I have been trying to mediate a dispute, which you can see here. Unfortunately, the party who asked for mediation, KingsleyMiller (talk · contribs), subsequently decided he didn't want mediation - and without both sides of a party agreeing, mediation is pretty much useless. He pulled out of mediation because one of the participants used a mild swear word in an edit summary (not directed at anyone, actually themselves). The dispute is around a number of pages, chiefly Attachment theory, Maternal deprivation, Attachment in children, John Bowlby, and Michael Rutter. All these articles are a mess, and if you look at their histories and talk pages, you can see most of this is due to KingsleyMiller, who has a very definite point of view on these articles, and neither our NPOV policy or the MOS can get in his way. With mediation having failed, I'm not sure of the next step to take. The dispute was sent to WP:3O twice with no luck (one of the 3O regulars, HelloAnnyong, had as little luck with Kingsley as anyone else). A message to the Psychology wikiproject had no responses; all the psychology people who want to be involved already are, and have had no luck. Traditionally, RFCs on obscure psychology topics get no response. I am running out of options - as best I can see it, there are three. 1) Leave it to sort out itself (this is unlikely), 2) Take to Arbcom (huge administrative effort and a possibility they won't actually accept it, as it's quite complicated and is a combination of content and conduct issues) or 3) Block Kingsley indefinitely, for extensive tendentious editing and refusal to work with others, on the condition that if he swears to stop edit-warring he can be unblocked. I am inclined towards three, but I've never really blocked for this sort of thing in over two years as an admin, so I could really do with someone else (ideally, a couple of others) taking half an hour to look at things and see what they think. See Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-04-25_Attachment_theory#Closed and sections above it for the background. If nobody is willing to take a look, then I am probably going to go with my own judgment and block Kingsley. Neıl 龱 18:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsley, in his "withdrawal" contribution to the mediation page, links to a website providing the text and some dialogue of a number of County Court and Court of Appeal judgments. These judgments pertain to the attempts by a Mr Miller to secure various rights as a parent (from what I can see). I've asked Kingsley if he is the same Mr Miller on his talk page. Past versions of this user's page may provide another insight for anybody interested. Now, for my part, I feel that I agree most closely with Neil's third point. From what I can see, Kingsley is a user with an agenda to get his viewpoint into the relevant articles at any cost. He ignores sourcing guidelines and verifiability, and suggests that sources which he disagrees with should be ignored. This is in fact a common basis of disputes onwiki, but Kingsley's refusal to give up or make any concessions in his fight makes his relationship with this project, in my view, for the moment untenable. I think that he is determined to take "his case" to the "highest court" in wiki-land - the ArbCom, and he used my moment of madness using the word "fuck" in an edit summary (as Neil notes, though I should say I'm not a participant in the psych dispute) to drag the case up to ArbCom from which is was promptly thrown out. Attempts have been made at 3O. This only works if the parties are happy to accept the opinion of the third party, but Kingsley seems to refuse to accept this fact. Any attempt at dispute resolution around this user is a total failure. The only other possible option open that I can see is a block-enforceable topic ban from all Psychology related articles. Kingsley has become too much of a burden for the Project, and especially so for some of the members of the Psych wikiproject who have had to put up with him for so long. Thanks, Martinp23 19:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming your summary of "extensive tendentious editing and refusal to work with others" is accurate, then I think a block (or series of escalating blocks leading up to an indefinite block if he doesn't get the message) wouldn't be inappropriate. I'll take a look at the referenced pages and weigh in again after. As a note, I've notified KingsleyMiller of this discussion (as should have been done before) and refactored the header to describe the thread. Avruch^T * ^ER 19:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I would say you hit the nail on the head with that description just based on the mediation pages. One person with a personal stake who refuses to adhere to policies can't be allowed to turn a number of articles into wreckage and then refuse mediation. Its obvious he sees Wikipedia as a battleground where he can push his point of view, and is not willing to even consider that the content of articles should be based only on reliable sources. If he refuses to cooperate and continues to make tendentious edits and reverts to various articles in the scope of child psych/parenting (essentially, anything related to his court case) then there may be no way around an indefinite block. Avruch^T * ^ER 19:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indef block, and quickly! I haven't taken the time to review the links, but am responding to the last sentence by Avruch above - this person has an ongoing court case and is altering a public knowledge resource base on subjects relating to the case. It would not be good publicity for WP if this person was to refer to articles in court they have themselves have edited, and it wouldn't be very good for law generally if this were allowed. I shall enact the block immediately. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is it called when an admin tries to block someone who is already blocked? Not an edit conflict - maybe a block conflict? Either way, I just had that happen to me. Good block. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the notice I placed on User:KingsleyMiller's talkpage. It spells out my concerns, but I would welcome any other editors amendment of same in case I have been a little OTT. Regarding that, does anyone think that running this matter past Mike Godwin is of any benefit? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If indeed Kingsley is the same Mr Miller as in the cases (likely, yes, but it's an assumption I attempted to avoid above - the existence of a brother is a distinct possibility), then this block for "ongoing court case" has no basis at all, in that the last time the Mr Miller referenced on that website appeared in court was in 2004. I'd suggest that he's simply trying to get his favoured theory a wider audience.. I don't honestly think there's anything malicious behind it. That's not to say that a topic ban or block/ban is inappropriate though - see my comments above. Martinp23 20:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He did refer on the mediation page (in his withdrawal notice, I think) to his personal involvement in the court proceedings, so based on that I assume its him. No reason at the moment to believe the case(s) might be ongoing, his description of final orders and links to the documents suggest otherwise. Avruch^T * ^ER 20:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmhm I'm being perhaps overly cautious given my past run-in with the user :) His user page does confirm that he is the person in the cases. Martinp23 20:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under the circumstances I think the block should remain until the editor promises to contribute per WP:NPOV, WP:MoS, and consensually with other parties. I think they might need pointing toward WP:COI, as well. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) Sounds ok. The difficulty here is that he wants to insert "The Truth" into articles. By all means if he'll agree to the conditions we can give it a go, but I hold out little hope. Would a topic ban work, or is it something for a later date? Martinp23 21:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick review of the editors contributions does not indicate an interest outside of these related subjects, so a topic ban may only be a block with a serious temptation to game/avoid. I think a straight block is "cleanest" and fairest (and one which can be challenged). I have amended the original block reasons per the discussion above but I think this is as far as dispute resolution can go. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be little late coming into this discussion but as one of the mediators listed i wanted to give my view. Personally my first thoughts are that a topic ban would be the best approach in conjunction with enforcing blocks if the ban isn't complied with. It may not be the "cleanest" method, topic bans rarely are, but it would allow him to improve issues and in my opinion the slim possibilty of getting a good converted editor rather than possible future sock puppeteering is worth it. I would would even offer myself to keep an eye on the situation. I don't contest the indef block but i do feel that perhaps a topic ban could be a better way out. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 23:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at this case last night (took a lot longer than half an hour, Neil!) and I endorse this block. Leaving aside the legal concerns, this is a tendentious editor who appears to be trying to use Wikipedia to push a very specific POV. I think he should remain blocked until he indicates he has read, understands and agrees to comply with our policies and guidelines and then once unblocked kept an eye on to ensure he doesn't backslide. The various talk pages, the mediation and ArbCom requests and so forth show someone who is pushing a barrow with a singular focus. The fact he withdrew his participation in a mediation case he requested because someone swore in an edit summary, the long screeds and bureaucratic nonsense (like complaints over the use of the word "editor" and this [1] kind of nonsense that is surely intended to tie other editors up in knots until they give up in frustration) gave me the impression of someone using obstructionist tactics to outlast (outwit, outplay?) their opponents, rather than someone genuinely coming to the table to reach a consensus. So I endorse the block and I think he should remain blocked until he agrees to edit within our policies and guidelines. Sarah 05:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone have issue with deleting the userpage as a soapbox? That's what it is, and I'm going to do so. Prostylitizing and self-victimizing, with delusions of grandeur thrown in for fun. Keegan^talk 05:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for helping - I am quite glad to see my initial instinct was right, although disappointed Kingsley's conduct led to this. Neıl 龱 10:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have come to this matter extremely late, though I did give an external (informed) view to User:Fainites about any relationships there might be between maternal deprivation and attachment theory just over a month ago as a result of one aspect of a dispute in this area. Although I worked extensively with child psychologists and child psychiatrists up to retirement, and I am a psychologist, I have never joined the psychology project nor really edited any psychology articles, because of my impression of them being that they would be "too hard a job" to counteract idiosyncratic viewpoints expressed in them. I've glanced through the details of this dispute, and think that the block is the best option. My reason for posting this message is to state that if any opinion is needed from a professional psychologist who has extensive professional experience of research into topics within child psychology and psychiatry (as a research critiquer, designer, advisor, and interpretor), including publishing research articles and books in this area, though not as a practising child psychologist or child psychiatrist, then I could have the time to help out in any related tricky cases.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also concur that indef is best here. — Athaenara ✉ 23:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As do I. I was honestly surprised Kingsley has avoided a block as long as he has due to his constant PoV pushing. Good job handling this, Neil. ~ mazca ^talk 16:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please see this proposal at the Village pump for proposals. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. So far, two main ideas have aquired some support from the community:

• Edit summary blacklist
• Rollback all contributions

Any further input is welcome. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 18:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like both, but it's worth noting that our boring-but-inventive friend tends to make 10 good, correct, useful edits before s/he/it goes on a spree. Reverting all (typically) 20 edits undoes the 10 pieces of crap, but also 10 things we like. Grawp is actually providing a net benefit at the moment, AFAICT. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 18:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. What about [rollback all moves] instead? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 18:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If only he'd give up the HAGGER???? vandalism then we'd have a productive editor...RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 18:25, June 15, 2008 (UTC)

Rollback all is an extraordinary move and its use should be limited to only a few select admins for use is obvious, blatant, and harmful vandalism. Such a command would cause massive issues with articles and discussion pages if used on a non vandal account. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not very difficult to write a script to click all the rollback links on a user contribs page (its not very hard to just click them all manually either with tabbed browsing). Pagemoves are a little trickier, but not hard. Mr.Z-man 18:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into that. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a script. See User:Voice_of_All/Specialadmin/monobook.js. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but blacklisting edit summaries is not possible ..--Cometstyles 23:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? We can do it with links...there's got to be a hook, it'd be a fairly simple extension. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We tried to get the devs to do this in April, but it never eventuated, but there is a bug which was started then, you could comment on it ...--Cometstyles 02:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever patterns for the edit summaries we would blacklist he would work around it quite soon. The same as with the articles titles blacklist. I suggest making move protected all the established articles (say more than 6 month old with more than one contributor to them). There is no reason to move say Sun to anything else and moves, like say, Kiev to Kyiv while may have valid reasons should go via WP:RM anyway Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested this a while ago (permanent move protection), people were pretty opposed. John Reaves 04:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While we certainly can't stop Grawp copycats by banning their favorite edit summaries, we at least could block summaries with links to shock sites faster than GNAA registers new domains, if we make some kind of summary blacklist. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 17:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless we'd block any kind of URL to be displayed in edit summaries, I'm not sure how we're supposed to be able to block all shock sites from being mentioned. --Conti|✉ 18:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It costs a few bucks to register a domain. If each new domain can only be used once, sooner or later people will decide it's not worth the effort. --Carnildo (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually not opposed to blocking URLs in edit summaries... seems to me a fairly sensible thing to do, unless I'm missing something... - Philippe 21:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that being able to blacklist URLs in edit summaries is an excellent idea. And not just to combat Grawp. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly excellent reasons for being able to include them in deletion summaries, though; I'd be very opposed if any change meant losing that. There are legit reasons for having at least partial URLs in edit summaries, such as "www.whoevers-blog.com is not a reliable source", but I'd say it's worth the loss.

Uh oh, what have I done? There are countless reasons to have URLs in edit summaries (linking to diffs or log entries, to sources we use, to non-notable sources as part of an argument, etc.), and I'd strongly oppose to block all URLs in edit summaries. --Conti|✉ 21:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying we should eradicate URLs from edit summaries. What I am saying is that we should be able to blacklist them just as we do in articles. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 13:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That might be useful, but I'm afraid we'll end up playing the same game that's played at MediaWiki:Titleblacklist right now: A URL/Title is used, someone blacklists it. Another URL/Title is used, someone blacklists it. Another URL/Title is used, someone blacklists it, and so on. I'm not sure if that's useful. --Conti|✉ 13:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the only other alternative I see is to do something similar to what Moreschi suggested below. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 13:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious thing to do is to restrict page-moves to rollbackers. That would end all our page-move vandalism problems. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. Enigma ^message 21:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense until you consider the amount of work that would be cropping up on requested moves, the cut and paste move repair holding pen, and Category:History merge for speedy deletion. We already have enough trouble with people moving things improperly, and so far as I know not an abundance of admins willing and able to repair them.--Dycedarg ж 23:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollbackers are too few, and a lot of editors have to move pages for valid reasons not knowing anything about rollback. Aside of the basic ways to deal with this, i.e. to watch Special:Log/move and move-protect pages with no reason to be moved unilaterally, the adminscripts blocking page move vandals on sight coupled with the quick reverts of ClueBot are very efficient. Cenarium (talk) 01:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, per prior discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive432#Possible WP:BLP issues at Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity) the same editor is again adding identifying content to a BLP of a person who has kept their identity and location hidden due to stated ongoing death threats. The editor has had this explained quite a few times that we need reliable sourcing and concensus to do so, of which there is neither. Banjeboi 22:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a courtesy, please inform other users and editors if they are mentioned in a posting, or if their actions are being discussed. --Stephen 00:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have issued User:WillyJulia a final warning over the issue. [2] At this point, his editing has crossed the line into pure tendentiousness, and it needs to stop. There are legitimate concerns about the privacy of the article's subject, and considering that WJ has not been able to provide reliable sourcing, the information he has repeatedly added needs to be kept out of the article. Horologium (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not notifying WillyJulia to this thread, I will try to remember to do that in future use. Thank you for looking into this, on the original thread it was suggested this was a single-purpose account and it would seem that may be the case. Banjeboi 01:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this has the background Benjiboi describes then this is quite serious. Recommend de-linking and seeking oversight. Full page protection may be advisable. Durova^Charge! 01:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listing a city and state is not grounds for oversight Durova. In fact, should they be reliably sourced, listing city and state is quite appropriate. What is not appropriate would be to list street address and phone number, items which are grounds for oversight. Let's not blow this out of proportion. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:HARM. --jonny-mt 05:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP, WP:HARM, and if necessary WP:IAR. Ethical decisions where good people disagree belong in the hands of the individuals who live with the consequences. Death threats, Dragon695. If the subject requests it I will also nominate for WP:AFD. Durova^Charge! 06:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the meantime, I've gone back and deleted the relevant edits from the talk page history. I haven't yet tracked down when the information first appeared in the main article, though, so I'm a little hesitant to do the same there unless it's possible to do so in such a way that all the relevant versions are deleted without losing GFDL-significant contributions. That being said, the information has been removed and the relevant edit summaries are reasonably innocuous, so it might not be necessary to go as far as deleting them. --jonny-mt 07:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information was in the article for quite some time, as I discovered when WillyJulia responded to my warning on his talk page. It appears that his hometown was originally added by Benjiboi (!) in this edit, and updated with the correct spelling in this edit. There are over 300 revisions since it was added, which makes for an extremely unpleasant cleanup job, if it's even possible. Horologium (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By Benjiboi? That is interesting. He hasn't logged back in yet. Durova^Charge! 15:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat confused, we have this discussion going on on the talk page a couple days ago, but now adding anything more than the country he lives in is a BLP violation? Mr.Z-man 16:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Special circumstances: the subject is in hiding due to death threats. Durova^Charge! 17:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking on Google news, the death threats started in mid-2007, has something changed in the past 2 days? Mr.Z-man 17:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A year of sustained death threats is something to take seriously. Err on the side of caution, if necessary. Durova^Charge! 17:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should not be doing this, it beyond our scope to judge or get involved in these matters. I don't give a damn about WP:HARM, all that matter is WP:NPOV. Adding city and state is not a violation of WP:BLP, please stop moving the goal posts. This is an encyclopedia, not crimestoppers. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon695, you might want to take a few steps back. Privacy and threats on someones life are very important factors. if one cannot respect the life of another human then that shows a persons true color. Internet Identies should not be linked unless there is 110% proof. otherwise the resulting risk could lead to physical harm or even loss of life. Canis Lupus (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's becoming increasingly clear that you have little or no respect for other people's lives, Dragon695. May I suggest that you take up a more suitable vocation than Wikipedia editor; say, National Enquirer staffer? FCYTravis (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FCY, would you consider refactoring that? Durova^Charge! 21:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok Durova, we disagree about WP:BLP. I'm finding pleanty to do over at Wiktionary anyway. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon695, Verifiability trumps NPOV, and there are no verifiable sources that state that the subject is from the town that was listed in the article, just blogs and Howard Stern. There are sources that identify him as being from a southern state (the article from The Stranger states that the author of that piece flew into a former confederate state to interview the subject), but nothing specific. I think we all know which state that is, but without a reliable source to back it up, we've got no justification to add it to the article. Additionally, take a look at WP:BURDEN, which is another policy page, and requires proof to add material that is likely to be contentious. I don't need to cite essays when existing policies support my position. Horologium (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearing that up. I agree that WP:V is lacking enough in this case that the city and the state should not be added. My only objection was to merely removing it because of events beyond our scope or because the subject said so. Taking sides or being sympathetic can lead to WP:NPOV problems. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that we should err on the side of caution with BLPs and if there isn't a really good source it should be removed, but I'm trying to understand why 2 days ago the state was being added to the article with a source after a short discussion on the talk page by the person who started this thread, and now its a BLP violation possibly worthy of oversight and full-protection. This isn't moving the goalposts, this is switching to a new stadium. Mr.Z-man 22:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, whole different ballgame. If I'd been aware of this situation 2 days ago I'd have made the same comments then. (Wondering what this strange pointy ball you've passed me is, shrugging, putting it through the basket anyway...obvious slam dunk). Durova^Charge! 23:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should state for the record that I have never edited the article in question, its talk page, or any related issue; my involvement stems solely from the two ANI threads over the issue. I have interacted with Benjiboi on Matt Sanchez-related issues, but nowhere else; I have not interacted with WillyJulia anywhere on Wikipedia other than his talk page. I have to admit that I was a bit surprised that the alleged BLP-violating text was added by the initiator of the complaint (hence my "!" after the link to the edit which added the information). Nonetheless, looking at the situation as a relatively disinterested observer, I understand the concerns raised in the original complaint, and actively support any effort to scrub the data off WP servers entirely. Note that after my final warning, WJ identified and removed the relevant info from the article (for which I commend him), but it was his addition of that information to the userbox which precipitated the entire complaint. I don't retract my warning, but I do think that WJ got a bit of a raw deal in this entire affair, since he really wasn't adding anything that wasn't already in the article elsewhere, added by the editor who was the initiator of two separate complaints against him. This does not excuse the personal attack he launched afterwards, which is why I refuse to strike the warnings I issued. I am of the belief that some serious oversighting may be required to fix this article, but I'll allow community consensus to determine the correct course of action, considering that the information was added to the article in February, and it's now June. Horologium (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I'm a little confused. Based on what I read on the talk page, the issue was not adding the state (which was verifiable) but rather adding the specific town--the diffs I deleted all have to do with the latter. --jonny-mt 23:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not confused at all; I think my comments may have clouded the issue. The article had a specific town and state explicitly identified in the narrative, and the whole argument started when User:WillyJulia started adding that information to the infobox. (He had previously been identifying the subject by his real name on the talk page, but those edits have been oversighted.) When I started digging, I found out that the information about the subject's home town was not identified by any of the three references listed; in fact, none of them even identified the state where he was located, let alone the town. That is why I support leaving the information out of the article; setting aside the potential threat to the article's subject, there is no reliable sourcing for that information. In this case, it's not a WP:BLP issue, or a WP:NOHARM issue, but simply a WP:V issue, which is policy. The fact that excluding the information protects the subject is just a beneficial side-effect. Horologium (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outdent. I may be able to clear this up a bit. In a past version of the subject's webpage the town in Tennessee was listed, ergo I added it at that time. My concerns with WillyJulia was adding the alleged name of the subject for which, I believe, we should have strong reliable sourcing for. I also think having the name of either the town the subject is in or grew up, etc or their exact birthdate also needs to be well sourced and adds little to the general reader's understanding of the subject. Mr.Z-man, you also have it right, after a short discussion and finding yet another reliable source I agreed that having the state was no big deal and then quickly reported that the state was already in the article. I have been topic-banned about 2.5 months ago and have generally walked away from wikipedia due to the stress and disgust of it all and have mostly stayed away with some exceptions. This article was one of them. I remain convinced that harm beyond generalized harassment will indeed come to the subject of the article if their identity and whereabouts is revealed and see no rush for wikipedia to report that information until reliable sources have first clearly done so to the satisfaction of WP:BLP and WP:HARM. Banjeboi 01:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an internet celebrity, not a real one, so what precise town they're in and what their real name is (given their notability attaches solely onto their online persona) is trivia at best, and in the case of BLP issues should be removed. Orderinchaos 03:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think internet celebrities are as real as any others. What makes a celebrity is fame not just the route towards that. Marilyn Monroe would be a photo celebrity and then a movie celebrity had wikipedia been around then to track her career from the beginning. And Paris Hilton was essentially an online celebrity until her real-world activities eclipsed her notorious beginnings. The subject of this BLP, like many preceding them, is also making real-world inroads (TMZ on TV and Jimmy Kimmel Live for example) so as long as we stick to policies already in place the article should be fine. Banjeboi 04:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've contacted the article subject and he doesn't want any personal information displayed. Durova^Charge! 15:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could also advise the subject that if he is in hiding due to death threats, then responding to e-mails from pseudonymous Wikipedia editors is not a good idea. Anyone can create an account. Carcharoth (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding to the thread, Carcharoth. Does this mean you're volunteering to remove the remaining 300 edits in the history that disclose inappropriate information? I've done my part by contacting him in a credible manner and earning his trust. You have the tools to handle the rest. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 03:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the full final decision is available here. In short, the remedies passed were:

• Special enforcement on biographies of living persons: a special enforcement on biography of living persons (BLP) articles is authorised, whereby administrators uninvolved with an article may, for that BLP, "use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy". Administrators are authorised to utilise their protection and blocking tools as necessary to ensure that the article complies with Wikipedia's BLP policy, and are also directed to actively counsel any editors whos actions fail to comply with the BLP policy. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse or modify such actions without clear community consensus to do so; appeals against restrictions put in place may be made to either: the relevant administrators' noticeboard; or, the arbitration committee directly. Before any article-based restrictions are extended to an individual editor, this counselling must take place: restrictions put in place should be logged at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log, with relevant links to attempts to counsel the editor. The full text of this special enforcement is available here.
• Alansohn restricted: Alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year, whereby he may be blocked for making any edits judged by an administrator to be be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, for "up to a week in the event of repeated violations". The full text is available here.

The final decision and remedies should be reviewed in full, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 22:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per that decision Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log is now "live". Remember to be specific when logging! MBisanz ^talk 22:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes/Proposed decision this close has ongoing problems. Until such a time as there can be demonstrated consensus among the community the will enforce the decision "imposed" here, the "Special enforcement on biographies of living persons" section cannot be considered remotely enforceable. - brenneman 01:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is clear consensus by the community or authorization by the Committee, modifying any sanctions imposed under this remedy may result in suspension or revocation of admin privilleges by the Committee. Arbitration decisions are binding - this remedy is therefore enforcible. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you speaking for the arbitration committee, Ncmvocalist? Arbitration is not legislation, not is it administration or policing. It is actually meant to be a part of dispute resolution. I shouldn't actually have to say that, but hey. Carcharoth (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be exactly those things, but it's a distinction without a difference. It's binding, per the foundation principles. Why is it binding? Because it gets enforced. How? It gets enforced by admins who carry out the enforcement. If no admin can be found to carry out the enforcement, it won't be enforced. There are a lot of admins, so it is hard to imagine a situation in which things would go unenforced. Further, any admin who actively works against (by undoing or wheelwarring) enforcement is liable to find an ArbCom member asking a steward to remove their bit in fairly short order. No particular steward has to do so, (stewards are volunteers too) so if no steward did then the removal wouldn't happen. But there are a lot of stewards. I think it's no secret that not everyone agrees with ArbCom completely on every matter, but they are, after all, ArbCom. We elected them, for the most part, or acquiesed to their appointment. Things would have to go pretty far downhill, I would think, before you would see a situation in which no admin would enforce remedies, most admins would undo them, and no steward would remove the bits of admins who undid them. It could happen, and it's the ultimate check, the consent of the governed withdrawn, yes. But I don't see it. I think it's no secret that I myself have some issues with the current ArbCom, some things I think they could do better/differently/more promptly/whatever, but I've removed the bit of an admin at ArbCom request before and I'd do it again if asked. If I ever got to the point where I wouldn't, you'll know about it, believe me. Everyone will. ++Lar: t/c 14:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The remedy has passed, and until such a time that the committee removes or alters the remedy, BLP articles are subject to special enforcement, and should be logged at the appropriate place as stated by the committee. Arbitration decisions are binding and administrators that take actions that are based on the decision are not in any position to be sanctioned, unlike administrators that reverse the action without consensus who will be sumarily desysopped. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that admins that consistently take inappropriate BLP actions under the shelter of this remedy, will also end up desysopped. That is my interpretation of what ArbCom are saying. Enforce BLP more as both editors and admins, but arbcom will be watching and taking action (following appeals) if there is consistent abuse of the remedy. Nothing so far prevents people following the process outlined, getting in with "their" actions first, and then logging "their" actions in an attempt to prevent reversal of those actions. My views remain the same: admins should remove material that is problematic, and should then advise and guide, but should not try and directly influence or take part in discussions on the talk pages. They should also abide by any consensus that results from any discussion on the talk page. It boils down to whether admins should be mediators or enforcers. Carcharoth (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What if there is a consensus to violate BLP? Should an admin abide by that? _{1 != 2} 15:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There may be an apparent, temporary, local "consensus" to violate BLP, but such "consensus" cannot be allowed to stand. BLP (whether you call it foundational, core, derived from foundational, whatever you like) is so fundamental that no consensus can override it. Where there is difficulty is not with the idea of overriding BLP, but with whether a particular matter is within scope of the policy and how the policy applies. There is room for disagreement there, yes, and those of good faith may well disagree, but not room for disagreement about whether we should abide by BLP. It's just not debateable. IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 15:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, I am very disappointed that you keep repeating this forced meme. Yes, WP:BLP can be overturned. Any time WP:BLP removals violate WP:NPOV or any other core foundation principles, WP:BLP must yield. Again, WP:NPOV is non-negotiable, it is a suicide pact that we must live with. WP:BLP is nice when possible, but it is not essential. Furthermore, there is significant disagreement on what that policy means and how it is applied. Attempts to POV-push through use of this policy will be met with great resistance and hostility. Attempts to create SPOV (sympathetic point of view) will be similarly met. And no, not all ArbCom remedies work. If you recall, the MONGO external links remedy was an utter disaster for the same reason this one will be -- it allows far too much discretionary action. We cannot allow subjects of BLPs to treat us as a spin machine, there will be no memory holes for their personal convenience. --Dragon695 (talk) 03:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree fully, which is why I don't think this finding is such a radical departure from what we already do. _{1 != 2} 16:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course BLP should not be over-ridden. But who can reliably judge whether local consensus is correct or not? It boils down to telling people they are wrong. Which is fine as long as you are not wrong yourself. It requires high levels of confidence in your own opinion, the skills to back up your own opinion, and the knowledge that others will back your actions up. And even then, you might still be wrong. The classic BLP problem is the removal of "negative material". Judging whether negative material should be removed or not, there are a range of possible responses. Safest is to remove the material and direct discussion to the talk page. But if consensus emerges for a wording that (say) the subject of the article objects to, what then? Carcharoth (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong!  :) ... no, actually, you're correct. Not sure how to resolve interpretation issues easily, tis not an easy problem. But still BLP itself can't be overturned by consensus, just like NPOV can't. Only interpretation of it is amenable to debate. ++Lar: t/c 16:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and the community may after all interpret the ruling by deciding its unworkable and divisive, and has a tendency to encourage the POV deletion of well sourced material. The community will in that case make its views known at the next arb com election. DGG (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that it takes two or three years to effectively change things through arbcom elections. The tranche system was put in place in order to keep an institutional memory, but I think that it is now contributing to inertia. Three years is an eternity on Wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I checked, there is nothing to say we must honor the subject's wishes unconditionally. If there is a debate and the general consensus is that well-sourced, NPOV material is pertinent, then in it goes. Again, BLP musn't be used as a spin mechanism. Otherwise, we'll have every whiner from around the globe wanting to POV slant their article in the best possible light. That is unacceptable. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The trick is to try and distinguish from those who want material removed because they think they can game the system, and those who are genuinely upset and concerned about the material and don't want it in the article. Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to distinguish between the two (though sometimes it does seem obvious). People say that "reliable sources" is an objective way to resolve that conundrum, but the trouble there is that many people point to newspapers as reliable sources, but then you have to distinguish between responsible newspaper coverage, investigative journalism (which can go either way), and tabloid journalism (reporting stories just to sell papers). Newspapers are reliable sources for news, but not always for encyclopedias. The trouble is that articles on living people often rely on newspaper reports and articles. See below for my evolving views on this, and a possible "meta" solution for certain types of BLP problem. Carcharoth (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. The trick is to handle all BLPs fairly, neutrally, accurately, and verifiably, regardless of what the subjects thereof may or may not request. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you could move your reply to the thread I started at WT:BLP? Carcharoth (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Externalise the debate

My view is that one way to tackle the problem of BLP material that is reliably sourced, is to push the issue one stage further back. If external entities (be that businesses or the subject of an article) want to challenge the insertion of a particular piece of information that is sourced to a reliable source, then instead of challenging this on Wikipedia, the entity concerned needs to go on the public record (a press release on their website, newspaper interview, book, blog, and so on) and refute what that reliable source has said. This moves the conflict from Wikipedia, back out to the media "out there". Wikipedia can then continue to document and report both sides of the controversy, while still weighing the pros and cons of each source. Eg. A blog post by subject Y refuting what author X said in a book, or what journalist Z said in a newspaper article, might carry less weight than subject Y successfully getting a retraction or letter printed by the newspaper, or subject Y writing a book that include a refutation of what Wikipedia has been including using the other book as a source. Unless this is done, then Wikipedia becomes part of the problem of media bias, instead of standing outside things and documenting and synthesising the sources to produce an encyclopedia article. Anyway, this is way off-topic now. The debate should move to WT:BLP. Carcharoth (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth has this article been allowed to remain on Wikipedia for just over a year now? Doesn't it totally fail WP:BIO ten times over? Am I missing something here? I just thought I'd bring it to the noticeboard so others can look at it too. Lradrama 19:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's true, there's almost certainly some press coverage of it (for the benefit of US editors, Football Manager/Championship Manager is right up there with Halo and GTA at the top of the gaming pile in Europe). I certainly don't think it's a speedy candidate; send it over to WPF and see if they can source it. – iridescent 19:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some wider research and this name is not notable in the slightest I don't think. Try Google and Yahoo for starters... Lradrama 19:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouts out hoax to me. Speedy? Or do we have to do through AFD? D.M.N. (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dropped a note down at WPF. Lradrama 19:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there's any credence at all to it, it should be merged into the vg article. xenocidic (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked it as a speedy, CSD.A7. Conning a software company does not make you notable beyond your local pub (or 21st century equivalent). --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined it. "Zlatko Kartal is a Bosnian born Scot, who managed to convince Football Manager 2008 creators SI Games that he played for Celtic" There is the assertion of notability, and therefore it can't be speedied. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict x2) Someone's declined the A7 speedy, so I've prodded it. For most of this article's existence it asserted the subject played for Celtic FC, which certainly is an assertion of significance. Hut 8.5 19:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Managed to convince... - i.e. didn't play for Celtic. Lradrama 19:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the article originally said otherwise. It wasn't rewritten to say that he didn't play for Celtic until May 2008, which is why nobody nominated it for deletion - they thought it was legitimate. Hut 8.5 19:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under 21 team? Rather than the actual team? Lradrama 20:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some more on this here: [3] Wikipedia may have been the bootstrap, who knows. According to the researchers, it's a true fact that he made it in there, but he's queued for deletion. xenocidic (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped a note at WT:WPVG (since it is now more of a vg-related article than a football related article). xenocidic (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Dreaded Walrus, this is not even a notable hoax, and is quite a common occurence.

Speedy even if it's not a hoax. Tan | 39 21:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if that's a hoax, or an insult to a real player, or a well-intentioned article about a non-notable person, but I just nuked it per WP:BLP. Never had a real source. "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.". If someone finds real sourcing, the article can be recreated, but for BLP's, the order is: sources, then article, not article, then sources. --barneca (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you misunderstand that quote. It says remove the offending material, it does not say delete the entire article. The article itself needs to go through proper deletion process. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Summary deletion of BLPs - it doesn't. Daniel (talk) 06:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No U! Here is an excerpt from that decision: if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates [BLP]. I didn't get to see the article in question, but the deletion of the entire article is only for extreme circumstances. Given the discussion above, this doesn't seem to be the case. Was every single version of the article bad? --Dragon695 (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Process wonkery is frowned upon (by policy no less, oh the irony). Why would we put a hoax through an AfD when its an obvious... hoax? Process for the sake of process is a Bad Thing. --M^ask? 08:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that User:John Paul Neil has done enough to slander me to deserve a block, per this edit?--Bedford ^Pray 19:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indef due to "promised harassment" of an established user. Lradrama 19:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that that appears to be the account's only edit, would a checkuser be in order? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it appear it is a vandalism-only account? Why can't a person do a good job on Wikipedia without someone contradicting him all the time? Lradrama 20:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter that much as the account is now blocked indef. Bedford, have you had any messages like that before, or been in any disputes with sockies? D.M.N. (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had some harassment a few weeks back. I think its some people from a website I belonged to six years ago that never liked me, and they have just discovered I'm on Wikipedia, so they have decided to harass me here. They even moved my user page and put links to some website that keeps opening browser pages until your computer crashes, or at least your browser does.--Bedford ^Pray 20:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just reverted this edit. A block's in order. D.M.N. (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser is in order too. This sort of thing is really dickish. _{1 != 2} 20:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an obvious sockpuppet of Delaylucky. I warned Bedford of such a campaign threat on his talk page. I'd recommend a swift block, ta. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User's already blocked, apparently - and a good block, as well. When I mentioned checkuser, I meant that we should find out on whose behalf the threat was being made, as it's obviously a throw-away sock. Being unaware of the history, that made sense, though since it's an obvious sock I'd leave it be. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request. D.M.N. (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. Maybe a checkuser is in order after all. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is account creation blocked? Corvus cornix_talk 20:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (I think). IP range-block needed? D.M.N. (talk)

Possibly. Add Christopher Paul Stephenson (talk · contribs · logs · block log) to the list as well, though now he didn't even bother to get blocked before requesting an unblock. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Mark Libby (talk · contribs · logs · block log) - 'Nother. D.M.N. (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In perusing all of the related policies, I can find no mention of the previous community rule that book/magazine covers are only acceptable fair use in articles about that book/magazine issue and are not allowed to be in other articles since that is merely decoration. Has this policy been changed? I know that when working on one (never-completed sadly) FA a while back, all the pictures of book covers/magazines that were referenced (and discussed) in the article were disallowed since the article was not specifically about them, and this amounted to "decoration."

Could someone please clarify the current thinking about this? The related noticeboard has been ignored for quite a while and no one seems to know for sure. Thanks, breathe | inhale 21:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:FU#Images_2 paragraph 8 hasn't changed. Corvus cornix_talk 21:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All that says is "it MAY be appropriate" if it doesn't have it's own article. Not terribly clear. That's also a very large departure from the former thinking that that never was appropriate. Now it's just a weasel statement.breathe | inhale 21:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it the only part that's set-in-stone is "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic."; paragraph 8 is part of the "this is a guideline, not policy" section of WP:FU. I'd suggest asking Carcharoth or Giggy who are both pretty well-versed in the intricacies of fair-use & copyright. – iridescent 21:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's directly below the section heading labeled "Unacceptable use". Corvus cornix_talk 21:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know - what I'm saying is that "Unacceptable use" section is in the "guideline not policy" part of WP:FU. – iridescent 21:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:WIKILAWYERING. Corvus cornix_talk 21:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok stop it you guys, perhaps a more concrete example would help. At the end of an article is a list of related books. An image of a book cover of one of them is next to the list. Is this acceptable? And my god are you telling me there are only 2 users who know what is going on with this policy? Eeek. breathe | inhale 22:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends, Depends, Depends. Strictness of enforcement on WP:NFC has definitely stepped up, but book covers may be acceptable depending on context. An article on a guy who's fame comes from illustrating book covers, for instance, could almost certainly justify one or two book covers. A guy who merely writes novels is less like to be able to, and an article on HD189733b probably doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. WilyD 22:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Your list of related books example is arguably a fair use in terms of US fair use provisions, but IMO clearly fails wikipedia's policy, specifically "8. Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, no, Dr. Seuss could reasonably use a book cover to discuss his artist style, since he drew his own book covers. Or maybe the inside art, or art from somewhere else. All his art is likely to be copyrighted, though, and if that article plans to make FA status, it'll need extensive discussion of his artistic style. WilyD 22:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which would fall outside the "list of related books" example, non? You are, in short, talking about a completely different use of an image. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what you're saying. User:breathe made a funny (read:wrong) choice for indenting his second question - I was responding to the original question. Yeah, it's hard to imagine how a "list of related books" could justify using a cover ... WilyD 22:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to stop the arguing :) Sry. breathe | inhale 22:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries eh? A contentious area, but asking is always the right choice. WilyD 22:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. breathe | inhale 22:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that Wikinews has successfully driven out the anti-fairuse crowd recently. Perhaps we should do the same? According to Anthere, even using fairuse in buildings and biographies is possible and would not violate foundation policy. The only reason we do it is to pacify free-culture extremists. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Hot 30 Countdown just broadcast a call to its listeners to "brighten up" the Wikipedia page. Expect the SPAs to start paying a visit. – iridescent 22:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently nobody listens to their show... -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An IP 70.100.142.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who relentlessly spams the Sandbox was just blocked for a month. They appear to be engaged in some kind of test edit game with another editor Tailsic (talk · contribs), who has essentially ZERO edits to mainspace and since creating his account on June 5, has done nothing but play with various sandboxes and his/her own user page. Personally, I think it's the same editor. WP:DUCK? Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could be. I've never seen one of these sandbox editors grow into the article space: They tend to only become more disruptive and daring in sandbox spaces, even trying to WP:OWN them. The user has already been warned twice, politely, which seems not to have swayed a thing. Hence, given the likelihood this user's IP has indeed already been blocked, I've blocked for 31 hours. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can an Admin please add “flag alias-naval = Naval Jack of the Netherlands.svg” to Template:Country data Netherlands please? Thanks. Red4tribe (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Declined The consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships is to use naval ensigns, not naval jacks for articles that use {{navy}}. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Ensigns. And there are several better places to make this kind of request than here. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please tell me where those other places are instead of just leaving me hanging? Red4tribe (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Help desk is probably appropriate. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I would say that putting {{editprotected}} on Template talk:Country data Netherlands would have been the most direct course of action for this kind of request. But I would have still answered the same way—the WikiProjects use naval ensigns, not naval jacks, for infobox identification. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok. But I already did ask this on the help page, and they told me to contact an dmin, so I thought this would be the best spot. Red4tribe (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know, but the top of this page has a big "Are you in the right place?" section to find better subpages, and that would have led you to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, which would have led you to use {{editprotected}}. Anyway, no harm! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the top of the page does not say anything about where to go to request edits to protected pages. As far as I know, Red4tribe posted his request in a reasonable place. {{editprotected}} isn't suggested at the top of this page; perhaps it should be. Neıl 龱 08:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – thanks --Rodhullandemu 13:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to go now, could someone take a look at this page and maybe do the necessary. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 02:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here to ask of the administrator's to impose a ban on a user named mcelite. This person adds data that are from his or her point-of-view or opinion. This person is also a vandal. I would like for all of you to ban this person. Thanks. Fclass (talk) 02:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't work that way. It would be helpful if you included links to DIFFs so we can perhaps see what the problem is. seicer | talk | contribs 02:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After only a few seconds of looking I found this strong personal attack by Fclass. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, after looking at the talk pages of the two it's clear that Fclass needs to tone down the attacks. Wizardman 02:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forget I asked. I have another question. How do I archive my talk page? The archiving the talk page article is vague and confusing. Fclass (talk) 02:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. You want your hand held? Here is a step by step guide for you. seicer | talk | contribs 03:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is being followed up at ANI. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

User has been indefinitely blocked and their userpage deleted so I doubt there's much more to be done. Guest9999 (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly bizarre case, here. I stumbled on this account while reverting some vandalism by some other accounts. Almost all edits in the past year are to the user page. One edit is to an article that one of the blocked accounts edited, leading me to believe the person with this account is acquainted with the blocked users. He's using the page more like Myspace or a text dump site much as did the other users. Weird. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just requested speedy deletion of Hot 30 Countdown since it's a recreation of a previously deleted article (see discussion above about this article as well). Somehow, this was sent to AFD, consensus was "delete", yet it was overlooked for three years [4]. Then someone changed the AFD summary on the talk page from "delete" to "keep". Not too sure what that's all about. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how it went unnoticed back in 2005, but the recent article (admin only) was substantially different from the previous version (again, admin only). I don't think it met G4, which only applies to: "a copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." - auburnpilot talk 05:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Not sure what to do... User:Faroutguy1212 and User:Task Commander (the same person) keep removing db templates for Cody Potter, which they have just re-created after it was deleted. It's excessive, and it was even more so before it was deleted (though that history is gone). Any help would be appreciated. JohnnyMrNinja 10:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted and salted, was a load of rubbish. Neıl 龱 10:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have solved it. JohnnyMrNinja 10:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A newbie user (Arguecat4 (talk · contribs)) is editing the article Magibon; his edits do more harm than good (adding nonexistent entries to infobox, and a trivia setion to the article). I tried explaining why the content he added to the article was inappropriate, but he just continues editing. Could an uninvolved user have a look at the article and talk to the user? (I have done everything I could, including spending my three reverts.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are BLP violations, on first glance, I wouldn't worry about the 3RR when protecting it, but it's good you came here. Info about a girl's body measurements and where she lives and works need to be zapped quickly. I'll warn Argue on his talk, although if this continues a preventative block would be in order. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add that Arguecat4 is also apparently a sock of User:Arguecat3, perhaps created to avoid 3RR. Dppowell (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given this editor's contribution history and particularly such edits as this, assuming good faith here would be naive. The duck test suggests some connection to this user, who has received a final warning for vandalism, here. Sockpuppeting to continue vandalism to avoid that block? In any event, I think it's reasonable not to tolerate unsourced additions to this article from this user. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now after further look, and edits like this, I've issued a final warning myself. However, a block may already be in order based on the magnitude of the vandalism, along with BLP issues. The page history needs to be reviewed for private, personal information, although I'm not sure how much of is simply fake. Might be real info, and would need to be deleted. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect its garbage information, given such hidden vandalism as here with [[Georgia,_USA|Pennsylvania]]. I would tend to agree though that a block is not inappropriate based on behavior already displayed. I have notified the user of this conversation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not all of it is garbage information. I am looking at it and weeding out inaccuracies. Also I changed user names cause I gave up on outright vandalism and was just trying to add info to a crap page. I will delete where she works etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arguecat4 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you add unsourced information to this article one more time, I am going to block you for vandalism. Your history gives us no reason to believe that your edits are made constructively, and rather every reason to presume that you are attempting to be more subtle with your vandalism. Given that your first edit under this "new" name was the same as your last under the former, your statement here is demonstrably false. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok I wil source it then re-add it. quit deleting it! also some of my info was sourced. And I was working on sourcing others D:< —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arguecat4 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I indicated in my response to your note at my talk page, if you want to add information to the article, be prepared to provide reliable sources to validate it when you do. Again, given your history, there is no reason for us to make special allowances on a presumption of good faith. If you really want to contribute constructively, given that you started off vandalizing the article and admit as much, you should be more than willing to demonstrate that you intend to comply with guidelines now. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out to those who arrive late to this conversation that this user's vandalism has included such charming racism as "[[Spic|minimum wage]] , here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the sockpuppet account Arguecat3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and gave Arguecat4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a final warning. I still believe that he is not acting out of malice - he just refuses to understand the purpose of Wikipedia, perhaps he isn't old or mature enough to take it seriously. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I half hope you're right, but, on the other hand, I'd hate to think the user could be immature enough to think tucking "Spic" behind "minimum wage" is funny. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have cleaned the rest and removed the term "wapanese" and personal name (because it is unsourced) from the infobox. I want to add that this Arguecat3 or 4 or whatever number, comes with high probability from a trollsite called "Encyclopedia dramatica" because their Magibon article has a co-author with exactly the same name (registered on ED as: Arguecat3) and I don't think that this is a coincidence because he tried to copy text from there.--Firithfenion (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the context. :) I'd agree with your reasoning there; again, the duck test applies. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised noone wanted to be the first ever person to use {{BLP Spec Warn}} ... Neıl 龱 13:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are being ironic. Most admins do realise we had (and continue to have) perfectly adequate remedies without it--as shown here. DGG (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for that indef block? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These two articles are currently the subject of an edit war largely relating to rsradford (talk · contribs) (who is apparently behind this site:[5] and is currently blocked) and the users Jack the Giant-Killer (talk · contribs) and CarlaO'Harris (talk · contribs). Administrator Dbachmann (talk · contribs) has been here now and then, but I don't believe his involvement has helped the situation at all. I'd like to request another uninvolved administrator with no relationship with any of these editors to come in and take a look at what's going on. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took a quick look. It appears to me that the involvement of rsdadford is very different in the two articles. In the case of Rydberg, he does seem to be removing relevant well-sourced information of the subject's sexuality. In the case of Metz, he is trying to insert appropriate sourced quotations about her biography. There are many specifics I have not fully gone into yet. In terms of manner and argument, his style of discussion is not compatible with proper collaborative editing--but neither is that of some of the people who oppose him. I'm not trying to give a judgment here, just put the matter in perspective from someone looking at it afresh. DGG (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What should we do if a person starts an article about their company and makes the vast majority of the edits?

The above is 100% true. I also think the article is biased but that is hard to prove 100%. The person who did this acts like a jerk. Ban them or let them go? Pachette (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's written in a clearly promotional tone, it should be tagged for speedy deletion using criterion G11. If it's neutrally-written but lacks any claim of importance (i.e. doesn't give evidence of coverage by third party reliable sources or otherwise explain why the company is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia), it should be tagged for speedy deletion using criterion A7. If it makes a claim of importance but you don't think it's enough to clear Wikipedia's notability guideline, you should nominate it for deletion. If none of the above is the case, you should just keep an eye on it and make sure it continues to abide by all Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What article do you think is biased? The359 (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pachette is up to no good (likely SPA or other troll). He added sock templates to his own userpage. Now what kind of legit editor does that? [6]. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any admin daring enough to wade through this proposal and close it with an outcome? (Proposal currently accounts for approximately EIGHTY of the 150 move proposals found in CAT:RM.) Thanks~ JPG-GR (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does not look to me like discussion is finished. Naerii - Talk 23:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone take a look at this one for me please? It looks like the person that put the copyvio tag removed the copyvio...no problem....but there's a problem with the dates...if you look at edit the date is properly 19 May, but the template appears to be trying to make it for 19 June? Halp? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – taken care of

user Majin Takeru is going around to as many wikipedia entries as he can to change all Commonwealth English spellings to US English spellings under the pretext that Commonwealth English Spellings are "incorrect" uses of "Old English." Please put a stop to this. Commonwealth English is not improper English.

Several messages left by others and constructive dialogue concluded with editor. Dlohcierekim 04:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the user was a bit "bitey" but appeared to be acting in ignorant good faith, and appears to have been generally unknowing of the different varieties of English. It is clear that they understand now, and have pledged to stop changing between them arbitrarily. Marking this as resolved. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – All done.

Graham87 05:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Green Politics has been deleted as a result of a recent MfD, but I neglected to include its subpages in the nomination and they remain extant. Can someone delete those for me? Muchas gracias, Skomorokh 05:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Graham87 05:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

user blocked for spamming Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This User:Carl.bunderson is showing a total disregard for the 3RR rule and a short block might teach him a lesson so that he does not edit war like this in the future.

• Previous version reverted to: 09:10, 13 June 2008

• 1st revert: 00:55, 15 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 04:31, 15 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 05:58, 15 June 2008
• 5th revert: 08:27, 15 June 2008
• 6th revert: 09:03, 15 June 2008
• 7th revert: 18:47, 15 June 2008
• 8th revert: 21:24, 15 June 2008
• 9th revert: 02:14, 16 June 2008
• 10th revert: 03:56, 16 June 2008
• 11th revert: 04:26, 16 June 2008
• 12th revert: 05:14, 16 June 2008
• 13th revert: 05:38, 16 June 2008
• 14th revert: 05:49, 16 June 2008
• 15th revert: 06:25, 16 June 2008
• 16th revert: 07:14, 16 June 2008
• 17th revert: 19:14, 16 June 2008
• 18th revert: 02:14, 17 June 2008
• 19th revert: 04:09, 17 June 2008
• 20th revert: 05:54, 17 June 2008

• Diffs of 3RR warnings and previous blocks for 3RR violations:

• Blocked on 05:01, 20 April 2008
• Blocked on 05:38, 1 February 2008
• Warning on 08:45, 21 January 2008
• Warning on 11:18, 21 December 2007

I've written a new essay! Others are asked to improve on it, as I'm not a very good writer myself. I only ask that under the (unfortunately) likely scenario someone proposes it for deletion, they remember the mass of other brilliant masterpieces on Wikiepdia (e.g., WP:AAGF, WP:POT) written in the same spirit. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, alright then. What's that got to do with admins? I'll look at the essay anyway, but.. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 06:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. When User:Radiant wrote an essay, he talked about it here, and no one complained. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Wow"? It's not that amazing. This desk is for things that need admin attention, and this doesn't... ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 07:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take offence. I'm not sure why that other essay was discussed here...This page is for discussing admin actions, or discussing what an admin can do about X because of Y. Maybe the essay needed admin attention? I'm not sure. But bear in mind that the noticeboard is backlogged enough as it is, and we can only discuss the things detailed in the header. Otherwise it'll become manic! :) Hope that clears it up, and congrats on your essay. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 07:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thought it might do well for administrators to quote it to those who might need it in the future. It happens. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a noticeboard for things that may be relevant to admins. Issues that require admin action go on WP:AN/I, not here. It was entirely appropriate for TES to post this here. Neıl 龱 08:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the resolved template as there's nothing to resolve. This is a board for communicating with administrators (and others interested), ANI is a board for administrator attention. Evil Spartan; good essay. giggy _(:O) 08:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you both said that (Neil, Giggy). Talk about cold reception... ^{Spot-on essay btw!} Seraphim♥Whipp 10:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see a different essay. Wikipedia:Don't Accuse People. Naerii - Talk 11:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear consensus among the few editors on the talk page of Kalaallisut language that it should be moved to Greenlandic language, although there is a page there so no basic editor can take action. ALTON .ıl 08:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should go to Wikipedia:Requested moves, and be allowed to run for five days. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 08:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of a "ratification vote" that took place at WT:ASSESS, the C-Class will now be added to the Version 1.0 Assessment scale. Please see this for further details. All comments are welcome. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 11:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – User blocked for disruption Gwernol 12:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked my former account to be unblocked. The reply of User:Gwernol was –-

“This account will not be unblocked. If you are not going to use it, having it remain blocked has zero impact on you. It was blocked for good reason. There is no reason to unblock the account. Multiple admins have said this, now please let it be. Further requests may be seen as disruptive and could result in your current account being blocked.”[7]

How can I contribute positively to this encyclopedia when an administrator threatens to block me for merely asking someone to unblock my former account? I have made mistakes in the past & I have said so many times that I will not repeat them. Why don't WP:CIVIL & WP:AGF applies to administrators?

Nobody likes their former account to remain blocked. If other administrators also feel that the account should remain blocked, please change the reason for block. Please change the reason to “The user has lost the password of the account. Therefore the account is blocked.” Thank you. RS1900 12:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that isn't why the account is blocked, and losing your password is not a reason to unblock an account. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 12:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks pretty good - I agree with Gwernol 100%. Looks like you've made this request numerous times and your reason of "Nobody likes their former account to remain blocked" borders on the bizarre. Do you know a bunch of people who are unhappy because their former accounts have been blocked? I'm curious why you were allowed to evade that indefinite block at all, esp. given your disruptive persistence in this matter. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) RS1900, you were very lucky indeed to get a second chance given the reason for your old account's block. It was blocked for very good reason, not because you lost the password. I really do suggest you leave this alone. Neıl 龱 12:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(after ecs)You were being disruptive and abusing the unblock template unnecessarily on an account you no longer use. This happened a week ago and Gwernol didn't block you so I'm not sure what action you're expecting here. But you requested multiple unblocks, Gwernol answered you 3 times and Sam once, telling you that the account wasn't going to be unblocked but you persisted. You didn't "merely ask someone" for the account to be unblocked, you asked repeatedly and persistently and refused to accept the answer. As I said to you last week, please consider going and focusing on the mainspace because I think it is a matter of time before you end up being blocked for disruption. Many of the new administrators who weren't here last year don't know you and so you have the opportunity to make something of a new start but you are wasting it by being disruptive. Please consider. Also, if you have a problem with Gwernol, it would be fairer to try to discuss it with him first instead of running straight to ANI. But I think you would have a better time here this time around if you changed your approach. Sarah 12:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked RS1900 for 1 week for persistent disruption. He has been warned multiple times, by multiple admins that his behavior on Wikipedia is unacceptably disruptive and he has persisted. If this continues once the block expires, we may be close to the point where a community ban of this editor should be considered. Gwernol 12:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, I think it is a dangerous precedent to block an account right after coming to the noticeboard, especially if they've only made one potentially disruptive post this week. The post may be misguided, but it appears to be in good faith and asking a question. I'm trying not to discount the problems that RS1900 and socks have caused, but at the same time, even the most problematic of accounts shouldn't be afraid to come to the noticeboard for a good faith question. It seems a bit strong to consider the creation of this thread as a last straw before a block. Also, as this is clearly public to admin's eyes now on a noticeboard, any number of admins could have made the decision as to whether this constituted a block (which I really don't think it does), not the single most involved admin. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, perhaps, but this is a specific case, where the editor has been given multiple "second" chances. He has been warned multiple times by multiple admins that his behavior is disruptive and merits a block if repeated. It is not the case that I am the single most involved admin, despite the fact that I was named above. It is not true that his only recent disruptive edit was this "question" - he is continuing to try to get his old userpage deleted. I didn't see this ANI post until after I had blocked him for continued disruption of the User:Devraj5000 userpage. Gwernol 13:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Gwernol, for implying that you must be the most involved admin. I guess I meant in reference to this thread. I've read what RS1900 posted here a few times over, and I just can't see it being grounds for a block. While he may have abused unblock requests, this is simply, in my mind, not an abuse of the administrator's noticeboard, although I imagine it might be quite annoying for recently involved admins. I felt the responses to his post were adequate. Though I understand your intent, the idea of the admin he is questioning then being the admin to block him for creating this thread? That's quite unsettling to me. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except he wasn't blocked for creating this thread. Gwernol said he wasn't aware of this post until after blocking. He was blocked for his continuing disruption concerning the status of his blocked sock. At least, that's how I understand Gwernol's response. Sarah 14:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So he was blocked for attempting to db the old sock account? Just to clarify. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was blocked for deleting the contents of the User:Devraj5000 userpage and replacing it with an inappropriate request to delete the page after being repeatedly warned to leave that account alone. This was done before I read his post to AN. If you want to grant his latest unblock request, I won't object, although I continue to believe that his continued disruption of Wikipedia is becoming an issue that we should not ignore, and I see from the comments above and elsewhere that I'm not the only person who believes this. Gwernol 14:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, and I wouldn't overturn your actions even if I were. I was trying to get at the exact reason for the block. The last unblock request was a week ago, and in my mind, it isn't obvious that requesting to delete that page account is wrong, even though it is. My concern came from the fact that the AN thread was worded in good faith by a misguided user, and I really felt here that blocking wasn't the 100% best way to go, but non-the-less, might prevent further disruption. I suppose I've been satisfied in terms of explanation now, Gwernol, appreciate the responses. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might have been a week ago, but it was also the "next day" in terms of his editing because he hadn't edited at all in the days since. He made disruptive edits last week, didn't edit again after that day, then returned today and immediately went back to trying to complaining about his sock being blocked. Sarah 15:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<--I was asked to comment here as an outside view, I believe that Gwernol's actions were quite justified and above board. The old userpage had several unblock requests, with no valid reasoning given, declined by several admins that likely would've (or should've) taken the same action as Gwernol. All that to say, RS1900 has however, "apologied" for his recent action, (and I see that his unblock requests aren't incessant, they're weeks apart), he seems to be feeling misunderstood, and seems to be admitting that he was misunderstanding the situation. He seems contrite. Would any admin that is involved as an "unblock denied" admin (Nick, Sarah, Gwernol, Sam Korn, maybe others) be agreeable to shortening the block to prevent other socks from arising? Besides his infatuation with "changing the block reason" for his former account, as far as I can tell he was being productive, or at the very least, non-disruptive. I'm thinking that a reduction (maybe 24/48 hours), plus a firm warning that if he revisits his old talkpage, or revisits this issue in any form on any page other than to apologize for his misunderstanding, that he is reblocked for a month or more as disruptive. Thoughts? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with this outcome. Thanks, Keeper76. Gwernol 14:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, Keeper, I wasn't one of the admins who declined the unblock of his sock. My conversation with him was about his community ban and how when he resumed editing last week, he began spamming admins (myself included) who participated in the ban discussion last year lobbying for the user he threatened on-site in the incident that eventually led to the ban to be banned themselves as "punishment" for a comment alleged to have been made off-site more than a year ago. He stopped the posts when I asked him to, but then refocused his attention on his sock. That's what my conversation with him was about and I never declined to unblock his sock (although I would have). I have no objections to shortening the block to 48 hours, but I would only note that his "contrite" and "sincere" apologies are only going to carry weight for so long and he needs to be aware of that and if he insists on continuing to edit disruptively yet another apology simply isn't going to cut it. He has a range of socks with numerous disruption blocks and there's only so much room he can expect to be given if he is simply going to continue to return each time with more disruptive behaviour in any space. Sarah 14:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying, Sarah, sorry to lump you in there. Like I said, I'm truly an outside view and I'm not at all familiar with this user or any of his socks (why do I also presume an abusive sockpuppet is a "he"? Hmm...) A long history of abusive editing surely deserves a very very short leash, we all have better things to be doing even right now. Unless an objection comes in the next hour, I will shorten his block to end about 24 hours from now (making for a 48 hour block I believe), and I will put a very firm, very direct, and very very very very very final warning on his talkpage. I'm also going to full-protect the userpage/usertalk of the sock that he is trying to get deleted, to "help him move along", and I'll explain to him why. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I weakly object to the shortening. S/he's already had more than one indefinite block handed down to both the old account and this new one (why two accounts have been allowed confuses me), been given second and third and fourth chances for reasons I'm not aware of, and yet continues to be disruptive for no good reasons. I think going a week this time and not doing another indefinite block is a gift. But I don't feel strongly enough about it to put up a fight. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say the accounts were allowed, they were socks, and the user he threatened in the incident that led to the community ban revealed his use of sockpuppets which is what sparked his whole vendetta pursuit against the other user. There were other socks, as well, but I don't remember them all now. I know one was Jai_Raj_K (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), also indef'd for harassing users. Sarah 15:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<--thats enough objection from me, as I saw Gwernol's actions as justifiable. Not reducing the block at this time. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind reducing the block. According to Sarah, he was basically caught using socks and now there is a third account that has been indefblocked. Why in the world isn't RS1900 indefblocked as well?! Did I misunderstand all that? —Wknight94 (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His RS1900 account is his last last chance. I may be mistaken, but it was accepted a long time ago to let him have it. He'd gone (relatively) unnoticed until he started campaigning for the unblock of one of the others. Believe me Wknight, I'll be the first to indef next transgression. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – copyvios deleted, user warned

As I am an administrator of the French speaking Wikipedia, I was made aware that a contributor, Utilisateur:Jbw, had repeatedly introduced copyrighted content on Wikipedia through new articles, despite several warnings, and has later lied to the administrators concerning his contributions, which exemplifies his/her bad faith. I have discovered that the same user is present on the English speaking Wikipedia, under the name User:Jbw2, and has also created articles on this wiki. It would be a good idea to check the user's contributions to make sure that copyright infrigements haven't found their way here as well. Have a nice day. Zouavman Le Zouave 13:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. First one of Jbw2's articles I looked at was Nuclear micro-battery, which he created recently. And it's a almost word-for-word copy of [8]. Neıl 龱 13:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted all the copyvios I could find, and warned the user. He hasn't edited in months, other than to add one interwiki. Marked as resolved. Merci beaucoup de transmettre cette information tres utile, Zouavman. Neıl 龱 14:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The site e-wikipedia.net is a live mirror site which is masquerading as WP-EN. See http://e-wikipedia.net/w/en/Wikipedia:About for example. Note the text link ads at the extreme bottom of the page. This probably isn't the right place for this, but WP:MIRROR seems useless. Can someone please report this to the appropriate WP authority for action? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, notice how you get a nice Error message now. ffm 13:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still working for me. Perhaps you could try it again? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whois:

Visit AboutUs.org for more information about e-wikipedia.net
AboutUs: e-wikipedia.net

Registration Service Provided By: NameCheap.com
Contact: support@NameCheap.com
Visit: http://www.namecheap.com/
	
Domain name: e-wikipedia.net

Registrant Contact:
   WhoisGuard
   WhoisGuard Protected 
   
   8939 S. Sepulveda Blvd. #110 - 732
   Westchester, CA 90045
   US

Administrative Contact:
   WhoisGuard
   WhoisGuard Protected (036ffa97c3c54f8aafed443612d2a49f.protect@whoisguard.com)
   +1.6613102107
   Fax: +1.6613102107
   8939 S. Sepulveda Blvd. #110 - 732
   Westchester, CA 90045
   US

Technical Contact:
   WhoisGuard
   WhoisGuard Protected (036ffa97c3c54f8aafed443612d2a49f.protect@whoisguard.com)
   +1.6613102107
   Fax: +1.6613102107
   8939 S. Sepulveda Blvd. #110 - 732
   Westchester, CA 90045
   US

Status: Locked

Name Servers:
   ns1.trool.pl
   ns2.trool.pl
   
Creation date: 28 Feb 2008 20:23:45
Expiration date: 28 Feb 2009 20:23:45

How are these normally dealt with? Neıl 龱 13:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look at Wikipedia:MIRROR#Steps, you'll see that someone should send a standard GFDL violation letter, followed by a reminder a week later, followed by a take down notice. Any volunteers? Ryan Postlethwaite 14:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd do it if I had access to another account besides my gmail ones, but my university account is offline right now... I'm assuming we want a little more 'officiality' behind it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there needs to be a note at m:Live mirrors, if anyone has a meta account .. ? Neıl 龱 14:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the GDFL or live mirror issue so much as it is that the site claims to be Wikipedia itself. See example link above. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a live mirror of the entire site, articles, project pages, user pages, and all. You can tell it is by going to (e.g.) Special:MyTalk - compare what you get here to what you get there. I've added it to the meta list, I don't know if this means the devs will block it? Neıl 龱 14:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's why I put "live mirror" in the section heading. ;) My point is that simply blocking the site or sending a GDFL-related email doesn't address the whole pretending to be Wikipedia part. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that's what live mirrors are ... Neıl 龱 14:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Live mirrors use the content of WP but appear to be a different site. This site uses the content and the layout and graphics of WP to deceive users into thinking they are viewing WP. In the example posted above, they reproduce the entire "about" page of WP-EN. This is not a simple case of a live mirror. Check out the example link [9]. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Per WP:BOLD, I have notified the foundation’s general counsel of this thread. —Travis^talk 14:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, they even have a live-updated recent changes feed that is a near carbon copy of en.wp's Special:Recentchanges. All the diff links and history links are http 404's, though. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that. It is an exact carbon copy. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the font and interface looks like boiled ass an imperfect mirror. My browser has images over text and navigation bars floating below the page. I wonder how they're typing in to our servers, and if that's creating a noticable load. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and sent the first violation letter via e-mail. And I will go up to a DMCA takedown notice, if needed. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 17:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, but you can only complain about your own content, not the misuse of WP logos, etc. TravisTX has notified the foundation's lawyer, so this is probably as resolved as it can get here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I could've sworn I read somewhere that block notification templates should not be removed for the duration of the block. This question is related to a thread at my talk page here. Am I off my rocker? xenocidic (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read through that. Not sure what policy specifically says on this, but it can clearly be seen as disruption to remove these templates during the block. So, keep them, protect the page if absolutely neccesary. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages" bit has been in the WP:USER guideline for 495 days [10], and it has been part of the official WP:VAN policy for at least 895 days [11]. However because people (including me) were still getting it wrong, this issue was extensively discussed at length at Village pump policy (see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 42#Wikipedia:User page and IP's) earlier this year, where the consensus decision was to update WP:USER to explicitly state that "both registered and anonymous users" are not prohibited "from removing comments from their own talk pages." The WP:BLANKING section of WP:USER states that the only types of messages that editors may not remove from their talk pages are declined unblock requests (but only while the blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppetry notices, or shared IP header templates for anonymous editors ... and these three are just to prevent editors from gaming the system. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, thanks for the link to VPP, I'll go check it out. Just to clarify my intent here, it is my opinion that block notices should be one of the "Important exceptions" noted in WP:BLANKING (as I said, I thought it already was codified somewhere). Perhaps this si best raised at VPP again, though. xenocidic (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the current three exceptions only exist "in order to keep a user from gaming the system," I am not sure what benefit would be gained by prohibiting editors from removing block notices. You may also be interested in the previous big discussion on this topic, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings (and its massive talk page), which failed to gain consensus back in 2006. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to mark this as resolved (and let sleeping dogs lie, for now - damn sleeping dogs), as it seems I was indeed, imagining it (or confusing it with not being allowed to remove declined unblock templates). xenocidic (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there is a concerted effort to not acknowledge my work. See the following odd coincidences:

1. After 127 WP:DYKs in which approximately 123 (97%) were properly recorded at WP:DYKA, the most recent thirteen of my DYK nominations have not been recorded in the archives. This is a bit much to be a coincidence. (Note the statistical odds of this happening as a matter of coincidence seems to be (4/127)^13=3x10^-20.)
2. When I became next in line for the Editorial Triple Crown, User:Durova went on hiatus from awarding them.
3. Suddenly, none of my WP:FC nominations can get enough support for promotion (see User:TonyTheTiger/Reviews).

   The recent inability to get any support votes for Portal:Chicago, Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago), Germany Schulz, Walter O'Malley are suspicious. These along with the consecutive fails of Rush Street (Chicago), Bob Chappuis, Marshall Field and Company Building, Jack Kemp when added to the mix is highly suspicious. It seems that the consistent theme of all the feedback is instructions to remove information. I am not necessarily suspicious of Dick Rifenburg or Crown Fountain at the stages they were at, although Crown Fountain has been revised and will be a major part of WP:CHIFTD.

4. The sudden absence of nominees for the WP:LOTM process is also curious.
5. User:SatyrTN retired leaving WP:CHICAGO without a bot to add {{ChicagoWikiProject}} and WP:BOTREQ has been unable to get a working bot to replace the services of User:SatyrBot.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has archived DYKs in weeks. Nobody has been awarded triple crowns in quite a while. All articles at FAC are suffering from a lack of reviewers. The world isn't out to get you. Maralia (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK has been archived quite consistently since during my last thirteen noms. In fact, four new archives exist where my articles should be included (Wikipedia:Recent_additions_215, Wikipedia:Recent_additions_216, Wikipedia:Recent_additions_217, Wikipedia:Recent_additions_218). Please become acquainted with both the archiving process and my statistical argument before sweeping my complaint under the rug. My point is that it seems to be among the many coincidences that Triple Crown awarding has stopped since I became next in line. FAC reviewer paucity does not come close to explaining the sudden absence of support from anyone for any nomination I make.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to Satyr, editors leave all the time and he left a large number of projects with a big hole to fill, not just your fiefdoms. In terms of LOTM, perhaps editors have become bored with the excessive bureaucracy there or are actially using their time to write some articles, because they certainly aren't reviewing any. Every review process is suffering from a chronic shortage of reviews, not just the ones that you have nominated. I think you need to put the tin-hat back in the cupboard and move on. Woody (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand people leave. His absence is not curious in isolation. My first two complaints I am making are actually extremely curious in isolation. Let's start with the first of my complaints. Can anyone who understands statistics and the archive process explain a 10^-20 event to me as a coincidence.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SatyrTN, god love him, also left WP:LGBT botless. I should claim homophobia, but I think Satyr's bot was as gay as he was. There is a bot request forum, which I employed while trying to get out the newsletter for WP:LGBT. WP:Florida is also silent. I don't know who to blame for that...someone who's not in the room will do... All groups go through phases of fierce productivity, lulls, patterns as members join and leave. --Moni3 (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your valuable work. But, if you expect recognition, Wikipedia isn't really much for that. We're volunteers, and the pay we get for our efforts is just as often abuse as it is thanks. That's life. Give yourself a couple barnstars if it makes you feel better. Friday (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could go on about this, but I won't, other than to say I see nothing for an admin to do here. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is where an investigation would start if you were investigatively inclined: First determine the thirteen individuals who each curiously omitted archiving my DYK in proper sequence. That would lead to clues for an investigatively inclined admin.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So that would imply some sort of conspiracy? Also, can't you archive them yourself? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that you are being blacklisted, in addition to the absence of SatyrTN I have noticed a sharp decline in several areas of WP including edits in general. It seems that people just aren't participating as much lately. I for one have drastically reduced the amount of time I spend editing and creating articles because my RFA and other RFA's have shown me that the general feeling within the established community seems to be that participating in wikispace and non article pages are more important when striving to become an admin and get the mop. So although I no longer desire the admin bit the unnecessary buearocracy and drama that has been prevailing on WP of late also caused me a lack of edit-drive and thus reduced editing. Perhaps others have the same feelings. Good Luck.--Kumioko (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]