Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Possible sockpuppet of Cute 1 4 u

Hello I believe that this user New York from Flavor of Love may be this indefinatly blocked user Cute 1 4 u. Check this dif [1] and talk page Leroyencyclopediabrown for the possible proof. If I'm wrong on this I appolize in advance but Cute 1 4 u does have a history of sock puppet and ban evasion. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 02:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

In addition I once I commented on that user being suspicious the comments that were made by New York from Flavor of Love were removed. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 02:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but this looks somewhat similar (Cute 1 4 u did once create an account impersonating Raven Symone). I'd file a RFCU. --Coredesat talk. o_O 02:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought about it, thanks I will should I post the findings here or will not not be needed? Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 02:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Any findings in the RFCU should probably be posted here unless it comes back positive and she's indef-blocked right then and there. But it looks somewhat definitive, looking at the user's edit history. --Coredesat talk. o_O 02:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Coredesat. I caught one of hers last week and the writing style is VERY similar to here other socks. I will post the finding once they come in. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 02:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The account *could* be blocked per WP:USERNAME I think... "New York" was in fact the nickname given to a real contestant on the first season of Flavor of Love (generally only the nicknames were used on the show) and thus this name more-or-less falls afoul of the "Names of well-known living people" clause. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

After looking at the userpage and what BoG said, I decided to issue the username block. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it absurd how much people-power is being thrown at stopping an alleged 11 year old female sockpuppeteer from "abusing" Wikipedia as a social network? --  Netsnipe  ►  04:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I take it from your use of quotation marks that you disagree with the characterization of social networking as an abuse of Wikipedia? Choess 06:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, based on this diff and the message the most current IP placed on Leroy's talk page, it's definitely her. She thinks she can hide stuff by deleting it. Ryūlóng 06:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just call me Ed.=) I apologize to everyone who has been trying to contact me overnight. I (obviously) was sleeping. Anyway, I think that Cute 1 4 u should be given one more chance. Two reasons for this. First of all, she doesn't have to keep making new accounts just to prove her point. Second, it removes the hassle of blocking EVERY SINGLE account she makes. We all know she's going to make more and more accounts.--Ed^{talk c E} 12:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, she was blocked for Sockpuppet abuse, impersation, Vandalism and the 11 year old part was just added ammo to the case. And the Check user came up possitive. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 18:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

New York from Flavor of Love and 75.34.176.105 have both been blocked indef as sockpuppets, although I thought that IPs shouldn't be blocked indefinitely. Was there an exception made? --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 18:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You know that she's going to make a new account anyway! What's the point for all of this hassle? This is a complete waste of our time! If we just give her a second chance on Wikipedia, less time for us working on her case, and one more volunteer Wikipedian.--Ed^{talk c E} 02:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Cute 1 4 u welcomed Starcare, who is likely a puppet of Publicola, who is likely a puppet of Pepsidrinka. Hard punt. Lots of socks involved here.--Scribner 03:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You see? The situation's getting worse. The only solution is to back off or get more admin power.--Ed^{talk c E} 03:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Scribner obviously has something against Pepsidrinka, so I'm taking his comments with more than a pinch of salt. – Chacor 03:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's way too much of a stretch. Ed, sorry, but Cute 1 4 u has just done too much. Yeah, she'll keep coming back, and she'll continue to contact you, and we'll continue to deal with her. If she realizes that she's not helping, then we'll stop blocking, but as long as she continues to contact you and admit that she's who she is, then we have to block her. Ryūlóng 04:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ryulong, I'm not the only one she might want to contact. Do you even realize that she could be lurking around Wikipedia right this moment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed (talk • contribs)

75.34.12.156 is another one. Posted on my talk page Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 07:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about this IP you found, but I think we should wait until she does something else before we take action against this IP.--Ed^{talk c E} 22:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It was blocked it was her (The post admited it) Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 00:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

How long is the block? --Ed^{talk c E} 00:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Another Possible one Prple space [email protected] edited with the summary Got to keep it real on edit summary (Dif [2]) a phrase that she used many many times as her qoute. Caught this one while monitoring recent changes Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 00:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This is Cute 1 4 u. If I had any socks, I'd admit them. I already told you all of them. But Ed is right, I'm trying to prove my point. --75.33.230.133 02:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Prple space [email protected] , User:Starcare, or User:Publicola. I swear, I don't even know them. However, to prove my point, all i can say is that i have a new account and I am much nicer on that account. Ed is right. --75.33.230.133 02:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I may have found another sock and I requested a check user (Came up again on Recent changes, edits article that were created by other socks with teh same grammer an such) Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 02:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

More or less confrimed the sockpuppet. Autoblock got it (See TV Lover) Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 04:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Cute 1 4 u (or whatever) is going to get me a headache. I tried asking her why she's doing this on her talk page, but she said she's "going to commit 'suiside' ," or something. I don't know... I know this may sound stupid, but can't we block her IP address, so she stops creating these annoying sockpuppets? Cheers! The RSJ - ^SPEAK 03:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

She's on a dynamic IP, SBC, I believe (according to the WHOIS reports). There's not much we can do but keep blocking her new accounts. She's not committing suiside any time soon. Ryūlóng 05:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you please clarify your statement? "Committing suicide"? Is it literal or figurative? --physicq210 05:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Prob Figurative she is 11 years old and has a history of being overly dramatic. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 05:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

She'll be back tomorrow, probably recreating that article of hers. Ryūlóng 05:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Do we have any way to protect the page from being created, say, creating a blank article then fully protecting it? Shadow1 17:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the article she keeps creating? Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 20:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This situation is getting nowhere. In fact, it's getting worse. She will keep making new accounts, and you know that. We must find a permanent solution to this.--Ed^{talk c E} 00:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The soulition is simple keep blocking her. We can't block her IP with out cuasing other issues. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 08:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone contacted SBC about this user? Letting them know that the misbehavior of one 11-year-old kid might lead to Wikipedia blocking their entire DHCP range could be an incentive for them to listen. -- llywrch 19:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I must tell you something. I live in the same area as Cute 1 4 u (not the same suburban area, we don't live close together or anything, we both in Metropolitan Chicago, which is in the United States). Anyway, SBC changed to AT&T in Chicago. AT&T bought SBC, so I have no idea what you guys are talking about.--Ed^{talk c E} 22:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me get my facts straight. Take a look at SBC Communications, which says that SBC was the one who bought AT&T. They then changed their name. --Ed^{talk c E} 22:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm am not misbehaving. I had stress but it has gone away. Not creating any more accounts. If I have to come back when I'm 13, I guess i'll create another account then. Say what you want. Don't contact me llywrch, I don't know you. --75.34.176.207 03:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

With that begin said I may have found yet one more sockpuppet of Her. I have requested another check user. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 19:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Another day, another sockpuppet, eh? What's the newest sockpuppet called now? Cheers! The RSJ - ^SPEAK_{The RSJ at the RS Wiki} 20:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

But Crystal (that's her real name, so everyone would know) already said she's not creating any socks.--Ed^{talk c E} 23:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

And I don't beleive her. Check my talk page for the latest. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 03:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ed, I'm not. That other sock was before i made my earlier statement. --75.33.249.5 05:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

on Aeon's page I met to say I wouldn't make anoter sock p. --75.34.185.51 18:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

vandalism of Utonagan page

There have been repeated occurences of vandalism on the Utonagan page within Wikipedia. These have implied that Utonagan have wolf content or are related to other wolf-look-a-likes who have wolf content. They have also mentioned behavioral problems which do not exist in the breed, and have even gone to the extent as to imply that they originated from alaskan dogs with wolf content.

As the foremost breeder of Utonagan in the country, these have become more than irritating.

The TCP/IP address of the user known to make these changes is: 212.36.181.65

With thanks

Nadia Carlyle

www.twatha-utonagan.com

block review, please

May I request wider review of the admin actions of Blnguyen (talk · contribs) wrt Sanskrit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? It is my understanding that the 3RR applies to bona fide content disputes. Is an editor (in this case Crculver (talk · contribs)) reverting several unrelated nonsense (but not necessarily bad faith) additions to an article in violation of 3RR if the sum of his reverts exceeds three, or should each case count as a separate 'content dispute' (if at all)? I am afraid that if we begin applying the 3RR cumulatively in this way, it will become rather difficult to keep articles with a high frequency of poor quality/nonsense additions in decent shape. dab (ᛏ) 07:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Generally, the 3RR means more than 3 reverts to one article in 24 hours. Doesn't mean to one particular version. Unless it's vandalism (and it doesn't appear it is), that user violated the 3RR. --Woohookitty^(meow) 08:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The 3RR always needs to be interpreted in the circumstances. The circumstances here were:

1. Two editors reverted each other four times each,
2. All of the changes in question were in substance the same (compare this and this with that and that).

In this case both editors, Crculver (talk · contribs) and Spiritindia (talk · contribs), were blocked for 3RR. In these circumstances I think both blocks were justified, especially considering Spiritindia went on to revert war with another editor (see this and this).

I'm not sure that I agree that more than three reverts to an article necessarily means that the 3RR has been breached. Clearly four of the same revert is a breach. But if a long-time editor of an article reverts four different contributors making four different edits, I wouldn't be so sure. One would need to look closer at the number of reverts, and their attitude, ie. whether they were reverting in good faith or to protect their version of the page. --bainer (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This is one of those situations where 3RR is being applied mechanistically. There is no doubt that the text Crculver reverted was POV, redundant with a more encyclopaedic treatment of the same facts higher up, and in somewhat questionable English (this is by now a very mature and well-written article with largely excellent use of English, scholarly in both tone and content); it seems to me that the article is better without that text. Nor was Crculver the only editor reverting it. Spiritindia inserted text and then refused to support its inclusion on Talk, and reinserted it with a variety of patently false assertions such as "no reason given for removal". It's obvious who the source of the problem is, here. If Crculver is repentant and asking to be unblocked I suggest we admonish him and unblock, if Blnguyen agrees. Guy 09:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Guy makes a good point. Let's consider my favourite article, The KLF. This is a Featured Article which is meticulously referenced but I doubt it's on many watchlists. An FA can be improved, of course, and I have no POV to protect, but what if 4 or 5 anons come along in a day and insert bad English, uncited assertions and general crapness? Am I supposed to say well I've reverted 3 times in a day it'll have to wait? Am I going to be blocked for removing crud 4 times in a day? I sure hope not. Also, I don't think it's fair to apply 3RR against a sole editor who is tackling 4 "opponents", unless those "opponents" collectively get 3RR too. Otherwise, in an edit war a gang of meatpuppets are guaranteed to win. --kingboyk 09:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

IN fairness to Blnguyen the two other editors then involved in the war (including Spiritindia) were blocked as well, and we do not endorse reversion as a way of pursuing content disputes. Thus far Crculver seems to have taken it in good part. But this still niggles at my sense of fair play. Guy 10:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

hm, I was referring to the circumstance that Crculver was blocked for 96 hours for 7 reverts, i.e. his 'Spiritindia' reverts were cumulated with other cleanup he had been doing. It may be arguable that Crculver did 4 reverts against Spiritindia, but to penalize him for 7 seems extremely 'mechanistic'. Are we administrators or shell scripts? dab (ᛏ) 19:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If a person takes 10 edits to do a revert, I count that as one revert. In any case, the 7 came from the bunch against Bharatveer also. It's true that the edits weren't of the best quality but Dbachmann has been using rollback on the Sanskrit page, feels this is perfectly justifiable and has called for the use of {{test}} templates for these edits, and Crculver said "could be fairly considered vandalism", so I'm not sure that his attitude is the best at the moment. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

'Seven reverts? I'd say that justifies up to a week. He really needs to cool down. --Tony Sidaway 23:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Justifies a week? Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Any number of reverts justifies precisely the length of block that it takes to get the person to stop reverting - no longer. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Normally, GT, I'd agree, but this isn't user:Crculver's first 3RR offence. It's not even his/her first offence on that particular page, even. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Crculver has violated 3RR on the same page before.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems like an awfully open-and-shut case for a thread of this length. Grandmasterka 05:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

While I am not saying that Crculver did or did not do something wrong, as I would have to check into it further, I am uncomfortable about blocking someone for removing unsourced statements from an article. It is allowed for negative statements on the biographies of living people and I see no reason why it should not be allowed for other articles, whether the statements are negative, positive or neutral. Also, it is very disturbing to think that the three revert policy could be used to keep a clearly false statement in an article. However, there is the troubling problem of people claiming that things are unsourced when they clearly are not or claiming that the source is not reliable, even though it is (although there are plenty of people who use awful sources). -- Kjkolb 06:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

great waste of time (Afd nominations not based on WP)

Spooky walk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spooky walk - EXCERPT Fails WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. It is realted to the various other AfD and CfD nominations for trivial items by the same author/major contribitor. It isn't even important whether this thing exists, or whether you can find it in google. It's as notable as a leather belt, which is fortunatley absent. Fiddle Faddle 22:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

User initiated similar deletion nominations. I consider it a waste of time. This argumentation style is not far from trolling and disrupting. Someone tell this user to stop it. User:Yy-bo 17:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You might think its a waste of time. However, some of the AfDs the person you are worried about initiates get a mixed reaction. You are probably best served by just participating in the AfDs and improving the articles. The Land 22:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering if everyone can use this argumentation style. It is not really important if the thing exists, it is important if i like it, and it is similar to a yellow sofa. Where is the button to speedy delete a user? REDO FROM START, TRY AGAIN. User:Yy-bo 12:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• I am always content if a nomination for deletion fails or if it succeeds because the community reaches a consensus in either case. However, I am confused and perplexed by Yy-bo's creation of articles by the bucketload, many of which are, to my eyes, not useful or notable topics, and really think the comment in the edit history on creation of yet another, here may show a misunderstanding of the ethos of Wikipedia. I think it is time for an experienced admin to make a judgement over this. Please also see my request for advice over this on my talk page and the response. - Fiddle Faddle 19:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The volume of your elaboration is too much. Suggest you maintain articles and leave my work as it is. A request for comment is not required, if you do not want it. Save the community time, i do not talk about you except the offical procedures. [User:Yy-bo]] 19:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Yy-bo's user page points to the user page of Nikemoto2511 on Wikisource, which links to a "closed" account Akidd dublin here on Wikipedia. Both Yy-bo & Akidd dublin demonstrate a similarly poor command of English, & appear to edit the same kind of articles (e.g., Baking oven, which has been since moved to Oven, & Red hair). Akidd dublin was a participant in a Mediation Cabal case. In short, this user has been around Wikipedia to be expected to know how it works -- yet still demonstrates he still doesn't know, perhaps due to the language barrier. -- llywrch 20:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: User Yy-bo saw fit to remove the above, claiming it was a "flame". I don't see what is enflamatory about the comment -- unless he resents my judgement that he has trouble with the English language. I am a disinterested observer (at the moment), & was merely offering a context for this user's actions. I suggest that if he disagrees with what someone writes that he defend or explain himself in a response. If another Admin agrees with Yy-bo's interpretation, I'll concede to that person's removal; but it is clear that this user either doesn't understand how to behave on Wikipedia, or he is being disruptive. -- llywrch 21:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yy-bo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been harassing Fiddle Faddle about his clearly reasonable nominations of articles to AfD and related comments, which has caused this good-faith editor some consternation. Yy-bo's behavior is inappropriate. —Centrx→talk • 20:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Having run into Yy-bo before via AfD rationales and his talk page, I feel that he is a well-intentioned editor but occasionally a misunderstanding (by him or another) due to poor receptive and/or expressive English skills becomes a tour de force of policy quoting and chest-thumping from one or the other side, or both. I don't intend to turn this discussion into an RfC on Yy-bo or anything, but I have seen him contribute some good edits/material and also get tenacious with what he thinks is an abrogation of policy (even if that's not the case). ju66l3r 21:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no argument with that assessment. He has huge energy and creativity. I just wish he would channel it into the excellence he is capable of. However I feel threatened by his attitude, and really would like someone to guide his hand. Fiddle Faddle 21:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

User Timtrent, masking it with Fiddle Faddle, this is annoying on its own. This user gets pretty much personal and is better off to stop it right now. The oven article is only edited technically. The information is not intend to be personal. Reference: WP:NPOV, no personal attacks. User:Yy-bo 19:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is an acronym for "Neutral Point of View". I think you mean WP:NPA -- "No personal attacks". However, that guideline refers to name calling & insults; I see none of those in what either Ju6613r or Fiddle Faddle/Timtrent has written. -- llywrch 21:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I would not dream of calling people here names or insulting them. Where the typed word has caused any misunderstanding I am always careful to apologise for any offence given unwittingly. Apart from anything else, lack of civility is counter productive and always causes resentment. We're striving for a better "product" here, not a set of disputes. 20:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC) This comment was written by Fiddle Faddle, who apparently miscounted how many tildes he typed at the end of his comment

This report is only about an unarguable Afd argumentation

The quotations about language usage do not belong into this report. I list the EXCERPT again:

Fails WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. It is realted to the various other AfD and CfD nominations for trivial items by the same author/major contribitor. It isn't even important whether this thing exists, or whether you can find it in google. It's as notable as a leather belt, which is fortunatley absent. Fiddle Faddle 22:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way this Afd was about an independent Article Spooky walk, which user Yy-bo is not the author of. User:Yy-bo 19:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

More of User Timtrent: The concept of a "Haunted Yard" is simply not a topic, disambiguation page or not, that belongs in any encyclopaedia I have ever come across. Yes, search for it in Google and there are hits, of course there are, but you also get hits for "Yellow Sofa", which we do not have an article on. In other words, Ghits notwithstanding, it is really trivial and deserves to go (Haunted yard). He used it for Halloween yard, in mistake, maybe a hurry. I stroked out his completely wrong argumentation, to save it from being embarassing. User:Yy-bo 19:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Repeating yourself won't do anything, nor will making another account. Your assertions have been refuted and your claims deemed meritless. Fiddle Faddle nominated the article for valid reasons. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 01:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Remedies

I have indefinitely blocked the sockpuppet, User:YBO. —Centrx→talk • 04:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I have warned the user about his behavior, see [3]. Hopefully, this behavior will end, but if it continues, it will likely warrant blocking of various sorts. —Centrx→talk • 04:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Creek people

Creek people has a repeat repeat vandalism offender. I hope posting here is the solution. The offender is an unregistered IP vandal 164.58.208.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who has changed the pages 16 times in the past 30 minutes.

Ed g2s orphaning {{promophoto}} images en masse

See full thread at User_talk:Crzrussian#Promophoto_massacre.

Ed_g2s orphaned and tagged for {{orfud}} fifteen images of my uploading without leaving a note of any kind. All the images were of U.S. State Attorneys General, each was taken either from the state's website or from the website of the National Association of Attorneys General, http://www.naag.org . All were tagged with {{promophoto}}. Example: Image:AG Danberg.jpg for use in Carl Danberg.

Ed_g2s' edit summary was, (WP:FU "An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like ... would almost certainly not be acceptable as fair use") each time. FU is a guideline, and IMO the particular clause he relies on is plain wrong. To make matters worse, it was only added yesterday. Ed_g2s attribute this line directly to Jimbo. I have seen no evidence of that. I haved asked him a couple of times that he revert himself and submit the matter to an IFD discussion to determine whether his chosen interpretation of policy is correct or desirable. He flatly refused to do so, essentially stating in so many words that he knows better, and that "[a]n IFD consensus would not bypass our Fair Use policy", or, in plain English, the community's reading of the Fair Use policy could not trump Ed_g2s' reading of same. This is extraordinary chutzpah.

I have not reverted him (though the temptation was there) and I ask those who are reading this page to intervene in this conflict, to revert Ed's changes (in order to stave off deletion),and to force him to submit to a consensus of his peers.

Our discussion is contained in full on User_talk:Crzrussian#Promophoto_massacre. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Good for him. It's about time someone gave WP:FUC #1 some teeth. --Carnildo 03:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, very curious; is it really correct to apply the "living person" point here? The photo is that of a living person, true; but it is being used to show what a fictional character looks like. Is the intended consequence of this "clarification" that articles on fictional topics be stripped of images? Kirill Lokshin 03:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest unless the appearance of the fictional character is much different from that of the actor, then a plain picture of the actor would suffice, and as such the same rule would apply (no promo pics). ed g2s • talk 09:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• I thought that fair use criteria were based on the type of text it accompanied. If the article is encyclopedic enough, one or two fair use images are okay (what's the point of an image that doesn't show what they look like). It's when they turn into mere good-looking illustrations that fair use cracks. A single image on a bio article is perfectly acceptable. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If an image truly is a promotional photo it's ridiculous to say we can't use it. That's what it's intended for (what does "promotional" mean?! :)). Of course, that's not to say some photos tagged this way aren't really promotional photos. --kingboyk 09:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be ridiculous, but we aren't saying that we legally can't use them, but that we don't want to use them. ed g2s • talk 13:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect you'll find that the average editor does want to use them. As before, most of us are here to write articles not to crusade for free content by refusing to use fair images in the vain hope that it will force copyright owners to release free versions. (Short answer: in some cases it will, in many cases it won't. We lose.) --kingboyk 14:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If people really want us to show a picture on their article, they should give us one and release it under a free license. People with promotional photos are certainly able to do so if they want to. Restricting fair use is a way to more free content. Kusma (討論) 09:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I imagine a lot of these people couldn't care less about Wikipedia. Restricting fair use is a way of cutting off our nose to spite our face. I'm interested in seeing the best articles we can make (including well illustrated one) not on a crusade to force the "capitalists" to abandon copyright. --kingboyk 09:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

We're not trying to force people to abandon copyright - we're are simply and free content project. Providing material free of copyright restrictions is one of our founding principles. If you want to create the best article you can create regardless of copyright issues then you need to find/start a different project. ed g2s • talk 10:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that. I said forcing people to abandon images which we are perfectly entitled to use and for which there is no free alternative is counterproductive. I provide my time free of charge and licence my work under the GFDL - but if I want to use a image and no free image is available or owned by me why shouldn't I use a fair use image instead?! --kingboyk 13:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Because it's our policy to not use Fair Use when we could obtain a free image. It hurts our long-term goal of creating free content. ed g2s • talk 13:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, if there's a decent free alternative we should always use it. We don't yet have the power to force the issue imho. There is of course a seperate issue, whether or not these pictures have been correctly tagged in the first place. To my mind, a promotional photo is a photo released in a press pack (printed or virtual) for the expressed use of media organisations. An image grabbed off a website and claimed by the uploader to be a promo shot because it comes from the subject's personal website is an entirely different matter. --kingboyk 13:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well our policy disagrees with you on this one, and so does Jimbo. There's not really much more I can add to that. ed g2s • talk 13:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong but images taken off the state attorneys website are in fact permissable. As for fictional characters if the image is released to the public domain in the form of a press kit then these images are being released to be used by the public for purposes of exposure. Should we use fair use images over free ones, of course not, should we delete all the fair use ones and wait for free ones, of course not. Should we substitute fair use images with free ones that are of far inferior quality, surely not. However a free image should be used when it is of equal or superior quality then the fair use. Dont cut off your nose to spite your face is a perfect saying for this. --User:Zer0faults 13:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:FU is not a policy btw. --User:Zer0faults 13:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:FUC is, and most promophotos fail point #1 of it. --Carnildo 19:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

While this convo is going on, may I remind you that these images will be deleted in seven days if Ed's changes are not reverted? I reiterate my request that one of you reinstate the fifteen images for the time being, in order that a proper IFD consensus may be reached. Thank you. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, a question: What measures are being taken to ensure this is not a meerly destructive campaign? Whilst Ed means well, simply removing all such images en masse will damage many, many articles, and often in cases were the aquisition of such imagery is difficult to impossible. If Ed was publically part of a wikiproject that was actively working for alternatives, contacting people to try and get promophotos under the GDFL, there would be no question about good faith. But it seems there is a nieve assumption being made that GDFL or otherwise free images will always be practically availible, which is certainly not the reality. I strongly advise that Ed stop all such actions and begins to work more productively with the community on this. LinaMishima 14:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

To call this a destructive campagin would be to assume a lot of bad faith. Whether or not I am actively involved in finding replacements is completely irrelevant. I am enforcing the policy and as such encouraging the use of free media. As I stated before if you disagree with the policy you can take it up at WP:FU. ed g2s • talk 14:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not assuming bad faith, removing informative material from an article reduces it's quality, and to reduce the quality of things en masse is by definition destructive. It appears that whilst you do mean well, you have not thought about the implications of much of what is being done. The discussion at WP:FU appears to suffers from a nieve belief that free images can always be taken, or permission will be granted, whilst in reality this is not a sensible assumption. Whether you are involved in sourcing replacements is an indication of your beliefs and motivations. By removing images but not seeking replacements, it creates a classic example of pure wikilawyering, rather than a strive to actually improve the articles. Whilst unfree images are indeed bad, images add significant content to an article, and most visitors to wikipedia will not understand the concept of GDFL, only that we don't have a pretty image. LinaMishima 14:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It is your opinion that removing Fair Use images reduces the "quality" of the article. Our policy is based on the philiosophy that articles with avoidable fair use images are of a less quality with respect to creating a free encyclopedia. I believe that removing these images will long-term improve the project as people strive to find free replacements for the spaces. If you think my motives are anything but the best interests of the project then you are mistaken. ed g2s • talk 14:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ed, I truly do believe that you were acting in good faith and meant the absolute best. Please understand that. What is being taken issue with is the medium-term implications, as it will take quite some time indeed to aquire free images and it is nieve to assume otherwise. May I suggest an alternative change in approach: Do a small numder a week, or even better announce the intention to remove the image link and mark the image for deletion in the following week. By making this a systematic project, people will have adequate warning to work on creating the replacements. Indeed, I would fully back such a measured scheme to remove all such images, it just has to give proper opportunity to work on aquiring replacements. LinaMishima 15:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Lina's suggestion seems reasonable (I'm still not convinced there is a policy cause to remove these images anyways since they are fair use and we don't have alternatives at the moment (obviously photos that are claimed promo with no good justification should be removed but I dont see that claim being made for these photos in general). Incidentally, please note that Jimbo's opinion isn't binding unless he speaks ex cathedra which I don't see him as having done in this case. Also Wikipedia may be now well known enough such that we could set up or work with some celebrities to release GFDL or similarly marked photos (I'm aware of a few less famous cases (mainly scientists) where this has been done). JoshuaZ 15:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I would put it more starkly: "I'm still not convinced there is [not] a policy cause to remove these images anyways since they are fair use and we don't have alternatives at the moment." - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well it's on WP:FU in black and white so there's not point denying it. This is policy and the images will be deleted. I don't see how doing 10 in one go was such a "massacre" as someone put it. Furthermore running each of these through IfD is unneccessarily long-winded and not the correct process for dealing with images which fall foul of our Fair Use policy. ed g2s • talk 16:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No, Crzrussian. They are not "fair use" because they fail #1 in WP:FUC (which is a policy). There used to be debates on how we should interpret "No free equivalent is available or could be created ..." but since the September 9 clarification on WP:FU (a guideline explaining the policy) there's nothing more to debate in this regard. --Abu Badali 16:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I expect your focusing on the "could be created" section. They are describing images such as flags and maps here. These are something that an editor may be able to recreate and release for free. Under your definition, no fair use would be acceptable as all images "could be" recreated for free. However, were not talking about people here. We should not have wikipedia paparazzi hunting down celebs to take pics for free release. Fair Use is perfectly acceptable until we can find or someone releases a free image. I completely disagree with their removal.

Rather than continuing to argue, can we agree to a compromise here? Annoyingly it is true that if someone is still alive and not a complete recluse or highly restrictive of photographing them, we should somehow be able to create GDFL or similarly licenced images. And if that is the case, the Wikipedia:Fair use criteria do not apply. However, as a gesture of good faith and in an attempt to minimise the short term damages, image deletions will be carried out with warning and in a series of phases, allowing time for free images to be sourced. The Wikipedia:English promotional images solution, if you will. LinaMishima 16:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If someone needs to see something labelled with a "policy" template that supports this, see item number one of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. We, and by we I mean both those people dealing with Wikipedia:Fair use issues and Wikipedians in general, have been encouraged to begin enforcing our fair use guidelines and policy, which we have, to date, been extremely lax about. The best way to support the continued careful and thoughtful use of unfreely licensed content on Wikipedia is to demonstrate that we are not using it to replace the freely licensed content that we're trying to provide here. The "promotional" template is an extreme case; very few of these images can actually be demonstrated to have their copyright owned by the subject or their agents. That means that they fail our basic sourcing requirements as well. The cleanup of that category is going to be a huge job, and I encourage interested editors to pitch in and help. Jkelly 16:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

My own view, which is at the extreme end of the spectrum I know, and therefore not (yet) formal policy in every case, is that we ought to have almost no fair use, outside of a very narrow class of images that are of unique historical importance.

The cover of an album is the best and only sensible illustration of an article about that album, for example. A screenshot from a movie is often also the best and only sensible illustration. Some pictures (Elian Gonzales and the Border Patrol for example) are historically critical and irreplacable and worth fighting a fair use battle for if necessary. But an ordinary photo of a random celebrity? We are much better off to have no photo than to have a fair use or even "wikipedia only" photo.--Jimbo Wales 21:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

link See also: [4] [5]

I'm not a fan of this (since I don't agree with the ideological motivations), but if we are really going down this path, can I suggest that we create a distinctive deletion template explaining the situation and a new WikiProject for requesting truly free versions from intellectual property holders. Dragons flight 16:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I like your wikiproject suggestion, so it's been added to Wikipedia:English promotional images solution LinaMishima 17:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Lina, thank you for creating this page. To make it really useful, I would suggest that you mention it on Wikipedia talk:Fair use and possibly upgrade it to a proper wikiproject. olivier 17:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate then for me to request permission from the National Association of Attorneys General to use these images freely, or do I have to worry about the states retaining copyrights in the images displayed on http://www.naag.org? - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, copyright is almost always retained anyhow (seriously, read the articles on it, it's a confusing mess o.O), what matters is if the NAAG can issue these images under the GDFL or a compatable licence. I'd say give it a try and ask them, and enquire who the correct people to contact would be if they cannot allow this. LinaMishima 17:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright is a mess. Look at Commons:Licensing about it. The images that we have "by permission" are usually also 'non-commercial' which means that any downstream user can't use them, which means that our project fails to be what we want it to be. Ideally we'd replace every publicity and permission image tomorrow, but it isn't going to happen that quick, but it must happen eventually, and the sooner the better imho. My own view is that it would be better to get rid of the flagrant abuses of copyright we have before deleting all the permission and publicity ones, but either way, one day they'll have to be gone. --AlisonW 20:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time understanding why we are trying to strictly enforce guidelines (not policies) which have nothing to do with actual copyright law, based on pseudo-policy decisions allegedly made on IRC. I think it would be much better if Jimbo simply issued a clear order somewhere stating that this is what he wants, for whatever reason personal reason he wants it; until then, these images should go on IFD like all the others. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If you find an image that Ed g2s has orphaned that is irreplacable and has verifiable copyright holder information, please let me know. Jkelly 16:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Jkelly, I don't think your response really dealt with the issues I raised. In any event, can you define "irreplacable", and help me understand how it applies here? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that I neglected to mention a few points that may not be obvious if you don't spend several hours a week looking at our fair use images. The overwhelmingly vast majority of them fail Wikipedia:Image use policy or Wikipedia:Fair use criteria; there is a huge gulf between our policy and our practice. It is already policy that if an image can be replaced by a freely licensed alternative, we don't republish an unfree one claiming "fair use". It is already policy that if we cannot verify who the copyright holder is, we don't (re)publish an image. Almost all of the images in the category under discussion fail on one of these two points, which are necessary, but not sufficient, under Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. If there are images that adhere to WP:FUC and Ed g2s (or anybody else) wants to see them deleted, then they need to go to IfD. There's lots of room for discussions about how best to go about unfree image cleanup, and whether it makes sense to focus on categories that User:Jimbo Wales has drawn attention to or not (I suppose), but I suggest that taking the position "We shouldn't be deleting images that are against policy", or "We should rewrite policy so that we can claim 'fair use' on media that we could replace with free content and when we don't know who the author/copyright holder is" is not fruitful. As I said above, I'm happy to volunteer to give a close look to any images that seem to meet policy and are in danger of deletion, as is, I am sure, Ed g2s, and to have as much discussion about this as is needed, but I would really like to encourage people with concerns to think in terms of helping with unfree image cleanup instead of resisting something that is going to have to happen sooner or later. Jkelly 18:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This entire mass deletion seems to either center around a form of wikilawyering, or a kind of "end justifies the means" idealogical battle over copyright and fair use. I think it is really stupid that the average person making wikipedia articles and those that read them are the only ones that suffer from this. Obviously this is Jimbo's website which he is kind for letting us use, and he is the final authority on every matter, but it is not our job to follow his every idea unless he tells (or even implies) that we have to. I have great respect (maybe even love ;) ) for him as a person and as an authority, but he is speaking from a macro-political viewpoint in his above statement, not as a writer of encyclopedia articles. Though I will say that in this situation I would rather Jimbo make a definitive decision that I do not agree with, than make no decision at all.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I left a note about this debacle on Jimbo's talkpage. - CrazyRussian talk/email 07:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It it "Jimbo's website"? What about the people who've donated big bucks to it? The people who've donated thousands of hours editing it? As far as I'm concerned this is a website for the people, in the custody of the Foundation. In my personal opinion it's about time Jimbo realised that, stopped glorying himself in our work, and became a normal admin like the rest of us. (And, imho, he should stand for election to the Foundation like everyone else). --kingboyk 17:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I would remove that quick or someone will jump on you like they did CB. --User:Zer0faults 17:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hephaestos = Michael = Mike Garcia = Johnny the Vandal = Willy on Wheels?

A few hours ago, 12.171.163.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made several posts titled "The truth about John" [6] [7] [8], apparently claiming that Hephaestos = Michael = Mike Garcia = Johnny the Vandal = Willy on Wheels. Can someone investigate this claim? Scobell302 03:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Who cares? These days anyone who does anything even vaguely related to pagemove vandalism or has a username containing something WoW like is Willy on Wheels. (FWIW the original vandal using that name was UK based, that user is US based). Given that one of those names was well known for harassing the others on the list, then you could take a view of either (a) It is one sad individual who can't get attention for doing constructive things or (b) it is just a furtherance of that harassment. Again who cares though? If someone is involved in vandalism and harassment - WP:RBI. Don't feed the trolls. --pgk 06:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget Bobby Boulder. --Cyde Weys 06:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:DENY. JoshuaZ 12:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't know any Mike Garcia, Johnny the Vandal, or Willy on Wheels. I know several Michaels, and Hephaestos used to contribute a fair bit, but I have never heard of the three people above. No idea what you're talking about. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Michael (talk · contribs) was a long-term vandal (see the most entertaining User talk:Michael/ban), who Jimbo attempted to rehabilitate - he made the account Mike Garcia (talk · contribs) for that purpose. Part of the reason was his alleged contrition, and partially because the AOL blocks that were aimed at him frequently hit others, particularly Danny (talk · contribs). If memory serves he finally admitted that while the Garcia account was relatively well behaved he was also running the Jonny the Vandal accounts. He claims to be WoW but there's no reason to believe him, as Pgk notes above. WoW really isn't a single vandal any more - it's essentially a franchised brand that any old idiot picks up. Hephaestos, on the other hand, was a long-term, very productive, highly capable and very well respected contributor and fearless vandal-slayer (back in the days before all these namby pamby vandalfighting tools like bots and autoblockers and even rangeblock). Michael had a particular obsession with Heph, and it looks like (surprise) Jonny the Vandal did too. There's no reason to suppose that Michael will stop any time soon (he's been doing this junk for years). The sooner we permanently block those parts of AOL which can't/won't send end-user IP info the better. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The major difference between Wow and Michael was their attitude - Michael was always a foulmouthed, threatening, nasty vandal. The real WoW (back when one could descern him from those who took his name) never was; indeed, he seemed to go out of his way to make himself obvious, and while his vandalism was frequent and sometimes hard to fix, it always seemed to me that (in his own weird litle way) thought he was part of the dev team, helping us with pen testing by doing vandalism we couldn't ignore but which (if some visitor chanced upon it) was both clearly vandalism and yet inoffensive (he could, lets face it, have renamed pages to something far worse than "... on wheels"). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Heck, Hephaestos was a vandal-fighter in the days when there was no ArbCom, & IIRC he had about as much clout as a newly-minted Admin today -- if that much (I don't remember if we even had Admins besides Jimbo in those days). BTW, Danny considered Michael one of his success stories, & I don't know if he's been convinced that Michael==Johnny the Vandal. It would be enough to discourage anyone if it is true. -- llywrch 20:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Michael is not Hephaestos. Hephaestos left Wikipedia because of Michael. The Johnny the Vandal is Mike Garcia, we know that now. I have yet to see Danny respond to any of this, though. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No one knows who any of these vandals really are. If someone gives you info claming that he/ worked with vandal there is know way of knowing.---Scott3 _{Talk Contributions Count: 950+} 02:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, still doesn't ring a bell. These people must not be of real consequence if I don't know them. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, everyone that you do not know does not matter. It is not like anything goes on without your notice or went on before you got here, as a self-described part-timer and newcomer, respectively. ;-) -- Kjkolb 06:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That's true. As a part-time newbie, I can't be expected to know everyone, but as an all-important janitor, I can state with extreme confidence that anyone I've never heard of doesn't matter. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Grapefruit seed extract

I think it's time someone went through the history of Grapefruit seed extract (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and it's talk page and do some sort of rangeblocking from this once static and now dynamic IP editor. Ryūlóng 06:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Their latest vandalism added the comment that they have "Dynamic IP Universal" (a great new-to-them program) on the Talk:Grapefruit page (here's the diff). I tend to agree that something may need to be done in a range sense for a short term or maybe sprotect will suffice. ju66l3r 17:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The below sub-section was overwritten on top of the above text. This is one example of the problems caused by this particular editor who is a frequent dynamic IP switcher within the 63.42.* range. ju66l3r 20:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Violations by Devios is against wikipedia's rules.

THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR THOROUGH INVESTIGATION. Now that I have your attention please investigate! Copyright Violations by "Devios" is against the pillar of Wikipedia's Rules! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grapefruit_seed_extract&oldid=72495019 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grapefruit_seed_extract&oldid=72467578

Compare the info which Judith Sims wrote and the illegal info Devios is putting and reverting to copyright info on wikipedia's website is considered VANDALISM!!! Read carefully. You will find copyrighted info on wikipedia's website. This is against the law.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2603/is_0003/ai_2603000396 < Judith Sims

Thanks in advance for conducting an investigation into this copy right violation.

Wikipedia does NOT have written permission from the copyright holder to use this information. Although the copyright infringement is in the history section it still needs to be removed.

Copyright Violations by Devios is against wikipedia's rules. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR THOROUGH INVESTIGATION. Now that I have your attention please investigate! Copyright Violations by "Devios" is against the pillar of Wikipedia's Rules! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grapefruit_seed_extract&oldid=72495019 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grapefruit_seed_extract&oldid=72467578

Compare the info which Judith Sims wrote and the illegal info Devios is putting and reverting to copyright info on wikipedia's website is considered VANDALISM!!! Read carefully. You will find copyrighted info on wikipedia's website. This is against the law.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2603/is_0003/ai_2603000396 < Judith Sims

Thanks in advance for conducting an investigation into this copy right violation.

Wikipedia does NOT have written permission from the copyright holder to use this information. Although the copyright infringement is in the history section it still needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.42.146.125 (talk)

this reposted again. And so again the same drill. The article has been cleaned up, the history can't be removed. -- Drini 19:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well couldn't we just delete the entries from the history in question? (Drini could you do this? I always screw up deletion of specific difs)JoshuaZ 00:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Brisbane Grammar School

Would a couple of kindly admins please put this Article on their watchlists. It has been the subject of much reverting and "debate" amongst interested editors. As someone not involved I will attempt to calm the situation but I am concerned it might quickly go pear-shaped. Someone with a bit more firepower than me watching the situation would be helpful.

--Charlesknight 13:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. I just placed it on my watchlist, and briefly looking at the history, I've seen that at least two administrators have recently edited the article. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 06:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Since someone else brought this to AN/I, I'll speak up now about my experience with it and the editors who work on it. I was so new that I didn't know what to do and thought that what happened to me was okay, and the way Wikipedia worked.

During my very first week as a registered Wikipedian, I put a 'cite sources' tag on the article page. There was an edit war going on about a sex abuse scandal and how the article should treat that scandal, so I thought I could help by asking them to provide a source for the content in question. I won't rehash the lambasting I got here, but if you're inclined to look in the history of the article's talk page and my talk page in June 2006, it's there.

I couldn't log in to Wikipedia without someone leaving a nasty personal attack on my talk page almost as soon as I logged in. I really was trying to help, but they scared me so much that I almost left Wikipedia for good. I didn't yet know about admins and that they could intervene, or that I could refactor personal attacks out of my own talk page. Obviously, I eventually decided to stay here and I'm glad I did, but it left its scars, which I'll keep to myself. I truly hope they haven't intimidated any others in that fashion. An admin really needs to see what's going on over there, because Wikipedians should not behave like that. Thanks – I really needed to get that off my chest. :-) BaseballBaby 21:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Comedy of errors

I was enjoying not editing Wikipedia, but have been lurking now and then and making a few comments here and there. Today, I noticed, out of the blue, that I had been placed on probation by the Arbitration Committee.[9] Needless to say, it came as quite a surprise. After all, nobody ever told me that the ArbCom was even considering doing as much. I've been involved in ArbCom cases before, but only as a witness. Never as a defendant. I was placed on probation for "tendentious editing," with 5 members voting yes, 1 voting no, and 1 abstaining. The reason? Well, since I've been "banned twice"[10] for 3RR (well, actually only once, since the other two times were later admitted to have been hasty, if not in error), it must follow that I'm a very tendentious editor who needs to be on probation. What is strange, however, is that there was no discussion of this on the case's workshop page. Where did this come from, then? It was placed on the proposed decision page on 28 August 2006, over a month after opening the case (and long after I had paid any attention to it);[11] I received no notification.[12]. Any discussion of the matter is curiously absent from the evidence page[13], and, of course, I had no input in the matter, since I was never told about it.

This only underscores the reasons why I have stopped contributing to Wikipedia. The head does not know what the hands are doing, and the hands don't even know they have fingers. Now I have the distinct pleasure of being placed upon probation without any apparent reason or any apparent warning. I'm extremely disappointed in the administration process, and especially at the ArbCom members who who, it seems, voted yes without adequate consideration of due process. Their only reason for placing me on probation seems to be that it seemed like I had been blocked for 3RR a number of times.

So, now I'm on probation, without evidence, and without ever having been notified that I was even being considered to be put on probation, thereby preventing me from defending myself. Preposterous. --AaronS 16:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• It was in plain sight for weeks, having been added in late August by Dmcdevit [14]. If you don't edit in a tendentious fashion, as you claim, then you should have nothing to worry about. You were still editing heavily when the matter was proposed, but to judge from your contributions you were busy elsewhere. You had weeks to defend yourself, but you chose to stomp off in rage instead. Now you come back to find that the wheels do indeed continue to turn in your absence. I'm afraid I can't fathom how it is you've been wronged in this matter. Mackensen (talk) 16:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you really expect me to keep an eye on an ArbCom case that I'm not even involved in? I offered my initial statements as a witness in July, and then let those people who were actually involved sort it out. I had no opportunity to defend myself, because I was completely in the dark. Furthermore, I did not stomp off in a rage at all when I left Wikipedia. I was disappointed, yes, but not angry. Just like now. I also find it disappointing that anybody who is critical of Wikipedia in general gets caricatured as an angry, angsty, whining idiot. I'm just presenting my thoughts, and I would appreciate it if you treated them with the same consideration with which I treat yours. Your hostility seems unwarranted. --AaronS 16:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm just telling you how I see the matter; I see no need for you to bring in all those negative epithets. For my part, I've always kept an eye on Arbitration cases in which I had either given evidence or been named a party. As a frequent editor of a page involved in an arbitration case you were obviously a party to the matter. My characterization of your leaving is based on my reading of your supposedly final post on this noticeboard, after which you promptly disappeared for a length of time. If you've been characterized as an "angry, angsty, whining idiot" it's only by your hand; I've made no such remarks and I see nothing in my rather terse reply above that would suggest such a characterization. You were in the dark by choice. Mackensen (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Forgive me for interpreting your statements as smug and dismissive; clearly I was in error. I was also unaware that people become party to an ArbCom case simply by association. I was never named as a party to the case. I gave evidence, monitored it for a while, and then stopped monitoring it after a few weeks. My final post to this page contained no "rage," just disappointment, as I have already noted. Characertizing someone as "stomping off in a rage" has plenty of negative and condescending connotations. You are correct that there was no need for me to bring them to the forefront; they were already there. --AaronS 16:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
        • This same thing happened to me, after over 1 month of my arbcom case having no attention its being proposed I be put on probabtion even though the other people involved, including the accuser do not edit Wikipedia anymore. Luckily someone drew my attention to it since after almost 2 weeks of no admin or arbcom member even noticing it I took it off my watch list. As it stands it would have flown right by me that anyone even proposed anything, actually ti did since they moved on to the enxt stage without even informing me. I guess its just the load of the ammont of work they have, but it seems it prevents people from actually being to defend themselves as at any moment things can spur along rather quickly, meaning proposed items to final items in 3 days after 1 month of no activity. --User:Zer0faults 16:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
          • The case, which is, oddly enough, named Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults, is about your behavior. We are not expected to inform you when something is proposed in your own case, besides which, it hasn't even been closed yet, and you do already know about it. Dmcdevit·t 00:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Something obviously has to be done about the situation as I filed an Arbcom against another user and it came back one month after the person quit Wikipedia that they were being given a 24 hour block ... Perhaps Arbcom needs to grow as the wiki grows. --User:Zer0faults 16:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The probation should stand; however this was an oversight on behalf of the Committee and the Clerks. We should have added AaronS formally as a party to the case and notified him shortly after probation was proposed. --Tony Sidaway 16:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

In a case like this (where apparently notice was not given to one of the added parties), I would hope that ArbCom would be willing to reopen the relevant portion of the case should AaronS wish to present some evidence in his own defense. Dragons flight 16:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Dragons flight. olivier 17:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As do I, but... tisk, tisk, we forgot that arbcom is above us mere mortals, so it doesn't matter worth a damn what we say here. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

So, thanks for that useful comment. Would you like to take a free kick at someone else, too, or are you finished for the day? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I was gonna spit on some homeless orphans, but that might be too magnanimous of me. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If the ArbCom admits that it has made a mistake in the application of its procedure, then it is in the interest of its credibility to step back and apply the procedure properly. olivier 17:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I would assume that, as in most cases where probation is imposed, the involved party may make a request to have the probation lifted. In this case, a request of the following form is probably appropriate.

I would like to apply to have my editing probation lifted. I did not know that probation was being considered as a remedy to be applied to me, and was not notified that ArbCom was treating me as an involved party to the case. I believe that probation would not have been applied in my case had I had an opportunity to explain my actions. Specifically, probation is inappropriate in this case because of the following errors of fact or interpretation by the ArbCom: ____, ____, and _____.

Note that if there isn't an error in the ArbCom's findings of fact, or there isn't a good explanation for the behaviour observed, the probation is unlikely to be lifted. (He did receive 3 3RR blocks over a span of six weeks, imposed by three different admins.) This can be handled as a single motion amending the closed case. I also note that probation, in and of itself, doesn't restrict an editor in any way—as long as that editor abides by our policies and employs good editing practices. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a general familiarity with ArbCom procedures but no involvement in this particular case, no acquaintanceship with (?ex-)User:AaronS, and no familiarity with the subject article, Anarchism. It appears to me that AaronS has a legitimate complaint here. According to his user contributions, he posted comments on WP:RfAr at the case acceptance stage, on July 24. The case was then opened on July 26 and ArbClerk Tony Sidaway duly notified him on his talk page that: "An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened. Please add evidence to the evidence page. You may also contribute to the case on the Workshop page." (Italics mine, obviously.) There is no suggestion that the user must submit anything or follow the case for a decision.

The form of this notice was different from the one given to users who were considered parties to the case, for example, User:Intangible. The notice from Tony to those users read, "An arbitration case involving you has been opened...." There was no indication that AaronS was a party to the case or was potentially subject to sanctions.

Once the ArbCom accepted the case, an ArbClerk sets up the case with its Case, Evidence, Workshop, and Proposed Decision pages. At the top of the Case page, the template reads, "Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a party in this request." However, the Case page was opened on July 26, and AaronS last commented on July 24, on the main RfAr page, which does not have such a notation and frequently incorporates comments from "uninvolved users" (I myself have commented there on occasion, and do not consider that doing so made me a party to the case I commented on, although I did follow the cases thereafter). The Case page lists the involved parties as Cberlet and Intangible; there is no mention of AaronS as a party and, although it might have made good sense for him to be following the case, he was under no notice that he had to do so and it appears that his surprise at having been notified, more than two months later, that he had been placed on Probation, is genuine and understandable.

As Tony Sidaway indicates, what occurred here is an inadvertent error on the part of busy ArbCom members and ArbClerks in not notifying AaronS when an arbitrator decided sua sponte to propose a remedy against him. No aspersions of any kind should be cast and good faith on the part of the Arbs and ArbClerk is not only assumed, but it is clear that the fullest good faith was actually present throughout.

However, given the error that took place, the appropriate procedure is for an interested party to make a request on WP:RfAr that this case be reopened to give AaronS an opportunity to present evidence if he wishes to do so. In the first instance, an Arbitrator can present such a request, or Aaron can do so himself (it goes under Requests rather than Motions if a non-Arb does it). If AaronS wants, I will place the motion on the page for him, although I am not expressing any opinion on whether he ultimately should be on probation or not (nor do I know if he cares given that he says he's on quasi-perma-Wiki-break anyhow).

Looking forward, I suggest that it become a practice that if a user is named on Workshop or Proposed Decision as being subject to a remedy, he or she be notified on talk. It sounds from what Tony has written above that this is what is intended anyway.

This sincerely is not aimed as a criticism of the Arbitrators or the ArbClerk for an inadvertent mistake. (I think ArbCom does a good job; if I were to criticize them at all, it would be for the undue delays that permeate some of the proceedings; understandable to be sure, as we are all busy people here and the Arbs more than most, but ... well, that is a conversation for another time.) Nor is it meant as Wikilawyering; ArbCom is not litigation, and picky procedural points should often be disregarded; and in any event, if I ever have to Wikilawyer, it won't be for someone I never heard of before :) . But this situation goes to the fundamental fairness of the proceeding, and I think it is in the interest of ArbCom as well as the affected user to acknowledge that, an inadvertent mistake having been made, it should be corrected. AaronS may wind up back on Probation anyway, but he's entitled to have his say if he chooses. Newyorkbrad 18:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to everybody for your comments. I appreciate the efforts of people to take a closer look at this matter and to try to examine it as objectively as possible. To be honest, if the case were to be reopened or reevaluated, I'm not sure how I would respond, because no evidence was presented to which I could respond. My involvement was apparently not discussed on any of the pages. In fact, the only discussion concerning me that I can find is on the discussion page of the main case page. Lingeron, sock puppet of indefinitely banned user Thewolfstar, posted a long diatribe against me, it seems. I wasn't even aware of it, or, if I was, I don't remember it now. Thus far, the argument seems to have been that, since I have a block log with some 3RR violations, I must have deserved it. Such an argument, of course, is highly fallacious and unfair.

I only care about this ArbCom decision because it is a slap in the face. I don't think that it received the attention that it deserved, and feel that it was marred by procedural missteps. As I said in the beginning, if it were to be reexamined, I'm not sure what I would say. The most surprising thing is that, as of yet, no evidence has been presented against me. Again, thanks to everybody for your input. --AaronS 20:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Weren't there eleven active members for this decision? The committee page version on 26 July [15] lists fourteen total and eleven active, and the proposed decision page states only three were inactive. The arbitration closed with five support votes and one abstention. Wasn't this remedy lacking a vote for majority support?EricR 21:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't even notice that. Good point. --AaronS 21:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

A user facing AC sanctions must be informed that they are party to an RfAr, so that they would be allowed the opportunity to respond. El_C 21:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point as to whether 5-1-1 is a majority here, but I've probably been overly analytic today on multiple threads so I'll let that one go. The substantive question is whether the user had a fair opportunity to be heard before he was found to have edit-warred and a sanction was imposed. Granting that there may be little value to reopening a case if the result is predetermined, the sub-question is whether there's any reasonable possibility that the result might have been different if the user had been asked to submit his evidence. Given that one arbitrator (Fred Bauder) voted against the finding because he found insufficient evidence against AaronS, and another arbitrator abstained because he did not think this user's conduct was serious enough to warrant probation, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that a full opportunity for AaronS to be heard could have changed the result. Newyorkbrad 23:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As a regular editor on the anarchism page, I can say that there is a good chance the probation would not have gone through had aaron (and others such as myself) been able to comment on the matter. As Aaron says, one of his blocks was overturned after he explained the situation. The blocking admin in the second case apologized and said they wouldn't have blocked had they had more information, but the block had already expired by that time, so he was never unblocked. So basically, he has one block, and considering the crap that goes on at the anarchism articles, and how long he's been editing, that's pretty impressive. Most of the edit warring that happens there is due to users who are now indefinitely blocked, or sockpuppets of those users before they are blocked themselves for being socks. A lot of outsiders don't realize this, so users like Aaron will occassionally be blocked. It's understandable, and it usually gets resolved without a problem. I personally think probation is a bit harsh in his case. Especially considering he was never even notified. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 23:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem here is clear. I was the one that personally added the proposal, and, since AaronS was involved, having offered evidence and had evidence offered against him, it didn't even occur to me that he would be unaware of the proposal. I just learned that he was, and that is unfortunate. As Dragons flight suggests, if he has a defense he would have liked to put forth, I, as with the rest of ArbCom, am ready, willing, and eager to hear it. Place it in the WP:RFAr#Requests_for_clarification section where we regularly hear appeals. TenOfAllTrades' advice on the appeal is sound. Also: it's a wiki, everything is reversible, I am very human (believe me, being an arbitrator has made me more aware of that fact, not less), and I'm still trying to figure out quite why the tone here is so accusatory only a matter of hours after this issue was raised. Dmcdevit·t 00:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your open-mindedness, Dmcdevit. I appreciate your taking the time to reconsider this. It is also encouraging that you are more than happy to embrace your human limitations, which is always a healthy and commendable acknowledgement. As I have indicated a number of times throughout this discussion, however, I am confused as to what accusations of wrongdoing I should defend myself against. So far, no evidence has been provided. The only thing I can find in that case pertaining to me, before you added anything regarding me, is a post by banned user Lingeron, which was replied to rather eloquently by WGee on the main discussion page. You noted that I had been blocked a few times as a result of WP:3RR violations, but much discussion has already been had with regard to those blocks, and their gravity is less than certain. Since nobody seems to have presented any evidence against me, and since you were the person who made me a party to the case, perhaps you have evidence that you would like to present. In that case, I encourage you to do so, so that I, along with a few other editors, I am sure, could respond to it.

There is also the issue of an apparent lack of a majority. If the required majority was 6, and there were only 5 yes votes, then this might be a non-issue. Thanks again, --AaronS 01:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

AaronS, you should make these points on the requests for arbitration page. The other arbitrators may not see them here. Good luck. Newyorkbrad 01:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. --AaronS 01:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If the other arbitrators join in the fair and sensible approach of Dmcdevit, it looks like the problem is solved. Speaking for myself, at least, no accusatory tone whatsoever was intended; I stated several times that what happened was clearly an inadvertent oversight, and was concerned only because there were suggestions (not by arbitrators, and some since withdrawn) that perhaps it shouldn't be fixed. ArbCom is busy, and Dmcdevit is one of the two most active arbitrators (being one of the two arbs who actually write the decisions), and the community (well, the small subset of the community that follows ArbCom matters) understands and appreciates that. Newyorkbrad 00:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed completely; I would like to take this opportunity to praise Newyorkbrad's advice here. There's not much more I have to say in extension of Dom's comment, however. :-)

James F. (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that I complained about the lack of natural justice in my case, when the very same arbitrator responsible for this débacle thought it perfectly reasonable to go about making findings concerning my actions which had not been brought in evidence and which were irrelevant to the case actually before the ArbCom. This separate case is, to coin a phrase, "particularly egregious". David | Talk 16:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Another User:Pnatt sock

• Aflfinals (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can you please block this one as well. It's pretty clear he chooses not to yield on a number of pages, including Cranbourne, Victoria and MySpace. Should I start a new discussion section when each of these new socks shows up or update a single one while it remains on the AN/I front page or some other method of sock removal that I'm unaware of? Thanks. ju66l3r 17:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

We could adopt the path used at Woman, where no changes to the lead image are allowed without first gaining consensus on the talk page. Any changes without consensus may be immediately reverted. If we identify which bits he keeps changing, then we can adopt a similar policy and keep on reverting them, regardless of what account shows up. Pnatt is of a dogged and determined personality, and we need firm measures to keep control. If he were able to work with other editors and accept consensus, then there would be no problem. --Jumbo 22:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If he were able to work with other editors and accept consensus, he wouldn't be community banned. Sockpuppet blocked. To Ju66, if the socks continue to be as obvious as this then often WP:AIV will block them (as long as you say who it is a sockpuppet of, and summarise the evidence - nothing more detailed than "sockpuppet of User:Pnatt demonstrated by usual edits on MySpace"), and if it gets removed without blocking you can then go here. I wouldn't keep adding to the same section, as people tend to read these boards from the bottom upwards, new posts first. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, Samuel. I will try AIV first next time and see how that goes. I appreciate the help. ju66l3r 03:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

request for block of User:LordByronKing

LordByronKing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing in a suspicious manner, disrupting the editing process by making one change - saving - then making another, and has failed to respond to comments posted on his talk page, even though he remains extrememly active on Wikipedia. He has been adding books to lists, deeming them as "notable", without any reason for their notability - and they all tend to be by the same author, Steeves Volmar. He has also been making controversial changes to pornography actors - changing the stated sexuality to the whichever he thinks it "really" is. Viewing his contributions you can see that he edits repetitively, sometime for periods lasting five hours (these edits tend to be no more than 1-2 min apart). I have listed him at Wikiquette where an objecive third person has confirmed this suspicious activity. His edits are SO numerous that it becomes very difficult chasing after him trying to revert everything he's done. The wikiquette page and his talk page go into more detail. -Zappernapper 18:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have given him a last warning on his Talk page. Note that an apparent sock puppet, User:Onedayoneday, has been blocked for making threats against another User. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have now blocked him for re-inserting himself into articles. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Zoe -Zappernapper 04:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Move war fallout?

I'm not sure how that happened, but all of a sudden I have a dozen pages like Wikipedia:Snowball fight and Wikipedia:SherlockJones on my watchpage. It seems someone was move-warring over WP:SNOW... but how come none of these pages show up in the move log, in the SNOW history, or have any history or deleted history? Is this some software change of which I'm unaware? >Radiant< 20:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Possibly caused by moving the article's talk page separately from the article? [16] --pgk 20:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed it too. Sigh. LinaMishima 20:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

There was some page-move vandalism to WP:SNOW the other day by User:SherlockJones, which was the cause for the new pages hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 06:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attack Report

I left a report on WP:PAIN a couple of days ago, viewable here. It does not appear that anyone has reviewed it in that time. Since it seems to have been much longer than the average response time now, I just am posting a request for somebody to take care of that report. Thanks. Markovich292 22:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, will never take action which favour editors who (in my opinion, tendenciously) repeatedly advance the viewpoint that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not an antisemite. I doubt many other admins would care to, either. That is then why your pleas continue to be ignored. El_C 02:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

As has been stated repeatedly on the talk page there, it is not that people are trying to advance the viewpoint that he is not an anti-Semite. The whole idea is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and his anti-Semitism has not been proven to warrant this being called a fact on this site.

ThuranX is the one who violated policy, so this has nothing to do with showing favoritism. It is unfathomable how administrators can ignore a personal attack just because they share an opinion with the person that committed that attack. Ignoring such an incident is obviously contrary to the moral obligation and duties of an admin, not to mention an invitation for others to break the rules in the future. Markovich292 06:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's fathomable, because I am entitled to choose when and where I expend my voluntary efforts in this project. I didn't notice any outright personal attacks, maybe some incivility. In MA's case, I consider Holocaust denial and antisemitism to be interchangable. El_C 07:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

What is unfathomable to me is how an administrator, someone that is supposed to be upholding the values of Wikipedia, can ignore such behavior. For the sake of argument, lets just call this behavior incivility. That is still something that admins should deal with. Your "voluntary efforts" apparently include reading incident reports like mine (which you obviously read because you mention incivility) and just ignoring them because they dont jive with your POV. Since when does being an admin entitle you to use your tools selectively based on your POV? Markovich292 20:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've left a note at ThuranX's talk page about civility issues. Hopefully it was phrased in a way that makes my opinion on the matter clear. (although it shouldn't be that hard if we really tried to get even more sources that called Ahmadinejad an anti-semite) JoshuaZ 19:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I thank you for taking the time to address this issue, but if this is really incivility and not a personal attack, that is all the more reason that a warning is not sufficient for this situation. ThuranX has two prior incidents with incivility that drew admin response (one of which was actually a full block), and it is my understanding that repeated negative behavior like this is particularily frowned upon. To give another warning after already having been blocked once is just inviting him to do it again and again. Markovich292 21:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Hornplease's declaration that he will violate wikipedia rules

Regarding this user, he has been edit-warring on 2006 Malegaon blasts. The content dispute is not the issue I'm complaining against here, of course. It is the fact that he has declared two things. 1. That he will continue edit-warring, not violating the letter of WP:3RR but the spirit of it, and that he will stop assuming good faith, a declaration of violating WP:AGF. The talk page diff is below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2006_Malegaon_blasts&diff=75792345&oldid=75749909 Hkelkar 00:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh. It looks like you missed this update:

Eh? I have not declared that I will violate the rules! I am trying hard not to. I gave you an opportunity to make your case, while leaving it in your preferred version! How is that a violation? Instead of putting an NPOV tag on it, try and work it out here. [17] --Calton | Talk 01:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Hornplease also has vandalized many talk pages citing BLP even when comments were not aimed at the BLP, but their work (which usually has a criticism section)[18] [19]. Also, has a very obvious problem with Hindu related articles, as seen with this deletionist harrassment on this AfD [20].Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any intention to violate wikipedia rules here. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Please elaborate. He expressly stated that he will 1.Cease AGF and 2.Continue edit-warring. That's 2 declarations of policy violation.I have seen users who have been indefbanned for less.Hkelkar 23:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

See section below, a somewhat misguided contributor is the victim of a witch-hunt.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that blocking someone appropriately per WP:BP was called a "witch-hunt" now -- Samir धर्म 04:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I am quite disappointed that what I thought was a invitation for an editor with a questionable history regarding POV to lay out the reasons for his attempts at ownership of a high-profile article was misunderstood by the editor in question. I think my actions speak for themselves at this point, though I am available for any clarification if necessary. I admit that henceforth I will look with a somewhat more jaundiced eye at the contributions of the editor who - in the kindest of interpretations - misunderstood my comments enough to report them here, but as far as I know that's not a violation of policy. Also, I am not sure that making the point repeatedly on an AfD that the Gujarat Administrative Servxs is not the same as the IAS is a symptom of an 'obvious problem with Hindu related articles". Hornplease 13:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

User:BADMINton

Can someone review his behaviour please? He has been giving people vandalism tags in content disputes, and when I asked him about this, he became rather hostile User_talk:Blnguyen#Personal_attacks.3F, so I would like someone else to have a look in case that I am too involved to act impartially, or at least give the impression of partiality. His posts since then leave me wondering about whether he is serious about editing here. In one edit summary he refers to User:Hornplease as "Horny", for instance. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 08:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Samir issued a final warning. Guy 09:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Despite explaining WP:3RR and WP:BLP to him, he continuosly broke 3RR by adding unreferenced and potentially libelous commentry. I've reported him to WP:AN/3RR. --Ragib 09:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The ban is unjustified and User:Ragib should peruse the policy (written in English) once again. Which text was "unreferenced"? Good Bloke 13:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser shows that this new user is BADMINton using a sockpuppet to evade his block. Dmcdevit·t 01:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Though the jibes at Hornplease were quite unwarranted, the trouble with User:Ikonoblast (formerly User:Holywarrior are not unique to Badminton. At least 6 users have been insulted, cheated, and affected negatively by Ikonoklast's actions. Soft discipline should be given to Badminton.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, here is what this user has been doing, since emerging from his block:

• Opened a sockpuppet account Good Bloke (talk · contribs) to evade the block.

No comments on such a statement. Does this call for a ban? ♔BADMIN♛ (आओ✍) 23:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Nazi user box, claims in his user box page to be a Nazi, with a swastika image

The Swastika is sacred. The Nazis lost the war and Germans still love them. Plus, it's MY sandbox.♔BADMIN♛ (आओ✍) 23:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Also, in the same page, claims to be a Wikipedia lawyer in an userbox.

Hilarious! I can try anything in my sandbox. ♔BADMIN♛ (आओ✍) 23:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Added fake gfdl-self tags to an image taken from a website, and upon being notified of the copyvio, retorted that he is the original source though (even the low res image's pixel sizes match exactly).
• Copypasted huge amounts of text from a website, reverted the copyvio reversion, (claiming he material is NOT copyrighted. It appeared in the Pioneer and it is freely distributed. Several websites are using it."),
• For reverting these copyvios, attacked me in my talk page, saying "Please do not dissuade other users if you yourself cannot contribute a word to this encyclopedia. ", and even worse, accused me of "racism".

Who accused you of racism? ♔BADMIN♛ (आओ✍) 23:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Engaged in incivility towards other users.

How can I comment on a baseless comment? Back your claims. ♔BADMIN♛ (आओ✍) 23:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that, this user has been redirected to the appropriate policies countless times, so lack of knowledge of policies does not seem to be an issue here.

An RFCU has been filed, but regardless of the result of that, I think some other admin should take a look into the above behavior, and act accordingly. Thanks. --Ragib 22:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If I block this account for the copyright infringement until they commit to not doing any more of it, is someone going to object? Jkelly 22:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this is something which should be done immediately. Even after a lengthy discussion and advice thread on his talk page, he just uploaded the same image under a different spelling. See this. Even worse, the user continues to claim this to be "gfdl-self" while the image is clearly taken from a website (low res, exact pixel/file sizes). --Ragib 22:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked, noting that the user can be unblocked when they commit to not engaging in further plagiarism or copyright infringement. Jkelly 22:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

They've commited to this, so I've unblocked. Any other problems should be handled through normal dispute resolution. Jkelly 23:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It is worth note that User:Ragib pays more attention to what I am doing than contributing anything to the Wikipedia. ♔BADMIN♛ (आओ✍) 23:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually Ragib has done a lot of work on wiki though I dont support the treatment meted out to you.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've certainly had enough of this trolling. He created a user box stating he was a Nazi [21], trolled merrily on his talk page and those of others: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], on WP:RCU [39], on this page (see "The Swastika is sacred. The Nazis lost the war and Germans still love them" above), ignored warnings by Blnguyen, Srikeit, Ragib and myself, and uploads obvious copyright infringements with spurious reasons as to why they are not copyright infringements. He's edited tendentiously on many pages [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], been blocked for 3RR and even opened a sockpuppet: Good Bloke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to back his position. RCU indicates that he may be related to the Rajput vandal, BADMINton admits to opening other accounts [47] and given the similarity of edits between User:BADMINton and the various incarnations of the vandal, I think it's a given that he is one and the same. I've blocked indefinitely and have moved the thread to the bottom here for review -- Samir धर्म 01:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've only glanced at the above, but looks like a good (& obvious) call. El_C 02:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I too completely endorse the block. The user has been blatantly trolling and edits like [48] and [49] clearly show that. --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 04:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Why have I been banned? Just because I came to defend my case with another ID (Good Bloke)? Did you ever care to see that User:Good Bloke has only one contrib and that too on this page? Is it outlawed?

• Learning to make userboxes in one's sandbox is an act that calls for a ban? What if I have created a Nazi userbox in my sandbox? I think we are free to make userboxes that does not offend people. Is the Swastika a taboo, Srikeit? Ragib is not a Hindu but you sure are. Do you not know its importance?

• What exactly do you mean by "tendentious" edits? People may differ in their views and the Wikipedia should not punish anyone for differing in views with Srikeit.

• My previous username is not DPSingh or any of those you suspect but is User:Hardinge. And do you not think that calling a user "a rajput vandal" is the grossest of incivilities?

• Why my contributions to the Wikipedia are not being counted? I have started many important articles. All in vain?

• Which of my acts were uncivilised? Did any user complain to you or anyone for my being uncivil?

• Unblock me soon (am I again violating any rule by editing here?). Thanks Defending Myself 10:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC) (User:BADMINton)
• While Srikeit Bhai has shown many references about my edits like [50] , none of them invite for a ban. Most of them were on my own talk page. I did not abuse anyone. I did not vandalise any page. I contributed a lot of useful of information. Then WHY am I being banned? Defending Myself 10:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• When so many people have gathered to get me banned, it is unlikely that I would be acquitted but I would like to know that under which clause of the WP:BP would the ban be justified. Defending Myself 10:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, he's defended himself, I guess. I took the liberty of indefinitely blocking User:Defending Myself as well -- Samir धर्म 11:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

While he does seem to be aggressive, I think that many of his edits are OK and indefbanning him is a bit too harsh.Could there be an agenda at work here? In my opinion he should be warned sternly to avoid aggressively confronting users. I will be happy to discuss his actions with him.Hkelkar 23:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It is decidedly NOT OK to (1) create a userbox purporting to be a Nazi, (2) to repeatedly re-enter copyright information into articles and ignore warnings, (3) to insert improperly verified text into articles despite warnings, (4) to have admittedly made at least 2 sockpuppets used for the purpose of posting here to defend his actions and (5) to have ignored warnings of FOUR administrators regarding the above. I question your agenda in supporting him -- Samir धर्म 03:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Badminton was corect about User:Ikonoblast formerly User:Holywarriors actions. At least the witch-hunt should not be one-sided.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

User:24.62.43.62

He keeps vandalizing Catherine II of Russia

This should be reported to WP:AIV. And please sign your edits. --physicq210 02:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

OK sorry I'm kinda new, thanks for your help Swalot 02:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

User:3d engineer re-inserting OR in Unreal Engine technology

User:3d engineer used a revert to re-insert OR into Unreal Engine technology [51], even after being warned off by User:Bunchofgrapes on his talk page. [52] Bunchofgrapes can't do a block for this, as an involved party in the content dispute, but this guy needs to learn that No Original Research applies to him too. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 03:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Concur that a clue-stick may be the only choice here. There have been a lot of attempts to talk to 3d engineer (and his suspiciously-equally tightlipped comrade-in-reverts, User:Unico master 15), with very little response at all and no indication that policy is of any interest whatsoever. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Add in a Clue-by-Four and some Cluepons and we've got some winners. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 03:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Reverted vandalism by a wikistalker. Check history. Notify proper channels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grapefruit&diff=75819232&oldid=75818488

03:04, 15 September 2006 Ju66l3r (Talk | contribs) The user Ju6613r has vandalized an article.

Check the history for proof that a user is damaging articles on grapefruit and grapefruit seed extract. This administrator shoud be investigated. Thanks.

Now that I have your full attention, please ERASE copyright infringement info in the history pages. Copyright Violations is against wikipedia's rules. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR THOROUGH INVESTIGATION. Now that I have your attention please investigate! Copyright Violations by "Devios" is against the pillar of Wikipedia's Rules! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grapefruit_seed_extract&oldid=72495019 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grapefruit_seed_extract&oldid=72467578

Compare the info which Judith Sims wrote and the illegal info Devios is putting and reverting to copyright info on wikipedia's website is considered VANDALISM!!! Read carefully. You will find copyrighted info on wikipedia's website. This is against the law.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2603/is_0003/ai_2603000396 < Judith Sims

Thanks in advance for conducting an investigation into this copy right violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.42.184.157 (talk)

1. My edit wasn't vandalism.
2. I'm not an administrator.
3. Thanks for helping to point out that we still have a copyright range IP vandalism problem on the Grapefruit seed extract history section. ju66l3r 03:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Do NOT change the words or intent that I wrote to satisfy your own purposes. That is insidious and I can not think of a worse violation of Wiki-policy. ju66l3r 16:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

<Sigh> Help please

Can another admin help me out here? I'm touring during this weekend and I won't be able to continue a long dialogue I've been having with User:Amoona, who is trying very hard to get me to unprotect Patrick Buri so it can be recreated. See the dialogue which begins on the last section of my talk page (he keeps changing the section name) and my responses on his talk page (which he keeps blanking in mid-discussion.) This article in various forms has been deleted six times and is still not sourced, which makes me skeptical of the whole thing (perhaps the editor is the subject?) Then again, maybe he can provide reliable sources and it can be unprotected. In any case, read the discussion, look at the deleted pages and provide a fresh voice. (On a side note, he also vandalized my userpage at the outset of all of this.) Grandmasterka 04:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Amoona (talk · contribs) and Amoonamoon (talk · contribs) has engaged in trolling, personal attacks, harrassment, legal threats, disruption. One thing this user has not done is edit any subject other than Patrick Buri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I have blocked the user to prevent further harrassment and left a note on the Talk page telling them what to do if they want to move forward - with carrying on as before explicitly excluded as an option. Guy 08:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• A look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Buri might also prove...educational. --Calton | Talk 08:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Bigjake

User:Bigjake continues to remove the comments of others that he disagrees with from his talk page. There has been some discussion about this practice at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, but no instructions on what to do when this occurs. Please comment. Thanks, Cacophony 05:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Cacophony posted a note telling him he doesn't own an article to which he responded: "Thanks for the Note. But just know, I still don't care about what you said... get off the soap box, k? Have a nice day:) Bigjake". If this user persistently ignores policy, I'd block him for that instead of the talk page blanking. Blanking in itself is not a bad thing (althought very inconvenient for others who wish to look up discussions with that user), but doing so to hide critical comments might mean this user doesn't respond well to criticism which is not very helpful in a shared project. I'd recommend one final warning, before taking it further. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

My comment was in response to his edit summary on The Playhouse (radio show) that said: "if you're going to change my page, at least do it right, douche". On his most recent blanking of criticism on his talk page, he called User:MacGyverMagic a "fool". I will provide a final warning on his page before requesting a block for personal attacks. Cacophony 18:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Whle he shouldnt remove the comments, why do you keep putting them back and giving him warnings, why not just leave them off and let him cool down instead of antagonizing him with more comments that you know he will remove, just so you can give more warning that you know he will remove. --User:Zer0faults 18:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I have not added any comments or warnings since the 3rd revert. He has now removed criticism on 7 different occasions. So just because he is persistent I should forget about it? That same line of reasoning dictates that because the George Bush article is likely to be vandalized, we should just let the vandals go at it. I don't care if I have to revert it 100,000 times, my comments will remain on that user page. Cacophony 03:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Smartinfoteck3 (talk · contribs · count)

User:Smartinfoteck3 has been persistently spamming various pages [53]. After his talk page reached the warning level of spam4, he has now begun to use another account SI4 (talk · contribs · count) adding the same links. He is adding them faster than I am able to revert. Could someone block both accounts please -- Lost^(talk) 05:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Another sock SI5 (talk · contribs · count) -- Lost^(talk) 05:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Add to the list of socks

• Smartinfoteck1 (talk · contribs · count)
• Smartinfoteck2 (talk · contribs · count)
• SI4 (talk · contribs · count)

All of these have added spamlinks to http://www.harappa.com . This can be added to the spam blacklist or whatever other mechanisms are present to prevent spam. --Ragib 06:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Some links to Harappa have been added by good-faith editors, including Zakksez (talk · contribs). There are a good number of extant links: [54]. If we need to purge them then we need to purge them, but I just wanted to check as the content looks OK to me. Is the site promoting a POV or something? Guy 09:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No the site is not really promoting POV. Infact there are some very old and possibly valuable photographs from the last century. But thats almost all that there is. First of all, the photos are all probably in the public domain because the site itself claims them to be pre 1947 and most of them are actually from 1800s. Even if they are not in the public domain, the webmaster can simply upload them here under a free license instead of promoting the site. What goes against the site is the persistent nature of the above reported person who kept making socks to promote the site -- Lost^(talk) 17:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem with trout-slapping spammers, and I'll not intervene against any mass reversion, but it would be good to enlist the webmaster to upload instead (unlikely, though). Guy 23:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Phil Sandifer

Admin Phil Sandifer claims a Foundation member said it was ok to claim a dead singer was in "pursuit of a gender change in the last months of life" and add him to the Transgender and transsexual musicians category based on "A comment on a (wikipedia) talk page". Phil says "I've confirmed via e-mail that User:Grammer is Tracy, and have added the information provided to both this article and Dave Carter and Tracy Grammer after consulting with User:Amgine" at Talk:Dave Carter. Comments? WAS 4.250 08:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The comment on the talk page is purportedly from Tracy Grammar her/himself, and the margins are wide —I mean I really had to scroll for a long time!— not sure if Grammar counts as a reliable source though, possibly diction does. boo! El_C 09:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess we have no reason to question why Phil and Amgine would want to cook up sich a story. It's an odd one, though. Guy 10:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

a::Grammer, in this case, seems the very definition of a reliable source. Phil Sandifer 16:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, not good. This is a textbook violation of our verifiability policy:

Suppose you are writing a Wikipedia entry on a famous physicist's Theory X, which has been published in peer-reviewed journals and is therefore an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. However, in the course of writing the article, you contact the physicist and he tells you: "Actually, I now believe Theory X to be completely false." Even though you have this from the author himself, you cannot include the fact that he said it in your Wikipedia entry.
Why not? Because it is not verifiable in a way that would satisfy the Wikipedia readership or other editors. The readers don't know who you are. You can't include your telephone number so that every reader in the world can call you for confirmation. And even if they could, why should they believe you?

(emphasis mine). I find it rather baffling that such a fundamental principle of the encyclopedia—and, in particular, its most obvious and most clearly expressed point—is suddenly waived because some low-profile celebrity posted something to a talk page. Kirill Lokshin 11:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I tend to agree with you Kirill. It's not that I don't believe/trust Phil and Amgine, as JzG said there's no good reason why they'd make it up. But it sets a bad example, methinks, in that the standard of verifiability is if J. Random User can go confirm the facts for themselves, and this is straying a little close to the line. In this case, to be verifiable, anyone would need to be able to verify that Grammer is who they say they are. That's if we even accept edits to WP as a reliable source.

I think there are too many question marks here, as it stands, for this material to be acceptable. Is there a public way to confirm the comments? --bainer (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Not the case that applies - the issue in the author example is the fact that the making of the statement cannot be checked - that is, that the author said it to the editor. That is not the issue here - it is easy to verify. You check the talk page - in fact, the articles cite the exact diff. Phil Sandifer 16:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, not quite. Anyone can verify that someone left some comments on the talk page; but how is the fact that the editor in question is who they claim to be verifiable by the general reader? It's not like Wikipedia is known for reliably confirming people's identities. Kirill Lokshin 16:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

And yet we're willing to maintain Category:Notable Wikipedians. So clearly we are willing to confirm identities of our contributors in some cases. Again, as is almost always the case with issues of reliability and verifiability, a sledgehammer is not an adequate method of working this out. It requires actual thought about it. Phil Sandifer 17:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Kirill is entirely correct, and this is especially the case when we are not hearing of something from someone themselves, but an acquaintance. If there are no independant sources for this, it can't be included. There is a general agreement that WP:BLP should extend to the reciently dead, also, for similar reasons as BLP but relating to the estate rather than the person. LinaMishima 15:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been the main proponent of not including this until another source can be found (which won't be easy). I do not, however, question the reliability of Tracy Grammer as a source on Dave Carter. It is well known that she was indeed his "partner in all things," professional and personal. The issue should be verifiability. The information on Carter's planned gender change is unheard of elsewhere, and we can't expect every reader to verify User:Grammer's idenity. Items for articles must be selected based on verifiability not truth. -MrFizyx 16:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly that BLP applies - which is why I checked with the guidelines on BLP for adding material from the source themself (Which this basically is), and followed it to the letter. Note that they explicitly say that the material can come from the talk page. Phil Sandifer 16:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that "basically" is sufficient in cases like this. The statement in question was certainly not self-published in the conventional sense (meaning that the subject of the article did not actually release the information personally); and there have been any number of cases where information provided by close friends or family members has turned out to be incomplete or unreliable. At the very least, the information needs to be given as "According to Grammer, blah blah blah" in order to make clear that this is, indeed, a third party's perspective. Kirill Lokshin 16:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Tracy Grammer was providing information on her relationship with Dave Carter - that is "the source itself" for all useful purposes. Again, you're trying to apply a horrendously general case, developed largely to deal with some of our most pathologically troublesome articles, to a specific case that instead requires actually thinking about the situation. Phil Sandifer 17:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"Nobody's edit-warred/threatened to sue/gone to the press yet, so it must be okay" seems a pretty strange approach to be taking here. Perhaps it might be better to follow the ArbCom's lead on this:

Contentious facts which cannot be verified as having been published in a reputable source cannot be included in a Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Verifiability, see especially Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious_sources. Information should have been published in a reliable source Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In the case of unusual or scandalous assertions this becomes even more important, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_evidence.

The point being added here is hardly run-of-the-mill; we should be extra careful in ensuring that the information is coming from a reputable source. Kirill Lokshin 18:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the arbcom has also looked dimly on challenging things for the sake of challenging them. Second of all, we have been extra careful. We verified User:Grammer's identity, and drew from the single most reliable source in the world on Dave Carter's life and musical career. There are two possible concerns here. The first is whether Tracy Grammer is a reliable source. She is very clearly the best possible source we could have on this, however. The second is whether User:Grammer is Tracy Grammer. Verification of this is well within the purview of what administrators do, and it is highly problematic to say that this cannot be done by administrators. Phil Sandifer 18:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You know, I'd take this whole complaint more seriously if it had even tried to assume good faith. "Claims a Foundation member" all but assumes I'm lying. I'm absolutely floored that anyone would think that it's appropriate to run this to AN/I and say I "claim" to have talked to Amgine, and yet nobody has done something responsible like, oh, leave a note on Amgine's talk page asking her to explain why she gave the all-clear on this. Phil Sandifer 17:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think calling it a "claim" assumed it to be false. In any case I left a note for User:Amgine. I really thought you would have done that by now. One really shoud assume good faith, blind faith is another matter... -MrFizyx 18:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I thought Foundation members had better things to do than verify that admins weren't lying when they said they talked to them. Your mileage may vary. Personally, I tend not to imply that I don't believe that someone checked with someone else. Phil Sandifer 18:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think WP:V is negotiable. This essentially sounds like hearsay to me, and wouldn't stand up in any court of law (or an encyclopedia entry, for that matter). Please, please, find a verifiable, published source ... if not, I don't think it can go in. --Cyde Weys 17:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"I was his romantic partner until he moved out and pursued a gender change" is not hearsay. Please try to actually be helpful here. Phil Sandifer 17:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you know what hearsay is? Of course this is hearsay, because nobody has provided a credible source other than, "Well, I heard someone say ..." --Cyde Weys 19:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not published in a reliable source. So it cannot be used in Wikipedia. --Pjacobi 18:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If WP:RS were actually applied rigidly, we would have to destroy half of our featured articles. Please actually think about the situation instead of just citing rules. Phil Sandifer 18:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Cyde and others, Wikipedia should not be the venue of first publication for any fact. We are an encyclopedia, not a news source. Even if we accept the source as 100% reliable, I still don't believe that we should include such information because it undermines the principle that readers should be able to verify everything we say with external sources. Dragons flight 18:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages should not be considered part of the encyclopedia for this purpose - and in fact WP:BLP explicitly provides for that. (Look at the section on subjects contributing to their own biographies, which says explicitly that subjects can contribute information to the talk page.) Phil Sandifer 18:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Their own biographies, yes; but Tracy =/= Dave, I would think! Kirill Lokshin 18:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a rule that cannot possibly be used as a universal case. Phil Sandifer 18:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

With respect, I feel you are misreading BLP. My reading is that subjects may contribute to the article discussion, but any information added to the article still needs to be externally verifiable. Dragons flight 18:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Cyde, DF and others. Let someone else care about this enough to write a story on it. Wikipedia is not a news site. If no one else cares, I don't see why WP should be first. This sets a bad precedent. --W.marsh 18:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not that no one cares... tons of places would print this. The problem is that, well, it's more than a little disrespectful to suggest that Carter needs to be outed publicly, in a news story. That seems to me a thornier issue, if the policies that exist to protect someone's dignity are being used to force him to either remain permanantly in the closet or to come out in the form of a press release. Phil Sandifer 18:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

So let other places print it, it seems to be "out" now - let's see what happens. Wikipedia simply does not exist to provide help to people with their public relations problems. Like I said, it would be a bad precedent to let people come to Wikipedia and tell us what they want to be in the article (if that information isn't published elsewhere). --W.marsh 18:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Phil, WP:V is policy, and if you disagree with the policy, go there to get it changed. In the meantime, you, as an admin, need to promote policy, not try to tear it down. This information violates WP:V, and therefore cannot be kept. If Grammer gives an interview to a reliable news source, then we can quote the news source, but until then, it's not a reliable source. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Zoe, WP:IAR is also policy, and if you disagree with using common sense instead of blindly using it as a sledgehammer, go there to get it changed. In the meantime, you, as an admin, need to promote policy, not try to tear it down. The information is clearly accurate and in the spirit of all of our policies, most particularly WP:BLP, and therefore should remain. If Grammer gives an interview to a reliable news source, then we can quote the news source, but until then, it's good enough. Phil Sandifer 18:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources states "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources." This is a post on a wiki. Ergo, it is not acceptable. The fact that we can check the poster's identity is irrelevant - we rely on reliable sources to do fact-checking, not us. Remember that Wikipedia policy is "Verifiability, not truth". I have removed this claim and until Ms Grammer's assertion is published in a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking (we don't even have a reputation for including facts in the first place, let alone checking them), this is not acceptable to include on Wikipedia. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS is a guideline. WP:BLP is policy, and clearly allows information to be added to the talk page, as supported by one of the Foundation workers, Amgine. Policy trumps guideline, and actually thinking about the situation instead of using them as sledgehammers trumps all. Phil Sandifer 18:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:V states "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". We are not a third-party source, and we do not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. WP:RS makes the prohibition on wiki posts explicit, but any reading of WP:V makes it perfectly obvious that bulletin board, blog and wiki posts are not credible third-party sources anyway. We do not have a credible third-party source, therefore policy states we cannot include this information. What part of this do you not understand? To others: Phil has continued to revert, and as I apply a loose form of WP:1RR (I don't revert unless someone else has) I encourage someone else to remove this unsourced information. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP (Which is policy) clearly provides for information to be added via talk pages. And RS clearly allows for self-published sources, which this fits the bill of. There's no useful difference between the talk page and a blog - both are equally fact-checked, and yet we'd take it from a blog and not a talk page? That's absurd - we ought apply sense instead of policy in that case, which is exactly what IAR (Also policy) provides for. Phil Sandifer 18:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This is silly. The statement is not from a "self-published" source. The information you're including is coming from a third party—the actual subject of the article being dead—and therefore (a) doesn't fall under the "self-published" provision and (b) needs to be from a reliable source. More to the point, the assertion being made qualifies as "unusual or scandalous", and thus requires very careful sourcing if it is to be included. Kirill Lokshin 19:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Er, we don't take information from blogs, ever, unless it's to say "X wrote Y in his blog", which this isn't. And where exactly does WP:BLP give Wikipedia an exemption from the line I quoted from WP:V above? The closest I get is "Information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if..." which goes onto say "...it meets verifiability, NPOV, and no original research policies", which this doesn't. And WP:IAR cannot possibly be invoked to overturn verfiability in this case, which is a cornerstone of writing an encyclopaedia. This is not WikiMe.org. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

We regularly use blogs as sources, Sam. Please don't try to apply these policies so rigidly as to make them useless. If we rigidly applied WP:RS and WP:V to every article, we'd have to start by gutting the featured articles. Spoo would be a good place to start. Phil Sandifer 19:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, using common sense is appropriate. For example, when someone makes points about an obscure fictional food on a TV show, we decide to be lenient and not insist on scholarly citations. On the other hand, when someone adds potentially scandalous assertions—about an individual's previously unknown "pursuit of a gender change", for example—we should be extra careful that this information can be traced to reputable sources before including it. Kirill Lokshin 19:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to remove all unsourced or inadequately sourced content from all articles, and nominate inadequately sourced featured articles for featured article status removal if necessary. We have a lot of pages, and the fact that some of them are not sourced to the necessary standard does not mean I have to turn a blind eye to this one. Your argument is equivalent to the "if this article is deleted lots of others should be to" line beloved of self-promoters at AfD. ---Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You're rather gravely misunderstanding my point. The standards you're citing, if rigidly applied, render the encyclopedia unwritable. It's not a matter of one or two stray articles that nobody has gotten around to - it's a matter of entire categories of articles that need to be eliminated. The community would not support that, for obvious reasons. Which means that RS and V are not policies that should be applied like sledgehammers. Phil Sandifer 19:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It would not render the encyclopaedia unwritable in the least. We have hundreds of articles which are verified by reliable sources. All the articles that I have written are among them, and if some aren't, feel free to challenge them. If I can write a few measly articles that are verified by reliable sources, then certainly dedicated writers can do the same. If adhering to reliable sources would result in some FAs being delisted, frankly my dear I don't give a damn. We can write enough articles while still relying on verifiability that we don't need any articles that are based on what some guy said on some wiki.

When we have written every single article that can be written based on reliable sources and gotten it to featured status, perhaps then we can start to consider whether we should start relaxing our standards. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I have acted to revert Dave Carter as Sam Blanning has suggested. I have also removed disputed content from Dave Carter and Tracy Grammer. It seems there is a supermajority supporting the removal of the content. I feel that this really should be respected--at the very least until the supporting foundation member can speak to his/her position on this. -MrFizyx 19:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I can't imagine that a foundation member is going to say "On the authority of the Foundation, this information must be included". All Foundation Members are entitled to their opinion, and until such time as they make it anything more binding, we are under no obligation to follow it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Supporting Foundation Member... that sounds like an accusation. I'm a wikimedian, a volunteer like everyone else here, and have rather less authority on Wikipedia than most of the people involved in this thread.

While I feel this particular fact is relevant and important to the article (and the public statement on the talk page is verified as from Ms Grammer), at best it should be stated as "Ms Grammer reports..." or some such equally awkward construction. I wonder that no one has asked Ms Grammer to mention this in her blog? (As to the dismissal of the use of blogs as a publication, they are used extensively for just such within Wikipedia and are proven no more unreliable than newspapers or PAC publications which are likewise cited throughout Wikipedia.) However, the Wikipedia community determines the content of Wikipedia, and if the policy monitors consider this statement to be an egregious violation I applaud their decision, and strongly encourge them to examine the articles in Category:Living people, as well as the many articles which have not yet been included in this category but should be. - Amgine 19:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is this an issue for AN/I? I think the RS issue is fascinating, but shouldn't this be subject to normal dispute resolution? The only admin action seems to be Phil verifying that the talk page commentator really was Tracy Grammer, and I don't think anyone objects to that. TheronJ 20:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Be that as it may, we have an admin making or supporting an edit that is clearly outside of policy. If someone makes a comment on the talk page of his or her biographical article it still needs verification somewhere more public than said talk page. If it is someone's partner, even more so. Metamagician3000 05:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Phil's argument is completely ridiculous. If one wants to self-publish original research and/or reporting, one should go find an online encyclopedia that doesn't require that its material be verifiable and from a reliable source. To put this in context, if an anon was adding this sort of material to a page that User:Phil Sandifer patrolled with the same sort of ludicrous explanation, Phil would have blocked him 8 times by now. Nandesuka 11:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course Phil's argument is ridiculous, and it relies once more on treating electronic communication as if it were documentary. As an editor (I mean a print one), I could not accept any alledged representation of an author that didn't have autograph. Further, any statement from a lover/friend would be a footnote in an introduction to a volume and never, ever, ever a substantial part of any presentation. So, if there were an autograph letter from the lover, it would be a footnote. If there were an e-mail, it would never get that far. If there were e-mail from the subject of discussion, it would be a footnote. Again, those of us who have had to deal with actual figures with actually documented lives know damned well that friends tell lies. Stephen Spender went about for decades making his dinner on the lecture circuit swearing that Virginia and Leonard Woolf were as heterosexual as a Playboy orgy, that TS Eliot and Vivian were deliriously happy in marriage, and that all those people who said otherwise didn't know the Bloomsbury circle, weren't there, the way he was. Spender was, of course, fooling himself and no one else. One does not take a friend's word, and one never accepts any vapor communication. It's not verifiable, and verification isn't even the issue as much as corroboration is. Geogre 12:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I read through some of this and I think Category:Notable Wikipedians should go, too, because it is original research. Not only that, having the categories on the talk pages looks messy. 12:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, anonymous coward, it should, but that's not germane. Geogre 12:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Phil Sandifer certainly likes to drop names. First it's a "foundation member" who approved his edits, now its "Jimbo". Heh.

User:Alm93 adding ethnic categories to many (200 odd) bio articles.

This user is adding categories like Category:Hungarian-New Zealanders and Category:Irish Canadians and populating them based on solely the person's name and no other information. I have left a note on their talk page but I note they are listed as a possible sockpuppet of User:70.81.117.175. None of the edits have comments or supporting references. - SimonLyall 13:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to do a mass revert on this. Any objections? --Pjacobi 18:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Support. Without verification, it's all OR. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Done about 250 reverts. But there are about 1000 more to do. Seems to need help by bot. He've done the categorizations faster than 1/min often. This must have been bot/JavaScript assisted. And of course its OR and sometimes total nonsense.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walter_Dieter&diff=75606647&oldid=63893716

Or we put the categories on TfD and let a bot do the cleanup. But: do have the categories some legitimate content?

Pjacobi 20:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just knocked out the balance (502 exactly). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted an edit by this user to Human height, FWIW the edit may be valid, I probably would not have reverted had I not seen this thread here recently... but... Pete.Hurd 22:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe that he wasn't asked to stop. I've just reverted several more and deleted several of the categories that he created. And told him to quit. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello

There has been some concern over the use of Wikipedia at our school. I am an admin here. Please suggest possibilties here or via email/phone. Thanks 209.18.49.14 15:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

What is it exactly that you want help with? Can you confirm that you want to try and deal with the mis-use of wikipedia editing that was been causing your IP address to get warnings? LinaMishima 15:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

We kind of need more information... but in general, if your school lets people access Wikipedia from classroom/lab computers, a certain percentage of your students will vandalize articles. We can deal with it, but if it gets too problematic we might have to block your school's ability to edit Wikipedia articles for a few hours. You can discuss specific cases with the admin who issues the block, if need be.

If your concern is just about students reading Wikipedia from school, in a nutshell, most of our articles are reliable, but they should never be used as the sole source of information, just as a student's paper that simply rewords the World Book entry probably won't score very well. Many of our articles cite their sources, which should be helpful to students writing a report or doing a project on a given topic. --W.marsh 19:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've updated your IP address' talk page with a template, {{SharedIPedu}}, to replace the disclaimer about the fact that the IP is for the Northwestern Lehigh School District. BigNate37_(T) 23:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I just saw this comment from Uncle Eff (talk · contribs) at User talk:209.18.49.14. RadioKirk (talk · contribs) restored the warnings in this edit and left the edit summary "restoring comments; Uncle Eff, if indeed you are a school admin, please go to my user page and, along the left column, is a link to e-mail". Perhaps that is what this AN/I notice is about. BigNate37_(T) 23:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Lawodis

This user seems to be using wikipedia to document his Dungeons & Dragons campaign. Can an admin review his contribs please? Potentially needs a mass deletion/userfying. exolon 16:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't need an admin to userfy. Have a word with the editor about the verifiability policy. --Tony Sidaway 17:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Whew. Got everything moved, and it's been explained to him. Hopefully, he won't try to continue building it in his namespace now. --InShaneee 17:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Surely this sort of stuff fails Not a free web host and WP:USER sounds irrelevant to building an encyclopaedia. --pgk 17:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've listed them at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lawodis/Saquimnidis and have left the User a note. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

IrishGuy revisions

User IrishGuy is repeatedly revising a page to remove material based on a personal grudge with the user that is posting it. The article in quesiton is Joppa, in which I am trying to add a small bullet--no links--concerning the name Joppa. This is not spam, as he keeps insisting. He is also taking this out on the Songs To Wear Pants To article. This article refers to a songwriter. One of his songs is entitled "What is Joppa Anyway?" and it was included in his list of songs on the article. Again, IrishGuy is continuing to remove only this song due to a personal grudge. I will admit that, in the past, I have taken a rather "annoyed" backlash against this user, but knowing the policies better now, I am simply trying to prevent him from "personal grudge" vandalism of pages concerning my edits--which are all legal. Please help. Drdunbar 18:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The above user is spamming Wikipedia with advertising for his site and harassing me personally. This is the fourth time he has requested an admin to come after me for reverting his spamming. His website had an article that was deleted in an AfD. During that time, he sent people from his site to sway the AfD [55], after that AfD the article has been recreated and speedied again twice. This user has repeatedly spammed links to his website in various articles (specifically, articles I created) under his IP address, (examples: [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] etc.) and has continued to attack me an try to send others here from his forum [61]. Unable to spam Wikipedia without it being reverted, he has now taken to doing this. I am being harassed, pure and simple and it is really beginning to annoy me. IrishGuy ^talk 18:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I had already mentioned that my above conduct was due to an outlash against IrishGuy's attack on an article due to personal issues, and not wiki guidelines. I have since refrained from my actions, knowing the policies of this site more clearly. This CURRENT issue has nothing to do with my past behavior. I am simply trying to keep up a couple pages, and he continues to delete anything I put up due to PAST GRUDGES. Nothing I am posting contains any "spam links" or personal promotion by any means. They are legitimate additions to legitimate articles. He continues to accuse me in the eyes of administration of reposting a deleted article, which I have NOT done. You can check the background on that. I didn't even publish the article that was deleted, I was simply there to defend it. He obviously has an issue with me personally, and is using that to remove my posts. I have nowhere else to turn. I really enjoy this site, and IrishGuy is giving it a bad name. I am sorry for that, as well as my past transgressions. Drdunbar 18:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Er, Drdunbar, you claim that you're making legitimate edits and not spamming, but your most recent edits do not fit that description [62], [63]. It's just all stuff about and/or links to this Joppa website. Contrary to popular belief, Wikipedia does not owe random websites free publicity and webhosting. I've looked through the basics of this situation and it seems IrishGuy is in the right. Drdunbar, we'd welcome any positive contributions but doing nothing but promoting your website is not really going to win you friends. --W.marsh 18:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I just don't see what my revisions have anything to do with promotion. There are no "links" at all to my website. I am simply putting up a song title that belongs in the list. If you also look at the history of that page, I did not put it up there to begin with. Another contributor to that page did, and IrishGuy deleted it out of spite. I have been simply trying to revert back from his vandalism. STWPT produced a song for the webiste. I have simply stated that on the article, without links of any means. That is not self-promotion. If you would feel better about another user adding, that's fine. But, I wasn't the original poster to begin with. Drdunbar 18:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edits are spam, no matter what you call them, and IrishGuy's edits are perfectly reasonable. I suggest you find a PR firm that you can hire to do your advertising for you. Wikipedia is not the place. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's very interesting that these users keep popping up from nowhere all of a sudden, IrishGuy? Hmmm. Not making any accusations here, but they all share a very familiar form of argument--baseless and attacking. TRUST me, Zoe, or whoever you are, I don't need wikipedia to promote anything for Joppa, I've got enough of that all over the web. There's no links or WEBSITES included on my posts. STWPT produced a song for us, along with the OTHER songs on that article. Our song has legitimate cause to be there. End of story. You either delete them all, or leave them all. Sorry, guys, you can throw "spam" at me all you want, but any "real" person that takes a look at it will see otherwise. Drdunbar 18:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Side note I noticed that since these "other users" came out of the wookwork, I've seen a sudden break in IrishGuy's activity on Wikipedia. Again, no accusations here. Just pointing something out. Drdunbar 18:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess you're trying to imply that I'm a sockpuppet of IrishGuy. You'll have to try harder. Let me just warn you that what I am, is an admin, and if you continue to spam, you will be blocked. Let's leave it at that. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if someone, especially an admin, can be me a definition of "spamming" that encompasses what I'm doing, I will be glad to stop. Drdunbar 19:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

See WP:SPAM and WP:EL. JoshuaZ 19:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Those guidelines would be very helpful if I a) had external links in my post, or b) was promoting a website. I'm doing neither. Please read the post in question before responding here. I'll keep those rules in mind for the future. Drdunbar 19:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Willy on Wheels hasn't posted since you started this AN/I report, anyone notice that? No accusation, just pointing something out. Perfectly logical, right? :/ Danny Lilithborne 19:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point. Drdunbar 19:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked Drdunbar for 24 hours for violating 3RR after having been warned. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Let that be a warning: never call Zoe a sock puppet, even in jest. ;) -- llywrch 22:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't the reason for the block. He was blocked for violating 3RR after having been warned. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he knows that, he was just joking around.--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 00:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

User Timtrent superimposing Fiddle Faddle

This user is doing it on a basis being obvious: The signature reads Fiddle Faddle, but indeed this user is Timtrent. (User:Timtrent, User:Fiddle Faddle).
I do not loose the idea this user has more identities.
Someone tell him to use a correct signature right now. It is annoying. This report is only about the signature (superimposing another id), and the concern this user might use more masks. I can not say if this user utilizes so-called puppets, but feel it required to express the concern. User:Yy-bo 19:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

His signature is perfectly fine. There is no requirement that a user's signature must be the same as their user name. Timtrent's signature, Fiddle Faddle, even links to his user page. There is no reason to believe that he is being dishonest, or that he is maliciously operating multiple accounts. FreplySpang 21:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Length of block of IP 12.151.120.81

I've just blocked the IP 12.151.120.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), for a spree of vandalism. Because the IP was caught relatively early, because I couldn't establish a definitive link between this round of vandalism and earlier sprees (although a link with yesterday is very likely), and because it might be a shared IP, I decided to block the IP for only 24 hours. Jaysweet (talk · contribs) has come up to me, saying that this IP will immediately resort to vandalism when the block has expired. I'm inclined to believe him, but I don't wanna take any action on this without consulting my fellow admins and friends first. Does this IP block need to be extended? Aecis ^{Appleknocker Flophouse} 19:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Leave it as it is, and if the vandal returns promptly after the block expires, block for 2 days, 4, etc. Essentially you're probing to see how long the ISP in question leases that IP to the specific person. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say extend to a month at least, anon-only and account creation disabled, as the IP came back after a 2 week block. There are clear patterns in the contributions, for example from Martin Luther King, Jr. in August to Jay-Z a few days ago and Ice cube yesterday (on the object, but referring to the rapper) and today. Regardless, there are no particularly positive edits that I can see, and if someone else does try to use the IP the instructions given in Mediawiki:Blockedtext are comprehensive. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, the fact that the user has vandalised one article over a month apart (Ian Williams) indicates that the user isn't switching IPs. The only question that remains is whether others are using the IP, and it doesn't look like it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Finlay -- the escalation has already occured, peeking with a two week block (which happened exactly two weeks ago, by the way ;p ). One thing I mentioned to Aecis that I find particularly of concern is that this isn't light-hearted Colbert-esque vandalism, these are nasty racist attacks. It's harder to laugh it off. Anyway, thanks to all the admins here for looking at this issue. I appreciate it! --Jaysweet 21:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The IP belongs to the Metropolitan Museum of Art; I don't see much risk of collateral damage and endorse a longer block. Mackensen (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for three months. The chances that I've denied us a featured article or two by my block are sufficiently close to minus zero. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Miracleimpulse (talk · contribs)

This user has been involved in a POV edit war on Sweetest Day (see this entry in the archive). Today he created on Commons an page identical to his userfied version (User:Miracleimpulse/The Sweetest Day Hoax) - at Commons:The Sweetest Day Hoax. This was soon deleted off Commons as inappropriate. This was mistakenly copied back to en at The Sweetest Day Hoax, and was deleted again off Wikipedia when the mistake was realised. The user has since recreated it again on Commons, this time at Commons:User:Miracleimpulse. Considering the fact he has been blocked on Wikipedia for disruption related to this article, it seems appropriate to bring it up here.--Commons:User:Nilfanion/Nilfanion (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Umm... *waves* You can blame me. I made the suggestion that, if they met Commons policies, the images he keeps trying to add to the Sweetest Day article might be better in Commons; apparently he took this as an invitation to move the entire thing to Commons, which wasn't my intention at all. I've been trying to find a diplomatic way of handling this user, who appears to have an unhealthy obsession with Sweetest Day - he has outright accused myself and others of being shills for the industry, and suggested that Sweetest Day causes terrorism, which doesn't break any policies but is a sign of this editor's preoccupation with a Hallmark Holiday. All of his contributions have been either to the Sweetest Day page, user talk pages, or inserting information about Sweetest Day into other articles. He's even made a YouTube video about the matter, linked at Commons- oh, and now that I've checked, apparently linked from the Sweetest Day page here on EN, along with the user's homepage. Anyway, I just wanted to clarify that some of this may be due to an honest misunderstanding, possibly enhanced by an unhealthy obsession with the topic. Captainktainer * Talk 11:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet of User:Arthur Ellis

Arthur Ellis has recently been removing large portions of Rachel Marsden, as he does from time to time. Yesterday, after Ellis had reverted for the second time, a new user Craigleithian appeared, performing much the same edits as Ellis -- namely, removing sections that contained sourced and verifiable information that did not reflect well on the article's subject. 3 of Craigleithian's 4 edits are wholesale removal of material from the Marden article. Suspect that this may be a sock to circumvent 3RR.

Craiglethian's edits: [64] [65] [66] [67] Ellis's edits in that time frame: [68] [69] [70] [71]

An admin may wish to check this out. Ianking 00:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks pretty obvious to me, but a checkuser request has been filed just in case. Thatcher131 02:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, quite. Mackensen (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser case showed positive. He has now been blocked per the report on WP:AN/3RR. User:Arthur Ellis for 1 week for his 4th violation of 3RR and sockpuppet abuse. And the sockpuppet account has made no other contributions so has been blocked indefinitely.--Konstable

User:Randazzo56 Vandalizing Henry Ford and Talk:Henry Ford

USer Randazzo56 has been vandalizing both the Henry Ford and the Talk:Henry Ford articles with nasty vulgarisms and Holocaust denial. Rjensen 02:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think Rjensen's descripion of this editor's activities is understated. User:Randazzo56's vandalism of Henry Ford and the talk page has been blatant. [72] [73] [74]. He then inserted anti-Semitic remarks into Rjensen's comments on the talk page. [75] and made obscene remarks.

This editor has been previously blocked for one month for vandalism. I think an indefinite block is warranted. --Mantanmoreland 15:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Xizer

Xizer (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has been attacking other users through edit summaries as seen on Straight Outta Lynwood and Lazytown. He has been warned on his talk page multiple times but continues the offending behavior. -- Michael Greiner 03:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if you're going to report someone, you should at least get their name right. And you don't warn someone and then go report them for that same incident saying they're continuing to use the behavior you warned them about. Perhaps you could show me where I attacked other users after you edited my talk page? I'm not seeing it. "Continuing" my ass. And two doesn't really qualify as "multiple times." Well, I guess it does, but once could also qualify considering the fact that 1 is also a multiple. Xizer 03:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Tone it down a little please, Xizer. -- Samir धर्म 04:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reason this user has not been banned? He's clearly not interested in contributing productively.--SB | T 04:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for now, we'll have to wait and see if he can hopefully cool down. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 05:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Block review

Culverin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for a mere 24 hours for his hideous use of sockpuppets to make edits like this personal attack using an offensive username,this personal attack with impersonation using my signature, and this impersonation on one of my friends' user talk pages, intending to cause harm to Dfrg.msc by saying that "I" don't care about improving an article we're currently collaborating on at present. These users were proven to be Culverin's sockpuppets at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Culverin, and were all blocked indefinately.

I feel that 24 hours is not long enough a block for this violations of WP:NPA, WP:VAND as well as impersonating another user with intent to cause harm. He obviously knew it was wrong, or he would have made these vandalistic edits on his main account. I really think an extension of the block be imposed, because this behaviour was very serious, and worthy of a more harsher block.

If this is not warranted, at least the abusive sockpuppet confirmed tag should be added to his userpage for an extended period (1 month or so), as he took it down the moment he was unblocked, meaning it only lasted just over 24 hours. I was willing to forget and forgive, but actions like these show his lack of remorse, where he failed to apologise and move on, but instead just remove the post without even responding to it. All this from an "established editor on Wikipedia", who knew the rules, and thoughthe could get around them. Daniel.Bryant 04:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

On a quick check of the links provided by the {{vandal|username}} template at the start of this message, I see that Glen has dealt with it. Thanks! Daniel.Bryant 07:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

See User_talk:Culverin#You_have_been_blocked and his block log - should be fairly self-explanatory - Glen 10:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

User:TareTone

This user was originally the banned user Tonetare who was banned for leaving abusive messages on my page and a number of others (I'm not quite sure why he's allowed to edit now but that's an admin thing). That was the past and it's fine someone get's a second chance. However his pattern of behaviour seems to have carried over into his new username. we have him striving for me to leave wikipedia. Then we have a situation where he tells another editor that it's sweet that he got him to quit editing an article and so on.

I would have never realised that he had actually rejoined Wikipedia except one of his first moves was to turn up on my page and berate me for removing german commerical linkspam from the english golfpage (a page he's never edited but one he seems to have picked out of thin air as an example of my "rude" editing). His MO seems to be abuse and then if he drops in the odd "gee sorry" and then carries on as before, then everything is fine. I'm getting a little tired of it. I'm also more concerned about the low-quality like this. I could explain to him as before why that sort of edit does not below in an encylopdia, but if he could never grasp why "smack-talking bitches" does not belong in an encylopedia, why is he going to get this? --Charlesknight 08:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Some also needs to explain WP:Own with him, as per this edit and this one

--Charlesknight 12:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm on it. El_C 13:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I imposed a 24-hour block in light of the user's threatening response on my talk page. ^[76] El_C 20:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This user and me are good friends and he was User:Tonetare and was blocked by Tryenius only because he was going to use a different IP in the future as seen in the block log. Tryenius had no reason to block him at all unless he was doing something else. He came back as Taretone, and promised only to talk to me, and otherwise wasn't going to be here. That's a brief little thing about his first block etc. Sugarpine^t 20:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Please urge the user to adhere to policy. I was unaware of there being a first block. El_C 20:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I just asked him not to make any more NPA. However, Tryenius had NO right to block him because he said he was going to use another IP in the future. I am getting a little annoyed with Tryenius also. I am asking him to adhere to policy though. Sugarpine^t 20:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sick and tired of disputes between Tryenius, Tonetare, and Charlesknight and I want it over NOW. I think the best way to handle this is mediation or arbitration. Any comments? Sugarpine^t 20:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Tonetare was blocked for a week for personal abuse, extended to 2 weeks for continuing extreme abusive behaviour, which is on the talk page under his former name as User:TareTone. He sometimes edits as User:65.31.100.170. He has only just returned from the block and unfortunately has continued to show frequent aggressive behaviour. Tyrenius 21:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That's of course why you unblocked him to extend the block to indef. Sugarpine^t 21:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I will agree to neither - the facts speak for themselves, unless you think my conduct or edits or edit history is in some way related to, are similar to behaviour such as:

1,2, 3,4,5, 6, 7,8, 9, 10

Those are just the first ten that spring to mind - do I really need to provide any more?

Remind me - what is it that I am suppose to answer for? Not allowing abusive editors to run me off articles that need improving? Not allowing abusive editors to introduce low-quality edits such as Smack talking bitches ? If that's what I'm suppose to answer for - guilty on all charges M'lud. I stay on my edits and my conduct, I have always acted in the best interest of the community and the encyclopedia.

--Charlesknight 21:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes you do. We need to get this over with now, and Taretone has a new IP and will be using his new IP, so he is using sockpuppets. We need an admin, not involbed in this, to finish this for us. Sugarpine^t 21:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight - we need to mediate because he's going to evade his block by using sockpuppets? --Charlesknight 21:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

We need to reach and agreement. So, Tonetare doesn't bother you or Tryenius. We don't have another fight, with Taretone under another account. That's what were doing this for. Sugarpine^t 21:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

So if you know his new IP, you will of course be reporting it to admin as a sockpuppet, right? --Charlesknight 21:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Since no one else can talk to Taretone, we need to request arbitration. Unless, he starts with you or Tryenius again I will not report him to an admin as a sock. Sugarpine^t 21:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

TareTone has had the chance to come back and interact with others in a CIVIL fashion, but he seems incapable of doing this. Tyrenius 21:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sugarpine - If you wish to go to Arbitration that is your concern, there is no "we" in this matter. I have nothing further to say at this point unless someone requests further information. --Charlesknight 21:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Afrika paprika

I require a mediator between me and this user. If one can observe his contributions and his talk page, he/she may notice several things: He has been blocked for violating a 3RR revert on the Nikola Tesla article, despite being familiar with the 3RR rule. He has been deleting references that are connected to anything Serbian in any way on Dado Pršo and his edits on Predrag Stojaković also deserve a note. He has then been blocked twice for edit-warring and the 3RR on Dado Prso. After User:PANONIAN warned him (among other users) for his nationalistic edits, he told him "..kiss me in my but" and called him Greater Serbian here. And here he repeated the but-kissing request and said that his underwhear shakes (in fear) ironicly.

After I showed him three wikipedia rules at User_talk:Afrika_paprika#Pagania; and he said that I was banned (when I wasn't, totally misunderstanding the issue), he resorted to a personal attack calling me totally derranged. After an administrator, User:DragonflySixtyseven, confirmed my theses that his actions are that of an internet troll and told him that he needs to at least modify his behaveour, he soundly refused. To the bottom, I repeated the Wikipedia policies (WP:NOR, WP:CITE and WP:V), but he again appearently missed them, classifying my edits as vandalism - when in truth his were - not noticing that my edits are only a part of a content dispute. Even though User:Asterion noted and confirmed that he should refer to rules, he ignored him as well and again repeated how I was blocked. Here, at the noticeboard, he also repeated that I was blocked when I reported under "Pagania", despite me explaining the detailed situation to him every single time. What's more, he further continues an edit war on Duklja, Pagania, Zahumlje and Travunia; and openly refuses to discuss anything whatsoever(after being kindly invited on every single talk page of the the corresponding articles, including his talk page. It is hereby that I ask someone to interviene between us and check if my judgements aren't correct (I could be wrong). --HolyRomanEmperor 13:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Totally off-topic here, but I'm suspicious of how HRE has suddenly failed to spell properly again. – Chacor 13:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

FWIW [77] I believe it is him. — Moe Epsilon 16:25 September 16 '06

User:Musikfabrik

I have indefinitely blocked User:Musikfabrik for being a shared account as admitted here. The policy against such accounts may be found at Wikipedia:Blocking#"Public" accounts. I welcome a review of this block. Mak (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for bending the policy to accommodate obvious cases (anyone remember User:Hydnjo, who did his blind wife's typing?) -- but this is a clear case of one account being used by a company (Musik Fabrik = classicalmusicnow.com, publishers, promoters, etc.). As far as I understand it, we don't allow role accounts because of their potential abuse by these kinds of entities. The block looks ok to me. Antandrus (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Even though I'm not an admin, I thoroughly endorse the block - a PR account is bad enough, but a shared PR account is even worse. However, isn't that template ("This user has been blocked indefinitely blah blah blah") supposed to go on the User page and not the User Talk page? Captainktainer * Talk 19:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Does it make a difference? --pgk 19:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a tremendous amount... though I'd like to know for my own edification, even so. Captainktainer * Talk 20:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The original user has now created another account, purportedly under their own name (diff) User:Jean-Thierry Boisseau. This account has not been blocked as of this writing. Mak (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Messhermit banned from Alberto Fujimori

Under the terms of his probation in the arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Messhermit, I have banned Messhermit from editing Alberto Fujimori, which he has disrupted by edit warring. --Tony Sidaway 20:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Extremly rude user.

Can someone please ban User:Askolnick? He has critisized me for every little thing I do. I asked him to assume good faith, and all I got was more of his argumentitive and overly-critical additude. What am I supposed to do if he won't listen to any of my justifications? He told me not to use Wikipedia policies to be incivil (according to him, if I say I was offended by a remark, it's incivil). I tried to cite sources as he asked, and he asked me if I have *actually* read the guideline. When I mentioned I read the back of a psysic's book he told me that there was no sourced and demanded me to retract my satment. I refuse to accept this. -- Selmo ^(talk) 21:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• This should go to WP:PAIN. Danny Lilithborne 21:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Done -- Selmo ^(talk) 21:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Block review

Xosa (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) was blocked by SlimVirgin as a sock of Zephram Stark. One comment here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive57#Sockpuppet block of User:Xosa.3F, but it seems to need further investigation since the user pleads innocence and has taken the discusison elsewhere as well. The major problem is that SV was in a content dispute with Xosa at the time. If this is a verifiable sock of ZS that should not matter, ZS being banned and all, but I'd appreciate more eyes. Guy 21:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I was not in a content dispute with Xosa. He posted some insults of another editor on the talk page of an article I was editing, but that had nothing to do with the sockpuppet diagnosis. I'd already spotted the pattern before he did that.

I asked Fred Bauder to review the block at the time, and he saw no reason to lift it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, I see you are right. I was going by the statements of the Wikia user who posted on my Talk. Guy 21:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I should add that I invited Xosa to e-mail me to discuss the block, but he still hasn't done so. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't ZS always plead innocence? --pgk 21:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, convincingly and elaborately. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)