Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive276

Blocking of Iantresman by Tom harrison

History: A week ago, on 16 July, JoshuaZ filed a proposal to ban Iantresman. Five hours later admin Tom harrison blocked Iantresman indefinitely. He did not give his reasons at the time and in fact has not participated in the discussion before or since. On the contrary, he says he does "not plan to spend any more time on it".

My complaint: As expressed in my first and later contributions to the discussion, I consider the blocking of Iantresman after just five hours to be unnecessarily prompt, unfair to him, and detrimental to a reasoned discussion, but my primary complaint is Tom harrison's refusal to explain and justify his action. If he has spent the requisite diligence to ban a user, then he owes it to that user and the community to explain his reasoning. Anything else smacks of abuse of administrative privileges.

Requested action: I would like an admin to (1) unblock Iantresman until such time that cogent arguments for the necessity of a ban are put forward, and (2) take a wooden ruler and rap Tom harrison firmly on the knuckles.

--Art Carlson 08:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the arguments there in support of blocking Iantresman were accurate and Tom Harrison did the block and had community support for doing so.--MONGO 08:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Give it up Art. Iantresman wore out the community's patience. Shell ^babelfish 12:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

If Iantresman wants to appeal his block on the grounds of wrongful or overprompt action then he should use the facility in the block notice. There is no need for third party intervention. Perhaps Tom Harrison was not acting in strictest accordance with WP:CIVIL, but that is no reason to overturn the block in question. Please can we end this here, now? LessHeard vanU 12:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

indeed: WP:CS was created so that such discussions are conducted there, not here. What is the point if we're still duplicating them on AN/I? dab (𒁳) 12:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite bans may be appealed to the arbitration committee by emailing one or more members using Wikipedia's email this user function or at the email addresses shown at WP:AC. Thatcher131 14:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I am disappointed that the admins do not hold themselves to higher standards of transparency (not to mention courtesy). I guess I'll get over it. --Art Carlson 07:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Rape victims

A determined editor who does not like the category about a moth ago de populated the entire category but was reverted by admin User:Pascal.Tesson and warned to take it to XFD, if he disliked the category. He has done it agin and this time after depoplating it has gotten it speedily removed without and XFD. I have recreated the category with the edit summary saying that it was deleted without an XFD. I have informed the admin who speedily deleted it that it should be put up for XFD insted. I am more than willing to go by true consensus not by personal dislikes and likes of a subject matter. I have reverted many edits of the above mention user User:SqueakBox. I think I dont want to do more as it may violate WP:Stalk. I want quick admin action over it as he has shown that he will revert his way to his desired outcome. Thanks Taprobanus 16:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The best course of action would be to take it to Deletion review. Simply recreating it something usually results in delete/undelete wars, which is defenitely not desireable. --Edokter (Talk) 16:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've put it up on WP:CFD instead; I doubt this will end up in a wheel war. As far as I know, Zscout370 is a perfectly reasonable person :-) ugen64 16:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't implying anything... :) --Edokter (Talk) 17:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks lioke trolling to me, DRV yes this is almost wheeklwarring and I would have thought a short block on Taprobanus (talk · contribs) would be entirely appro[priate. After all the cat is used in many u8nosurced articles and outs living rape victims. Is this what we want, the encyclopedia that trolls innocent people? SqueakBox 19:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

So that I cannot make my arguments in the CFD. Pretty smart move. Thanks Taprobanus 19:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I said a short block, that wouldnt prevent such a thing. Well done for making it clear that living people should not be in the cat and hope you well help me police it over the coming years (assuming the deletion fails), SqueakBox 20:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes ofcourse, will you then change your vote ? thanks Taprobanus 20:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I'm really disappointed in SqueakBox's attitude here. A month ago, I asked him nicely to stop depopulating the cat and submit the whole thing to CfD. No answer. Then after laying low for a while he goes at it again hoping no one notices. This is not the wiki way. Pascal.Tesson 09:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

initial cap for honorificabilitudinitatibus and a casteist troll

A user is constantly reverting some highly pov, ORish, and socially exclusive articles like Unnithan, Valiathan, Malayala Kshatriyas etc. in order to remove tags and reinsert stupid caps for what he calls proper names. Some of the articles are merely family history (eg. Kiriyathil Nair The user is an SPA here merely to push his narrow minded pov related to his caste. When unreferenced template is added he gives false reference like some random "State Manual" etc. which actually is no Reliable Source and which in all probability doesn't refer to the subject. His shying away from quoting relevant parts is suspicious. The fact that he is not able to cite a single RS or web resource for these fringe things speaks enough for him. 17:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

He is refering to me above..Well he states that there is no web source for my Manuals...for one, they were published in 1906 and 1940 respectively and there is no real web source for these old books. have a google search for "Travancore State Manual" and you will find plenty of references...besides if ur still doubtful u may check out www.keralahistory.ac.in and its publication page for the books. I ordered my copies from that very source. Also it is said that the Kiriyathil Nair article is family history. I oppose this contention because while the Eleven original families belonging to that caste are indeed mentioned, today there are thousands of families under that class. Those are the original families mentioned in a collection of legends known as "Keralolpathi"...the article also clearly mentions that it is based on legends. The fact that such a group or caste exists also needs to be taken into consideration. He also says that Malayala Kshatriyas is OR...kindly check out the page number references given at the bottom of the article which will prove they come from a book. You also say that Unnithan, Valiathan etc dont need to be in capitals. Well they are titles of nobility and need to be in capitals. you also keep changing the title of Maharajah to maharajah etc. These are wrong. You state the Manuals to be an unreliable source. They are certainly far more reliable that your contentions because the first was authored by the Deputy Prime Minister of Travancore state and i would say he, being in his position, was certainly more qualified and in position to verify facts than you. It appears you havent heard of these books but search and you will find them. So what i want to say is that just because u dont find the references good enough, it doesnt mean they arent suitable references. Manu

you have been dealing with the banned User:Kuntan. you can ignore him. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey Blnguyen, Why don't you revert the banned user's edits? Check dysentery for example. You need to oblige him on that count, my boy.16:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

O! ok thanks for letting me know...Manu

WP:SOCK raised to 'teach me a lesson'

Can someone direct me in the right direction for the reporting of mis-use of WP Procedure (specifically WP:SOCK) so that I can raise this issue with the appropriate authorities ?

I'm User:Sprigot and a WP:SOCK has been raised against User:TharkunColl, and I've been nominated as his Sock.

Obviously I'm refruting the claim - which you can read here: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/TharkunColl

The claim has been raised by User:Giggy on behalf of his 'adoptee' User:XAndreWx.

Giggy has just said (on the above suspect sock puppet page) that he raised the WP:SOCK against TharkunColl and I so that (in his words) we would "leave him alone" (meaning his adoptee, XAndreWx).

My only 'crime' against XAndreWx was to report him for WP:3RR - which was proven and he was blocked (not hard as he had been blocked once before, been unblocked and went on to be blocked again just two days later) - and to report him for being a suspected sock puppeteer - related to the consistant 3RR behaviour.

The relevant quote by Giggy (right at the end of this page) is:

"the purpose of this was to remind Tharkie and Sprig that their campaign against Andrew should stop. Sure, it wasn't the best way to go about it...but that isn't the point. The point is leave him alone"

Can someone direct me in the right direction for the reporting of mis-use of WP Procedure (specifically WP:SOCK) so that I can raise this issue with the appropriate authorities ?

I presume that waste of admin time by raising false WP:SOCK accusations is at least one of the issues - as is the libellous nature of the false WP:SOCK itself.

Otherwise admin intervention in this case would be very welcome. Sprigot 22:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

While not commenting on the dispute itself, I think what you're talking about is WP:POINT. Confusing Manifestation 23:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi I'm here because I agree with User:Sprigot. That's right, it is WP:POINT it's also an extreme case of WP:BITE too, as Sprigot had only done a few edits before a formal accusation of being a sock puppet was aimed at him. To reiterate, this is how User:Giggy described his motivation for filing a sockpuppet accusation, complete with his own use of bold type:-

"Sure, it wasn't the best way to go about it...but that isn't the point. The point is leave him alone! "

The bold caps seemed somewhat threatening. All this, even entry of a sockpuppet page, was directed against a newcomer too. I feel some sort of admin action upon User:Giggy is in order.Merkinsmum 01:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

As best I can tell, Giggy has withdrawn his checkuser request and dropped the matter. It would be helpful if you were to do the same rather than seek punishment (which admins do not do). Neil ╦ 12:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Neil I don't want to seek punishment - but I do want to be vindicated (as not being a sock) - saying 'assmume' innocence is a bit much - isn't it supposed to be disproved ? I don't want the allegation of being a sock hanging over my head - perhaps if an admin could rule that I wasn't a sock it would bring some 'closure' to the matter. Sprigot 14:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't this send out the message to Giggy (and others) that it's OK to accuse people of Sock Puppeteering, via a formal route, because nothing happens if they do ? No warning of Disruptive (WP:POINT and WP:BITE) behaviour, no clam down don't be silly - no 'anything' ? Sprigot 14:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser is not allowed to be used to clear someone - this would be a violation of privacy. It is only used to confirm sockpuppet abuse when clear evidence of such exists. As such evidence does not exist in this instance, we assume you are not a sockpuppet. I am sure that if Giggy persists in making unfounded accusations he will be asked to stop. I would imagine he will read this, and will realise he shouldn't make accusations of sockery without compelling evidence in the future. Nothing is going to happen unless he carries on - admins are not the Punishment Committee. Neil ╦ 15:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Neil - I feel better now that you have put this into context for me - I appriciate the time you've taken to help here. Sprigot 15:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Admins Jayjg and Humus sapiens rename Al-Aqsa Intifada without consensus.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Al-Aqsa Intifada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Second Intifada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please see the page histories here and here. Admins Jayjg and Humus sapiens have repeatedly renamed the page today without consensus.

An earlier admin closed the requested move of Al-Aqsa Intifada to Second Intifada at Wikipedia:Requested moves with the edit summary "removing closed discussion". See this diff. The same admin then archived that discussion. See this diff. The admin's edit summary was "closing requested move--no consensus to move"

Then there was a mediation attempt at

• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-20 Al-Aqsa Intifada

There was no consensus to rename the page. There has never been a consensus to move the page. --Timeshifter 23:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. This may be a great case of WP:IAR. He's said it very well, the " mediation was a farce, with entrenched partisans simply insisting on their own POV" . I rarely support an admin who does something out of process, but this time he's correct; we need not abide by the results of a mediation if it ignores key policies. The Evil Spartan 23:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. I followed your advice, and the advice of WP:IAR. Please see:

Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My edit summary: "Per today's WP:ANI discussion, please see WP:IAR. This common sense compromise, discussed previously, improves and maintains content, and is clear." --Timeshifter 23:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Reverted. While I appreciate your boldness, I really do think this is the appropriate name. It may be commonly known as that in the Islamic world, but it's a bit more common to use second intifada here. It's also more POV. Though internet sources are using multiple sources, such notable sources as Al-jazeera are calling it the intifada. I'm posting this comment on the talk page as well. The Evil Spartan 00:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"it's a bit more common to use second intifada here." You are incorrect. See the previous discussions and mediation that I linked to. What do you have against "Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada"? And I don't believe you are an admin, so what gives you any more authority than me or anybody else on this issue? And even admins have to try to follow the rules. WP:IAR is a last resort. Which I used with probably more justification than anyone else, since I have participated in the previous discussions. --Timeshifter 00:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not claiming any more right of authority than you have. At this point, I'm not sure it's WP:IAR at all - there is no consensus. Anyway, I find those compromise titles to be awful and unencyclopedic: it makes it sound like there's more than one second intifada, and we need to distinguish this one with by saying it's the Al-Aqsa intifada. The Evil Spartan 00:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

There ARE more intifadas than the Palestinian ones. --Timeshifter 00:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you get it. WP:IAR doesn't mean that you get to do whatever the hell you want and revert regardless. IAR is supposed to be used whenever the encyclopedia is not benefiting from a policy or guideline. This doesn't apply, either way. If two respected users, Jayjg and Humus see that the page should be located where it is, then maybe you should ask them why rather than ignoring them. Go discuss it with them and see why they moved it. — Moe ε 00:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Why aren't you yelling at them? I did not change the name completely without consensus. I tried to use a compromise name only AFTER these 2 admins changed the name. The intransigence of these 2 particular admins is well known at WP:ANI. I have discussed the naming with them both many times. As have many others. And the word 'intifada' itself is not easy to translate. My compromise name is much more clear. See:

http://www.btinternet.com/~akme/intifada.html

"In fact, even the correct translation of the Arabic word 'intifada' seems to be contentious, with Oxbridge's 'uprising' set against Collins' 'resurgence', 'throwing off' and Encarta's 'shaking off'. An educated Arab has described it to me as 'a difficult word' whose modern Palestinian coinage is new and whose predecessor in classical Arabic meant something more like 'awakening', as if from a bad dream." --Timeshifter 00:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not yelling at them because An/I isn't a complaints department. I would suggest going to Jayjg and Humus' talk pages and requesting they clarify the exact reason for moving the pages, if you have not already done so. These users are admins for a reason, because they gained the communities trust, and performing a page move over them would be frowned upon, to say the least. I have no opinion on which revision is correct or not, but maybe if you explained these things to the admins who confirmed its location, maybe they can expain their reason in full. Regards, — Moe ε 00:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

From looking at your user page I do not believe that you are an admin. So maybe you are not familiar with WP:ANI. And maybe you are the one that needs to ask them. I have already discussed this with them many times. --Timeshifter 00:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Kid, regardless of whether or not I'm an admin makes no difference, and yes I'm familiar with WP:AN/I considering I've been on Wikipedia for two years.. — Moe ε 03:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Please apologize for the personal attack. See WP:NPA. --Timeshifter 04:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

See WP:IAR. — Moe ε 04:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)Please see this NPR page:

• http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4510714

"al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade":

"Al Aqsa Brigade - Also known as the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, it is a secret armed group which sprang from within Fatah, the leading Palestinian political movement. Formed after the beginning of the second intifada in September 2000 and named for the famed mosque in the center of old Jerusalem where the intifada began, it has claimed responsibility for many bombings and armed attacks on Israeli settlers and soldiers. Its exact leadership and relation to Fatah remains unclear."

We frequently hear of this Palestinian group in the Western media. The name "al Aqsa" is common now in English, and it is necessary in the name of this page if people are to understand the conflict, and the roots of names like "al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade".--Timeshifter 00:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

One problem with that is, if I read the article correctly, the name "al Aqsa intifada" does not come from the name of the group, but directly from the name of the mosque (after which the group is also named.) Further, the reason for the name "al Aqsa intifida" seems to be the claim of Palestinians that this wave of terrorism was a reaction to the visit of Ariel Sharon to the vicinity of the mosque, which makes it a POV title because many others believe that the terrorism was a planned thing and that the Sharon visit was just a pretext. So "Second Intifida" is the NPOV title. 6SJ7 01:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

NPR describes it as the "second intifada" in your excerpt and adopting their usage seems reasonable. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a very bad business. Jayjg and Humus are strongly partisan editors; Jay has already been reprimanded at least twice by the Arbitration Committee and (as Fred Bauder has put it) he has "a long history of partisan activism" concerning Israel-related articles. It's absolutely inappropriate for two entrenched partisans to impose their own viewpoints in this way. They have no chance of being seen as neutral parties in this debate and it's very disappointing that they have - not for the first time - ignored WP:CONSENSUS. One would think that Jay, as a former arbitrator, would at least respect our basic community principles. Sadly it appears that partisanship is overriding principle. -- ChrisO 01:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A personal grudge from a hardly neutral colleague. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter's arguments failed at the talk page and at the mediation. After many weeks if not months of discussion, there is not hope for consensus. The article was under POV title way, way too long, and the move to an undisputably NPOV title Second Intifada is long overdue. Regarding the NPR link: 1) NPR is not a strictly scholarly source, but I guess it may qualify as RS. 2) Timeshifter's quote above is from "Al Aqsa Brigade" entry. 3) Here's what more relevant "Intifada" entry says: "The second intifada began in late September 2000, after comprehensive peace talks at Camp David failed the previous summer. The second intifada has grown into Israel's longest war." The highlight's mine. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, it is clearly not appropriate for someone as identified with one side of the debate as yourself or Jayjg to take unilateral action. It'll be seen - is already being seen - as an effort to impose a partisan solution against consensus (and you can hardly argue, given the requested moves summary quoted by Timeshifter, that you had consensus). You should undertake dispute resolution rather than attempting to impose a solution. -- ChrisO 01:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

What side do you identify me with, ChrisO? This is not a game of tag, and not a battleground, even though many editors work hard to make it so. This is an encyclopedia and I am fully responsible for my actions and words. I reject your self-appointed supervision. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Your rejection of dispute resolution and consensus-building is noted, and I'm sure it will be noted by everyone else as well. -- ChrisO 01:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Chris, this has been discussed and debated since March! There have been straw polls, there's been move requests, there's been mediation -at some point, we have to finally say enough! At no point in the whole debate did anyone advance an argument or provide evidence that "Second Intifada" is a POV title -mainly because it would have been impossible. There is also no way around the fact that other encyclopædias, like Britannica title it "Second" [1]. Irrespective of how it might look to you, there hasn't been a "partisan solution" imposed, period. Intransigence by some editors in the face of the overwhelming evidence against their position has to, at some point, be regarded for what it is, a form of gaming the system. This seems to me to be a perfect situation where WP:IAR is needed. <<-armon->> 01:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Humus wrote: "Timeshifter's arguments failed at the talk page and at the mediation." Armon wrote: "there hasn't been a 'partisan solution' imposed,..." Both are laughable statements. The Humus arguments have almost always failed. Just go to the pages that I linked. Neither of these 2 hardly ever compromise. --Timeshifter 03:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with and support the above comments by Humus and Armon. Let's stop with the filibustering, people. If Second Intifida is objectionable, let's call it second Palestinean Uprising, or some descriptive phrase that no one likes. Really.--Epeefleche 04:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not the way we're supposed to operate - Wikipedia:Naming conflict and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution set out what's supposed to happen. I'm not making any judgments as to which name is preferable, but a coup de main by one side in a dispute is the worst possible way to try to resolve the question. -- ChrisO 08:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: There is currently a proposal on Talk:Second Intifada to retitle the article as Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada). This (entirely sensible) suggestion has been rejected outright by at least one highly partisan editor, and it stands to reason that this editor's allies will oppose any resolution which includes "Al Aqsa Intifada" in the article title. CJCurrie 04:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That is not a compromise, but rather another attempt to push the same POV. We've been through this. Per Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Descriptive names: "Choose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications." Per Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Article names: "A Wikipedia article must have one definitive name. This is required by the MediaWiki software on which Wikipedia runs. However, multiple synonyms can be used for a term". And per WP:TITLE#Use English words: "Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form." Of course this is a wrong place or this discussion. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Motion to close

Can I suggest that we've thoroughly established that there are good reasons (even if you disagree with them) for all sides of this dispute and discussion of it does not therefore belong on this board. Please take this to Talk:Second Intifada, the original article talk page or another more appropriate forum. --Dweller 09:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct - Talk:Second Intifada from here on, please, content disuputes are not an issue requiring administrative attention. Neil ╦ 12:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit warring at Wikipedia:lead section

There is currently edit warring over whether citations in the lead should be:

• a) mentioned with both interpretation given
• b) decouraged for stuff given in the article
• c) encouraged at all cost
• d) mentioned at all

I'm all in favor of it being covered (and I have reverted the removal of the section twice), but User:SlimVirgin and Jayjg are steadfastly removing the section. How the mention of the "summary" interpretation "encourages policy violation", I fail to see, but in any case, more people need to step in and watch the page if this is ever to solve. Circeus 23:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been going on for a year. Other editors have given up, left the project, and stopped editing policy pages altogether. Same story, different article. —Viriditas | Talk 04:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I find it funny how admins who really should know better - on both sides - each manage exactly 3 reverts before an ally steps in and takes up the revert button. This is known as "gaming" 3RR. Neil ╦ 15:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that article is a poster child for the Dmcdevit solution (1RR) once it's unprotected. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

vandal/profanity

User:Jpgordon added info about Oprah Winfrey performing fellatio on a donkey, etc. [2]

Rillio 03:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

He didn't add them; he reverted your removal of other people's comments. Arguably some may be tasteless, but tampering or removing other people's comments is of utmost rudeness (unless they consist of blatant vandalism). —Kurykh 04:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

i removed racist attacks on oprah, jpgordon added these back in. this is inexcusable. can someone in charge of this place do something? Rillio 04:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

What racist comments? —Kurykh 04:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

And in case you didn't know, the person was saying that the comment about Oprah doing whatever with the donkey should be removed from the article. So I don't know what you're getting at. —Kurykh 04:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

that person was being sarcastic, obviously. swap "oprah" for "your mom" and i think you'll see that it is an attack on oprah Rillio 04:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Quit your bellyaching. Jpgordan didn't do anything wrong, move along. — Moe ε 04:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

)(ec) Actually, the comment was placed by an anonymous IP and was unsigned. At that time (July 14, 2007), the Oprah Winfrey page contained vandalism, which the anon obviously did not know how to fix. The vandalism was reverted about an hour after the above comment was left. I have added a header to the Oprah Winfrey talk page and context for the above note.[3] Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

so its ok for jpgordon to insert "oprah is a lesbian and a whore and sucks donkey dick"? i think this is really rude to oprah. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rillio (talk • contribs) 05:05, July 24, 2007 (UTC)

No one said that, so stop misinterpreting the comment. No one called Oprah that, let along Jpgordon. Let me modify the comment to make it clear:

Who ever wrote that "Oprah was a lesbian and a whore that could suck a donkeys dick" should change that, Oprah is a beautiful woman that helps all the neddy children. [Italics and quotes are mine]

I didn't have to do this, but it seems like I have to in order to stop this farcical complaint. —Kurykh 05:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Rillio seems to have some misconceptions about what is and what isn't appropriate here, and what may be done about it. Vide his edits to User talk:Deeceevoice. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:Velocicaptor

Resolved

Someone may want to take a look at this gem. I removed the fair use images, but someone may want to deal with the ridiculous soapboxing in that edit. I'm not feeling particularly forgiving right now, so I'd appreciate someone else having a look.--Isotope23 ^talk 04:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• It's just classic trolling. --Haemo 04:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• While I think he should be able to say what he likes, and it certainly isn't offensive, just a little incorrect. By the time WW2 rolled around we hadn't been allowed to own Negroes in 74 years. So it was hardly a case of maintaining the right to negro slaves. History is always bent though to support an opinion --Hayden5650 05:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• • You would say that Jews would be workers, not talk-show hosts like Jerry Springer is today, raking in big money for doing nothing but cracking jokes. isn't offensive? IrishGuy ^talk 10:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Not offensive? Please... That post was offensive on so many levels and I'm not even part of the ethnic groups he was disparaging. He's lucky I've the sense to post a notice here rather than just carry through with my first inclination.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with Irishguy and I have removed that post. BLP can be violated outside article namespaces and should be treated seriously, and that comment about Springer, was BLP, liable and any other thing we could toss at it Regardless, it wasn't for the benefit of this encyclopedia, and comments like that need to stay in the peanut gallery. — Moe ε 11:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit War in the article on Pro-pedophile activism

Resolved

Admin intervention is requested in regards to the edit war currently in progress in the editing of the Pro-pedophile activism article. Three editors have repeatedly deleted almost the entire article without providing any legitimate reason for such a drastic action on the appropriate Talk Page. All attempts to encourage meaningful discussion have failed. The only reasons provided for the deletion of so much material were that the topic is not liked by these editors and that they think the entire article should be deleted. Since WP:IDONTLIKEIT clearly explains that personal opinions on a subject should carry no weight in the discussion of the topic's place in Wikipedia, and without legitimate justification of why an article should be deleted a deletion cannot go through, the repeated deletion of the majority of the text of this article is definitely unjustified. I would like to also point out that one of the editors engaged in this behavior has previously nominated this article for deletion. The resulting vote was "no consensus," with 18 votes for Keep (or 19 if counting one that read "Neutral, leaning keep") and 5 votes for Delete. Seeing as these editors have yet to provide sufficient basis for the drastic edit they would like to see occur to this article, and continue to engage in an edit war with editors who wish to discuss the proposed change on the Talk Page, admin intervention seems necessary. Could an admin please take a look into this issue and do something about this edit war? Thank you in advance, ~ Homologeo 06:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Standard remedy: full protection on the Wrong Version^TM. Hash it out at the relevant talk page at your (plural case intended) leisure. —Kurykh 06:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't look closely enough to see which side they're on, but it quite appears that Sdhrfr (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet, since they're spontaneously registering and leaping into the middle of a heated dispute right as people are hitting 3RR. Watch for autoblocks, or if anybody feels this was a bad move, feel free to discuss. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Just my $0.02 from my encounter at Lolicon, but SqueakBox has a history of engaging in POV edit waring. His particular statement that "NPOV condemns child pornography"[4] is particularly worrisome and makes me wonder if he can edit any related article in a neutral manner. --Farix (Talk) 15:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR

There are currently 8 outstanding 3rr reports on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. It would be great if someone could respond to these, thanks! Perspicacite 08:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Editor blocked for making legal threats and being disruptive is back

Please forgive me, I posted this first on another admin. board before realizing my mistake!

A sockpuppet of User:Mayor Quimby, one User:207.6.12.137, is back. This user's activities clearly indicate that the user is antithetical to the ideals of Wikipedia and its editors. The user's anon. IP sockpuppets were blocked for making legal threats, vandalism and being very disruptive. All editors are cautioned that this user is full of beans and is looking for confrontation, and so please be careful not to poke.

Here's the info on 207.6.12.137:

207.6.12.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I would ask for one of two things:

• 1) Please block the IP 207.6.12.137.
• 2) and/or protect the following pages that the sockpuppets regularly target so that anon IPs cannot edit:

• Regina neighbourhoods
• Regina, Saskatchewan
• Pat Fiacco

It would be better to block the IP again, I think, because this user is bound and determined to use our encyclopædia project alternatively as a personal soapbox and vandalism playground. I also append a record of this user's history: [[5]] Thank you.Mumun 無文 12:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

IP has been blocked again, this time for two weeks. CitiCat ^♫ 13:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, CitiCat ^♫!! ^^ Mumun 無文 13:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:White Hispanic

This talk page is getting worrisome. Several IPs are making edits to the talk page that have little to do with the article itself but are ramblings and rants. This has persisted for some time and I think requires the attention of an admin. Examples

• diff 68.110.8.21
• diff 68.110.8.21
• [6] 71.235.81.32
• same rant User:76.28.91.54
• rant User:196.38.218.24
• rant User:71.235.88.168

These are just a few examples, overall the talk page is looking more like a forum or a blog. There is a similar pattern by some of the same editors on the Talk:White Latin American page.Muntuwandi 12:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You're free to remove any posts that are not in compliance with WP:TALK's general ideals about what is to be discussed there. You can remove these without admin assistance, correct? — Moe ε 12:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggested solution: I've moved all talk page discussions to Talk:White Hispanic/Archive 1 and semi-protected the talkarchive. If you encounter anymore off-topic ranting, move it there. This will provide a disincentive for others to use the talk page as a forum and, hopefully, by the time semi-protection elapses, such antics will cease. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 13:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, i'll continue to observe the situation. Muntuwandi 13:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Deciiva

Could you please deal with this user? I'm sick and tired of these personal attacks and continuous reverts ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11]). I made him note Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be written like sports magazines' reports, with interviews, quotes, redundant statements and lots of external links. But all his answers are things like these. All I realize about the guy is that he is not interested at all to collaborate in the Wikipedia. Thanks in advance. --Angelo 14:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I gave him a final warning. If he makes more personal attacks then report it here and someone will deal with it. ugen64 14:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Somali people vandalism

In the Somali people article, 86.149.253.205 (talk · contribs) was repeatedly removing the "Prophet" honorific from Muhammad's name and changing "Somali diaspora" to "Somali infection" ([12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]). The former is actually a legitimate edit as per WP:MOSISLAM. The latter edit is vandalism and the IP (based in the UK) has since been blocked for 24 hours. Subsequently, 140.112.29.207 (talk · contribs) (based in Taiwan) made the same edit with a vengefully-worded edit summary ([18]). I blocked the new IP address, but I am planning on protecting the article if this continues. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. One admin suspects this anon. editor is banned user DavidYork71. -- Gyrofrog (talk)

Based in Taiwan? Hardly. I'm taking it to WP:OP. In any case, can I ask why you have brought this here? I don't see much to comment on. The Evil Spartan 14:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I meant the IP address is based in Taiwan. I'd already changed the block to indefinite based on Wikipedia:Open proxy detection. This was more of an alert than a request, I apologize if it is misplaced. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Fallujah vandalism

• 124.99.205.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) repeated editing of Fallujah with unsourced, personal commentary, not keeping with NPOV regarding "white phosphorous, nerve gas, mustard gas". Similar changes were already reverted at a previous time and there removal was agreed by consensus on Talk:Fallujah. User was warned repeatedly and is active and continues to edit after fifth and last warning given. heresthecasey | talk 15:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me that this is vandalism. While the user might be having trouble with the syntax, he or she is citing references. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see it either. Just taking a quick glance, I don't see unsourced personal commentary. I see statements which have moved from borderline pov in the earlier edits to fairly neutral in the last edits which were backed by a BBC article and an Independent.co.uk article. Is there more discussion in one of the archives? I don't see where any strong consensus was formed on the talk page that the information couldn't be added if there was a reliable source with it. I only see where people were saying that it didn't belong because earlier mentions were based on "eyewitness accounts". Either way, I'd say this is more of a content dispute than a case of vandalism. --OnoremDil 15:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have declined to issue a block on the same report at AIV. I see it as a good faith entry (and thus not vandalism) of a well sourced comment. I don't see personal commentary in the most recent version. - Philippe | Talk 15:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Indefblocked editor Saintrotter (talk · contribs) is editing under an IP sock

82.33.32.160 (talk · contribs) is a static IP address that has only been used by Saintrotter (talk · contribs) aka Rastishka (talk · contribs), who was blocked indefinitely for persistent POV pushing, trolling and soapboxing on his userpage. Beginning this month, the static IP (which was not blocked along with the two usernames) has resumed editing and based on edit history is pretty clearly the same editor. IP makes tendentious edits centered around race [19], and is even signing his IP edits using his old BANNED username [20], [21], [22]. The IP has been blocked twice in the past. I think it's time for a permablock for this IP, as it is a static IP assigned only to this particular indefblocked user and leaving it open can result in nothing but more block avoidance. The Parsnip! 15:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've filed a Checkuser case. [23]. The Parsnip! 17:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Blanking vandalism from multiple socks

Several newly created, and seemingly single purpose accounts are active in the article History of India.

• Truthfulnesswins (talk · contribs)
• Truthalwaysprevails (talk · contribs)
• Doergood (talk · contribs)

--Ragib 18:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Repeated blanking, stalking and trolling by users Lahiru_k (talk · contribs) and snowolfd4 (talk · contribs)

Please help with this problem, users Lahiru_k (talk · contribs) and snowolfd4 (talk · contribs) are have been repeatedly blanking my well intentioned comments on Wikipedia:Peer review on this page [24]. They have been constantly blanking my comments in tandem [[25]. They have also called me edits vandalism and trolling. The contents they had removed on this page LTTE had valid citations from reliable sources. Also I have added the totaly disputed tag, which they keep removing claiming its trolling and vandalism. I have provided ample reasoning for addition of the tags. Both users are unwilling to discuss or come with reason for their actions, apart unilateraly imposing it on everybody. Please help Sinhala freedom 19:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Said users have also been accused of violating WP:STALK. Snowulf4d has also removed warning from his talk page. Watchdogb 23:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet issues

Having a problem with a sockpuppet on a AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Pitcavage. The sock nominated the article for deletion while bouncing between two IP's, one that traces back to Shaw, the other with no RDNS. They admitted both IP's were theirs, however claimed they were due to having a dynamic IP, which is false since Shaw's IP's would always resolve to Shaw.[26]

• 139.48.81.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 68.146.179.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The puppet then attempted to insinuate after much arguing that he was the person in question Mark Pitcavage.[27] I think its pretty clear from the fact that Pitcavage is an adult, would have plenty of information on himself, and has not posted as himself so their would be no COI issue, that this is in fact not Pitcavage. Can these IP's be blocked for menacing and possibly close the AfD since it was nominated by a sock, if that is policy. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

TrevASLer is the IP user; clearly a username just created to file the AFD. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

And all of them are socks of a long-established user. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If that is known for a fact, then perhaps a block is in order. I would just like the AfD to no longer be the victim of the sock puppets attacks and now, impersonations, which is probably the item that bothers me most. Luckily it was far from a convincing impersonation. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The user in question was User:Michael Dorosh, whose last edit to his userpage is "I find it much more satisfying to make anonymous edits these days." I don't think creating a new user to nominate articles for deletion is an acceptable use of alternate accounts, nor is editing things as both that user and the IP (in addition to using his former username up until about a month ago). The attempt to pretend that he was Mark Pitcavage is also not really all that cool. I have blocked the sock. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

New user plagiarising Encyclopedia Britannica

The user Whenclaim made the following edits, in which s/he created introduction content that was copied and pasted directly from Encyclopedia Britannica:

• Scilla→Diff→Squill @ Encyclopedia Britannica
• Dextromethorphan→Diff→Dextromethorphan @ Britannica
• Neural tube defects→Diff→Neural tube defect @ Britannica

And these are just the contributions I took the time to check. I'm sure there's more. Also, for a new user, this person has been extremely active, like s/he is trying to make as many contributions as possible to gain a reputation, and seems very knowledgeable in using Wikipedia. I've seen behavior like this before in sock puppets, which is what I suspect here.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

22:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there some other way I should be reporting plagiarism? Should I not be reporting it at all?

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

23:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I just found the wp:plagiarism page. Sorry, I'll list there.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

23:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Early DRV closure

Someone want to swing by Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_23#Encyclop.C3.A6dia_Dramatica and close it--a sock of the blocked nominator now wants it closed and there's rather overwhelming support for the endorsed closure. It's peppered by ED trolls and sock play. — Scientizzle 23:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty then, ED is Good (talk · contribs) has gone ahead and closed it...that'll work, I guess. — Scientizzle 23:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind...closure has been reverted... — Scientizzle 23:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Waiting for five days won't kill... —Kurykh 23:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Mildly disruptive editor User:Omulazimoglu on Tobacco smoking

Very slow and tedious edit war going on in which, every day or so, User:Omulazimoglu adds unsourced original research to Tobacco smoking#Islam without comment or explanation, and I revert it. This has happened several times (at least four, I think), but not often enough to trigger a 3RR violation.

I have left a warning on the editor's talk page explaining why I keep reverting him. The editor's only responses were to re-add the unsourced material back to the article without comment, and to leave a snarky comment on my talk page.

This editor seems to be a good-faith contributor to other articles (with minor exceptions) so I am hesitant to leave a level-4 "final warning" on this editor's talk page. He doesn't seem inclined to explain his edits, however, so the third opinion way of resolving disputes won't work. And he edits Wikipedia infrequently, so a short-term block will likely go unnoticed. -Amatulic 19:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, he did it again, re-added his unsourced original research about Islam to tobacco smoking. without explaining why. I have left him a final warning. -Amatulic 15:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Guys, please be more constructive. Respond to my edits there. HG | Talk 10:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Vision (Marvel Comics)

There's a low level revert war going on here, and the page has already been subject to protection in the recent past. Now I've already blocked one of the participants, Asgardian (talk · contribs), a couple of times for what I perceive as disruption, so I don't want to step into this dispute in case my judgement is clouded. I'd appreciate a more neutral admin than I may be to have a look and take what they feel is the appropriate action. Cheers, Hiding Talk 11:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll sort it out. Neil ╦ 15:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. Hiding Talk 07:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Inapropriate user page

The userpage of Strich3d contains the passage Articles I started:(but were vandalised by bulgarian and greek nationalists), which is in violation if Wikipedia:User page. It contains an attack against Bulgarian and Greek users and it clearly not facilitating to collaboration. The user has been notified about this but continues to revert back to the version in question. I request administrator assistance. Mr. Neutron 22:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Note it was not Strich3d, but a third party. Mr. Neutron 00:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

And what comes off with User:Strich3d and the user that supports him by adding this back a number of times? --Laveol ^T 13:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Look at the history of the page, I count more than 20 reverts stretching back two months. Mr. Neutron 14:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong violates blocking policy

Ryulong has indefinitely blocked the whole /20 class -- i.e. 4096 IP addressess without proof or evidence that open-proxy operates on each of this address. I think this is blatant violation of blocking policy. He also abusively reverts others' comments here and on Talk:Mozilla Firefox (check histories). 62.75.248.183 22:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Note, I've been removing this thread for the past hour or so because the IP above is a TOR proxy, as have been all other IPs that posted this message.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ryulong's range block looks sound for now; an ARIN lookup confirms that the entire range is in fact allocated to a hosting company, indicating that few to no legitimate users will be editing from there, while proxies will likely be scattered throughout. Should any legitmate users encounter a problem, the block can certainly be revisited. Krimpet 22:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are the four other TOR nodes that had posted this message:

• 88.84.149.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 88.72.117.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 124.92.74.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 80.221.247.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, fine, but why start by reverting the edits (denying other users a chance to judge for themselves), instead of just responding to them in the way that you have in the first place? Gerry Lynch 00:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Because it's someone very likely banned and using TOR proxies to edit (editting from open proxies is forbidden)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The intended target of a block is not the editor, but rather the proxy itself. Absent editing patterns, admissions, abuse itself, and etc that can confirm that the editor editing from the proxy is a banned user, then we can not reasonably assume that an editor using a proxy is a bad editor, for they are permitted to freely use the proxy until it is blocked. Navou ^banter 02:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so block and not rollback even though it allowed me to block five TOR nodes...—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, just block, no rollback if they are legitimate edits, for they are allowed to edit articles, discuss, post reports here, etc. Navou ^banter 12:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Navou hit the key concept here, but I feel I can articulate it better, or at least differently. That the edits came through an open proxy is in and of itself insufficent reason to rollback or treat them as the contribution of a banned editor. If enough have been reviewed to show a pattern of vandalism (for a particular proxy or proxy set and a particular time period), they can be rolled back or speedily undone in other fashion as vandalism. GRBerry 17:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sivasubramaniam Raveendranath

This biography is a coat rack at the center of a (as far as I can tell) politically sensitive PoV war. I honestly can't make heads or tails of it and protected until they can do something more constructive than argue in edit summaries. Circeus 01:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The edit warring and protection of this article is unfortunate, all of the concerns raised by warring editors could have been easily fixed without any edit warring. I just did not see it yesterday also we have a life outside of Wikipedia too. About Circueus concern that this is not a biography is only partially correct. He becomes notable by him being forced disappeared, that too he being a vice chancellor of a major university in Sri Lanka makes it even more notable. See Reda Helal and Boris Weisfeiler. I would like to get a chance to work on this article section by section. I also disagree taht this is coatrack. If he thinks that this is is coat rack, why not put it up for XFD ? ThanksTaprobanus 13:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

amatulic always deletes my contribution on tobacco smoking...

Hi; I want to ask you if you could ask the user amatulic why he always ondoes my contribution on tobacco smoking...Best regards...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Omulazimoglu (talk • contribs) 06:28, 25 July 2007

See my edit summaries; I have explained each time, but you have failed to explain your edits, or otherwise engage in any discussion about your rationale for violating WP:V and WP:NOR policies. -Amatulic 17:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Guys, please be more constructive. Respond to my edits there. HG | Talk 10:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Injecting original research into articles is frowned upon. There is already an incident filed here regarding edit reversions to the tobacco smoking article.

There is a good chance both parties will end up at 3RR if this keeps up... --Aarktica 14:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see the report I filed in the section above: #Mildly disruptive editor User:Omulazimoglu on Tobacco smoking. The problem is, User:Omulazimoglu repeatedly re-adds unsourced, unverified, POV original research — without one word of explanation — to a section of an article I spent some time cleaning up. His reverts wouldn't trigger a 3RR as they happen once a day, rather than 4 times in 1 day, so I have not reported him there. His edits (repeatedly adding unsourced original research) constitute vandalism. After reverting a couple times, I finally left him a warning, but his only response was to complain rather than explain. In order to stop his disruptive edits, I left an escalating series of warnings on his talk page and reported him here.

Fortunately, User:HG came in and vastly improved the disputed section, so I believe the issue is resolved unless Omulazimoglu chooses to continue his disruptive edits. -Amatulic 17:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of Oldwindybear

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

Per the conclusion of the ANI thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive274#User:Stillstudying, Barneca and I have compiled a detailed sockpuppet report:User:Proabivouac/Oldwindybear&Stillstudying.Proabivouac 06:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• I thought the consensus in the last thread was that, your voluminous report aside, that there was no clear sock-puppetry here and that the best solution was just to let it go. --Haemo 07:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The consensus was to set it aside until Barneca and I had compiled a report.Proabivouac 07:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Uh, why is there a duplicate thread on WP:AN? Please keep the (potential) discussion in one place. —Kurykh 07:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• I must say this evidence is pretty compelling. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you page through it, the only things that really jumped out at me were the time things, and the "slip-ups" section. I would suggest that a good test might be to run checkuser and look for a time period when one, or the other, was on vacation. See if both of their edits came from the same vacation spot. --Haemo 07:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The recent checkuser (last week) didn't find anything. But checkuser can't disprove anything, only prove that two editors have used the same IP. And the checkuser data is only good for two months (I think). Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 07:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

One week, or maybe five days. Not sure. An Arbitration case perhaps? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It's incorrect to state that "the recent checkuser didn't find anything:" it confirmed that SS and FWS were identical - remember, the CU was on OWB, not SS - and that both OWB and SS/FWS were in the same metropolitan area. See CU results, admission of multiple IPs.Proabivouac 07:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Without checkuser or very, very, very compelling evidence (Not that yours isn't, Pro) an arbitration case isn't going to do much... If there is sockpuppetry involved, it will be very bewildering for the checkuser report... I think the best way to figure this out is to do what Haemo suggested: Check out the vacation spots, and see if checkuser can prove anything on it. The only potential problem there is if the guy(s) is/are using proxies, but then again, the likelihood of forgetting and making a mistake... --Dark Falls ^talk 07:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree here -- "multiple IPs" says very little. I mean, I have an IP address here, and IP address when I visit people in Vancouver, an IP address at my relatives, and an IP address at school. In all, I probably have a whole bunch of them. That's not suspicious -- I'm sure this is true of nearly every editor. What you're going to need is something which could not reasonably be believed to be the part of two unrelated editors; hence, my vacation test idea. --Haemo 07:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Haemo, the shared phrases and spelling errors are enough to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that these are same writer, regardless of IP or contribution history. It is extremely improbable that any other person, living or dead, shares this particular combination of textual idiosyncrasies.Proabivouac 08:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if it adds any evidence, but can someone email me a copy of the deleted, incorrectly-filed RFA of oldwindybear? --Dark Falls ^talk 08:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No, but I can link you to Oldwindybear's existing, perfectly-filed (and as far as I know, only) RfA with 100% support - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Oldwindybear. Grandmasterka 08:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As one who'd supported, this unanimous RfA proves beyond any doubt that ours is a critically dysfunctional community. How did no one catch that the nominator was an obvious sock of the candidate? How did the previous (and accurate) allegation of sockpuppetry go unmentioned? How did last months'' allegation of plagiarism go unmentioned? And don't get me started about his persona and resumé.Proabivouac 09:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The evidence of sockpuppetry is overwhelming. I think we need to block stillstudying straight away as a clear sock. OWB needs to be de-adminned as an abusive sockpuppeter so this needs to go to arbitration right away. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I can edit using a multitude of socks in the city centre that I live an hour away from, simply by using SSH. Not sharing IPs doesn't necessarily prove anything. Given this much evidence, I think it's time we considered the possibilities. --Deskana (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac I think when this sinks to attacking my military service that is it for me with wikipedia. I cannot for the life of me see why anyone cannot see that your "logic" is garbage. You admit checkuser shows NOTHING similar, not vacations, not anything. You say SS and FWS are one person, but the third went to enormous lengths to set up a scam - why then would he not do the few FSW edits from a third computer? None of it makes sense. Theresa Knott what am I being de-admined for? I have not even edited on the same articles that SS did! What a sad day this is that people can be personally attacked, even for their military service! Proabivouac this is low, even for you. The bottom line is you have a theory, unsupported by any evidence, which you use to harass someone who refused to resign when you demanded they do so. I did nothing wrong. old windy bear 09:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Civility please. I understand that you are considerably angry, but please refrain from calling other editor's logic "garbage". --Dark Falls ^talk 09:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No it is pretty clear. The evidence is overwhelming!Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

OWB, if you read the page, he has a lot of evidence, and I see his logic. And yes, you did edit same pages he has. Just look at the page. It lists them. I have to agree with Theresa, the evidence is overwhelming. i ^{(said) (did)} 09:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I will save you a lot of argument. I don't enjoy the personal attacks, so I resign from wikipedia in it's entirity. I don't know an H Blair, or any of these people. But you know what? It reaches the point of simply not being worth the trouble, and we are at that point. old windy bear 09:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

User:DarkFalls YOu are good guy, and I can only say a person gets tired of being attacked. While not guilty, I am tired of arguing. I have shut down my talk page, this is my last edit, I resign in toto, and this matter is closed. old windy bear 10:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, in that case I am going to block your account as that of a confirmed sockpuppeteer and ask for a steward to remove the admin bit from it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Theresa Knott

If you will not simply accept my resignation, without tagging me, then I have to stay and ask for arbitration. old windy bear 10:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about it. A tag is not actually necessary. If you want to resign that is fine by me. The admin bit will have to be removed though. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse moi, but under what authority are you making this assertion? I was under the impression that it is for the WP:ARBcom to determine. -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 10:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It is, but if he wants to resign rather than go through the humiliation then surely that is the best option? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Theresa Knott You are absolutely correct. This is terrible for wikipedia. I maintain to the end I am not a sock puppeter, but fighting this out is going to be so ugly it is simply not worth it, and it harms the encyclopedia. Remove the admin and this is my last edit, I resign in toto for the good of the project. old windy bear 10:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I assume Theresa's simply speaking for herself. However, that would be essentially standard procedure in "left in controversial circumstances" situations, for reasons which are obvious to anyone who's been witness to "I'm leaving, no need for further action/here I am back again, whatever was all the fuss about?" practices in various cases. Alai 10:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That is like been too judgmental. Oldwindybear is upset and understandably so. He might choose to come back, but the better course of action we have here is either to seek wider community opinion (if that can get an administrator desysoped) and if not, let us all please move the holy ARBcom and seek their counseils. :) -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 10:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any experience of Arbcom? It's not plesent, and takes forever. OWB has said he wants to leave. Why drag him through a very unplesent expereince? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No, none at all. Is that a bad thing? :-D -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 13:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If the user says he is leaving, I fail to see the use of arbcom. It, as Theresa said, only causes stress and unpleasantness to the parties involved... The only thing we have to worry about is the terms of Old windy bear's retirement, as well as what happens if he returns. --Dark Falls ^talk 10:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I'm fine with arbitration. All the evidence is gathered already, including much which hasn't been presented. In spite of our pleas to make this graceful and easy, OWB forced Barneca and I to go through all this work; there is nothing left with which to bargain. Above, he states "Proabivouac this is low, even for you." Even for me, eh?

The fact that OWB did all this, yet passed RfA unopposed is a community issue. The fact that it was reported to SSP, RfCU and ANI, yet we ignored it, is a community issue. The fact that he's falsely claimed at least some academic degrees is a community issue. There are other things which I am curious about as well. We can't have editors - even otherwise good ones - aggrandizing themselves with false experiences and accomplishments. Did I mention seriously abusive sockpuppetry?Proabivouac 10:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What false degrees? Do you realize you are hurling accusations without any proof of any kind? If you want arbitration, fine, but please, stick to the facts. I offered to resign to end this for the community, but you don't want that - why? What proof do you have to hurl that kind of accusation? old windy bear 10:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

These don't add up, OWB.23:59, 5 September 200518:13, 24 December 200513:53, 9 January 200619:55, 9 January 200620:15, 9 January 200617:48, 16 January 200601:58, 27 July 2006 Like I said, don't get me started.Proabivouac 10:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Mate, oldwindybear has already agreed to be desysopped and such, so I really don't see the use of those diffs. Best not to trip someone over after they're already on the ground...(Theoretically impossible but...) --Dark Falls ^talk 10:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

He asked what proof I had.Proabivouac 11:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

My apologies mate. I didn't see that. --Dark Falls ^talk 11:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Dark Falls, trust me on this: no one wants to be falsely accused and I won't be back, but put a voluntary block on my IP, fine with me. old windy bear 10:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

OK let's nip this in the bud. How about this. OWB resignes, I ask a steward to remove the admin bit, No one blocks the account or tags it as a sockpuppeteer, if OWB wants to come back he can ask the AC for his admin bit back. Fair? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and resign. old windy bear 10:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Theresa has blocked User:Stillstudying indefinitely and I am supportive of the block. If Oldwindybear decides to come back we can have a full-fledged ArbCom case. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've also asked over on meta for his admin bit removed. I think this matter can be marked as resolved now.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 11:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You said it, sister. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you go to sleep and nothing's been filed, you wake up, and it's over.

I know this section has been marked resolved, but since it isn't technically archived, I'll sneak in a quick comment before it is: I am satisfied with this solution. I'll go look for a better forum for any other comments. --barneca (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I participated lightly in the previous thread and defended OWB a bit. But now that I really go through the contribs, you guys hit it right on the head. They should have overlapped at some point just by accident but they never did. I'm all the way back to February and nothing. Nice job everyone. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Another sock of DavidYork71

Following the blocking of multiple socks in the most recent RFCU case, User:Prester John is re-instating all the articles that User:Ultrabias had edited which had subsequently been reverted following the previous RFCU confirmation.

The edit summaries also show a remarkable similarity to the style of Ultrabias (aka DavidYork71). See this, this, this and this.

This has been filed for RFCU but I believe the process with DY71 socks is to block first and ask questions later. So I leave it to the admins to take any relevant actions. Cheers. → AA ^(talk) — 08:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not a comment on whether Prester John is or is not a sockpuppet of David York, but his edits seem to be in harmony with WP:MOSISLAM. See WP:MOSISLAM#Islamic honorifics. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

In the recent incarnation of sockpuppettry, Ultrabias (a confirmed sock) updated MOSISLAM without discussion or consensus and then proceeded to make changes to "support" the new MOS. Prester John appears to be simple reverting to Ultrabias' version of the articles. Many of the edits by Ultrabias were simple search and replace operations and introduced grammatical errors. However, one of the defining charasteristics is the edit summaries (see this one for example. → AA ^(talk) — 09:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Prestjohn is not a sock of David, if you have any suspicion you should file a checkuser. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Both have editing histories that many have found contentious, but I too suspect this is not the one person. Although, you are not not the first to suggest it. regards --Merbabu 12:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Further AA, one shouldn't just block and ask questions later on a slight suspicion or a few similarities, rather one must be really sure. Otherwise you are going to have egg on your face, and it will make it easier for future socks, and harder for those trying to reign in the socks. "Shoot first, ask questions later" must be done with much more caution, particularly in this case when it is almost certain PJ is not a sock of DY. --Merbabu 12:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree - which is why I brought it here. I had no interaction with the original DY71 but did come across Ultrabias. I have presented the evidence but was certainly not advocating a block based on my evidence alone - it was discussed by more experienced editors that that should be the approach which is why I mentioned it. I am not aware of previous cases of DY71 being associated with PJ but I guess it would be in PJs interest for an RFCU to clear him so that it can be on record they are not the same - since based on editing behaviour currently, it appears to be so. → AA ^(talk) — 13:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

When we've blocked DY socks fast in the past it's because the socks were blatantly obvious and therefore a RFCU wasn't warranted. However, PJ's account is nearly a year old and an admin that blocked a long term contributor as a sockpuppet would want to see some very convincing evidence such as a positive RFCU or textual evidence (such as that presented in the Oldwindybear case above). Sarah 13:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, AA. From your last post, it seems like your RFCU and ANI were good moves. regards --Merbabu 13:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Could someone pop over to Category:Attack pages for speedy deletion

I tagged a realtively nasty attack page at 08:30 UTC here and it's still hanging around. Thanks ! Pedro |  Chat  10:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing. Pedro |  Chat  11:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, while that was indeed an attack page, it was not particularly nasty compared to most of what else goes in that bucket. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh I know. That's why I described it as "relatively". Thanks for killing ti off. Pedro |  Chat  15:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

unblock wanted.

My friend WereWolf, who left Wikipedia a few months back, tried to return a few days ago but discovered that his IP has been blocked for vandalism. Could an admin please unblock his user account so he can recommence contributing? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

He is not blocked, so he can't be unblocked ([28]). If he is autoblocked by his IP being banned, point him in the direction of Template:Autoblock, which tells autoblocked users what to do to get this lifted. Neil ╦ 13:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was what I meant. I was just posting here so he didn't have to do that, but I'll email him the

template now. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that we have no idea what his IP address or the block ID is - this is done deliberately to protect people's privacy. Neil ╦ 13:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Block check

Someone or someones have been creating accounts quite quickly to insert links like these into medical articles. They seem to do it, get a couple of warnings, but not enough to get blocked and then create another account. For this reason I have blocked User:Jayelani User:Ragumani & User:Alagi indefinitely, in spite of the fact that each stopped after being warned (and I didn't warn User:Alagi at all). I think this is the right tack, as they shouldn't be able to create other accounts, and if they already have, the autoblock should catch them, but I'm not sure if indefs are usually handed out for spam, so I wanted to check. Cheers Dina 13:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've seen this URL before. This is a long term spammer. Indefblock on sight without warning. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Also you can use the special pages --> External inks here to keep an eye on the spam. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

How about m:Spam blacklist? —Wknight94 (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've requested it ([29]). Neil ╦ 14:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The most important thing is to blacklist the domain at meta and Neil has already requested this.

I dug up as many spamming accounts as I could find to see if they were adding any other domains, which is typical in something like this. I couldn't find any. In investigating this domain, I did not find any related domains that shared ownership.

Web site contact data:

CADDZONE9

AJ - 94, 9th Main Road,

Anna Nagar West,

Chennai, INDIA.

+91-44-4217 0727

Domain:

• askyourdronline.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Partial list of accounts adding askyourdronline.com links:

1. Pramod2007 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
2. Daffycrooke12 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
3. Williammande (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
4. Ebnezar (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
5. Thanisha (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
6. Kanvya (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
7. Mridhula (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
8. Billsberry (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
9. Treetree (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
10. Justtrial (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
11. Alagi (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
12. Jayelani (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
13. Ragumani (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
14. Ilamthi (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
15. Nagalekshumi (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
16. Thriyambika (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
17. Elamathi (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
18. Shobhitha (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
19. Shubathra (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
20. Chaarley (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
21. Lekshumi (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
22. 122.164.57.92 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • noticeboards • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google)
23. 122.164.56.63 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • noticeboards • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google)
24. 122.164.57.126 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • noticeboards • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google)
25. 122.164.56.204 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • noticeboards • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google)
26. 122.164.56.228 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • noticeboards • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google)
27. 122.164.56.58 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • noticeboards • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google)
28. 122.164.57.179 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • noticeboards • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google)
29. 122.164.57.9 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • noticeboards • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google)

I suggest indefinitely blocking the ones that aren't IPs (I'm not an admin, so I can't do this myself).

Articles with these links on other Wikipedias (I'll clean these links up):

• ja:陰茎のサイズ
• it:Ciclo mestruale
• zh:人类阴茎长度
• zh:月經
• id:Neurologi
• ms:Faraj
• is:Brjóst
• br:Bronn

Thanks for catching these. Feel free to bring these complex ones to WT:WPSPAM in the future if you want a hand.

--A. B. ^(talk) 15:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Phew... all named accounts indef-blocked, though they appear to be throwaways. As to the dynamic IP's, the spam blacklist should solve that problem. MastCell ^Talk 16:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. Durova^Charge! 17:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Repeated removal of RS sources from Prawn farm massacre

McGowan, William (1992). Only Man Is Vile: The Tragedy of Sri Lanka. Farrar Straus & Giroux. pp. 243–244. ISBN 0374226520.

Has been removed repeatedly under the guise

1. That the author is a racist (He is a white American Journalist writing about Sri Lanka, I dont know how thatcan be used against him) 2. That it has been promoted by pro this or that site for its content

But overall it provides content for the deatils, it does not bring in any bias.

also the source information about thsi book can be found here. Can some admin who knwos about WP:RS solve this repeated removal issue. In the past in Tamilnet article the repeated removal of an RS source was brought to end very sucessfully by admin action explaining RS. Thanks Taprobanus 14:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion question

I'd appreciate it if someone who is uninvolved in the question of Wikipedia's use of images of the Prophet Muhammad, and who knows more about copyright than I do, would deal with Image:Mohammed kaaba 1315.jpg. Background at Talk:Kaaba. I may have lost track of what noticeboards we have, so if there is a better place to put this, please let me know. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a Commons image, nothing en.Wiki admins can do about it. I believe, as the image is (far, far) over 100 years old, no copyright violation problem can exist. Neil ╦ 15:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This could be one of those people who really want any picture of Muhammad removed from Wikipedia. One would think a library would know about images that old not being protect-able by copyright. Until(1 == 2) 15:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated it for deletion. After getting following email from librarian. "we do not allow any unlicensed reproductions of it such as this. We would consider a request for the use of this image in Wikipedia but we would charge for the use of the image and would need to vet the content of the description surrouding it. We would be obliged if you could remove the image until you have resolved these matters.". I do not think that librarian is Muslim and I could help any admin to verify email authenticity. --- A. L. M. 15:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm involved in said issue, but it looks like the usual case of someone asserting that they own the copyright of something they do not. WilyD 15:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a background in information science and actually agree: I can't see how this university library can lay a copyright claim on an image from a manuscript older than 100 years.Coldmachine^Talk 15:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think they had been selling those image to other people for publication. Hence they are asking changes from wikipedia too. --- A. L. M. 15:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You're allowed to sell images and text that are in the public domain (for instance, the religious supplies store down the street from me sells King James bibles) - but you can't force people to pay, because you don't own the image. WilyD 15:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

She had demanded two things. 1) To pay 2) to change the caption/description. What you think about second one? --- A. L. M. 15:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If somebody provides an image, even a public domain one, giving credit to the source is a common practice. We do it with NASA all the time, who ask to be attributed (even though technically everything they make should be public domain). I can't image anyone would reasonably object to giving credit. WilyD 15:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...thinking about it, it could be that if this image has been digitised from the manuscript by the university library, then it may own the copyright to that specific digital image if that was the specific image being distributed (and used here). However, they don't own the copyright of the original. I'll look in to it more and contact colleagues who will know more about this than I do. Coldmachine^Talk 15:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You can't earn a copyright merely by copying. If the original is public domain, then so are any digital copies regardless of who created them. For the record, I struck out the imagevio tag on Commons. I can't see any way that anyone could have a copyright on 14th century image. Dragons flight 15:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I do not think they do not qualify as derivative works, as the effort made doesn't result in any actually new creative work if it was just a straight scan. Thus, a scanned PD image is still in the public domain. Now, if they colorized it or digitally restored it, it would probably be something they could copyright. At least, that's my understanding. This link [30] might be a bit biased but it contains extensive commentary on the subject. --W.marsh 15:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Please contact librarian before rushing to delete the copyright violation tag. She might has more inforamtion for you. Her email address is also mentioned in copyright violation tag. --- A. L. M. 15:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Libraries make incorrect copyright assertions all the time. Unless she is going to contradict herself and say it is not very old, there is little point. Dragons flight 16:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, restorations also fail as the intent is still to duplicate the original and hence are not embued with creativity, regardless of how much effort is involved. Dragons flight 16:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you're right about the restoration, I misspoke. At any rate, she doesn't appear to have much of an argument here. --W.marsh 16:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, this library had no involvement in any of the creative procceses of that image, no right to control it. Until(1 == 2) 16:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Why hasn't this librarian been referred to the Foundation counsel? Durova^Charge! 16:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• You can always e-mail her... but people make weak copyright claims all the time. --W.marsh 16:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

BLP concerns at Amy Mihaljevic

Resolved

 – taken to WP:BLPN

Let someone please handle this case -- I gotta run now and it's getting out of hand. I already made a report at WP:BLPN#Amy Mihaljevic. Duja► 16:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think permanently protecting it until people calm down was the correct move. Neil ╦ 17:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've marked out all unreferenced sections and requested references on the talk page. Technically, it's not BLP issue, as the subject is not a living person, but it does need referencing. Neil ╦ 17:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(Briefly back again). Unfortunately, Amy is dead, but most of the suspects outed in (now former) "Popular suspects" section are living, and the 207.58.222.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), most likely equal to JamesRenner (talk · contribs) thinks it's appropriate. I don't think he's of bad faith, but we simply cannot allow ourselves to have material like this. Duja► 17:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

User:BMF81 continually inserting joke about anally raping a child on Talk:Laughter

User:BMF81's "joke" here about how he'd laugh if the child in the photo on Laughter is anally raped is a blockable offense, and plain sick. I warned him that such a profane statement is objectionable and blockable here, to which he replied on my page that if I can't take a joke then I shouldn't edit an encyclopedia. Then he reinserted the "joke" about anally raping the child here. This is pretty objectionable, and I think a 24 hour block is more than warranted. --David Shankbone 16:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Only 24 hours? I would consider a much longer block for that shit. Until(1 == 2) 16:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"Objectionable"? That's mighty euphemistic. Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has blocked for 24 hours. I'm wary of blocking established contributors but this pushes it way, way over the line. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

24 hour block implemented. If anyone wants to extend the block, I have no objection. (I'm not on continually, but I'll attempt to monitor this section drom time to time.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

For saying something like that, he should have been indef-blocked. Simple trolling, clearly designed to shock and offend other editors. Walton^One 16:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think a 24 hour block is realistic for semantic infractions of this sort - it is a truly execrable picture, although his response was perhaps somewhat OTT and even more execrable. However he now seems to be petitioning the support of admins using a sockpuppet, vide my /talk page , in my view a crime of a much darker nature. Sjc 04:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen this edit ? I think 24 hours only was very lenient. Jackaranga 19:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that edit, right after getting off a block for the same thing, I have indef blocked this user. That is sick shit, and very inappropriate. I don't know if another admin will reduce this block, but I sure will not be. Until(1 == 2) 19:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Endorse indefinite block. Blatant trolling. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Unit (1 == 2) (apologies if that is wrong!) spells it out that all this editor is giving us is total shit, I would endorse the indefinite block too.... disgusting. — Rlest 20:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

lol, Unit (1 == 2), good one. It is Until(1 == 2), it is an infinite loop. No offense taken. Until(1 == 2) 20:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry..... lol. — Rlest 20:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

(P.S I'm not saying hehe about the sick comments made by the user, just the username mixup). — Rlest 20:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not overly familiar with this editor, but I believe he/she is a long-standing contributor with no prior history of inappropriate behavior. I took a quick glance at this user's contributions, and most of them appear to be pretty innocuous edits to IT-related articles. I beleive admins should consider the possibility that this is a compromised account, where some mischief-maker is performing offensive edits in BMF's name.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 21:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This possibility occurred to me as well. Would a checkuser be in order? Although, I suppose it's unnecessary to pursue this unless/until an unblock request making this claim is posted. Newyorkbrad 21:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The user page is more of the same, though, so it's simply a matter of figuring out if that's new or has been like that for a while. MSJapan 21:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A quick glance at the history of the user page will reveal that until very recently it contained nothing wacky or inflammatory.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 21:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, innocuous edits such as this and this postdate the now-infamous comment on Talk:Laughter. Granted that's some mighty escalation from [this to this, but still... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying we should at least consider the possibility that two people have been editing under the same account, although I suppose it's just as likely that the previously benign editor went bonkers one day.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 21:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, it's a legitimate concern (compromised account I mean). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If the account has been compromised then blocking it is the right thing to do. If the person can demonstrate that it was not them and that they are now back in control, I will be the first to unblock. I agree that we should not assume that this "person" is acting this way, but we do need to treat the "account" as such. Until(1 == 2) 22:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

To me it's way excessive to indefblock a user solely due to a joke, forgetting his valuable contributions on the Wikipedia. After all, we are all here to edit and improve this project, not talking about "anal rapes" on talkpages. I agree it was a execrable joke, but there's much worse behaviours in the Wikipedia which are not punished with indefblocks. His joke about "anal rape" seems to be quoted from a book by Daniele Luttazzi, an Italian comedian of which he is apparently a fan (have a look at his userpage for more evidence). I would reconsider the block, at your place. --Angelo 01:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Endorse indefinite block. Blatant, sick trolling.--Sandahl 06:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The indef block seems exaggerated. This user made perfectly valuable contributions, e.g. to software lockout. He made a joke in poor taste, and he insisted on further provocation when he was warned. This does merit a block, but not an indefban. Seeing how much it takes to get people banned who actively disrupt Wikipedia (in article namespace!), this reaction is excessive by comparison. dab (𒁳) 13:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm going to have to endorse this too. Just because people have made good contributions does not mean they should be immune to punishment. There are funny jokes, there are unfunny jokes, and then there are sick, inappropriate jokes. This was definitely the former. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 15:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I do hope you mean the latter ;-) Someguy1221 01:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite isn't the same as infinite... He is free to contest the block if he so chooses, but I don't think a timed ban that just expires after several days without any response from the editor is the way to go. An indef requires a response from him and and I think that it is completely appropriate to expect that before he is allowed to continue editing.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I am all for letting a bad joke go off easy, he got a 24 hours block the first time he did it. The indef is due to doing the exact same nasty joke right after his first block got off. This indicated a desire to offend, not just a lapse in judgement. Until(1 == 2) 16:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Jimfbleak does not understand blocking policy

Hello,

I don't think Jimfbleak understands the community policy for blocking. Although he only blocks vandals, he blocks, sometimes indefinitely for only one or two page edits, sometimes without any warning messages left on the users page, or even notifying them of the block. I mentioned this to him and he's responsive to change, but it would be helpful if an admin could talk to him...

Thanks, Isaac 17:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: Blocks like here, here, here, here and especially here where the person blanked the page and didn't even get a warning or notice on their talk page. My comments were more directed towards IP blocking rather than username stuff, which seems fine. What about here. An ip address is obviously not a sockpuppet, perhaps doesn't deserve a one week ban for one vandalism edit. Isaac 21:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not that uncommon of a practice if an account exibits what is considered VOA or "Vandal Only Account" Activity. These are most often bad faith accounts which directly target articles with multiple edits of extremee bad faith vandalism. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Warnings are only needed when it is not clear that the person knows what they are doing is wrong. No need to tell someone that replacing a page with "<insert name here> smells funny" is against the rules. Until(1 == 2) 17:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

An example or two of blocks you think were inappropriate may help, but it is worth noting that there are several cases in which blocking right away is decidedly better than giving the full warning catalogue. — Scientizzle 17:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I see you have been discussing Triplek4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with him. If this is the situation you are concerned about, I'm not sure that I think an editor who's first 4 edits are quite so blatant needs to have anyone crusade on his behalf because he wasn't warned...

I do agree that notification of the block is always nice, but I don't necessarily think it is always needed. --OnoremDil 17:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Not that this should make any difference to the matter at hand, but User:Qweasd1234 recently joined, and vandalized Jimf's user page here: [31]. I reverted, at which point, Qweasd1234 commented this [32] on my talk page. I suggested he go to ANI, here, and immediately after that, Isaac added this "thread," right here. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but it is a bit coincidental, don't you think? Gscshoyru 17:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've notified Jim of this thread. Looking at his admin block log, I don't see anything out of the ordinary. He hasn't blocked more than a couple of dozen in the last few weeks. Additionally, his user page has been hit with a couple of VOAs in the last few days. I would be inclined to indef Qweasd1234 (talk · contribs)...and I don't understand why Jim's explanation on Isaac's talk page (User_talk:Isaac#Blocking) wasn't sufficient. — Scientizzle 18:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Also remember that blocks are preventive... using the example of Triplek4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) where all edits were pure vandalism, a block stops that editor from continuing to create content that has to be cleaned up. I've done the same thing in the past to stop a vandal from continuing unabated. Generally I find it helpful to post a message to them as to why they were blocked and letting them know if they are willing to edit without vandalism I will unblock them. Anecdotally though, I note that in nearly every case I've done this the editor has ended up indef'd by someone else for further vandalism, so I can't say my method is a resounding success...--Isotope23 ^talk 18:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Scien for letting me know this discussion was taking place. I accept that sometimes I've imposed a short block when a warning might have been more in accordance with policy. I have no second thoughts about blocking Triplek4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), this is someone who knows the ropes (appeal before advised of procedure) who would run to another username if warned. Jimfbleak 18:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Having seen Jimfbleak block someone who he happened to see had made personal attacks on my user page, after I reverted his vandalism, I can say Jimfbleak seems very reasonable, and was ready to listen when the user apologised, and subsequently unblocked him. This user has not vandalised since has far as I can see, so it seems it was the right decision. It's not because some are over lenient with their blocks that all have to be the same. When someone is deliberately trolling or vandalising (etc.), it should be no surprise for them if they are ejected from the project. As far as I can see, he is not particularly harsh on users who just did not know a specific rule though.

Just a funny aside: when I first saw Jimfbleak I was editing an article about a bird, and I had always thought of him as "Jimleafbeak", also he has blocked himself on several occasions by accident lol, but seems helpful, polite and ready to listen, rather than just hitting his head against a brick wall until one breaks, like some users on wikipedia.Jackaranga 19:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In the case of Triplek4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), you don't have to be a rocket scientist, or a policy expert to understand that this edit is not going to be welcome. Jackaranga 19:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I was not posting this about Triplek4, I think that action was fine, and jimf even asked me about it. He's a very reasonable guy, but I still think that his anon bans are farther reaching then policy. Take a look at the clarification at the top of the section. Isaac 03:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Isaac's examples, the first three I was in the wrong. The fourth was one of a string of identical "tippler" edits from different accounts, which doesn't show on the block log. The last may be similar, but I can't honestly remember. Sockpuppet obviously wrong word, someone using anon account to harass another user is what I meant Jimfbleak 06:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I consider this resolved then. Just make sure to use warning templates along with a block! Otherwise people like me might not even notice that a user was previously blocked.Isaac 13:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You should always use the block log, because many users remove the block notice, as is their right to do so. Jackaranga 17:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the notice was more about the speed in which IP editors were blocked, but I thought users were not supposed to take down warnings from their talk page. Isaac 22:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

AN/I on Jayjg and Humus sapiens closed too soon?

I see that the AN/I concerning the administrative actions of User:Jayjg and User:Humus sapiens on Second Intifada has already been closed ([33]). I'm not entirely certain as to why. As I understand it, the AN/I was raised to address a possible misuse of admin powers, not to explore a content dispute. CJCurrie 21:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

CJCurrie, please explain what "misuse of admin powers" you are talking about, otherwise people will think that you are abusing ANI in another attempt to punish those who may disagree with you. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, User:Jayjg and yourself were accused of abusing your administrative powers by repeatedly moving a page (i) without consensus, and (ii) for apparently partisan reasons. CJCurrie 00:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe the case was closed at the right time, as the consensus appeared to be that this was merely a trite, mundane content dispute.Bakaman 00:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

According to CJCurrie, the "misuse of admin powers" goes only in one direction: against his POV. I think he should be held responsible for abuse of ANI and slander. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

CJCurrie, moving pages is not an "admin power", any registered editor can do it. Also, the move accorded with the WP:MOS, so it was hardly "partisan". Now, again, which "admin powers" were abused? Please be very specific; name a power that only an admin has, and which was "abused". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I was just wondering about that, but didn't get round to posting it. I have no idea whether or not the page should have been moved, as I haven't looked at it, but it seems to be a content dispute and the discussion was quite properly closed. ElinorD (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm ... I was under the impression that non-administrators didn't have the ability to move pages (I can remember a time when I was asked to move a page for a non-admin, a couple of years ago). I'll drop the point if this isn't the case. CJCurrie 04:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

User Jewbagkd's racist vandalism

User Jewbagkd made this edit: [34], in which he blanked the entire talk page for Adolf Hitler and replaced it with racist statements. I think he should be blocked, perhaps indefinitely, but I'll leave the specific punishment up to the admins.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

22:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Deskana beat me to it. Natalie 23:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

So does that mean he was blocked? Sorry I didn't quite get what you meant Natalie.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

23:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he's blocked. You can check his block log yourself.--Atlan (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry if I should've known that, but I'm new to the whole blocking thing.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

23:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Should have been a username block anyway. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk page saga

Users CyberAnth (talk · contribs), Linkboyz (talk · contribs) and C.m.jones (talk · contribs) are teaming up to post and repost incivil, irrelevant and unfounded messages and warnings on my talk page. Despite a) the dispute they got so worked up about being resolved in their favour several days ago, b) the intervention of Daniel and NewYorkBrad to revert their edits and tell them why and c) my right to remove such irrelevance from my own talk page, I'm still dealing with this. C.m.jones and CyberAnth have both had conduct problems and blocks in the past and recent contribs show some pretty outspoken edit summaries from Mr. Jones in particular, while the sole focus of CyberAnth's edits over the past 4 days has been on my talk page. I'd appreciate a neutral admin taking a look at this, thanks. Deiz talk 23:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's inappropriate. It looks like Newyorkbrad already spoke to Linkboyz and he understands. I've left notes for C.m.jones and CyberAnth on their talk pages asking them to cease. This sort of thing verges on harassment. If the behavior continues, then a block might be in order, but let's give them a chance to disengage. MastCell ^Talk 00:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I have no idea who CyberAnth or C.m.jones are. I am not teaming up with them. I am generally concerned about the issue of bullying on WP, and I posted one supportive message on one of their talk pages, which they keep on reposting. If someone has concerns about my conduct, he should raise them with me directly first, rather than going to the Admin noticeboard. I have not posted anything incivil, irrelevant, or unfounded. I'm disappointed that it has been suggested otherwise. It's ironic that I should be unfairly accused of anything incivil, irrelevant, or unfounded, when my aim is just the opposite, to reduce bullying on WP. As Shakespeare wrote, methinks the lady doth protest too much. Have a great day!!!! Linkboyz 05:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd look at the contribs closer...the issue seems to be relate to edits made July 7. On July 24, Linkboyz reverts deleted content on Deiz's talkpage as "out of process", then 12 minutes later removes material from his talkpage as "any user has the right to remove content from their talkpage." I don't know who is really at fault here, but when somebody is going to start lopsidedly applying "policy" to pages only when it suits them (and a few weeks after the fact), there's a certain degree of baiting that should be seen to be taking place. I'd also note that Linkboyz has less than 50 edits, and his first three were following Deiz to different articles claiming his deletions were "wrong". I know I say this a lot with regards to incidents, but something's going on here, and it probably deserves a closer look. MSJapan 05:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi MSJapan, thanks for your comments. I was following Newyorkbrad's advice, which I appreciated. If anyone has any further comments on the content of my contributions, please let me know. I'd prefer them on my talk page though. Do you have a link to the baiting policy? And a link to the 50 edit policy? Have a great day!!! Linkboyz 05:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think what MSJapan is saying is that it's a bit unusual for a brand-new Wikipedia user to immediately follow an admin around complaining about his deletions, revert people with an edit summary claiming they were "out of process", etc. Not unheard of, certainly, but unusual. MastCell ^Talk 18:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, but there's no policy against "unusual". Let's stick with the policies. In these cases, which were only a small proportion of my contributions, I was not the only person complaining, I was agreeing with other editors. Have a nice day! Linkboyz 20:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Clive Anderson page needing watching

The page on Clive Anderson was mentioned on the program The Wikipedia Story this might cause an influx of newbie editors. Could a few people please add this page to their watchlists for a while? Thanks. Tim Vickers 03:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the lede, "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators, such as blocked users evading blocks."

Hope that helps. --Aarktica 20:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Polbot generating hundreds of new articles which show up as recent changes

Polbot (talk · contribs), which is supposedly an approved 'bot, is generating hundreds, perhaps thousands if it runs long enough, of bird-related articles by mechanically reformatting the ICUN Red List of Threatened Species into Wikipedia articles. This may or may not be a good idea. The source site has a copyright notice, [35], and the recent changes log is choked with these articles, obscuring human-driven recent change activity. There's some discussion of this at User talk:Quadell, but more from the viewpoint of the bird community. The 'bot's author says that "I'm actually importing all species -- plants, birds, amphibians, mammals". Is this bulk article generation OK with everyone? --John Nagle 04:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not the first time this has happened recently either. A couple days ago, a bot, perhaps even Polbot, flooded the new pages log with similar articles. Makes it harder to spot the nonsense in the new pages log. Resolute 04:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It is approved for this task: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 6, have you tried using the "Hide bot edits" button on the RC? As for the articles, they seem to have useful information that is reflected by a reliable source, good articles. Until(1 == 2) 04:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a flagged bot's edits still show up in special:newpages? ~ Wikihermit 04:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The bot flag is not suppressing the logs in the newpages, sounds like a problem with the mediawiki software, not the bot. Until(1 == 2) 04:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense. I thought it might not actually have a 'bot flag. But it's the interpretation of the 'bot flag that's the problem. As long as the bird community, which is quite active, is satisfied with this, it's not a big issue. --John Nagle 05:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not new, although the issue with Polbot is. Bugzilla 1401 was raised in 2005 for showing and hiding bot edits, among others from Special:Newpages, and is still listed as open. Confusing Manifestation 05:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Creation: OK, Copyright: ?. The copyright problem still seems quite valid to me, and deleting all this won't be fun. So any thoughts on that? Prodego ^talk 05:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It is gathering information and putting it into its own words, it is not copying text directly. Words are copyright, information is not. But then again, I am not an expert. Until(1 == 2) 05:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither am I, and I agree with your conclusion. However the notice says "Use and reproduction of data and figures". It seems like a valid complaint, and merits at least some discussion. Perhaps some of our more legally inclined people could comment? Prodego ^talk 05:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is gathering the data about whether or not a species is on the list and its conservation status from the list, so maybe a lawyer ought to be asked this, the bot paused in the meanwhile. KP Botany 05:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

As noone seems to know wether this is quite legal or not I have temporaily blocked the bot. Any admin may feel free to unblock it should they be convinced that the bot is not infringing copyright. Viridae^Talk 05:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh and the bot is running twice as fast as it should be, according to the task description on it's user page. Viridae^Talk 05:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone asked the site owner of the site you are grabbing the data from? If its under copyright we need to be careful with the idea of just grabbing content and mechanically reformatting it. Remember our site is under the GFDL. It would be better if someone would take the time to write this data in real prose rather then just taking in their data. At the very least please ask the site owner and get OTRS to sign off on it that its ok. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 05:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

And get a shrubbery too! Until(1 == 2) 05:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not a shrubbery, please confirm the copyright issues. There might not be one, but I'm shocked that a site's copyright was not thought of in the approval of this bot. Rambot, did its work from free US census data. This data is different. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 05:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I remember thinking, when I saw Polbot articles, that there might be copyright issues with scraping information from online databases. It does this for US congress biographies, and I guess I assumed that IUCN was in a similar copyright situation, though apparently not. Ultimately, the issue comes down to whether 1000s of humans doing this, or a bot, is any different. I think the issue is whether a particular set of Wikipedia articles relies excessively on a single source, and uses all the information from that source. When it does, that feels like copying, rather than citing. Note that here, Polbot is not using all the information, and much of the information it is using was obtained by IUCN from other sources. Carcharoth 09:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this has a copyright. According to the page cited above Use and reproduction of data and figures for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holders provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holders. Pretty much, since we want commercial reuse of the materials, we cannot use this at all. The proof I provide is an email Jimbo sent in May of 2005 forbidding educational use only images or materials. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If the bot operator is around, I would like a full listing of what articles this bot has created please. Thank you. (yes I know about the contribs, but this bot seems to run other tasks as well.)—— Eagle101^{Need help?} 06:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Go to Special:Newpages, and in the box labelled "User:" type Polbot. Then switch to 500 listings per page and get ready for a long haul (I'm back 2 days and 5000 articles so far). Confusing Manifestation 06:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, the 13,466 most recent pages created by Polbot were from iucnredlist.org, and then down to 13,884 was politician articles. As far as I can tell, the bot was definitely not creating more than 6 pages a minute (in fact I rarely found more than 4), but the copyright is obviously still the major issue. Confusing Manifestation 06:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah ... hmmm ... that, of course, doesn't cover talk page creations, which when factored in (such as in the bot's contribs) do indeed add up to a too-fast creation rate. Confusing Manifestation 06:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the most recent contributions, it was running at 12 edits a minute, twice as many as it was supposed to. Viridae^Talk 06:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Excessive edit rates don't seem uncommon for bots when people bother to actually check. I'm not condoning this either way, just commenting. And I'm assuming the talk page creation is lumped in with the article page as an edit, as it is really part of the same overall edit, if you see what I mean. As for the issue of contribs being mixed up between different functions, I'm concerned about that as well. I've been working with Quadell on another Polbot function, and I did ask Quadell if he could make a separate note somewhere of the date and timings of each run, and which function the bot was carrying out, but in addition to this, maybe a piped link in the edit summaries (function 6 or whatever), would help sort the different contribs? With "test" for test runs. Doesn't the bot approvals group already ask for separate functions to be clearly identified if carries out by the same bot? Carcharoth 09:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the thing is, it's not illegal for corporations to claim copyright on all sorts of things that are flat-out ineligible for copyright. Just because a site has a disclaimer saying that everything on it is copyrighted does not actually make it so. In this case, we are dealing with simple facts, and facts are not copyrightable. --Cyde Weys 03:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the copyright question may be much larger than just the Polbot-created articles. If we assume that each and every species in IUCN Redlist had their articles lovingly created and expanded by humans, and each article cites IUCN as source for the protection status, wouldn't that still mean the reproduction of the whole IUCN list – just in a different format? Eventually Wikipedia will cover all the species in the Redlist, regardless of whether the articles are bot-created or not. – Sadalmelik 07:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Right and in our case I think its best if we allow humans to do the writing. For one the end result is better. :P Bots are not good at writing prose, only humans can do that. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 07:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Well, personally I prefer stubs over red links, at least these stubs have one reference where more info can be found. But still, it does not matter whether the articles are bot- or human-created. Once the coverage approaches completeness and Wikipedia effectively contains the IUCN Redlist, we need to have their permission to use the data. There is a difference between using one reference in each article and completely covering the subject (and therefore effectively replicating the data). There are also lists like this... My point was that Wikipedia might have needed the permission to use the data for non-commercial purposes even before Polbot started creating stubs. I don't pretend to know the nuances of copyrights, though... – Sadalmelik 07:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As noted below, scientific data are (almost always) ineligible for copyright in the US (though not necessarily in the UK, where this was produced). Dragons flight 07:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've e-mailed the people at IUCN to ask them for their opinion on the matter; we should be able to get a definitive answer from them as to whether they consider it an infringement on their copyright terms or not. Krimpet 07:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at 3 examples of Polbot's work. Assuming these are representative, then in my opinion, the material being transfered is ineligible for copyright in the US. The US broadly exempts scientific data from copyright under the doctrine that facts are not creative. As long as the effort is limited to scientific classifications, facts about the habitat/location, and the endangerment status, I don't think there is a US copyright problem here. A worthwhile caveat is that data compilations can be copyrighted in the UK (where IUCN is based) unlike the US, so there might be a potential conflict for someone commercially republishing this material in the UK. So in general, there may be an argument that they consider this copyright infringment, from the basis of their jursidiction, and yet it not be infringment from the point of view of US law. Dragons flight 07:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it is taking raw information that is available in the scientific community and putting it in its own words. It is not mirroring the database, or copying verbatim. Until(1 == 2) 07:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

One of the considerations here might be whether Wikipedia's articles are trying to replicate the function of the IUCN website. The IUCN focus (unsurprisingly) on how endangered each species is and why. As part of that, they say what the species is (and give the taxonomy) and where it is found, but that information was itself gathered from other sources. For details, see IUCN sources. That is the real source of the data Polbot is using. IUCN is effectively the middle-man here, though there will be arguments over how 'creative' the action is of IUCN collating the data. Wikipedia's articles are also collating data from different sources. As long as the finished Wikipedia articles (a) initially cite IUCN and are then expanded to cite more sources than just the IUCN (ideally they can go back further and cite IUCN's sources if they are available online); and (b) don't use the "Assessment Information" bits of the IUCN database (other than giving the IUCN endangered classification and a link), then it should be OK. For a typical IUCN entry, see here. IANAL. Carcharoth 09:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

A bit of a misconception here, IUCN takes data from these sources and assesses these date to select a conservation listing and even inclusion of a taxon. They're the ones whose assessors have decided whether or not to include a taxon, this isn't done independently by all the scientists who study these species. KP Botany 21:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The bot owner responds

Greetings. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm very well-versed in U.S. copyright law. I was very mindful of possible copyright issues when I wrote the bot. The U.S. courts have ruled many times that data cannot be copyrighted, but only "creative content". In Hearn v. Meyer, the court ruled that "slavish copying" of public domain information was not eligible for copyright, and in Feist v. Rural the court ruled that "sweat of the brow" alone is not the "creative spark" which is the sine qua non of originality. Lists of taxonomic data are not copyrightable. See the article on Feist v. Rural for detailed info on this. Companies frequently claim copyright on materials which are not eligible, both to discourage competition and cover all possibilities.

To be honest, there's a lot more information at IUCN that I wish I could use, but it's written in complete sentences, and I don't have a way to import that information without copying those sentences. (Copying sentences could be a copyvio.) That's why the bot only imports raw information.

Would anyone mind if I unblock the bot and run her again? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(P.S., I do create a list of all species articles (and genus articles) that Polbot creates. It's quite long, obviously, but I could forward this to anyone interested.)

I have no objection to unblocking per that response. Viridae^Talk 11:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes I do, can you please limit it to the 6 edits per minute that was approved. Viridae^Talk 11:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Also not a lawyer, but my layman's read is that the bot is collecting generic data from entries complied from reliable sources and presenting it appropriately. Deiz talk 11:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked her, and will run her at 6 edits per minute. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou very much. Good luck. Viridae^Talk 11:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, while facts cannot be copyrighted under the U.S. copyright statute, compilations of facts can. Also, the European Union, where the owner of the web site is located, offers much greater protection to databases under Directive 96/9/EC. In addition, there are contractual claims (the web site's "Small Print" page is likely a binding contract, though I am not familiar with EU or UK law). Also, at least in the U.S. there are potential common law rights under a theory of "misappropriation" if you take too many of the facts. A good summary can be seen here. So, even though the information that we collect are "facts", we need to exercise some restraint when swooping in and wholesale harvesting facts that someone else has compiled into a database. -- DS1953 ^talk 04:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

user:TJ Spyke's attorney

Resolved

This WP:SPA added this to the Block of TJ Spyke section above. I have reverted it.[36] I'm not sure that further action is required, but I thought I'd post it here anyway. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 06:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely.--Chaser - T 06:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that this is a suspected sockpuppet of User:Kings bibby win, who was recently indefblocked for a compromised account. — Moe ε 10:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, this should go to BJAODN. Corvus cornix 18:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate block by Gamaliel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – Block overturned

Morton_devonshire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked by Gamaliel for this comment after Gamaliel made very inflammatory and baiting comments [37]. Gamaliel's specious talk page BLP claim was fixed on Jul 19. Gamaliel made the block knowing he has been involved in a disputes with Morton before [38] and only after Morton brought up a previous dispute [39]. The least Gamaliel should have done was placed an AN/I notice and let an uninvolved admin handle it. The reality is Gamaliel lost his temper and made an improper block on an establsihed editor over a marginal BLP violation that was fixed 5 days ago made by another editor (a banned editor no less) 8 months ago. Blocks are not to be made for punishment and this is a clear case of an Angry Mastodon admin gone awry. --Tbeatty 06:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• I had some discussion with Gamaliel about this block at this combined diff. There was no blockable BLP violation, and the "trolling" was pretty mild. I think the block summary in the log makes this look much much worse than it was to anyone looking at Morton's block log in the future. Something's not right here. - Crockspot 06:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Even worse is Gamaliels comment where he pretty much says he's given up on AGF for everyone. No more carrot, more stick. His excuse for the block is that he's had to deal with 3 totally unrelated editors (Rex071404, JoeHazelton, RPJ, etc) and he's tired? That is certainly not fair to Morton as he 1) didn't add the BLP violation, FAAFA did 8 months ago and 2) Gamaliel trolled first. Morton is not Rex, JoeHazelton or RPJ and he shouldn't be punished because those editors annoyed Gamaliel and he can still taste their bile. --Tbeatty 06:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• I wouldn't go along with the 'very inflammatory and baiting comments' analysis, but nor do I see what would actually justify a block. (I could be missing lots of tortuous history on either side, of course.) On that basis, and of Morton's apology, and the other comments 'fessing up to some circumstantial contribution to the situation, I've unblocked. I invite anyone with more insight into the particulars than I to review. Alai 08:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Most people accussing an admin of stalking and harassing them because they removed a BLP violation, which it was, insulting Michael Moore, however common, still falls under BLP, would have been blocked for trolling as well. You can also see TBeatty the thread starter making comments such as What's more amazing is your out of the blue random enforcement of policy on talk pages that you selectively ignore everywhere else. Which are again more failures to AGF in light of a BLP violation that they did not disagree with. Mortons accusation was The dispute that I had with you over Fry Mumia was a year and a half ago, and happened when I was a brand new user -- can you just forget about it and leave me alone? Holding onto a dispute for that long just doesn't make you look very good. Just for anyone missing the trolling and violations of AGF. I would think making accusations against admins who are taking the correct action, one not argued with by TBeatty, should not attract such ire. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that Morton's edit was more of a joke rather than something maliciously intended towards the subject. In any case Gamaliel should not have been the admin making the block. It would be better if we just archived this thread and put it behind us, for it does not appear that we are going to reach a productive solution anytime soon. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:BetacommandBot blocked

This bot is playing up (again!). This time it's marking non-orphaned images as orphaned. I have blocked it till it gets sorted out.

Honestly, this bot is far too disruptive. It's not just me who is complaining about it. If Betacommand can't get it working properly, I think he should stop using it or we should remove its bot status. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

But the bot had stopped tagging images almost 8 hours ago. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed the latest edits of the bot and they all seem to be legitimate. The images were orphaned indeed. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I shall unblock him. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As this bot makes a metric shedload of such edits, please be specific as to which instances you believe(d) to be erroneous. I didn't find any such taggings you'd changed, so I was none the wiser as to where to look on that basis, either. Alai 09:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be a database hickup - e.g. Image:Helium logo.jpg appears not to be used in mainspace according to Special:Whatlinkshere/Image:Helium logo.jpg even though it is used in Helium.com. There are other similar cases, too. – Sadalmelik 09:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah-hah. One thing that might help here is to drive the bot from a list of orphans generated from a db dump, and then double-check against whatlinkshere, as opposed to using that exclusively. (In fact, I believe there was a bot doing exactly that, if it's still active.) Alai 09:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphanbot (talk · contribs) perhaps? Viridae^Talk 09:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The logos issues aren't the bot's fault. A template change caused the logos to be dropped from articles which the bot then tagged as orphaned. I raised the issue here WP:AN#Issue with logos, this morning. --Stephen ^1-800-STEVE 09:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The bot is *Teh evilz and methinks that BC logs into it occasionally for teh lulz. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Please talk in English, so other people can understand. The Evil Spartan 19:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatlinkshere never works for images. Neil ╦ 12:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ack! You are right... it doesn't work. The "File links" section is empty though, at least untill the database catches up with the template changes. – Sadalmelik 12:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatlinkshere does "work" for images. It shows text links to the images, e.g. uses of [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], while the file links section show direct uses, e.g. [[Image:Foo.jpg]]. Personally, I think this distinction is silly, but the devs insist it is intentional. Dragons flight 14:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Bots shouldn't be using database dumps (which are always out of date) to determine whether images are orphans or not when it can check the current file links. There's a really simple interface to access file links information using the API (no page crawling required), it's explained here: mw:API:Query - Lists, see the section titled "imageusage / iu". I think any bot doing image orphan work should be required to use the API for its data; just from my experience, most complaints about problems with orphan work seems to stem from using out of date dump data. --bainer (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Like Stephen said, this isn't a problem with the bot, but with Jamcib (talk · contribs) who I had to revert again this morning on {{Infobox company}}. Many infoboxes simply use "logo" for the image, whereas Jamcib's changes appear to require the use of "company logo" or something similar. This causes all the infoboxes using "logo" to simply stop displaying the image, which then causes the bot to tag them as orphaned fair use. Considering this template is transcluded on thousands and thousands of article, would anybody mind if we fully protected it as a high risk/use template? - auburnpilot talk 14:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with protecting the template. Too much collateral damage from careless changes. Thatcher131 14:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ditto, and done. Neil ╦ 14:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not use database dumps. (they are always out of date and I dont have the bandwidth to download them let alone the HD space to uncompress them) I do use the live wiki for my data. The only issue might be is that I generate a list of images that use the {{tl|non-free media)) template and I then have the bot work from those list. (because there are 330,000+ images Multi threading and working off a live list is not feasible. I generate the list just prior to starting a tag run). Yes database hiccups have been known to happen (I cannot do anything about them and they rarely happen). ^∆ 15:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for a name change to an article

Resolved

The movie The Winter of Frankie Machine (film) is liste on imdb as Frankie Machine. [40] So I'm sure that it is appropriate for an article name change here.

Thank you in advance, SpecialAgentUncleTito 19:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Please take this to the proper board: WP:RM. The Evil Spartan 19:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not know where to ask for it at. SpecialAgentUncleTito 22:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've completed move of this article to the new name on the basis of available IMDB evidence and in the hope that there is no disagreement or controversy with the move. Gnanapiti 20:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Salmoria

This user has been using IPs to edit war for months on the Tina Turner article (IPs in range 201.89.x.x and 201.3.x.x). When a bunch of user's images were tagged for deletion as not complying with the NFCC rules, user edit warred with me from various IPs removing the tags (See related checkuser). User went over to Commons to upload copyvio images as "free" images using account names identical to the names used here (Checkuser confirmed[41]). When I issued the user a very stern warning about violating the non-free content rules and copyright, and edit warring using IPs, user responded that his account was compromised. Surely we should help this user out and block this compromised account. -Nard 21:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Eyrian

Article Raygun has had for nearly 2 years un-queried a table of info about fictional rayguns, to give an impression of what fictional rayguns are about, and a section about other uses of the word "raygun". Today User:Eyrian summarily bulk-deleted both without discussion. I reverted and invited discussion. He kept on deleting it without waiting for discussion to come to a concensus, to the limit of the 3RR rule. See Talk:Raygun/Archive 1#Deletion of the list of fictional rayguns?.

See also his deletion of Thermal lance#Appearances in fiction, although this matter is in mediation in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Thermal lance: see also User talk:Eyrian/Archive 3#Uses of thermal lances in fiction and Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Thermal lance.

Anthony Appleyard 23:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article in question has been tagged for months as not citing any sources. By a similiar token, a big huge table of examples is not good practice -- it's basically a trivia section, and guidelines tell us that these should merged into the main body of the article, when possible. I suggest you guys work together on writing a good, sourced, section about Rayguns in fiction, or thermal lances in fiction, or whatever, rather than edit warring over a trivia section. See Dune (novel)#Cultural influence of Dune as an example; it replaced a trivia page called Dune in popular culture. --Haemo 00:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

While I think Eyrian should've engaged in discussion one step earlier, I think the unreferenced/WP:OR info should stay off the page while its being worked on. Corpx 01:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Discussion (I hope) continued in Talk:Raygun/Archive 1#Deletion of the list of fictional rayguns?. Anthony Appleyard 05:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Role account issues at Ted Turner

User:Teicorpcomm edited Ted Turner mercilessly a few days ago. I haven't been able to make heads or tails of it, but based on some of the changes made to the introduction, this appears to be a role account actually related to Turner Entertainment. I've blocked this account indefinitely on the grounds of a {{usernameblock}}, but based on the edits (Ted Turner's article is the only one edited by this account), this appears to be a SPA role account that is inserting weasel worded corporate-speak statements and/or deleting potential criticism of Turner from the account. I'm not sure what we should do here... revert to the last known good version might not be prudent, since I feel like some of the information is relevant, but this could certainly use some investigation to see if anything blatantly against the spirit of WP:NPOV/WP:OR. I thought I'd gauge what others see first, both in terms of the article and my block. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I vote for reverting to the previous version. It is now a complete whitewash with the inclusion of a load of promotional links within the article. IrishGuy ^talk 02:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Gerry_Lynch Unfairly blocked as a sockpuppet

I am User:Gerry_Lynch and I've been a wikipedia editor for about three years with barely even an editwar to my name, but on trying to edit some Turkish election related articles today, I found myself blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Runcorn by User:Dmcdevit. Not only am I a real person - a quick Google search should confirm that I am the real world Gerry Lynch - but I don't even know who User:Runcorn is, although I'd hazard a guess that he works in the same place I do. Can I please have my account back? I'd also wonder whether or not any of the alleged sock puppets in this case are really anything other than bona fide editors. This sort of lynch law does no-one any good. 91.125.114.14 01:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look like you've tried placing {{unblock}} on your talk page yet. I'll leave a message with Dmc, but it looks like he's not very active right now. I'm also at a loss, looking for the relevant checkuser case. Someguy1221 01:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Someguy, I didn't know how to do the unblock thing, am not very good on metawiki things, have now done so and will see what happens. Thanks for your help. 91.125.114.14 01:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC) = User:Gerry Lynch

Sorry, but I just blocked this IP for self-confessed block evasion. I'll go to Gerry's talk page and ensure he's okay on using the {{unblock}} template - Alison ☺ 07:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know the unblock procedure using one's own talk page either. I don't see why it would be block evasion to attempt to find out WHY a block was placed. Block evasion would be to make edits even though the person was blocked. Here, this person is not trying to edit any articles, just raise the question of the IP block.

Someguy, there's this Signpost article, but I'm still looking for a RfCU.   j    talk   08:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, Gerry Lynch is very much a real person and thoroughly knowledgeable in the field of psephology. No idea who or what "Runcorn" is other than a town in Cheshire, but it sure as hell ain't him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.163.220 (talk • contribs)

Why on earth does it matter if Gerry Lynch is his real name or not, does having ones real name prevent him from creating sock puppets, or from someone creating a sock with their real name as their user? I think not. Whether or not his name is really Gerry Lynch is immaterial. --Hayden5650 10:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm baffled by this statement. A sockpuppet is defined as a false identity. Ipso facto, evidence that this is his real name is very relevent evidence that this name is not a sock puppet-- by definition. Geoffrey.landis 22:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

A sockpuppet by Wikipedia's definition is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who already has one or more accounts. It doesn't matter if the new name is their "real name" or not. I'm guessing that Runcorn's real name isn't Runcorn. If they created a new account using their real name, would you disagree with calling it a sockpuppet account? --Onorem♠Dil 22:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

In this case where is the relevant checkuser? People set up sockpuppets for very specific reasons - in this case I can't see any motivation at all (or proof.) It's pretty clear from looking here at his most common mainspace edits [42] and here at his most recent edits [43] that Gerry Lynch's main contributions are to Northern Irish politics and amateur radio with minors in Turkey and Anglicanism. A look at the similar pages for Runcorn shows that he mainly contributes to pages about prominent Jews [44] with a minor in football. [45] In fact looking at the suspected sockpuppets for Runcorn page, only two of them on a cursory glance seem to be him/her. Banning longstanding users without apparently giving them or others a chance to comment on the basis of trial by I.P. is the most worrying aspect of all this. Valenciano 17:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear. The block itself, done without ptoper investigation of the user suspected of being a sockpuppet, steers dangerously close to abuse in my opinion. The block should be stopped asap.--Martin Wisse 18:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

All of User:Runcorn's other alleged sockpuppets have made edits on things like 'list of jewish athletes'; User:Gerry Lynch has not. The evidence for Runcorn's sockpuppetry does not name Gerry Lynch, and Gerry Lynch's page doesn't contain a link to that evidence as the other sockpuppets' pages do. I strongly support rescinding the ban.

I additionally, and separately, support rescinding the ban on the IP above for 'self-confessed block evasion': it would make sense if he were using that IP to make edits to other parts of Wikipedia, but makes no sense, and smacks of censorship, to ban someone for block evasion when the only thing they're doing by "evading" the block is to speak up in their own defense. --Zeborah 20:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Zeborah on both points, there has been an obvious error made here. I am concerned that it looks from his editing history as though User:Dmcdevit hasn't been online in the four days since the block was imposed, and may not have seen the dissenting opinions on the block. I will leave a message on his talk page, and if the block's still in place in 24 hours I'll remove it myself unless he convinces me of the correctness of his view. -- Arwel (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, as the original unblock reviewing admin (silly me. You should see my inbox), I've looked over everything here, including emails I've received from some folks, as well as noting the fact that the blocking admin appears to be away. Given the evidence at this point, I'm WP:AGF assuming a certain good faith here and unblocking Gerry. I'll followup with the blocking admin when he gets back on here - Alison ☺ 21:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've now been unblocked. Thanks to all who supported and to User:Alison for her final WP:AGF. While it's clear that User:Alison seems to have nothing other than follow consensus procedure, that consensus procedure stinks.

Blocking an IP for block evasion for nothing other than protesting their innocence should not happen . Ever. Blocking an established user for sharing an IP address with a troublesome user without supporting evidence should not happen. Ever. Blocking IP addresses that support a potentially maligned user, as happened to the user at 77... above, should not happen. Ever. I don't know how to go about creating a new policy here, but I'll gladly put the work in if a more experienced Wikipedian on meta issues, not things I've dipped my toe into before, can show me how.

By the way, Alison said that checkuser had been run on me and that was her initial reason for supporting my block. There is no evidence of that block being run on RfUC. With an admin out of touch and no evidence of their Usercheck, I should have been unblocked straight away. That is another thing that should not happen. Ever.

Most people, especially newbies, would have walked away from Wikipedia long before being vindicated. That is not a good thing. Lessons should be learned from this. People are so pissed off at the trolls and socks that they are forgetting to assume good faith. Gerry Lynch 21:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Alison. Can someone clarify the situation with the user at 77.... above? No talk page exists for them which is where I'd expect to see a ban noted, but I'm not familiar with ban procedures so perhaps it's somewhere else. This is another ban that I'd support rescinding, as per Gerry (and the fact that the IP's previous edits look kosher), so I'd like to know where to find more information about the ban and where to discuss the issue. --Zeborah 22:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

77 user above has also now been unblocked - Alison ☺ 23:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked the 77 user a couple of hours ago, didn't see a need to document that other than in an email to Gerry so he could let the person concerned know, sorry. -- Arwel (talk) 23:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! --Zeborah 10:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

To many people, this whole incident looks very suspicious. The normal rules for blocking people were violated, and there appears to have been political motivation. The oversight mechanisms appear to have failed, and attempts to protest the unblock decision were immediately blocked as "block evasion" even though they quite clearly were not. Something is badly, badly broken here. I hope the person who implemented the original block appears to explain what the hell happened here, and to me it looks like some people aren't fit for their administrative roles. ComradeStalin1979 07:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth now, I can confirm that all of this users edits that I have seen in the past are genuine, and I don't see any link to the first account that he is accused of being a sock puppet of.Traditional unionist 11:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

137.158.191.125 reverting warnings on their talk page

The IP address 137.158.191.125 has vandalised a number of pages recently, and warnings as appropriate have been added to their talk page by a number of editors including myself. However the user in question keeps reverting the warnings (diff) claming the warnings are not relevant to him/her. The user has also ignored advice to avoid this problem by signing up for an account - and reverts those messages too (perhaps accidentally?). Marwood 09:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted and explained.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 12:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks, although the user is persisting in removing warnings from the page. Marwood 13:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Llandudno

Please help me this concerns only external links. I request help or advice with the current vandallism. Essentially two locally opposed parties are trying to fight a vendetta. One runs a forum at: http://www.llandudno-forum.co.uk/ and the other runs a forum at: http://www.llandudno-forum.com/ They each apparently claim that the other stole their mirror address. Unfortunatly they have each initiated direct email communication with me on this matter. Like me they are both local to Llandudno (and one of them like me is over 70 years. Unlike me neither is a regular wiki editor. The latest escapade seems to have been the insertion of a straight replacement link that somehow diverts to a direct advertising site. This seems to have been done with expertese and possibly at some cost (and possibly by the elder of the two - the other appears to be a journalist in his mid forties). The external links include one to my own website. Please email me if you wish at: NoelWalley 21:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC).

I've semi-protected the page for a little while and will keep an eye on it, hopefully this can be cleared up. CitiCat ^♫ 04:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.NoelWalley 06:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Noel, I have commented out your email address, it's never a good idea to give it publically on Wikipedia as it can en up being automatically discovered by spammers. Neil ╦ 11:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Neil, it is the email address that I publish on my websites - not the one I use for personal matters, again thanks NoelWalley 11:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Editor having difficulty with fair-use image policy

mathewignash (talk · contribs) has uploaded hundreds of Transformers-related images over the last couple of years but has had difficulty abiding by WP:FAIRUSE -- in particular, providing fair-use rationales for the pictures he's uploaded and identifying sources. I've offered some pointers and requests regarding Wikipedia's image-use policies (e.g. here, here, here and here), as have other editors. Additionally, his talk page is littered with templates regarding lack of sources and fair-use rationales. Following CSD flagging for a few of his pictures, I posted a request for him, and directions on how, to check his upload log to review pictures and provide fair-use rationales and source information -- which he has not done. However, just a few hours ago he uploaded Image:Grimlock-classic.jpg with an attempt at, but not a sufficient, generic fair-use rationale (and certainly not covering each of the three articles he added it to). I'm reminded of the question raised previously here. Anyhow, would someone please step in and offer another look? I'm new myself to the nitpicky scruples and shades of gray to fair use and don't know what else to do. I kind of wonder whether this user is at times overloaded with talk-page flags, or simply Just Doesn't Get It -- mathewignash seems to focus solely on Transformers-related material, with articles that overwhelmingly are OR, in-universe and don't follow cornerstone policies; it appears that there isn't a lot of "leading by example" in that particular sandbox. Anyhow, my two cents... --EEMeltonIV 04:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

He has added a fair use rationale for that image a few hours ago. Seems you got through to him. Whether it is sufficient for the three instances he uses that image, I'll leave that for you to decide.--Atlan (talk) 11:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter full-protection

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is going to be one of the most viewed and edited wikipedia pages within the next 24-48 hours but has been fully-protected by an admin who has as of yet not responded to a request to revert back to semi-protection. I have posted a request on WP:RFP but it has not yet been reviewed, and do to the time sensitive nature of this article, I thought I ought to post it here as well. With the coverage this article will receive, I assumed it should be treated as a Main Page FA, thereby avoiding full protection to the maximum extent. Joshdboz 11:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This is being handled on the article talk page, Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, on the user talk page of the protecting admin, User talk:Alkivar, and on Requests for page protection. This is not an incident requiring extraordinary intervention by an administrator. --Tony Sidaway 11:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually this is not being handled on User talk:Alkivar as Alkivar has not made an edit since fully protecting the article, so another admin would be needed to revert back to semi-protection. Joshdboz 12:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason why this full protection has stood on a page like this for 6 hours because of "spoiler vandalism" without a single other admin from chiming in? Joshdboz 12:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotected. Should not have been fully protected. Neil ╦ 12:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You beat me to it by one second. Literally.-Wafulz 12:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Joshdboz 13:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

(last) 12:37:58 Wafulz m

Changed protection level for "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows": Seems to have been a brief spike. Let's try semi-protection. [edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop] (expires 06:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC))

(last) 12:37:57 Neil m

Changed protection level for "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows": one second ... [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] (expires 06:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wafulz (talk • contribs) 12:40 July 20 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox

Hello and apologies in advance for the long followup. More than anything I'm seeking advice on how to best deal with problems involving mainly SqueakBox (talk · contribs).

As many of you know, SqueakBox is a longtime contributor of Wikipedia who unfortunately also has a difficult time handling conflict properly. About a month ago I noticed that he had nominated the category Category:Rape victims for speedy deletion and proceeded to massively depopulate it with the edit summary "silly cat" [46]. I did leave a note inviting him to submit the category to CfD rather than unilaterally destroying it but got no answer (see [47]). Just a few days ago, SqueakBox started depopulating the cat of living members citing WP:BLP and sometimes with the edit summary "update" [48] or "rm trolling" [49] [50] [51] even though the additions of the category were likely made in good faith and the articles clearly support the fact that the subjects are rape victims. SqueakBox got into edit wars over the whole thing with Fighting for Justice (talk · contribs) (see 3RR notice) and proceeded to bite his head off, with a mixture of BLP citing, trolling accusations, "I've got more experience on Wikipedia than thou" and Daniel Brandt gospel [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57]. There is no excuse for such an experienced editor to use that sort of bullying, especially given that SqueakBox was previously blocked on a number of occasions for personal attacks.

In the same spirit, SqueakBox has also proceeded to rename a number of biographies of crime victims. For a sample, see his move log. For one thing, this is beyond silly as it certainly does not change the substance of the article and leads to unnecessary redirects and odd categorizations. In fact, it was in many cases a great excuse for SqueakBox to remove the categories altogether! In similar fashion, he also made very questionable redirections such as [58] [59].

I also find it very very problematic that this whole business seems to be the result of a thread on Wikipedia Review cited here by SqueakBox [60] about so-called "victim-stalking" or whatever SqueakBox calls it. I think it should be made entirely clear to administrators Zscout370 (talk · contribs) (and to a lesser extent Ryulong (talk · contribs) [61]) that "BLP nightmare" is not a criterion for speedy deletion and that debates on such issues are a vital part of what makes Wikipedia function properly. Even more crucial is to restate that a debate taking place on Wikipedia Review does not carry any sort of weight here.

In any case, I'm bringing this here because I intend to undo SqueakBox's systematic campaign until the issues underlying it can be fully addressed in a proper on-wiki forum. I'd also appreciate other's input on where and how this discussion should take place (and by that I mean a discussion on how and when to use categories such as the various subcats of Category:Crime victims and on the ensuing ethical questions). I fear that without it we'll be stuck with perpetual edit wars, DRVs and whatnot. Pascal.Tesson 18:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

What happens on WR has no place here. The real question is whty the cat:rape victims isnt up for DRV which it should be instead of having been recreated after a speedy which speedied it as a blp nightmare. All I have done is to try to protect the project so the subjects of articles do not feel outed or harrassed by unsourced or even sourced claims that they were the victims of rape. Do we support the outing of rape victims now or what? Unfortunately some editors here, mostly new and invariably SPA's (ie interested only in crime) appear to want to do so and are more interested in giving me a hard time than in ensuring that wikipedia is not stalking living people with rape victim claims so when I remove unsourced rape clainms on living people I have been reverted. What is that? The cat is a blp nightm,are and shouldnt be here. I stand by my claim that claiming living people have been rape victims when they havent made that okay is victim stalking and shopuldnt be happeniong and those who are doing that should be blocked for BLP vios (as Fighting for Justice already was one time). His undoing of my alleged campaign essentially means restoring unsourced content for living people that they have been rape victims and that is not acceptable. It is User:Pascal.Tesson whose behaviour appears to need investigating here not jkine for trying to remove a cat that stalks certain people though at least he recognises there are ethical concerns and hope we vcan indeed discuss this isssue without stalking the subject of even one of our articles. Finally the claim that blp nightmare is not a speedy criterion is simply not so and shows the lack of experience of this user re wikipedia. Finally io wopuld say this shoul;d strictly go to the blp noticeboard as that is at the heart of this dispute, SqueakBox 18:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

As benevolent as you think you are being it is having the opposite effect. All you've accomplished is a bunch of arguments. You have no proof anyone is stalking anyone. That's all your deluded opinion, not factual. Furthermore, the category should be applied to deceased raped victims, not living unless they're a public figure and are unafraid of speaking about their incident. You're the last person in the world who should be bringing up other people's blocks. I have only had two, one was for edit warring. You have been blocked numerous times, and I do not go around nominating or deleting(without authority) article's/categories I dislike. And believe me there are many wikipedia article's/categories I dislike. So grow up and accept the fact that wikpedia is going to have stuff you dislike. Fighting for Justice 01:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing you enforcing this policy in the coming years. I dont dislike the cat I think it violates our policy and seriously damages the project. I also always find it amusing when some kid tells me to grow up, such is the modern internet world eh, lol, SqueakBox 02:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

But when I see edit summaries like this I find it hard to assume good faith with FfJ, SqueakBox 02:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll be more then happy to enforce it; not for you, but for the community of course. Yes you do dislike the category, because in many of your edits you are not altering the contents of the rest of the article. You're focus is primarily on the category. You don't seem to be even familiar with the subjects your editing. For example, in the Dru Sjodin article you removed the cat saying her rape is unsourced speculation [62]. Anybody familiar with her name knows she was raped. They know her killer was convicted of raping and murdering her last year. Yet you had the audacity to dub her rape as unsourced speculation. If handled properly the cat will not violate BLP. In in the case of Sjodin and others like her they are not living anymore. You have a personal crusade on censorship. Not that my age is any of your business but I am no where near being a kid. And you assuming that I am one simply reflects what a misguided person you really are. Fighting for Justice 03:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What admin action is required here? If this is just an editorial dispute why not try dispute resolution. Until(1 == 2) 18:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if Squeekbox wants to identify anyone outing rape victims on Wikipedia, I'll be happy to apply a banhammer. And articles where unsourced rape allegations are being made can be dealt withh (locks and blocks) if identified. Otherwise, I believe the cat is already at DRV, and nothing else really needs to be done. WilyD 18:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

After checking, it's actually at CfD - I'm not sure this makes much difference. WilyD 19:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I am certainly not looking to see anyopne blocked right now though I will recheck the cat in a couple of days and make sure we are sticking to policy, SqueakBox 20:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I was told to recreate it and put it up for CFD, but by the time I got the message, it was done. Regardless, that got attention to the category that it needs to be fixed and enforced properly. My job is done. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, as Squeak said, whatever happens at Wikipedia Review stays there and has no bearing on what we do here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with that. As the comments he makes there are then extended to his conduct on wikipedia. So in my opinion it is very valid. He definitely reveals his true colors there. Fighting for Justice 00:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean my true colours.? I have a long record of service to this project and it strikes me that you are trying to own the rape victims articles. You dont like someone coming in responsibly to impose vitally needed BLP. And I will continue to enforce BLP, that is my true colours, you knew about BLP FfJ and didnt enforce it, quite the opposite, any hint of its enforcement meets your stiff oposition And Zscout is right, its none of your or wikipedia's business what I do off wikipedia. If you want to respond to me at WR I suggest you join up, SqueakBox 02:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you are the one who gave me the link to WR. An enforcement cop you are not. Such a person would have to be objective to start with. You hold a lot of bias, and you don't seem to care about the contents of the article's of the very people you say you're trying to protect. Fighting for Justice 04:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've encountered problems with SqueakBox in the past, as well; he can be an absolutely dreadful user to deal with when he disagrees with you about something. I've also observed that he has a history of coming in and making substantial, controversial edits without any kind of discussion beforehand. Mike D78 01:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

reply to Mike D78 - I'm sorry that you had to endure so much insults from this person. I'm also shocked no administrator has given SqueakBox a permanent vacation from editing wikipedia. He certainly deserves one. Fighting for Justice 04:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

And whose sockpuppet are you, Mr Pro-pedophile activist supporter Mike D78 who started here 5 days after {{user|Voice of Britain]]'s latest sock was banned (ie June 25) and only concern yourself with defending the pro-pedophile activism article from any atytempts to make it NPOV. Again the same, you dont like me coming in and destroying your litle game of making pro pediophile activism into something acceptable and actively promoted on this wikipedia site. If people who want to own article series and then dont follow policy get peeved at me, well it probably means I am doing my job, SqueakBox 02:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

See, that's the problem with this guy: he decides that he disagrees with you, then acts like he has some mandate to make things hard for you. Everything is a battle with this guy; every move gets you accused of being a sockpuppet or a troll or a "pro-pediophile activist." He decides that his view of what is right and "NPOV" is the only one that matters and then accuses you of being disruptive when you question his reckless edits. Very annoying. Mike D78 05:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Could someone explain what benefit the rape victims category brings to the encyclopedia? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd really like to know the answer to this question as well, which I have asked elsewhere (in a particular article that was categorised thus), SqueakBox 02:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Should a person want to look up notable cases of people murdered and raped they will have a list of them in a category. Fighting for Justice 03:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What I question is why we allow an openly partisan editor, Fighting for Justice, who's user page states: "Always on the side of the crime victim and their loved ones." (openly and blatantly non NPOV), and in violation of WP:UN (# Offensive usernames that may make harmonious editing difficult or impossible, including but not limited to:), why we allow that editor to remain on wikipedia, and push his point of view upon other editors, to the point of promoting a category called "rape victims"???? Have we gone mad? This editor should be blocked. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I should note this page where apparently Fighting for Justice has followed Squeak Box (one might argue Wikistalking), just over an hour after SqueakBox's first edit to the page. If that wasn't enough, he then accused Squeak Box of being in bad faith[63], and then called him a "censorer" and said "I assume no good faith efforts from you". I also note Fighting for Justice's complete lack of civility, in this diff here where he accuses another editor of "deliberately ruin(ing) other peoples work"....because they changed the name of a university from Texas Tech to Texas State Technical Institute, incorrectly. Also, accuses SqueakBox of being a troll for addressing a BLP concern, asserts ownership and claims that "nobody gave you the authority to rename this article", etc....and that's just in one page of "contributions". I strongly suggest a significant block for this user, considering that they've been blocked at least twice before, including once for BLP concerns, and have a history of disruptive and tendentious editing. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This was shortly followed up by Fighting for Justice leaving this message on my talk page accusing me of being a friend of Squeakbox and just here to support them. Squeakbox as I understand is from UK, and I decidedly am not. The incredible failure to assume any good faith, repeated incivility, and multiple warnings are getting ridiculous. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all the anonymous IP that edited the Kenneth McDuff article erroneously caused a proper link to go red [64]. I did tell them not to deliberately ruin people's work. Perhaps, deliberately wasn't a good word but I said please. I don't think the comment is going to destroy the person's life. Secondly, I understand Squeakbox raises concern over the rape victim category as it pertains to living people. He snuck around and depopulated the category, then he got lucky and someone speedily deleted it. When he did not get his way and the category was revived again, he went about moving/renaming biographies of crime victim or merging them in order to bypass the category:rape victims. Is this conduct really appropriate? Should he be allowed to do this, while a debate on the categories merit is happening? That's why I reverted his moves and changed his renaming because it was done in bad faith. It was done so his new versions would not have the category: rape victims.

I never accused Squeakbox of being a troll. If anything he is the one who's called me and people who endorse the rape victim category as conducting "troll work" [65], [66], and [67]. I admit I've been blocked twice before but not 5 or 6 times like Squeakbox. I simply told him to read up on wikipedia's definition of a troll [68]. What's so bad about that? Content disputes are not trolling. THe only reason I said Swatjester is friends with Squeakbox is because, they want me blocked; yet they fail to acknowledge that Squeakbox accuses people of stalking rape victims [69]. That right there calls for a good reason to block Squeakbox as stalking a raped person would be a crime. Stalking is an ugly word that no innocent person wants to be associated with; regardless if we go by wiki's definition or the legal term. I don't do that and it highly offends me that he would suggest such a thing. Why isn't Swatjester endorsing a block for that? He/She is an administrator after all. If I get blocked for calling him a censurer then block him for labeling innocent people of stalking. Oh and another thing Squeakbox once very subtly referred to me as a bastard. He purposely left out the last two letters. check it out for yourselves if you don't believe me. Fighting for Justice 09:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Or else, perhaps, he meant ¡Ya basta!. Alai 09:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course I meant "ya basta", which means "that's enough". Spanish is my second language and here where I live its the first language, SqueakBox 18:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, a better translation is "Enough already!" and basta is a verb, so it literally means "(it is) enough already!" but yeah. -Nard 18:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Had this comment been made in a Spanish speaking wikipedia forum it would be understandable. But that's not the case here. This is a English speaking forum and all his comments should be made in English. I speak Italian, but I don't type out Italian dialect in here. Fighting for Justice 22:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually people speak all sorts of languages all over en.wiki, which can be quite a bit of help with translating. Feel free to speak Polish, Greek, German, French, or Spanish, or your native Italian, or even some Latin on my talk page or anywhere where it might be useful. This doesn't go to the comment of what was said, but, this is an international encyclopedia and English is used for content, but other languages facilitate communication at times. KP Botany 22:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I hear both comments above. Cos I am in a Spanish speaking environment it is easy for me to switch languages withouit a conscious effort but I dont want my comments misinterpreted and will try to take this on board, SqueakBox 20:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

An interesting twist on image vandalism

File:Bolivar vandalism diff.jpg

The difference between the two images

Yesterday Ecuadorian1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) uploaded an altered version of Image:Simón Bolívar.jpg, adding graffiti in very subtle translucent letters (in this case the word "JEW", vertically - compare this rev and this rev). Looking at his edits he's a reincarnation of Guatemalan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - both accounts have had images deleted as attack images. What's weird is Imnuh33r (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who appears to undo some of the former two's vandalism. My head hurts. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A diff of the two images is shown to the right. Hmm, I wonder if this would be a popular feature for new-pages patrollers? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Any interesting meta data? Dan Beale 00:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Lol, nothing further. Until(1 == 2) 00:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. Looking through the image history I can see the edits, but they're clearly at the top of the image, spelled horizontally - not vertically as in the "diff" to the right (furthermore I don't see any difference between the two revs you linked to, only in other revs - like this one: [70]). The "J" and the "W" are at the sides of the person's head, and the "E" is directly over the head. Why does the diff look completely different then?

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

00:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't look through all the revisions he made - on that one you cite, the letters are indeed horizontal, with the E on the forehead. In this version they're vertical, as in the diff image, with the letters in the red tunic below the collarstud and between the two columns of gold flowery things. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how anyone sees that with the naked eye. I had to run a "find edges" filter on it to see the letters. Excellent catch, Finlay.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

07:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw the difference, its very slight. He wrote jew vertically. There's a darker red. I've never seen this kind of vandalism before. Thankfully its practically invisible unless we know whats going on. Definitely deserves an indef block/ban. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at his/her first deleted upload [71], unmistakeable image vandalism. In fact all it's contribs are vandalism. I'd say indef block.--Sandahl 06:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Checkuser shows that
  1. Ecuadorian1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  2. Guatamalan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  3. Imnuh33r (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  4. Sri Lankan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  5. Bolivian1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  6. Uraguayan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  7. Mexican1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  8. Paraguayan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  9. User1110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  10. User1112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  11. User1113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  12. User1114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  13. User1115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  14. User1116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  are all the same person. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems Image:Spartacus IIi.JPG has uploaded by User1110 (talk · contribs) and swapped for Image:Spartacus II.JPG on yesterday's main page featured article. It has something written across the bottom, but I can't figure out what it says. - auburnpilot talk 01:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It says GOATSE. Hope that helps make it a Speedy Delete. ThuranX 02:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted under G3. Nice catch. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

GOATSE...should have known. Thanks ThuranX. - auburnpilot talk 03:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked all of the users Jpgordon mentioned. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

User: and User talk:Anonimu

Resolved

His user page and his talk page have banners that contain personal attacks; when I remove it or alter it so as to not be attacking, he and one of his Balkan buddies revert me (most of the times) almost instantly[72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] and he proceeded to vandalise my talk page, [85] [86] He has also been taken to AN/I at least once before, [87] Could someone help with this? —  $PЯIПGrαgђ  14:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

For any other admins looking at this, don't worry I'm taking care of the situation.--Jersey Devil 15:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The personal attack on the userpage has been removed by myself. [88] User:Anonimu has been blocked for a week. As stated above he has already been warned about this kind of behavior several times in the past and has compiled and extensive block log. [89] User:Anittas who reverted back to the version with the personal attack on it has been warned. [90]--Jersey Devil 16:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a note (whether or not this matters isn't my concern; just making sure that as much information as possible is available), Anonimu wasn't actually notified about that previous AN/I discussion. Bad form, really, to bring a person up for discipline without telling them. Bladestorm 17:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That is my problem as I did not know we were supposed to do that. I apologise. —  $PЯIПGrαgђ  01:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

A bunch of tendentious editors placed a pile of garbage on Anonimu's talk page. He removed it, as he was expected to do. One of the "instructors" is a pretty obvious sock of permabanned User:Bonaparte. After a bit of block shopping, Anonimu is blocked... for a week. That sounds hilariously familiar. Guys, block shopping is not going to solve your ages-old content disputes. After several ArbComs, is it not clear enough? --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Mass date-delinking campaign by Lightmouse -- Campaign resumed

This user has taken up a contentious stylistic campaign that has caused much disruption in the past: indisciminately stripping articles of all year-alone datelinks, using bot-like methods to run through large numbers of articles at high speed. I brought this issue to ANI on the 14th: See "Mass date-delinking campaign by Lightmouse" in Archive 271, for fuller background. Under threat of blocking, Lightmouse laid off till the 20th, but resumed the campaign on that date. -- Lonewolf BC 19:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

"Before posting a grievance on a user, it is advised that you take it up with them before you bring it to this message board." I have been working with Lightmouse with a view to helping him improve his edits. I suggest you take up any problems you have with the user in the first instance before calling for further admin action. --John 21:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do you make it sound as though this matter has not already been taken up with Lightmouse, John? It has, and amply, by a whole string of objecting editors.
-- Lonewolf BC 00:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

A string of two as far as I can recall. I've done what you should have done and explained nicely to the editor why semi-automated edits to correct very minor errors of formatting are deprecated. I also informed him, as you should have done, that he was being discussed at this forum. As I said the last time around, a little good faith wouldn't do any harm here. This person wants to help. --John 04:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You must read through the talk-page history. If there had been only two then I could not honestly have said "a whole string". There has been a whole string.
-- Lonewolf BC 17:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I beg your pardon; I see four editors now who have queried Lightmouse's edits. Nonetheless, I stand by what I said about good faith and the importance of informing people if they are being discussed here. --John 18:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Block review of Velocicaptor (talk · contribs)

related report

Given Velocicaptor's continued addition of fair use images, negative information about a living person, and general soapboxing to his userpage after I warned him to stop, I've blocked him 24 hours. He seems to have a WP:OWN issue with his talkpage as well. Admittedly, I find the comments I removed to be abhorrant (not to mention factually ridiculous when you consider the timespan between World War II and Emancipation in the United States), but I think the continued addition of fair use images in particular completely warranted a block. If I were going on my feeling about the content there I'd have gone quite a bit longer than 24 hours, but I still figured I'd post here and if anyone feels it necessary to review they can do so.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Eh. Twenty-four hours is more than fair; we're probably a bit over-tolerant of people who use their userspace as a soapbox and insist on being intentionally inflammatory. MastCell ^Talk 21:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that's pretty lenient. I would have indefblocked on sight after this. Am I going rouge? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think indefinite would be overkill; he's been around awhile and has some contribs that appear constructive, but I wouldn't have a lot of tolerance for repeat performances. Incidentally, what is the record for the shortest time between RfA and going rouge? MastCell ^Talk 15:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Velocicaptor is not getting it, from what I've seen in the past 12 hours. He continually removed content from his talk page. I've given him a final warning based on his most recent activities. If he should remove the content and replace it with a THIS IS MY PAGE screed, I will block him indefinitely as soon as I discover it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Velocicaptor indefblocked

Velocicaptor has done exactly what I had predicted he'd do, and use an incivil edit summary at the same time. I have blocked him indefinitely.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a bit excessive; he's still been making constructive edits. Perhaps a bit shorter? A week or two? --Eyrian 21:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Self-fulfilling prophecy, that one. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If he should e-mail me (or another administrator) civilly and request that he be unblocked, and he has learned his lesson, then he'll be unblocked. The way he's going about things now is uncalled for.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"Wow... That escalated quickly," as Ron Burgundy said. I was down with the 24-hour-block for fair-use image abuse and Hitler conjectures on his talk page. In fact, I thought maybe it should be longer. But was he just indef-blocked for removing comments from his own talk page, albeit somewhat rudely? I don't condone his behavior, and I'm not agitated for him to be unblocked, but users are typically allowed some latitude in removing notices from their own talk page.MastCell ^Talk 22:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

He has extreme ownership issues with the page, and is incivil when doing so. He was given a warning from Isotope, which he removed, and then a warning from myself, which he also removed. I explicitly stated in my warning that if he were to proceed to remove messages and do so incivilly, that I would block him.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Unrelated open proxy nonsense

Well, Ryulong removes useful content from user pages all the time. Check this example. (BTW - Ryulong removes all critical comments about him from this page, see history.) 77.181.78.63 22:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The comment above is posted by the user who was on that open proxy that I had blocked. Same shit as another thread on either here or AN. I blanked all content except my block message. Ignore him, as this has nothing to do with Velocicaptor..—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The Danish Wikipedia seems to think that 77.181.78.63 is a Tor node. Corvus cornix 23:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

They happen to be right. There was a seperate open proxy that I blocked (209.250.234.50) who just happens to be using TOR nodes to try and say ZOMG RYULONG ABUSED BLOCKING and shit lately. I think it's under Ryulong violates blocking policy. Now he's mad that his user talk was protected and that I removed everything (including personal attacks where he linked to Brandt's wonderful hostmask thing) save for my blocking message.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Revert. Block. Protect talk page. Ignore. Nothing to see here. MastCell ^Talk 23:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite to contrary: Ryulong abusively protected talk page, without reason. 82.217.128.26 23:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

And more complaints from another TOR node... RBI isn't working here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW - he also removed the whole thread about relevant link before protection. Note that Mozilla Firefox is FA, and talk page shouldn't be protected without real reason. 203.218.94.163 23:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Another Tor node blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, anon, for continuing to edit with Tor nodes, so that the admins can keep blocking them. Corvus cornix 01:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Discount for Spammers?

• Packnight501 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm really concerned about the comments on this image (which I deleted as spam). We should make sure the company is not explicitly offering discounts for posting at Wikipedia, as that smacks of MyWikiBiz. I blocked the user indefinitely. The account has been around for a while but it has only edited its user and user talk pages, aside from uploading the spam image. I have no objection to an unblock, but I thought we should see what was going on first. -- But|seriously|folks  04:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a naive mistake to me. If this user were contributing to the encyclopedia I might invoke WP:BITE, but I think this is bannable anyway per WP:NOT (not MySpace). Durova^Charge! 05:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

That is, frankly, some really scary shit. I think the block absolutely made sense, especially since it was a user who'd been around since mid-2006 with no contributions at all. Let's just hope this was an isolated incident and not the wikispam wave of the future. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the indefinite block; we're too tolerant of the promotional use of Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 15:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the block too, per above. — Rlest (formerly Qst) 15:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Not that it matters at this point, but... me2. - Philippe | Talk 23:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Bot block review

I left an entry at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention and the account was permanent blocked by bot. Is this correct and can the perm block review be checked (although I agree with the block) If I took the wrong action wrt adding at the username page pls advise of the correct procedure Kernel Saunters 13:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I take it you're referring to this, where a helperbot removes your report after the account was blocked by WBJscribe. That's what happened; bot remove reports of users that have already been blocked. Leebo ^T/C 13:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Almost certainly a Vintagekits sock anyway. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 13:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Ummm - almost certainly not, given the editing style. Vintagekits is indef'd right now and is unlikely to reply in their defence - Alison ☺ 18:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice - that explains it Kernel Saunters 14:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

People also keep an eye on the block logs and if the user places an {{unblock|reason for unblock}} then it will categorise into CAT:RFU and eventually be reviewed by an administrator on whether it would be considered OK to unblock the account. — Rlest (formerly Qst) 14:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA, User:JamesRenner

See this edit to my userpage. He's apparently upset about an AfD nomination I did. Since he's upset with me, I think it would just escalate things to warn him about userpage vandalism - just looking for a little outside intervention. I have no dispute with him to take to WP:DR, just think the article should be deleted. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• I can see why the user is angry. He's a published journalist and author and you're calling his work garbage, even though WP:COS and WP:SPS allow citing one's own published reliable sources. I think the best approach is trying to calm him down and explaining to him how to edit Wikipedia in a neutral way. Our policies DO NOT exclude him from editing, despite Videmus' claims. -Nard 17:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry - what claims? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It is true you didn't write most of the material that has upset this editor, but the multiple cross-postings attacking his credibility is what I refer to here, here, here, and here. The user has come in good faith to write about a subject he knows about, since he has interviewed the relevant people and published about it, and he practically gets accused of yellow journalism and an all out attempt to run him off Wikipedia, despite the fact that our policies merely caution people writing from sources they themselves have written, not actually prohibit them from writing. You have called him a "single purpose account" and called into question his motives "nice conflict of interest" and have challenged his claim that he got permission to publish a picture that's on the cover of his book! He came to write an article on something he's an expert on. His views may violate some of our policies, but instead of enraging a good faith editor and attacking him, you should try engaging in dialogue. When I've done so he's been more than reasonable and willing to learn Wikipedia's policies. -Nard 19:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
      • You do know that WP:EXPERT is not an accepted policy, right? And Renner seems to be relying on his own OR for his edits, nothing to back up his claims. Corvus cornix 23:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• User_talk:JamesRenner#Block - JR has been blocked for 24 hours by Golbez. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Julio Lugo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Resolved

Can an administrator take a look at Julio Lugo. Over the last few days, two IP users (see below) repeatedly added irrelevant content (1 and 2 are examples) to the page. When I saw this, I requested that the page be S-Protected (it was), and an admin removed the content the IP addresses added.

If the problem had ended there, I wouldn't bring this up. Today, the users turned to the talk page and one of them copied the text of the article to the talk page (presumably so he could rewrite with the removed content included) 3.

We also have two new users (see below) who have both asked that the information be included in the article. And a third IP address forged a signature on the talk page 4.

The Users in in question are:

• 24.250.24.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) the one who forged the signature
• 12.27.8.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) one of the two who added the content
• 209.31.140.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) one of the two who added the content
• Real Sox Fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) One of the two new users
• Realest Red Sox Fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The other new user

Pats Sox Princess 21:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the whole little troll fest (48h for the IPs, indef for the socks). If it persists, we can protect the talk page as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I was getting a little frazzled dealing with all of them Pats Sox Princess 21:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Requesting rangeblock of IPs used by banned User:JJonathan

Hi. Could someone please put a long-term block on the 172.1xx.xxx.xxx range? User:JJonathan (WP:LTA#JJonathan) is now using IPs in this range to continually add false information and sneaky vandalism to his favourite target articles. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of JJonathan for the extent of the problem - the vast majority of these 172.1* addresses have been used by him in the past couple of weeks, since his other primary IPs were blocked long-term. He ceases editing with a certain address once he is discovered and reverted, then changes IP and resumes again a few hours later. This is now becoming a chronic, daily problem. Thanks very much. --Kurt Shaped Box 21:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Do my eyes deceive me or would that cover some 6.5 million IP addresses?! Unlikely at best. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec) That IP range is both huge and very, very shared. I've usually thought of that AOL block as 172.0.0.0/8, but WHOIS shows it as 172.128.0.0/10 -- either way, that's well over four million IP addresses, and it's AOL, to boot. If we haven't already sent a few, an ISP abuse report is probably in order. If that fails, massive semi-protection sprees will probably be less damaging than locking out several hundred potential contributors (including several long-time and very productive users). Bit of a Catch-22, in that regard. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay - I didn't realize. Thanks. I guess I'll have to get started on writing an ISP report sometime - what a headache. --Kurt Shaped Box 22:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Last I checked, MediaWiki will not allow the admin to block a bigger range than a /12. I'm not particularly eager to check that, though. Shadow1 (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw some documentation page that said /23, but I'm not sure. -Amarkov moo! 23:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has a few /16 proxy blocks on the books. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's best that AOL gets softblocks on all dynamic IPs. Too long has AOL watched my sister been a vandal's haven. (And apologies for the LOTR links) Will ^(talk) 00:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I know from personal experience that AOL are a nightmare to deal with when it comes to abuse from their users. They didn't even take action against a nut-case I had the misfortune to encounter who was using their service to post other people's full home addresses and telephone numbers on a public forum and make threats of physical violence. So, in all honesty (be as cynical as you wish), do you think it will be just be a complete waste of everyone's time and effort to compile the necessary and report someone for *adding false info to an encyclopaedia*? I can't imagine them even glancing at the email twice... :( --Kurt Shaped Box 04:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Thebiggestwwefan

Resolved

I don't mind being named in people's user pages, but I prefer something a bit more complimentary. After replying to the above user on the talk page of Ohio Valley Wrestling, wherein I pointed out the talk page was not a forum, he went on a crusade against me, taking out a random talk page comment twice, then blanking my user page and despite warnings from two other editors and an attempt by another to get him to remove my name he has decided to keep my name on his page.

I haven't personally replied to him, other than on my own talk page, and I haven't posted on his user page since adding the warnings about the removal of talk page comments. I don't want to involve other editors (User:Jrphayes acted off his own back, although I did thank him for trying to get through) but I would like an admin to look at the events and advise what needs to be done, ideally I would prefer my name off this user's talk page. I am certainly not unique in trying to get this user to use the talk pages correctly, although he obviously feels that I am somehow persecuting him. Darrenhusted 22:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it and told him not to replace it. 86.7.163.83 23:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but I think that may not be enough. Darrenhusted 23:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The editor's edits have been solely forum-like posts on talk pages or personal attacks. I've given him/her a final warning, and will block the account unless he/she decides to make useful contributions to the encyclopedia. -- Merope 00:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked indef. This editor is obviously not here to improve the encyclopedia. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 02:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring and deletion of my contributions.

I have recently began editing on the page Straight pride. I have discovered major problems with references that are both spam links as well as inappropriately sourcing the wrong person or site in what looks to be an attempt to link the "Straight Pride Wear" retail site which sells t-shirts as an official web page for a movement. The site itself does not actually state that it is "Official". There appears also to be some very questionable use of references in the article and in at least one case the reference simply does not exist.

As a member of the LGBT Studies project I have listed this article for improvement to elevate it's ratings but all attempts to edit the article have been reverted or edited by the user Cheeser1. Who continues to tell me a consensus must be formed before I can make any changes to the article or correct references or add tags. This may or may not be an edit war, but I know I have a right to edit the page. I added a section that had no source as a test and it was removed by the member, but when I did the same thing it was reverted and I was told I could not make changes without discussion first. This has continued by the single member and I am beginning to feel that this page may need to just be submitted for deletion a second time. If it stays as it is, it is merely a propaganda page with a great deal of OR with false claims and links to a retail establishment.--Amadscientist 02:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Is "Straight pride" even a notable article topic? Looks like the solution is simply to delete the article. <<-armon->> 03:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It was nominated for deletion in January of 2006. It was kept. Now this single user is reverting every ones edits. I looked back a ways in history and it does appear that he has been doing this a great deal. While attempting to leave a message on his talk page to explain myself I noticed that he has been banned before for something similar. I am very distrusting of the article at this point and may just nominate it for deletion again if it can be done.--Amadscientist 04:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have come to the conclusion that there are but a few options for this page. Either Cheeser1 should banned again or blocked from further edits to the page or....I have added the tag for speedy deletion due to the huge amount of references to "Straight Pride Wear" also known as "Straight Pride.com". Either this page has been purposely made into an advertisement for the site to sell T-shirts or to simple advertise this site as a social political website. I noticed that even small edits that try to make the references more direct (substituting "some people" with the actual organization that made the claim was edited back by Cheeser1. I am of the opinion now that the page should just be deleted.--Amadscientist 04:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

WAS 4.250 personal attack Talk:Factory farming

{{farming}} WAS 4.250

Background:

There is currently an unproductive slow edit war between editors (One of them is an admin, User:SlimVirgin). Numerous attempts at mediation have failed because unwillingness of editors to go into mediation. Frequently the page degenerates into "personal attack/no personal attack please" discourses. In general I have kept away from them, but recently it has reached intolerable levels, at least for me.

The situation at hand:

I removed a {{Disputeabout}} tag (it contained the definitions of terms) from the article[91], and explained the reasons why in the talk page[92] and edit summary: there is no dispute, as it was conclusively proven that the term "factory farming" is the only viable one. Please do not disrupt wikipedia to make a point..

WAS 4.250 reverted my talk page explanation of my edit[93] (but not my article edit) with a comment containing a personal attack: revert trolling. we need help. not gas on the fire. In the process, he also removed other previous contributions (all related to edits) to the talk page, and my placing of a {{Round In Circles}} tag. This is clearly unacceptable behavior.

I reverted the talk page[94] with a comment: Do not remove legitimate post by other contributors, if you do it again I will consider it vandalism. Also WP:NPA I am not a troll, and to suggest this is beyond the pale., and repeatedly asked for an apology [95],[96]. The user has since done many edits between my requests [97], but has not apologized.

Perhaps the user feels that there is nothing to apologize about. However, I disagree.

So I would like a neutral admin to intervene, and ask him to stop personal attacks and apologize.

Or explain to me why I am wrong in asking for an apology and thinking there was a personal attack.

I am not following mediation procedure because mediation has been impossible so far.

Thanks!--Cerejota 11:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a content dispute, not a personal attack. Also, where is the link to the "failed" mediation case? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 13:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It was clearly a personal attack. Cerejota posted on talk in good faith. WAS 4.250 (talk · contribs) removed his post with the edit summary "revert trolling." [98] It's one of a large number of personal attacks, sarcasm, and filibustering emanating from WAS 4.250 and NathanLee (talk · contribs) on that talk page, which have caused a number of editors to withdraw almost entirely from the discussion, including myself. Two editors (on different "sides") have filed requests for mediation. Even though nine editors agreed to the mediation, both requests were rejected because WAS 4.250 and NathanLee won't agree, though they're the ones who have caused the bulk of the content dispute and who've been engaging in the attacks. As for links to the RfM, the first one was filed by me and was rejected here. The second one was filed by Jav43 and was rejected by Daniel yesterday, but for some bizarre reason User:John Reaves keeps deleting Daniel's edits without explanation, so I can't link to it. Admins, see the deletion log for Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Factory farming. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The deletion of the mediation rejection was just a misunderstanding, and it's now undeleted, so here's the link Nwwaew requested. [99] SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, your mis-characterization of my behavior is an outrageous unjustified personal attack. Please stop. WAS 4.250 19:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: You have on this article pushed through massive changes and page merges with no discussion, then revert warred, ignored discussion (repeated attempts by me to get you to engage.. My latest attempt was ignored also. I'd post up links to earlier ones but Crum375 deleted your talk page history[100]), attempted page ownership of factory farming and other pages and attacks on credibility of editors, accusations of impropriety/sockpuppetry and general level of unhelpful or evasive contribution on the discussion page. Now you're continuing your attempts to blame others for your authoritarian and non-consultative editing style.

It seems to be a habit that same users tag team reverting and the same abrasive dictatorial editing style (with Localzuk, crum375 on hand when you run out of reverts) happens across many animal related articles with many diverse editors. There's a definite conflict of interest that is blinding you on any issue to do with animals and this (combined with your revert-instead-of-discuss approach) is causing lots of conflict. You withdrew from discussion based on a distortion[101] that you must have known was incorrect (somehow confusing animal welfare with animal liberation despite editing on both). The mediation had failed with or without me (or WAS) and another editor had rejected it: that's hardly down to me as you make out. NathanLee 19:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a participant in the discussion, nor do I really care to read enough of the discussion to comment on the behavior. It is immediately obvious, however, that factory farming is a POV fork of industrial agriculture. For instance, the same set of hog-raising photos appears in both articles (and in a related one as well). It' hardly surprising that the article is constantly fought over. Mangoe 15:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Industrial agriculture was forked from factory farming - and all negative information about the practices omitted... And that is why you should do some reading, as this entire subject area is currently under, rather heated, discussion - regarding scope of articles etc...-Localzuk^(talk) 16:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Mangoe, that's precisely what the dispute is about. Localzuk, Crum375, myself, and I believe also Cerejota, would like to see two articles: Intensive farming (animals) and Intensive farming (crops). It's WAS 4.250 who has created the POV forks, supported by NathanLee, claiming that factory farming isn't the same as industrial agriculture, which isn't the same as intensive farming. So far as I know, they want criticism to be largely confined to Factory farming, which they feel is an activist term, and which therefore should contain the activist criticism. Or something like that. To be honest, I find their position confusing and hard to paraphrase. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

At this point the redundancies have been removed (both positives and negatives) in favor of a summary style where the agriculture articles can point to each other. Check them out! WAS 4.250 18:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make this about content. The article has a talk page for that. This is about a personal attack I repeatedly requested an apology for and was denied one. I clearly documented the diffs. Please refrain from commenting on unrelated issues in this thread. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In a sense the argument is about content. The tag was placed there a couple of weeks ago. About a week ago, I made a fairly major edit to the intro which much to my surprise remained in place until about the last 30 minutes. The last comment I made in the edit notes was that I thought if the changes stayed put the tag should go. Nothing happened to that definition until Cerejota charged in with what I see as a rather inflamatory remark. Unfortunately, one of the characteristics of the incivility is a tendency to quote WikiRules whilst not acting according to them. So in the context of the sequence of edits starting with my last edit 21:26, 13 July 2007 (I'll go with that edit being mildly contentious but it would allow me to remove the disputed definition tag if others are content with the scope of definition) there were no changes to the opening paragraph which maintained that definition, perhaps inferring a consensus or just more enthusiasm for edit warring on the image until Cerejota's comment (there is no dispute, as it was conclusively proven that the term "factory farming" is the only viable one. Please do not disrupt wikipedia to make a point.) Suggesting it was placed to be disruptive is offensive, when there was clear good faith to try and resolve the issue.

As of the last 30 minutes, the tag needs to go back in, and it would not be disruptive, it would represent the fact that there is a significant group of people with well-reasoned arguments as to why the definition is inappropriate.

In the meantime, I am subjected to edit comments such as Ethics - this is poor writing, and very POV; hard to copy edit by an admin who simply reverts which I would find hard to characterise as within policy. Spenny 00:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

On the topic of edits SlimVirgin it appears is currently editing furiously after deciding to not participate in any discussion. Some might regard that as being a little presumptuous and in bad faith especially for a disputed article. But sorry, this is about Cerejota and the harsh injustice and mental anguish he/she suffered from WAS's vicious attack.. NathanLee 00:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Spenny: You still do not comment on the personal attack I was subjected to. You are trying to make this about content and not the uncivil behavior of an editor.

For content, we have the talk page of the article.

Deleting other editors correctly stated, civil arguments is the pinnacle of incivility, regardless of whatever content dispute is at hand.--Cerejota 02:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Cerejota, I have clearly commented that you made what can clearly be seen, and was seen, as a provocative comment. Are you really surprised that you get an extreme reaction when you put such comments on edits and on the talk page? The onus on civility is on all parties. There appears to be a problem that common sense values of good behaviour are lost behind provocative quotations of WikiRules which is exactly why some of the participants find this holier than thou approach to Wiki so fucking annoying and you will get extreme responses if you pretend civility whilst using rules to assert your POV without consensus. Cloaking provocative behaviour behind a veil of WikiLawyering is exactly one of the unhelpful behaviours that has raised temperatures on the page. You seem to be seeking to separate one extreme response from a wide pattern of unacceptable behaviour that has clouded the judgement of all parties. That content is also there for all to see, and has been complained about constantly. Thanks! Spenny 08:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You posted up a message starting with (in capitals and bold) "THIS IS THE MOST IRRELEVANT THREAD EVER".. Yes, it should not have been removed (in my opinion people's posts on discussion should not be tampered with).. But it's back up there now and the user didn't alter it, skew the message etc or repeatedly do anything. Two lessons (one each): WAS don't remove other peoples posts from discussion and Cerejota: consider starting a post with something a bit less obviously likely to rile up others. Oh and consider whether you really deserve to be mortally offended by what on the face of it was really just calling a spade a spade (something which is actively discouraged by excessive sensitivity on wikipedia) NathanLee 09:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Before you accuse me of insensitivity, please be advised that the phrase calling a spade a spade is a racist one, at least in our modern context.

I am not mortally offended, I just want an apology from the user, rather than further attacks and irrelevant content issues from uninvolved editors. Thanks!--Cerejota 12:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it a synthesis to suggest that you are referring to me as an uninvolved editor? I thought I had given a fairly clear rationale as to being very involved - I'm sure I even joined in the edit warring on that tag at some point. If that synthesis is correct, then you need to understand that such a comment is in itself provocative and part of the cycle of distrust and assumption of bad faith. Even if it was not your intent, please understand why it is unhelpful. I don't disagree with your view that the edits were overstepping the bounds of WikiCivility, but if an apology is deserved for that, then a mutual apology for provocativeness is also deserved. Thanks! Spenny 13:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

you may or may not be interested in learning that "to call a spade a spade" (also, "to call a spade a shovel") is completely unrelated to the racial slur "spade", and has seen use since the 16th century. dab (𒁳) 12:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Amazing how people can find offence in something completely non-offensive.. I'm not in the habit of using racial slurs and as far as I know (at least in Oz and the UK) it just means "calling it like it is" or "speaking plainly/directly".[102] e.g. "Calling a spade a spade rather than calling a spade a shovel". Amusingly Cerejota has called a spade a shovel in this case.. NathanLee 17:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. Yes, WAS4.250 was wrong to remove Cerejota's comments and wrong to call them trolling. However, there is nothing requiring urgent admin intervention here - I don't think anyone is going to block him based on that one incident. If there is truly a pattern of abusive behavior, as SlimVirgin suggested above, then the most appropriate venue to deal with that might be WP:RfC or other dispute resolution; it's difficult to appreciate such a pattern here, particularly without diffs. Finally, a piece of friendly and unsolicited advice to Cerejota, which you're free to ignore: if you edit controversial articles, it's useful to grow a thick skin. Demanding apologies on pain of AN/I for every slight is not always the most productive approach; it's sometimes useful to pick your battles. I mention this only because I noticed this earlier, somewhat similar, contretemps. MastCell ^Talk 18:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment. I normally have a thick skin, but I do have little tolerance for misrepresentation, and in particular trolling. I apologize if this was not the best procedure, as I admit a bit of unfamiliarity with this as I normally try to resolve controversies directly with the editors. Thanks! --Cerejota 12:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Argument going nowhere. I've already stated that I plan to bring TJ Spyke's indefinite block review back later to the community, so frivously arguing over it is unneeded. See everyone at WP:CSN in a month. — Moe ε 17:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)