Ckatz and once by User:Edokter. Both users claim that it isn't a list (though it exists in Category:Lists of Doctor Who characters and Category:Lists of fictional sidekicks) and therefore the policy and guideline doesn't apply. But the policy doesn't say anything about non-lists being excluded from minimal use and significance. I'm really not up for an edit war, but this image is a blatant violation of our policies and guidelines on this sort of usage. I can't think of ANY article on Wikipedia that can justify the use of 38 fair use images, and the fact this this montage is one image made up of 38 fair use images doesn't excuse it from overuse of fair use images. Somebody intervene please? Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 02:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC) This might not help any, but have you gone to the project talk page to ask about this? They are a pretty active project and I'm sure a few people there can be convinced that this collage is basically a non-free image gallery. If you don't get any traction there, I would list it at IfD. Protonk (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC) While the fair use doctrine is far from entirely clear, I'm quite certain the collage qualifies. It is for educational or critique purposes, they are low-resolution stills of a television program, they are a trivial portion of the copyrighted work as a whole and they do not affect the market value of the work. It passes all legal tests without so much as a doubt. The question of whether the image also meets the more stringent NFCC criteria is also clear: there can be no free equivalent, the use is minimal (a single still per companion to illustrate), and it is used in an article. Respecting copyright is very important, but let's not get carried away either. — Coren (talk) 03:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC) On the surface, 38 might well sound like a lot of images. However, one has to put it in the proper context if we are to judge this fairly. How many other television series have had 50 or more main characters (if you incorporate the 10 actors who have played the Doctor)? Furthermore, what are the alternatives? These actors appeared at different times over a forty year period, so there is no such thing as a "cast photo" to substitute and no possible way to obtain one. As for the argument that this is a list, one cannot make that call simply because of a category; one has to look at the article as a whole. Doing so, it is clear that it is first and foremost an article about companions that happens to incorporate a list. The images are not being used to decorate the list; in fact, they are no-where near the list section. The DW project is one of the most active projects in the Television section, and as such it would have been far more appropriate to address the issue there first. As Coren said, we must not get carried away. --Ckatzchatspy 04:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC) This is why we try not to use arbitrary numbers for our image use guidelines and policies. 38 sounds like a lot, but in this situation it seems fine to me. -- Ned Scott 04:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC) Also, lets not forget that there is no ban on fair use images for "list of" articles, or ones that appear to be lists. What an image contributes is often subjective, making blanket removals not the best course of action. -- Ned Scott 04:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC) My take: given that nearly every companion has his/her own page that's not going to go away due to lack of notability, and each with a picture, there's conflict with NFCC here. The montage might look nice, but it is the equivalent of 38 non-free images, and companion pictures can be found elsewhere, so that's not minimal use. If there was a single BBC-provided image that demonstrated companions better, that would be acceptable, but this is really a bad example (particularly when we tell other character list editors to restrict pictures to one or two cast montages). --MASEM 04:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC) That was easily fixed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 23, 2008 @ 04:42 That's worse. You can't just create a derivative version of 38 fairuse images and claim CC on it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC) Please tell me what to list and I will list it. I figured since I created that image (via copying, which I mentioned), I could claim CC. I was wrong, obviously, let me know what to switch it to. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 23, 2008 @ 04:47 You don't own the copyright on the material just because you copy/pasted it, so you can't relicense it. It should ideally go away (Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #4, plus it's an unnecessary duplication of the existing images). -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC) Not what I asked....what Licensing should I put down? Also, removing each and every idea that people come up with doesn't fix the use of 38 fair-use images in one page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 23, 2008 @ 04:53 You'd have to put a fairuse tag on it, not a license. But like I said, it violates the fair-use criteria and doesn't do anything positive. If you took that personally, I'm sorry. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC) It's still a non-free image - however, because you created it out of 38 separate images, it is basically the same 38 uses of non-free content even if it is a single image. That's why user-created "cast" montages are explicitly discouraged since the derivative work concept becomes difficult to untangle. --MASEM 04:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC) Didn't take it personal, just don't like seeing 38 fair-use images on one page. I updated the licensing on "my" image. For the time being (until a better idea can be come up with) I think it is the best alternative to 38 fair-use images on one page...and I am a little biased :). - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 23, 2008 @ 05:00 Sorry, but again it's not really an alternative. It violates WP:FUC as it's not an image that appears elsewhere, and it's still 38 instances of fair use material. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC) Then I leave it to you, because to me...and again I could be biased here...38 fair-use images doesn't sounds like a great alternative when you have one fair-use image. Both ideas suck, just one sucks less. I tried. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 23, 2008 @ 05:11 It's not basically a non-free image gallery,it is a non-free image gallery of 38 copyrighted images. Most of these characters have their own articles, and most of them already have a non-free image in them. Duplication is therefore overuse, however you look at the situation. I'm a little concerned that those who think this is OK includes admins, who I'd expect to understand WP:NFCC. I'm pretty sure this wouldn't be an issue if this was a discography of album covers for an obscure band,rather than a Doctor Who article, as well. Since it's a fairly blatant violation, my inclination would be to send it to IfD, where WP:ILIKEIT wouldn't be such an issue. Black Kite 12:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC) It occurs to me that the reader might remember a face but not a name. So you would force the reader to look through 38 articles to try to find the one he's looking for, rather than having this one-stop-shop guide. How does that serve the reader's interests? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC) Not really relevant. It would probably serve the reader's interests best if we simply ignored copyright and always used whatever image was helpful, but that doesn't mean we should do that.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC) Oh, I forgot, wikipedia's purpose is not to serve its readers, but to serve itself. Thanks for the reminder. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC) That's a fair point but *not* a consideration of fair use as I understand the term. The law wins over readability. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia's fair use rules have very little to do with legalities. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC) Yes, and everything to do with being a free content encyclopedia, which is far, far more restrictive than fair use law. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC) The user brought up "the law". He's under the mistaken impression that wikipedia fair use policy has something to do with fair use laws. It doesn't. It's strictly wikipedia's own decisions about the use of images. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC) I'm absolutely astonished that there's people who actually think this montage is acceptable. You know, if I broke out every single one of these images, and put all 38 resulting images next to the appropriate characters at Companion_(Doctor_Who)#List_of_Television_companions, this wouldn't even be a discussion. The images would be gone, period. But since it's a montage it has some special standing? It has no special standing just because it's a montage!!! If it was a montage created by the BBC, then fine. That's *one* copyrighted work. We're dealing with __38__ copyrighted images here. This should be a no-brainer. Come on people. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the correct venue for image deletion debates. I've taken it to Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_October_23 with my 2p worth. I've also copied this debate across to that page, so please continue the discussion there instead. Papa November (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Samanthadecanta is threatening legal action on her talk page. The issue is that an article she created was deleted through AfD, and she apparently feels that she is being unfairly censored. She is also claiming inappropriate conduct on the part of other editors (deleting her comments, though I see no evidence of such), as well as religious persecution (even though she is the only one who has brought religion into the discussion). 71.233.6.118 (talk) 11:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The user has now been explicitly advised, by another user, that legal threats are not permitted. Your "good luck" unfortunately may have left the user with the impression that legal threats are no big deal. They are. It's a blockable offense. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked and warned about relevant policies Papa November (talk) 13:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)