Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Possible sockpuppet of Cute 1 4 u

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I checked Cute 1 4 u's block log, and I am very surprised that we banned a user for being a certain age. Either I'm misreading the block reason, or we have just banned an account because she was 11 yrs. old. I don't think this is right. If Cute 1 4 u was blocked because of many other reasons such as vandalism, then that should appear on the block log.

In addition, I'm beginning to question her block reasons. The sockpuppettering is already proven. (with all of the accounts that came up here on ANI. But vandalism??? Where's the vandalism here??? I think we should recover the supposed vandalism in question.--Ed^{talk c E} 13:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone think this is enough to get her unblocked? If you think about it, the sockpuppeteering started just because she was blocked for being a certain age, the link to her block log is above. And there really wasn't any proof she was going to vandalise Wikipedia— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed (talk • contribs)

Well, the admission to being part of S-man's "vandalism project" on top of all of the other things that she did (sockpuppetry, MySpace treatment, personal attacks, civility, etc.) all led to her block. If she just sits it out and/or stops making evident that she is who she is, then we won't have to bother her about it. But the fact that its now starting to bother you and other users is beyond anything. Ryūlóng 21:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Actally I just stopped that. And Ed's right. Why am I blocked for being 11? I can't change my age untill years past. He did the vandalism. I though about and said yeah but after that i was gonna sasy no but I was blocked. Now you think about it. Are you really being fair? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cute 1 4 u (talk • contribs)

Then why does the edit summary state her age as the main problem? I suggest that the blocking admin unblock her and provide a better block summary. And in addition, where's the proof that she was vandalising with S-man? I don't see any proof anywhere.--Ed^{talk c E} 23:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I meant block summary. =) --Ed^{talk c E} 23:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

She has made some descent edits. I think we should re-enable her account if nothing else after a short break period of maybe a month or so. Anyways, that is my 2 cents. --Mattwj2002 23:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think so, too. What I'm thinking is that we get her account unblocked and put her on a monthlong probation. During the probation period, we will be watching all of her contribs and things like that. If she does something questionable, we block her with no questions asked.--Ed^{talk c E} 00:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I initially believed that this user deserved another chance. The behaviour since the block was placed between this user and the numerous sockpuppets, some of which were created after the block, has shown to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that this user has no intention of becoming a good editor and has no compunction against blatantly flaunting Wikipedia's rules and regulations. While this is clearly an opinion, I am firmly against unblocking this user's account. If the user cannot even be trusted to behave while a block is in effect, what possible reason do we have for believing the user will act properly if unblocked? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me fifty times and I'm a moron. --Yamla 00:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

(unindent)Please rephrase your last 3 sentences. They don't make sense. =) Anyway, why do you think that Cute 1 4 u has been sockpuppeteering? Maybe the block would have affected it. Even then, putting her on probation shoud do the trick.--Ed^{talk c E} 01:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

She was being a sockpuppeteer long before her indefinite block. User:Raven Symone, User:Skittles Lover, and others that have been proven at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cute 1 4 u, one of which was long before the block was imposed. I would not feel it wrong if Yamla decided to change the block summary to something else; something that just doesn't show that she was blocked on the reason of her age, but that along with the many other reasons I have mentioned above. Ryūlóng 06:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this situation is becoming corrupt:

• Cute 1 4 u was blocked for being a certain age, as stated in her block summary. As far as I'm concerned, whatever is in the block summary is the basis of her block.
• She wasn't going to vandalise Wikipedia. She planned to vandalise the sister projects, but not Wikipedia. There's a difference. The admins at the appropriate sister projects should have been notified.
• We're making wild assumtions that Cute 1 4 u keeps making sockpuppets. I know that she admitted to some of the socks, but what if the accounts were controlled by her siblings or relatives or something? At her original userpage, Cute 1 4 u established that she had siblings (I think).--Ed^{talk c E} 23:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • She said she wasn't going to vandalise wikipedia. She's already shown a willingness to ignore our rules by creating socks. There are no wild assumptions when she's admitted to some of the sockpuppets. If one of those accounts really was a family member, that is unfortunate, but really too bad. Sometimes someone does something that ruins it for everyone. If the family is really that bent out of shape over it, they'll have to take it up with her. Maybe she'll learn something.--Crossmr 13:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • All I'm just saying is that we're just coming to conclusions about these sockpuppets. We're blocking accounts for sharing the same IP with a banned user. For instance, what if she's using a school IP? There are multiple users that might be coming from the same school. And what about the wifi connections that people use now? Wouldn't multiple users be using the same wifi connection?--Ed^{talk c E} 02:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Family members getting blocked because of one bad apple? What a ridiculous notion! --Ryūlóng 06:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Also, we're not blocking new accounts for sharing the same IP. We're blocking new accounts because Cute 1 4 u comes out and says she's evaded her block, again, on some ridiculously named new account or one of us finds out through seeing suspicious edits and she hasn't admitted to it yet, and that pushes us to add an nth RFCU request on her. Ryūlóng 07:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

i'm back. User:Shakim67 is not my family member and my family is not out of shape or whatever you wanna say. My point of createing sockpuppets is to show you my good edits. And i admit, I can be one evil bitch [3] (if that's what ya wanna say), but I can also be a best friends and very nice.i don;t care what you need to say to me. Any way, i was planning to vandalize other wiki products, but decided not. I was gonna tell S-man i changed my mind but I was then already blocked. so thats my side of the story. --75.34.188.39 01:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe we should try and view your side of the story and review this situation in an unbiased manner!!!--Ed^{talk c E} 02:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Creating sockpuppets to show your good edits is calling disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, which is bad, mkay? Ryūlóng 02:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

SORRY, MY KEYBOARD'S GETTING STUCK ON THE CAPS LOCK KEY. I CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.--Ed^{talk c E} 02:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm rescinding that last comment, as you appear to be lying a bit. Ryūlóng 03:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

i didn't say shakim was my sockpuppet. He's a different person. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cute 1 4 u (talk • contribs) .

That's not what your sockpuppetry comes from. It's from User:Christy06, User:New York from Flavor of Love, and whoever else you made. Those sockpuppets were used to solely evade your block and continue editting, and now, you just edit anonymously, bring attention to yourself, and impose another block on your IP for the day. Ryūlóng 03:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you've hit the mark, Ryūlóng... she wants attention! •The RSJ• ^{(Main Hub - Rants)} 19:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not want attention. I just wanna go back to wikipedia. (The 1st block) I wanna know why am i blocked for being 11? --75.31.247.39 22:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Your continued blatant abuse of Wikipedia (continuing to bypass blocks and continuing to create abusive sockpuppets) shows quite clearly why you should be blocked. At this point, I'm in favour of instantly banning any sockpuppets on site and providing long-term blocks of any IP address used by this user. Continuing to edit the Wikipedia while blocked is abusive behaviour. No ifs, ands, or buts. Additionally, we should consider additional steps to prevent the continued abuse from this user. I'm not sure what else can be done, though. Perhaps a block of the entire IP range, though that has a high possibility of hitting innocent third parties (in which case, it is clearly inappropriate). Perhaps contacting the ISP and having them terminate the abusive user (though I'm not sure if this is kosher). --Yamla 22:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Range blocking this user will result in a DoS of what may be all SBC customers in the Chicago area, and taking legal actions against an 11 year old doesn't sound too easy. Ryūlóng 16:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Placing a range block hinders the editing of numerous editors from Chicago. WE NEED ANOTHER SOLUTION.--Ed^{talk c E} 18:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you're all in luck guys. There was a tornado warning in effect yesterday in the Chicago area. No, there was no major damage to Chicago (I think), but the Internet connections have been cut off. In fact, I haven't been able to edit Wikipedia until right now until my Internet came back. (I live in the Chicago suburbs). So...just sit back, and relax. --Ed^{talk c E} 18:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) To get through to you, a bit, Ed, THIS IS WHAT WE ARE DOING IN THIS CONVERSATION, AMIRITE? We are trying to figure out a way to deal with Cute 1 4 u, which may just end up getting her (and by proxy her parents') internet subscription cancelled for a period of time, and this would force her parents to input parental controls so that she cannot utilize Wikipedia, but this would have to be done at some point through legal actions, and I don't think Brad or any of the other Wikimedia legal reps wants to have to sue an 11 year old girl. Ryūlóng 18:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, although I believe Cute 1 4 u's abuse has gone way out of hand, I don't think it is realistic to seriously consider suing her. There's virtually no potential upside as far as I can see, and substantial downsides. Plus WP:LEGAL. Also, blocking all of Chicago isn't a good plan because it would affect editors like Ed, though if we could find a way to do so without affecting other users, I would strongly advise that action. I wonder how difficult it would be to contact the ISP and report the long-term deliberate abuse, and whether it would result in any change. Apart from that, the only other option I see is permanent bans on the sockpuppets and long-term blocks on any IP address used by this long-term vandal. Perhaps IP blocks of a month at a time, until and unless we block a legitimate editor accidentally (not just another abusive sockpuppet). --Yamla 19:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, legal suit was just the only thing I could think of (I'm a marine biologist/chemist/geologist/anthropologist, not a lawyer :P). The best we can do is just what Yamla has suggested. Indefblock registered users that are proven after either edits, an RFCU, or an autoblock, and long-term block IP addresses that she claims to use, which may sadly end up blocking the Chicago area's SBC users. Ryūlóng 19:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

(unindenting, with edit conflict)Blocking Cute 1 4 u's IP range will affect all SBC users. In addition, SBC has better things to worry about than our problems with one of their clients. For example, almost all of their Chicago customers are cut off from the internet because of the tornado last night. With that in mind, SBC would consider Wikipedia one of their least problems--Ed^{talk c E} 19:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, when the time passes, we will have to send an abuse complaint to SBC concerning Cute 1 4 u's actions in the various Wikimedia projects. Rangeblocking is certainly out of the question, for now, but IP blocks will help (even though it appears that a new IP edits every day). Ryūlóng 19:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• I placed the banned user template on Cute 1 4 userpage, legal action for this is silly in my opinion. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  So now we just treat any edits as revertable, even if they pop-up here? Ryūlóng 19:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, revert and block Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  Okay, then. Looks like I'm going to have to frequent AIV more. Ryūlóng 19:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

So what? Are we going to notify SBC or deal with the situation ourselves.?--Ed^{talk c E} 19:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a feeling that Cute 1 4 u will be making more socks. In fact, she might have a sockpuppet going around Wikipedia right now! Do we have a category page where we can just put all of her socks? That way, we can look through all of them and try to predict what her next sockpuppet would be.--Ed^{talk c E} 14:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't have any socks at the present time. I would have made a new account. But i'm interested in real life. :P Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cute 1 4 u (talk • contribs)

vandalism of Utonagan page

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

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

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

With thanks

Nadia Carlyle

www.twatha-utonagan.com

Creek people

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

User:Greg Bear

I noticed we have a user named User:Greg Bear who has edited the Greg Bear article. How does Wiki confirm or deny that this is the real Greg Bear? And if it is the real Bear, should he be editing his own bio?

Reported by: Atlant 19:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I asked. We'll see where it goes from there. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Atlant 00:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I've sent a message to Greg Bear through private channels. He should know the difficulties that people can get into when editing their own articles, and if it isn't Greg, then I figure he should be aware that some third party is using his name in vain, as it were.

Not that we need to compromise any of our principles, but I think it is worth a reminder, as Jimbo noted, that these things often turn into a bad experience for the subject. Instead, we should see it as an opportunity to gain the confidence, trust, and friendship of an respected and influential writer. Of course, that applies to all such contributors, whether they be famous or not; it's just that if we get someone with an audience fired up, it just creates a lot of work for us all. Look at Stephen Colbert and his elephants! --Jumbo 00:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Word back is that it was indeed Greg Bear, and my email sparked some interesting conversations in the Bear household, the younger Bears appalled that Dad would consider editing his own Wikipedia article! --Jumbo 00:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for checking!

Atlant 13:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what might have been happening on the greag bear page, but getting the actual subject of an article involved in editing is potentially extremely useful. Who knows the subject better? Sandpiper 10:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Weeeeell, yes, but it's hard to have WP:NOR and WP:NPOV in hand if you are editing your own article. If I had a WP article on myself, I might be tempted to downplay my youthful but drunken escapades, and focus instead on my more laudatory achievements. We've seen a bit of this sort of thing going on with articles on politicians here and there, with campaign pledges conveniently "whited-out". I'd also be able to add in information that is true, but either difficult or impossible for anyone else to check. In both cases, these are things we tend to frown on. I'm not for a moment suggesting that Greg Bear is doing this, but as the old Chinese proverb goes, the wise man does not bend down to tie his shoelaces in his neighbour's watermelon patch. --Jumbo 11:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The key problem is balancing between introducing such newcomers to WP:AUTO and what Wikipedia is (we should remember few newcomers know what we really are, notable Wikipedians being no exceptions), while not coming through as insinuating that we don't want them here or we suspect they want to advertise themselves. I think most such people come here with good intentions, but they misinterpret our notices - or stumble upon somebody who is not very diplomatic - and think they are not welcomed here, or at least that they are committing a gross 'faux pas' and should go away - which I am pretty certain was never the intention of WP:AUTO. Perhaps some sort of standarized diplomatic boilerplate/welcome notice for such newcomers could be created?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Good thinking. I've mocked up something along those lines below:

Sweet zombie jesus, you're famous! - zomg!!!11!! please can I have your autograph!!???!?!?? Oh please sign my talk page and visit me at myspace.com/chairboyslair. I think I just peed a little, I'm so excited.

- CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Notable Welcome. Comments? — Werdna talk criticism 11:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I see you added the following statement to the standard welcome: We notice that you may be the notable person {{{1}}}. We recommend you view our policy on editing your own biography. Perhaps some tweaking or rewording may be in order, but I think this is a good start.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Help Request from Lesser Evil

[4]

List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris and other pages

There is an ongoing dispute about the definition of "Paris". One side says that "Paris" can only means the relatively small administratively-defined City of Paris embedded in the larger conurbation (so, for example, excluding the suburbs of Paris, including the central business district of La Défense); another says that the larger entity is called "Paris" in general English usage. This started as an edit/move war at the list, both before and after multiple votes on the talk page demonstrated that there was little consensus either way. There is now an ongoing Mediation case, but edit warring has broken out again on the list and related pages.

Yes, it is a content dispute, but a cursory look at the mediation page, or the talk page of the article, or the talk pages of any involved participants, will show that this is just not getting solved any time soon, and vitriolic accusations and counter-accusations are flying left and right.

Please would an uninvolved admin take a look. I am entirely fed up with this whole issue (and also too involved to take any administrative action). -- ALoan (Talk) 16:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a Parisian issue. France has revolved around Paris for centuries, and there's a big social distinction between living inside the city limits and outside them. The city of Paris discourages building large skyscrapers, which would overwhelm the traditional architecture of the city. So they're being built outside the city limits, mostly at La Defense, which was established as a sort of "skyscraper zone". The resulting tall building boom at La Defense is gradually moving the center of business activity outside Paris proper. This has some Parisians very upset. Don't worry about it. --John Nagle 16:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

La Défense is the business district of Paris. I don't see how Parisians could be upset by having a world-class business district being built up in their very own urban area. It's like saying that Londoners are upset because businesses are moving to Canary Wharf. In case you don't know, residents of the City of Paris do not need a work visa to go work in La Défense or other suburban areas. In any case, the point raised by ALoan is that some editors (User:Grcampbell and User:ThePromenader) are bypassing the mediation going on at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-09-10 List of Tallest buildings and structures in Paris and are editing the La Défense article as well as about 20 La Défense skyscrapers articles (such as Tour AXA, Tour EDF, Tour Total, and so on) despite lack of consensus on the mediation page. That's what should be stopped. The mediator (User:GofG) seems to be gone on vacation, so some other admins should step in. Hardouin 17:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This is one of those disputes with the Fealress Crusader on one side and the rest of the world on the other. Promenader is asking for trouble, I'm afraid. The fact is that, pedantry aside, there is nothing wrong with the current title; the fact that one user obdurately refuses to accept this will never be solved by any process other than giving up or slapping him with a wet trout, I fear. Guy 17:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Guy, I left a message on your talk page about this.

There's actually four of us trying to make two Wikipedians see reason/publish fact, and few of us are Parisian.

Hardouin's accusations are completely baseless - the pages he is complaining are not at all in any mediation. The situation is quite the opposite as painted by him, as his constant reverts are opposed by three editors.

The "in Paris" situation is actually very black and white and widely referenced, which of course makes the warring seem all the more ridiculous. Only one side of the argument has every been able to provide any reference in this, and overwhelmingly so. Isn't this supposed to be an encyclopaedia? Just because a very few publishing theory put up a huge fuss to protect it doesn't mean those interested in fact should just give up and leave. What would be wiki then?

If anyone wants to look further into this, please do, as our mediator seems to have gone AWOL. THEPROMENADER 19:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

When deciding on this issue, please be aware of WP:NOR, in particular this phrase: An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is, if it....(It) provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms. Quite simply the boundaries of Paris are well known and published (no less than by the French government who you'd think know what they are talking about (at least I hope)) and User:Hardouin wants to invent new definitions. Also, there was some consensus about correctly referencing the towers correctly on individual pages, with people from both sides agreeing, the only one in disagreement out of >6 participating is again this user. He insists on listing the towers locations at the French equivalent of a PO Box number! For some reason, it seems to irk him that Paris has boundaries. What he fails to understand is that in France, when you exit a commune, you are no longer in that commune. --Bob 20:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Hardouin has just ended another baseless, anti-consensus revert spree. THEPROMENADER 11:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Hardouin is now trying to state that the official name of the département of Paris is "City of Paris" (or "Ville de Paris" in French) in the Île-de-France (région) article, which is quite simply false. ref 1, ref 2. I no longer believe that this user is editing in good faith. --Bob 18:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I have just blocked Netscott for a week for moving the page against consensus, and I have also deleted a forked version of the article created by (and named after) Grcampbell ("Bob"). The edit warring on this, and related articles, has to stop. --ajn (talk) 06:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Administrative abuse by User:David.Monniaux

David sez: This user has been blocked from editing Wikipedia for violating Wikipedia's policies, most notably WP:NOT: Wikipedia user pages, signatures, etc. should not be used for advocacy. He then blocked User:Rookiee indefinitely and deleted, and then protected Rookiee's user- and talkpage. The "other policies" alluded to here were not mentioned anywhere, and the indefinite block apparently followed Rookiee readding of a link once. He was not warned following this.

David's allegation of "signature advocacy" apparently stems from the devious subliminal message Rookiee uses in his signature, and, ironically, David also had a links his homepage on his userpage. JayW 18:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Rookiee was warned in the strongest possible terms that an indefinite block was coming unless he ceased using his user page to promote pedophilia. Fred Bauder 18:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You alone do not have the authority to make such a warning. JayW 19:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

?!? Not only does he have "the authority", it's part of every admin's job description to protect the project, which this clearly falls under. This is a particularly weird comment, given that Fred Bauder is a member of ArbCom. Jkelly 19:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

..here's a scenerio. I'm an admin. I go TheLand's userpage and discover s/he enjoys the violin. And as it happens, a violin raped my father last week. So I burst in hir talk page and declare - without any community discussion - that, should "TheLand" not censor her page immediantly to suit my delicate sensibilities, I'll single-handedly block her - without even asking others or a "warning" block - forever. Per WP:NOT of course, nothing to do with my personal prejudices... (I might even throw in a vague death threat, just for good measure.)

..and all this is despite the fact that hundreds of other people are also violating "NOT," yet they're still free to edit.

Within my rights? Y/N?

Of course, in the real world, violins are not blamed for everything imaginable, so this analogy might be just a little off.

"given that Fred Bauder is a member of ArbCom."

uh. It's unfortunate you don't know what the ArbCom is? JayW 20:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

My suspicion is that the above is an attempt to entertain yourself. If you're genuinely confused, you can find more information at Wikipedia:Administrators and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. Jkelly 21:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"If you're genuinely confused, you can find more information at Wikipedia:Administrators and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee." The point was that the ArbCom doesn't have shit to do with anything here and if you believe it does, you clearly don't know what it is. JayW 23:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

They would be the place for an indefinitely blocked user to appeal the block. Again, you can find out more information about how dispute resolution works at the above link. Jkelly 23:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly: ergo, your point is ridiculous and Fred still doesn't have the right to bypass the wiki community. And you're yet to explained why a ban is more appropriate than a simple page protection. JayW 23:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Your attempt at an "analogy" goes far beyond reductio ad absurdum and simply into the realm of the bizarre. A violin does not advocate for, bluntly, the legalization of child molestation. FCYTravis 21:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought Rookiee was blocked on the basis of WP:NOT? JayW 23:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Good call. We are not a platform for the promotion of 'boylove'. The Land 19:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't give a fuck what you do to his userpage, but the indefinite block is disproportionate, unfair, and against our own blocking policy. There was basically zip for dispute resolution, here. JayW 20:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be under the misapprehension that lengthy dispute resolution is required when a user is blatantly violating Wikipedia policy, in a manner that endangers the project, and refuses to stop after repeated warnings. -- SCZenz 20:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

There was an extensive discussion between a number of people, including senior administrators, on his Talk page. That's all the dispute resolution needed. From the content of that conversation, the content of the deleted edits to his user page, and the nature of his blog I am clear that Fred and others acted correctly. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and particularly not one for pedophiles. The Land 20:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The action was necessary and proper to defend the integrity of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. I wholeheartedly support it. FCYTravis 20:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like Rookiee's userpage, blank and protect it. A block is not appropriate and not excusable. We have already concluded, after losing multiple editors, that paedophiles shouldn't be blocked for their orientation; wanna discuss it again? JayW 23:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The real shocking thing here is not the block, but that he has been allowed to last this long as it is. He was indef blocked with his userpage deleted in March, and it was reversed. Whenever a disruptive user is saved by other admins, they almost always end up getting blocked again. We need to stop this. Disruptive users or those who pose a threat have no place here - to hell with "rehabilitation" and to hell with AGF. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Too many people fail to understand that WP:AGF does not require that we continue to assume good faith in the face of extensive evidence to the contrary. FCYTravis 21:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I 100% agree with you, good editors should be encouraged to work through problems and continue to be good editors (though often by the time it gets to a block, it's well beyond that). But yes WP:AGF is not "look the other way", and maybe we do need a WP:NOT a psychiatrist's couch, daycare centre, rehabilitation clinic etc. --pgk 21:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I find it... amusing that people who claim to support free speech quote the Gayssot Law, which basically bans speech that some people consider "hateful". Apart from that, feel free to send this to ArbCom, and please do not edit my user page. David.Monniaux 22:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"I find it... amusing that people who claim to support free speech quote the Gayssot Law, which basically bans speech that some people consider "hateful". Ever bring a plastic knife to a gunfight before, David? JayW 23:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You should consider attending to your own behaviour at this point. If your interest in Wikipedia is amusing yourself by making quips or scoring points on an internet forum, please find another venue. Jkelly 23:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"making quips or scoring points on an internet forum" Your attack is irrelevant, seeing as the above post was simply a reply to David's implication. How the hell is that a "quip?" JayW 23:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"Quip" would be overstating; "confused non sequitor" is more descriptive. --150.61.31.119 23:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked JayW for incivility and trolling. 24 hours. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• I continue to advance the notion that pedophiles should be blocked on sight. El_C 01:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Where do you draw the line? Fred Bauder 03:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• I support the block of JayW. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• I don't. He is swearing a lot and debating very aggressively. However, he is not sdimply trolling, he is trying to argue quite a serious and difficult point, albeit not very calmly. However if we blocked people for swearing when we were angry we'd all be fucking screwed. The Land 09:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with The Land that JayW should not have been blocked for swearing. Dionyseus 09:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• The block is only for 24 hours, so I would let it stand. I hope that it gets the point across that making personal attacks against users (a blockable offense) is a no-go on Wikipedia and if he wants to debate the indef block of Rookie, then he should do so without the name calling an insults. As for the swearing, we all done it, but it should be a good idea that in a debate like this, just refrain from doing them (don't block just because he swears, but if the swearing is getting too much, come back here). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Please note that Everyking was banned from this page because of his repeated assaults on the actions of administrators. There is precedent, JayW. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

hay guyz I have an idea, how about we discuss Rookiee's block instead? I really don't care about how many people you've censored before; I'd just like someone to unblock Rookiee ASAP, per policy, human decensy and common sense. Thank you. JayW 03:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

per policy, human decensy and common sense. Except for each of those "per"s being wrong, wrong, and wrong, not a reason not to do it. Other than, of course, being a completely ridiculous idea, that is. --Calton | Talk 04:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I am talking with Rookiee and Jimbo regarding his page. I would rather finish that conversation first. I hope he can be persuaded to make his userpage less aggressive. Simply restoring it short circuits the conversation. There is also hope he might consider not using the signature "revolyob" {boylover spelled backwards.} I think there is consensus that he can edit, on the same terms as others. The issue is using Wikipedia for pedophilia advocacy. We need to make an agreement with him though, not with his defenders as if he has to be constantly policed, it is better if he is not here at all. Fred Bauder 04:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking Rookiee is not going to go over well in certain circles. Some people are of the opinion that it is impossible for a self-admitted pedophile to remain neutral when editing related articles. Rookiee's pro-pedophile activities outside of Wikipedia are well-documented; phrases like "harboring pedophiles" are starting to be mentioned in relation to Wikipedia. Is that what we want to happen? Powers ^T 14:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing happening so far. Unblocking him is just not completely ruled out. Fred Bauder 14:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Improper full protection of Wikipedia:Vandalism

Radiant! has just been involved in a content dispute over Wikipedia:Vandalism as shown in this edit. Recently, Radiant! reverted the page to Radiant!'s preferred version [5], fully protected the page [6], and threatened to block me if I posted any information about this content dispute on the Counter-Vandalism Unit's project page [7]. These actions violate the letter and the spirit of the protection policy, which states that

Admins should not protect pages in which they are involved. Involvement includes making substantive edits to the page (fixing vandalism does not count), or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page before the protection. Admin powers are not editor privileges — admins should only act as servants to the user community at large. If you are an admin and you want a page in an edit war in which you are somehow involved to be protected, you should contact another admin and ask them to protect the page for you. Not only is this the preferable method, it is also considered more ethical to do so as it helps reduce any perceived conflict of interest.

These actions are also inconsistent with the intent of the blocking policy which states that

Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute.

and implies that sysops shouldn't threaten to block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute, either. I request that Radiant!'s improper reversion and protection of Wikipedia:Vandalism be reversed. Thank you. John254 00:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It does look like Radiant may have been too involved here. I suggest it would have been more appropriate to ask for another admin, on this noticeboard even, rather than doing it himself. It also looks like you've been edit warring on policy pages, and spamming other pages soliciting support to your edit war. Consequently, the page is now protected in my, uninvolved name, [8], and you are warned that if you continue either edit warring or soliciting you will be blocked by me. Dmcdevit·t 00:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring Radiant's actions for a bit, I don't see the point of basically saying that people are never allowed to remove stuff from their talk page. The repeated reinsertion of a warning (especially a stupid warning) already admits that it has been received and read, so what is the point of edit-warring over it other than causing disruption and agitation? --Cyde Weys 00:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. The part on removing warnings from your own talk page is quite possibly the most frequently disputed sentence on any policy page anywhere on Wikipedia. Can we some how, some way please come to final resolution to the removing warnings wars. I'm not even sure I care about the result any more, just that question is settled one way or the other. For anyone that has missed it, this has been a perpetual topic of edit wars and disputes for something like 9 months now, flaring up every few weeks. It has already been subject to at least two polls, including Wikipedia:Removing warnings poll, and many pages of largely unproductive discussion at Wikipedia talk:Vandalism. Dragons flight 00:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It is useful to ensure that a warning remains on the page for other users to see if the person's disruptive behavior continues, so that there is an obvious record of recent problems. What needs to be changed is to explicitly allow established users to remove warnings after a reasonable period of time, and to discourage the use of any pro forma warnings on established users. —Centrx→talk • 00:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It also needs to be changed to point out that newcomers do not know that rule, and are likely to see replacement of warnings as harassment. --Carnildo 02:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

There was edit warring, so protecting it is appropriate, but if it be reverted it would make sense to revert to 21:12, 18 September 2006 Zazpot, distinctly before any edit warring or contested changes, rather than to the new change favored by the involved admin protecting it. Also, the CVU page is not your personal propaganda tool for hysterically summoning help in a dispute, which you did before with WP:VIE, and its talk page is not yours to remove any discussions you don't like, which you have also done before; you were edit warring, which is not permitted; and Radiant did not threaten to block you. —Centrx→talk • 00:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Three-revert rule states that "the policy specifically does not apply to groups." The spam guideline only prohibits repeated posting across multiple editors talk pages or project pages -- it doesn't prohibit posting information on a single project's pages. Indeed, Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion frequently contains boldface announcements about ongoing AFD discussions, such as those seen in the example here -- and it doesn't appear that the involved editors have ever been warned that they must not engage in this practice. Furthermore, Radiant! has been engaging in genuine internal spamming to solicit support for the protected version of Wikipedia:Vandalism by contacting four different editors who oppose the warning removal language on their talk pages: [9] [10] [11] [12], but not contacting Blue Tie, who restored the warning removal language. In any event, I would request that if the page is to remain protected, a full protection template be placed on it. Additionally, as Centrx observed

If... [Wikipedia:Vandalism] be reverted it would make sense to revert to 21:12, 18 September 2006 Zazpot, distinctly before any edit warring or contested changes, rather than to the new change favored by the involved admin protecting it.

. John254 01:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, some comments here relate to the merits of whether the removal of legitimate warnings should be prohibited. I explained the justification for prohibiting the removal of legitimate warnings at Wikipedia:Removing_warnings_poll#Deleting_valid_vandalism_warnings_is_always_wrong. John254 02:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, first the claim that there was no dispute/the policy was stable prior to Radiant's getting involved (involved again actually - he disputed it nine months ago too) is just false. This practice has been disputed since day one and only the willingness of its proponents to edit war and 'call for backup' (as in this case) in greater degree than its opponents has kept it on the policy page. There are two cases on this page currently where users complained about harassment because this practice was used to repeatedly re-add 'warnings' which were at best questionable if not completely false. I've cited half a dozen other, often worse, cases in past discussions on the topic. The claim that these warnings must be displayed so that past activity can be easily seen has always struck me as painfully weak. We have the user's contribution list. We have their talk page history. There is nothing preventing vandalism patrollers coming up with standardized edit summaries which would stand out in the history and work every bit as well as the standardized templates do currently. Providing a minor convenience for vandal fighters cannot be a good reason for maintaining a practice which inherently breeds harassment and conflict. And that's what this comes down to. This practice does vastly more harm than good and the 'good' it does do could be accomplished every bit as easily... indeed, even better, with edit summaries that the user can't remove. --CBD 11:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Amen. Warnings are useful, but edit warring to force people to display them is too much Scarlet Letter for me. A standardized edit summary sounds like a useful idea. Thatcher131 11:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• I should point out that John's legalistic accusations are incorrect; it is plain from the edit history that I did not revert to my version, and neither did I threaten to block him. However, as I was pointed to earlier debate on the issue, I just found out that an edit war has been repeatedly flaring up on that page for over a month now, and there are several lengthy discussion pages on the subject. Ignoring issues of m:the wrong version for a minute, if there's such a lengthy edit war I think the page should be protected for some time more while we figure out what exactly has consensus here, and preferably reach a compromise on the issue. >Radiant< 13:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

  Actually, far more than a month. This dispute began here... last December. It has been edit warred into and out of the policy ever since. --CBD 15:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not an edit war. —Centrx→talk • 20:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Improper discussion and argument

The argument about the removal or warnings does not belong here. There is a talk page and discussion about that. The issue that was reported here was an admin's actions. I believe these actions are contrary to official policy and good practice.

I also think it would have been better to handle this directly with the admin and give the admin time to respond. It's just a matter of politeness and kindness! However, this notice is here, and I feel obliged to provide some input since I was the person that the admin reverted. i want to add: I do not have a problem with this admin in general or with any of the participants in what was considered an "edit war".

I requested that the admin rethink his or her actions. [Here] is my request on that admin's talk page. In essence I make these following points:

• I agree that stopping edit wars is a good thing. (I generally think that even if my view does not "win").
• I was not intentionally edit warring. I was participating with sincere and good intent. The page is on my watch list and I only made one edit.
• I am not a vandal fighter.
• The administrator was one of the participants in what he or she called an edit war.
• The administrator did not just protect the page in order to stop edit warring. Had he or she done that, there would be no problem. But the administrator reverted to a position he or she favored and then protected.
• The position reverted to, is not the position that existed before the edit war as the admin claimed. It is the position that started the "edit war".

I note that the admin notified many people of his or her action but did not notify me... the person reverted. Perhaps it was an oversight, but, along with the involvement in the discussion and the revert followed by a protect, it gives the appearance of partiality.

I request that the admin revert his or her own revert. I also request that the discussion here be limited to the actions of the admin. Let's not turn this into a "meta" discussion about the content of the dispute. I think that distracts. There is a talk page for that purpose anyway. --Blue Tie 13:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No, admins should generally not protect a page they have been involved in dispute on... which indeed is the only reason I had not protected the page to prevent what I consider the incorrect re-insertion of this practice. The original complaint was a technicality (Radiant's involvement was minimal, there was and edit war going on, and the version he protected on was not his own) and now obsolete because the page has been protected by an admin who was not involved in the dispute. I don't see much left to 'discuss' on that issue. The larger problem is the lack of consensus on the 'removing warnings' issue behind the edit war. Further discussion of that issue is needed and as it has come up three times (each completely unrelated to the others) on this noticeboard in as many days this doesn't seem an unreasonable venue. --CBD 15:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• This is quite a lengthy discussion that has been going on for some time. Upon analyzing the situation, I think the main issue for the policy is not what we think should happen, but what in fact does happen. Do people in fact get blocked or otherwise sanctioned for removing warnings? If so, policy should reflect that; if not, policy shouldn't forbid it. See also Wikipedia talk:Vandalism#Removing warnings, once more. >Radiant< 10:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I cannot imagine a circumstance where I would block someone for removing a dead vandalism warning from their talk page. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 17:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Help!

This user, Abu badali (talk · contribs), keeps on trying to delete fair use images that I've uploaded, especially Image:Allison Mack1.jpg and Image:Kristinkreuk1.jpg. I have gotten permission from the websites owners to use these images, and I have written a detailed fair use rationale for both of them, and they both have the fair use tag on them. Even after a lengthy discussion, he still will not accept that they are fair use and he keeps trying to delete them! Loooking at his talk page and his contributions, he seems to think that he is the highest authority on all things "fair use", but he obviously is not. Can you please help me, or get some other administrators to help me, convince him that they are in fact fair use images and should not be deleted? It would be greatly appreciated, and he must be stopped before he lists every single fair use image for deletion. Than you. - Ivan Kricancic 03:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Your rationales are missing one critical thing: there's no explanation as to why it's impossible to make or find a free-license replacement? Are the people in question dead or fameously hard to photograph? If not, there's no reason to use a non-free image. The images aren't fair use under Wikipedia policy unless they meet all the criteria at WP:FUC. --Carnildo 03:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If you think a free license versrion is available then upload it. I honstly just don't care anymore. Delete the images if you want to. - Ivan Kricancic 04:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand what fair use has to do with it. If you have permission to use the pictures, you can use them as agreed to (unfortunately, they must be released under the GFDL or public domain for use on Wikipedia, though). On the other hand, if the people you got permission from do not own the pictures and do not have permission to use them (although permission might not be transferred to you, anyway), then their permission is meaningless. -- Kjkolb 04:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That is: GFDL, Public domain, or an accepted Creative commons licence IIRC :-) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 05:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Usually when someone says "permission" they don't mean GFDL, they mean to use the image on Wikipedia only, or for non-commercial use only, etc. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-09-22 06:36Z

I'd like to report a personal attack from User:Ivan Kricancic against me in my talk page. This is 'not the way to go, Ivan. Any polite discussion on the image issue is wellcome. But your opinion about me is not relevant to the question, and your tone was innapropriate to Wikipedia community as a whole. --Abu Badali 10:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If you look at our talk pages from the last few days, you will see I was being civil. However, he seemed to think this gave him the right to keep listing fair use images for deletion. Anyway, that "personal attack" was completely true. I aplogise if people find teh truth offensive. - Ivan Kricancic 10:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Not the sincerest apology but I am sure we are all allowed a blow up now and then in a highly frustrating situation. Just remember to try to keep your cool and see my message below. --NuclearUmpf 10:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Saying "that personal attack was completely true" is not an apology at all. --Abu Badali 13:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Just post the email so an admin can follow up and this will all be put to an end. Or give an admin the name of the person you contacted. --NuclearUmpf 10:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the name of the contact. When i asked for permission, I clicked on the link on the Kryptonsite website that said to "click here to ask permission." This can be seen at Kryptonsite.com - Ivan Kricancic 11:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Where and how do I upload teh email granting permission? - Ivan Kricancic 12:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I would just paste it in this thread, or if its too large then put it in your userspace and give the people here a link. That way the issue will be resolved. --NuclearUmpf 12:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the text from the email, it says what I said and what they said. I also uploaded a screenshot of the email. -

Could I please have permission to use one image of Kristin Kreuk and one image of Allison Mack for their respective articles on Wikipedia? It would be greatly appreciated. Also, can you please tell me who the copyright holder is of these images, or where to get free license images of teh actresses if I can't use the ones from your site? Can you also please respond quickly, as it is urgent. Thank You.

Sure, use what you like.. I do ask, if at all possible, that you have a link someplace to KryptonSite.com if you can...

Thank you so much for having the decency to ask! - Ivan Kricancic 12:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that Ivan and many other people have had there images unfairly deleted by Abu badali and that he will most likely complain about me to soon. But i would ask before any action is taken that you actuall check his deletions and his edits as they are most likely uneeded. Though i will say that he probably has a case against me he has no case against any others. Daniel Johnson

Abu dabali has not made any useful or meaningful contributions to wikipedia. His only edits seem to be tagging images for deletion. He doesn't seem to actually contribute by writing an article or by uploading a picture he deems worthy. You can see how a person can get frustrated when things like this happen. - Ivan Kricancic 11:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Count me as yet another user who is highly irritated by Abu's actions. He removes main images from articles without discussing. Dionyseus 11:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I consider removing unsource material a useful contribution. Anyone interested can see my image uploads at my commons page. --Abu Badali 13:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Oddly enough pictures taken off Flickr contain little proof they are owned by that person who owns the Flickr account. Also the person at least one of the photographers doesnt seem to be releasing the pictures for use under the condition you credit them, they dont seem to be releasing the pictures for use at all, at least in the case of Tiago Chediak. --NuclearUmpf 13:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? His images are marked as "Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike 2.0" on flickr, and that's the license I used on Commons. In the case that some of the images I've uploaded have a problem, it should be fixed or, if not possible, deleted. I for one have nominated for deletion two of mine uploads after noticing that they had been removed from flickr (and I could no longer give evidence of it's licensing) [13] and [14]. Please, tell me what is the problem with Tiago Chediak's images and I will try to fix it or delete them. --Abu Badali 16:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Then I believe we are all set here, since Ivan has recieved and proven that he recieved permission to use these pictures from the person claiming ownership of the copyright. Thank you for pointing to the copyright on the Flickr website, I didnt not see where it was located, sorry for the confusion. --NuclearUmpf 16:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Doubts about the fan site's ownership aside, we do not include images based solely on permission for their use in Wikipedia. As noted above, these images do not meet the criteria for fair use, and therefore we can only use them if they are released under a free license so that they can follow their articles' text and be used anywhere, by anyone. This is the project's goal, not to simply collect content that's bound to the Wikipedia web site. There's much information about how to ask copyright holders to relicense their material on Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. ×Meegs 19:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If you have such a big problem with these images, why don't just go delete every image in the "fair use in" category? They are all just the same, yet these have been singled out. On Kryptonsite's website, it states that all content belongs to Kryptonsite, unless otherwise noted; and these images were not noted as belonging to someone else, so Kryptonsite owns the copyright. I have provided proof that the copyright holder (Kryptonsite) has allowed these images to be used for Wikipedia - that could also mean that if Wikipedia ever was released in print form, the images could be used there too. I just don't see what your problem is with using these images on Wikipedia, as they obviously don't violate copyright. But, as I've stated in some other places, I just don't care anymore, and I'm tired of fighting for these images. I'll just never upload an image again so I don't have to go through all this crap again. - Ivan Kricancic 02:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

herd mentality -> Herd behavior, that is blank

Hola Admins,

I wanted to tell my friend that accepting microsoft is adapting to herd mentality, but when I looked it up there was only "blank stangeness".

It seems herd mentality redirects to Herd behavior, that is blank. I know I've seen this or some similar article some month ago so I am confused.

Thought I should cry out for help and I hope this is the correct forum. /PER9000 08:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It was probably something weird that happened with the server or your browser. The article was not blanked in the history of the page, which you can see here. When stuff like that happens, try bypassing your cache. If that does not work, try it again later (this is assuming you have checked the history for vandalism already). You could also try another browser if you have more than one. I have to use four of them (Mac Explorer, Firefox, Safari and Netscape), as they all suck at certain things and are incompatible with a lot of sites. -- Kjkolb

• As far as I can tell, Herd behavior is a normal article. Maybe it just didn't load correctly when you tried it. If it persists, try emptying your browser cache and then reloading it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It didn't work for me either until I edited it and then reverted my edit. I saw mention of a bug like this on the talk page of an article I no longer remember. WAS 4.250 16:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Technically, the article seems to be working properly. The name and content are somewhat inconsistent, the content is uncited, the writing is poor, and some of the uncited claims seems bogus. But none of those issues require administrator action. I added {{verify}} and {{cleanup}} tags. --John Nagle 17:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hoax vandal

There seems to be a new hoax vandal creating nonsense articles relating to underwear, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Royal Theatretime Briefs Company which may have been created by a sockpuppet of Kenwood 3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Also note the above AFD seems to be full of single-purpose accounts too. --LiverpoolCommander 10:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It was previously deleted, so now has been deleted again.--MONGO 11:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Not with the same title, it wasn't. Where was the previously deleted version located? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

  Dunno, the post on the Afd cited a blog posting from 6 days before this article was created and the cite had the same wording. It may not be a copyvio, but definitely a hoax.--MONGO 12:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

  The blog says it was created on the simple Wikipedia. Can somebody with admin privileges over there go and check if it's still there and take care of it? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

LiverpoolCommander

I have indefinitely blocked LiverpoolCommander (talk · contribs) as a sockpuppet of TheM62Manchester (talk · contribs) due to a bit of 'investigating' which I carried out earlier on today. Details can be seen here. I am pretty sure there was enough evidence to support the block without a checkuser so I hope it was the right thing to do. I have also closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TheM62Manchester as speedy keep due to this sockpuppetry etc. — FireFox ^(talk) _{20:29, 22 September 2006}

Looks reasonable, especially considering the activity on their user talk page today. --pgk 21:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I did have my suspicions about this user. He posted on ANI a few times in the middle of several heated discussions, something that is very uncharacteristic of a new user. Looks like a good block to me. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

<removed trolling - User:Zoe|(talk) 21:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)>

User:WrestlingGod

Hey. I am convinced that this user is a sockpuppet of User:OzWrestlemaniac, User:3 Brands and User:Venables001, all of which were confirmed to be the same person stringing from a harassment issue that happened in June this year. Can someone help me out? Normy132 01:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Look Guys, There are over 60 of us from the same Multi-User IP Address. Why is it that when someone creates an acccount from our Multi-User IP Address, they are accused of Sockpuppetry. I am aware of the harassment issue that happened in June this year because it affected everyone at our Multi-User IP Address. 3 Brands is gone and you can ask him yourself at venables001_extreme_machine@hotmail.com. Brisbane Sports Entertainments address can be accessed by leaving a message on my Talk Page. 3 Brands is banned from using Wiki. BSE has seen to that. We are not his sockpuppets and never will be.

Is it just me, or does this sound an aweful lot like admitting to having...some sort of weird multi-user account? --InShaneee 01:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well from memory I think he told either me or User:Moe Epsilon that he had access to some sort of computer lab and that he'll just move onto the next one if he gets blocked, which so far has been the case. Normy132 02:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh...alright. I'm going to go ahead and indef block, then. --InShaneee 02:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Much thanks. Normy132 02:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It's true, Venables001 has said to me that he comes from a computer lab that has about 100 differant computers in it, and they have a static-IP range, so whenever he is blocked, he just moves along to the next computer. That IP range has been active tonight in the sockpuppets's comments today as seen on User talk:DVD R W. Venables has been indefblocked from this site because of his persistant harassment on me and Normy132. Thanks InShaneee for the block. — Moe Epsilon 04:16 September 23 '06

B&W Anime Fan

B&W Anime Fan (talk · contribs) is repeatedly removing the {{splitlong}} tag from the Fist of the North Star page (the page is 83kb long) despite several reverts and an attempt to communicate. He has also made these comments (or reverted an admin to endorse that message). He has also showed incivility in this edit. I don't know what else to do. _dk 01:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks lik he started trolling after that, as well. I've given him a little time out to cool off. --InShaneee 01:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP Concern - Wrestler's Real Name

Per discussion with several users, I'd encourage you to comment on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Nigel_McGuinness. Nigel McGuinness is the trademarked stage name of a professional wrestler (his real name is publically available in USPTO filings). "Nigel" does not want his real name to be disclosed on Wikipedia.

For those interested in a quick summary: We were contacted yesterday by his webmistress, requesting that his name be removed. After a revert war with several users, she filed an OTRS complaint, the pages were locked, and the revisions deleted. Nigel McGuinness remains fully protected. alphaChimp^(talk) 01:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no need for further discussion as far as I can see; the users involved have acted apropriately, and the resulting actions are correct for the situation. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I will point out what is, to me, the crux of the issue - the fact that this man's real name is not published anywhere else. A Google search for the man's real name + wrestling came up with zero hits outside of Wikipedia. That means Wikipedia was being used as the primary point of dissemination for previously private information - which is something we are not. I will continue the conversation on the BLP noticeboard as necessary. FCYTravis 01:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any real issue in putting someone's name in their article, particularly given the public nature of that information. This really isn't so much about Nigel McGuinness, but the precedent we're setting in regard to real names and stage names (see Criss Angel for a very similar situation). alphaChimp^(talk) 01:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The situations are not similar at all. The very first Google result for "Christopher Sarantakos" is this Forbes article on Mr. Sarantakos' life. The link between the real name and the stage name is widely known. I would not uphold any OTRS complaint about the use of this man's real name because it is well and truly public. In Mr. McGuinness' case, there is no such public knowledge and the only source citeable is a trademark database. FCYTravis 01:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr Sarantakos name isn't on the public record, as far as I know, and his proponents try at all stops to remove his name. That case is the same vein in that, assuming in the Sarantakos case his name is known but not of public record while the McGuinness case has the name of public record but "unknown", they both have to do with wanting secrecy/privacy in their stage identities. We're an encyclopedia so I do not understand why factual and supported additions are to be removed at the whims of people involved - do we rate the level of publicness as the time when we start to include facts that are already listed such as real names? Are we starting to invent a point of publicity before information has been added or do we follow wikipedia is not censored? –– Lid^(Talk) 01:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

We follow the idea that Wikipedia is not the first place anything should be published. Mr. Sarantakos' name is published in multiple mass media sources, hence there is no reason we should not publish it, because it is already widely known public information. Mr. McGuinness' name has not been published in any mass media sources and hence we should not be the first to open that door. FCYTravis 01:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This is quite a slippery slope in that we can't post sourced information because wikipedia has to regurgitate the information of media outlets. Why media outlets? The fact of the matter is this debate is about a complaint that has no real basis of opposition due to the information being in the public domain. Even though I can find zero full wikipedia policies that specifically deny his name to be placed here, and I've read through WP:NOT trying to find one and keep coming up with the "is not censored" part supporting keeping the name in, it could still be argued that it falls under WP:Ignore all rules and WP:BOLD as keeping it out interferes with improving the information of wikipedia. –– Lid^(Talk) 02:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP#Public_figures emphasizes that basic facts should be published in reliable secondary sources (such as a newspaper or magazine article) before being included in our articles. A USPTO filing is primary source. Dragons flight 03:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Touchè, but I believe the second part, ignore all rules, still applies as this is specifically lessening the information of wikipedia and setting an extremely dangerous precedent (see Daniel Bryant's comments). –– Lid^(Talk) 03:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not unprecedented. We treat porn stars the same way. If it is not already out in the real media then Wikipedia is not in the business of revealing it. Though this case is more verifiable than the cases I've dealt with since the USPTO is presumably beyond reproach. Dragons flight 01:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The USPTO is a reliable source. It's relevant to the article. That's all there is to it - it should clearly be included. --Improv 01:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not all that relevant since knowing his real name tells you nothing about the character he plays (I'm assuming that the actor is not notable aside from the character.) But mostly I agree with FCYTravis, being the first mass media to expose a secret identity is not the kind of thing Wikipedia is intended to be used for. Dragons flight 02:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd suggest that the USPTO is a significantly more notable source that Forbes. If the fact was not verifiable, we'd obviously remove it per WP:BLP, but it is verifiable, and is in no way defamatory. alphaChimp^(talk) 01:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The USPTO is a reliable source, but is it notable? How is a trademark filing notable? Everyone who ever files for a trademark should be on Wikipedia? FCYTravis 02:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a chicken or egg debate, the article existed long before the trademark was discovered so the point of trademark filing leading to articles is not part of the debate at hand. –– Lid^(Talk) 02:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I used the wrong term. Obviously we don't have to make an article for every patent holder. But, the fact that that information is made publically available in said patent should allow it to be included. alphaChimp^(talk) 02:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The talk page of the Buckethead article may be of interest to participants in this conversation. Buckethead has taken great pains to keep his real name private. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 01:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, since MTV and Rolling Stone published his name, he apparently wasn't all that effective. Dragons flight 01:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Great work, guys. Daniel Brandt now has some more ammunition to have his whole article removed, because of this. If all it takes is to send an OTRS to WMF to censor information you don't want written about you, then WP:NPOV may need to be re-written. Daniel.Bryant 02:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, the Daniel Brandt card. Regularly and blatantly misused to justify the inclusion of anything we want about living people simply because screw them, who cares, we can do it, so we're going to do it. The question has been repeatedly asked - What relevancy does his real name have to his wrestling career? Where is his real name used other than Wikipedia and a trademark filing? Why should we countenance the use of Wikipedia as an investigatory tool about people's lives, rather than a means of encyclopedically summarizing their life and career based on reliable published sources? None of those questions have been satisfactorily answered. Instead, we get the same he doesn't want it in, thus we should put it in just because we can, and he can't do anything about it, neener neener neener nonsense over and over again. Ridiculous. FCYTravis 03:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the trademark filing a reliable source? I'm pretty sure it is. Or don't you trust the US Government agencies to get his name right...? Wait a minute! "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable..." - amazing! Oh, and "In its ambitious mission of documenting all human knowledge" (existing emphasis on Wikipedia:Content disclaimer) Amazing! Daniel.Bryant 03:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not about "Because we can", but rather because it's relevant. For articles about people, their name is pertinent. People's preferences should have no bearing, positive or negative, on what's in an article about them -- we're an encyclopedia, not a PR firm. If it makes it a better article, and it's based on a verifiable source, we should include it. I don't see any reason we should try for a sympathetic treatment of subjects. --Improv 20:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

From the previous examples of Buckethead and Criss Angel to every single character profile ever on wikipedia the real name is listed in the article, usually in the first line, even if that person doesn't want their real identity to be revealed to the public. Wikipedia is about facts, not ommitting them. The reason the published elsewhere question has been ignored is because it has no bearing on the debate, if it had been published elsewhere we wouldn't even be having this debate. The biggest issue is the precedent it sets, removing publically available facts because of a complaint when the facts are neither negative nor libel. Your ending line of "neener neener" is especially odd considering everyone here is keeping a level head and debating the topic fairly. If this passes does it mean that there is a level of public identity until which facts that are already known can be posted? It's a question that has huge ramifications in where do we draw the line? It's the precedent this sets that's the debate, not the individual. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

His real name (which I just found and started searching around for on search engines) is nothing but a marker in a governent database. For this, while his information is in the "public record", I think it would be well afforded that since his real name exists nowhere outside of said government database it should be kept private. The logic has already been cleanly applied to birthdays (yes, everyone has a birthday, and if I go through enough trouble, I can find someone's birthday and other information, and all stage names have a birth name assigned onto them), but it doesn't need to be instantly included into an article. Its dregging up private information that should've stayed private. Now, if the media comes out and writes about his real name, as in several other cases, the cat's out of the bag. Its not like critism, though. Critism is a whole new ballgame to contend with, and I'd trust that the OTRS people would think very hard about well-sourced critism material being demanded for removal before compling with any such demands. But its not, its private information, and the right thing was probably done to remove it considering the quiet nature of his real name. Now, who wants to improve some sourcing with me? Kevin_b_er 04:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again we're back at "private information" in the public domain and how that makes it still private. The case still stands in the literally tens of thousands of other character/stage name articles and their real names being listed, where do we draw the line? Many of those articles also list birthdates, in fact the vast majority seem to, where's the line? If secondary source reported the name they would be reposting the same content as the primary source, there's no difference in the context and the source is actually further back than when it needs to be thus adding additional steps to the detriment source of knowledge that is wikipedia. Public, not private, sourced information being removed on whims should not be what wikipedia is about. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I had decided, after my last comment, not to take any further partin this discussion; I have lifted my self-imposed parole just for this comment. Firstly, Kevin, I totally agree with you, and express my hope that the OTRS people would strongly consider whether to delete well-sourced criticism from a request. I was personally involved in something which was the exact definition of the aforementioned situation, and I was aggrieved to realise that Wikipedia had, in fact, deleted sourced criticism from an article. But that's the past, this is the present, and hopefully in the future WMF will consider their position more closely.

In this instance, I think the decision has to be made here is whether a state-actors real name is personal/private info, or is it public/needed. In most cases, a name would be public/needed, and hence includedin the article. However, the question is do many people know this person/actor by his real name, and if they do, is there enough to deem it notable? I have already expressed my opinion in this case, and won't just repeat it again for repeating's sake. So, if you ever see me posting on this issue again, give me a slap over the wrists at my talk page, and I wish everyone else good luck in this discussion, and lets hope that this discussion doesn't degenerate into incivility, insult throwing and name-calling. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 04:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to comment on something posted above: It's not all that relevant since knowing his real name tells you nothing about the character he plays (I'm assuming that the actor is not notable aside from the character.) (by Dragons flight). If we're going to follow this, we'd have to remove pretty much every single professional wrestler's real name, regardless of whether it's verifiable, public information, or whatnot. This can't happen. McGuinness' real name does belong in the article. -->So sayeth Methnor^{Sayeth back}|_{Other sayethings}

We are here to synthesise information, not to be investigative journalists or to "out" people. On the particular facts of this case, I favour keeping the info out of the article. On a very slightly different set of facts I'd take a different view. I don't think this is much of a precedent. Metamagician3000 03:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This whole issue has piqued my interest, perhaps due to FCYTravis's question above whether the USPTO is a "reliable" or a "notable" source. Can we rely on the USPTO to give us the real name of this Nigel McGuiness? I took at the Trademark database, & found the name in question (I'll call him Smith in order to keep this discussion from being redacted), & all it states is that Smith is the owner of the trademark -- not Smith is the real-life name of McGuiness. Now anyone can own a trademark: the actor, his agent, his lawyer or accountant, or a suit in the Professional Wrestling business who has no other relationship to the person who performs under that name. It's clear that Smith has some kind of relationship to the character Nigel McGuiness, but to explain what that relationship is would be original research (which is the point I suspect Metamagician3000 is arguing) -- unless someone can cite a published source that explains it. This line of reasoning is good enough for me to exclude this source -- although it does not settle the question people are arguing over above. Does it convince anyone else? -- llywrch 06:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

As per the USPTO's website if it were an attorney the trademark would list the applicant as "representative". It's listed as a "principal" meaning the person who registered it is the individual using it. –– Lid^(Talk) 09:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the principal the owner of the trademark, rather than the necessarily the person acting as a character with a trademarked name? For example, who is listed as principal for trademarks like "superman" or "batman" or "spiderman"? WAS 4.250 12:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The principal for each is their parent companies, namely DC and marvel comics, however looking at those trademarks illuminated something to me about trademark formats . When a lawyer gets the trademark for another the trademark lists a section for "Attorney of Record" which the McGuinness trademark lacks. In addition the trademarks of those are listed next to type of mark as TRADEMARK while McGuinness is listed as SERVICE MARK, which under glossary is "to indicate the source of the services and to distinguish them from the services of others. A service mark is the same as a trademark except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product." As the McGuinness trademark is for "Sports and Entertainment Services, namely, live and televised performances by a professional wrestler/entertainer." this categorically proves the person who submitted the trademark is the real name of McGuinness. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this discussion is missing the main points of having a BLP policy. The underlying idea is "do no harm". How does the inclusion/exclusion of his real name affect article quality? Does any benefit outweigh the harm we are doing by including the name? If the benefit clearly outweighs the harm, then by all means, include it. If the harm clearly outweighs the benefit, then leave it out. If you aren't sure, then figure it out. Why does he not want his real name plastered all over the internet? How would those of us to choose to edit under pseudonyms feel if ED tracked down our real names from, say a 15-year-old usenet posting, and publicised it? Now remember than we are one of the top-ranked websites, and everything that gets published here is mirrored in dozens of places. We can't work on the principle of "you can't stop me, so there!" We don't operate under the ethics of 12-year-olds. Figure out the costs and the benefits of including this information. And then argue about costs and benefits, not about what we can and can't do. Guettarda 14:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions to die, personal attacks, and GNAA-style spam

A user, Daniel 123, after complaining about my sig and my suggestion that he focus on more important aspects of the encyclopedia or file an RfC, became extremely controntational, tell me to "die", "The image that broke my monitor was the one of your face, not your pathetic little oil pit." and then GNAA-style picture spam, including the charecteristic captions. total diff is here. It's kinda funny this user has a Esperanza link in his sig. Anyway, Im requesting an admin look into this and possibly issue a block of a day or two. -M^ask 02:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 1 day. However, saying "Back off the psuedo-policing and start contributing some real content to the encyclopedia, we'll all be better off for it." troubles me. There are many people who spend a majority of their time reverting vandalism. The way I see it, Wikipedia needs editors that are devoted to improving the project, whether it be reverting vandalism or writing content. Naconkantari 02:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, the psuedo-policing refferred to the notice about my sig, not reverting vandalism. I referred to that by name. -M^ask 03:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

In fairness to the issue, if not the complainer, signatures are not supposed to contain images becxause of transclusion loads and "undue weight". The issue may have been handled very poorly, but there is a certain point here. Also, since the other user professes to be part of Esperanza, someone from that organization may wish to have a little coaching with him about civility. Four total pictures (well, two, twice) seems more like making a point than true GNAA harassment. YMMV. -- nae'blis 15:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism from 204.98.2.17 (talk · contribs)

Noting here the edits by 204.98.2.17 (talk · contribs) here, here, here, here, here, here and here are blatant vandalism, and I have left the "test4" template on the Talk page. Orsini 03:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The quickest way to get these blatant vandals blocked is by listing them on WP:AIV. MER-C 03:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no vandalism within the last 6 hours. Perhaps the warning had its intended effect. Regardless, this is an AIV issue. alphaChimp^(talk) 03:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I might be misinterpreting policy, as I didn't think I could list this user on AIV before a "test4" template or a similar warning was noted on the user's Talk page before the current round of vandalism, and there wasn't one till I added it. If I'm wrong, please set me straight so I don't repeat this mistake. Orsini 04:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite correct. What generally happens is, if a user has recently recieved a {{test4}} or {{bv}} (or other, more-specific "Level 4" vandal templates, as viewed in the table here), and then commit another vandal act after recieving the Level 4 warning, then you report to AIV. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 04:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism from 65.222.236.25 (talk · contribs)

65.222.236.25 (talk · contribs) is vandalising, even after warning him on the talk page. - Vijaykumar 04:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I moved this to WP:AIV, where you may, and probably will, recieve a more speedy response. Just a note for the future :D Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 04:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that user was blocked in a very speedy fashion 1 2 Daniel.Bryant 04:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal information was posted to my user page

Somebody didn't like an edit I made to their file (a file which violates wikipedia policy by the way) and they posted a whole bunch of my personal information up on my user talk page. I want Danny or whoever to office that stuff away, permanently thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.152.217 (talk • contribs)

Reading your edit summaries and some of your posts I think you need to read Wikipedia:No legal threats. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict, still going to post it anyways) Someone who has the appropriate knowledge/power will come by and review this, hopefully soon. In the meantime, please aviod making legal threats towards Wikipedia (1 2). Although your actions are understandable considering the situation regarding personal information and your anger at this being posted, please make a note not to do this in the future. I think we can assume good faith in this instance, but just remember this to aviod future problems. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 04:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

PS the person who did this is called "Ima_Learning" but they also left an ip address if that helps it is 68.19.47.12

I don't want to make legal threats or break your rules but it is not right to have that information put up on there and I want it permanently gone ok? thanks.

How can you "assume good faith" when someone is trying to have my house burned down or give out my address or whatever? I am not trying to break any of your policies but there is a family here to protect and so forth please thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.152.217 (talk • contribs)

How do you know it was Ima_Learning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Is this just a suspicion, or is there any proof - your talk page history shows no editor of this name editing it, or adding personal details. By the way, please sign your name using four tidles ~~~~ in future on talk pages. Oh, and I was assuming good faith that you didn't realise that Wikipedia doesn't appreciate legal threats, and because of this ignorance no action might be taken against you - IP's and users have been blocked for legal threats in the past. Believe me, there is little room in the assuming good faith policy for users who post personal details. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 05:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I know it was that user because that was the user of the file that I edited and in the history of my page, they signed that name and their IP address next to it. PS it is the edit that says vandalism in all caps, that is the person who added it and also wrote their name in before the address of it. 65.30.152.217 05:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC) PPS - Sorry I am just upset I am sure you understand

Ah, I see - my apologies for missing this. Daniel.Bryant 05:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is the relevant quote from the talk page Anyway, to get to the point, you are a VANDAL as you have VANDALIZED my video file page ( Ejaculation_Educational_Demonstration.ogg )by removing my Authentication Summary of this video file that I MADE ON 26 JULY 2006 and UPLOADED ON 27 JULY 2006 ... Have A Nice Day, Ima_Learning 68.19.47.12 06:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC). –– Lid^(Talk) 05:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Also after I tried to erase/blank it out from there, some guy named Atomaton came in an un-erased it so now it is in the history in multiple places :( 65.30.152.217 05:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Legal threats and such aside - i think the user has a valid point about some personal info being remove from their talk page. I'll remove it unless somebody jumps up and down in the next ten minutes or so. Thanks/wangi 05:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Dont just move it, drop some sort of edit admin bomb on it. --I already forgot 05:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The personal info needs to be permanently deleted ASAP. It still can be looked up in the page archive. I'm pretty sure admins have a new feature to delete archive edits??? --I already forgot 05:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It's gone. Daniel.Bryant 05:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

POOF!...Nice work :)--I already forgot 05:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Posted a {{subst:pinfo4}} ~~~~ on the offending IP's talk page. Daniel.Bryant 05:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I was so worried about it. It is permanently gone right like nobody can look it up somewhere, right? Thanks. I maybe won't edit things anymore I hope that's ok. 65.30.152.217 05:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Only an admin can view it, and I think you can trust them not to hunt you down or anything of the like. Daniel.Bryant 05:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a note the user who, allegedly, posted the personal info was Ima learning (talk · contribs) not Ima_Learning (talk · contribs) who has zero contributions. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone want to whip up an WP:RFCU? Daniel.Bryant 05:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure how to do it so I will let someone else do it ok? thanks. 65.30.152.217 06:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Moved from RFCU, too blatant to require Checkuser

• Ima learning (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 68.19.47.12 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

(related to the comments directly above)

The IP above, 68.19.47.12 (the poster of personal details), was involved in an incident where he/she posted personal information on the talk page of 65.30.152.217. The diff has since been disabled for viewing (see here), as the talk page was deleted and all the other revisions restored excluding this one. Obviously, admins can still view it thru the Undelete feature.

The last part of the message which contained personal details are published below:

“ Anyway, to get to the point, you are a VANDAL as you have VANDALIZED my video file page ( Ejaculation_Educational_Demonstration.ogg )by removing my Authentication Summary of this video file that I MADE ON 26 JULY 2006 and UPLOADED ON 27 JULY 2006 ... Have A Nice Day, Ima_Learning 68.19.47.12 06:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC) ”

The above was referring to this edit, made by the victim to the users' image upload. Interestingly, the IP who posted the personal details reverted the source change (see here)

The signing of the name "Ima Learning" initated my suspicions. Prior to the message being hidden via deletion, it contained numerous references to the 65.30.152.217 (the victim) "commiting vandalism" to certain articles, many of which this user has edited (see Special:Contributions/Ima learning).

I think that, considering the .ogg reference in the quote and the username's log (look at the uploads), there is very minimal doubt about whether the user is the IP who posted the personal details.

Any doubt I had was eliminated by this diff - notice the edit summary, and the person who he is reverting. Then, not very long after, 68.19.47.12 (the poster of the personal details) posts on the talk page of 65.30.152.217 (the victim), making numerous references to this vandalism revert that Ima learning made only 10-or-so minutes before.

Really, with the logs and then the reverting diff to squash any thought of an imposter, this user should be blocked indefinitely for maliciously posting personal details of a Wikipedia editor. Daniel.Bryant 06:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked Ima learning (talk • contribs) indefinitely and 68.19.47.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 6 months. --  Netsnipe  ►  07:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems fair. User's main activity was vanity spamming anyway. Guy 16:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Pammylove

Pammylove (talk · contribs) has been very busy, creating dozens of articles on likely non-notable Australian models. Many of the articles are link heavy, full of badly formatted wikilinks (common magazine titles in ALL CAPS for example) and lots of dubious external links. It's late for me and I'm out of town for two days. Anyone feel like they need a new project? Thatcher131 05:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm tagging the ones I find, but there's a lot. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Spamming by Dondavid

Dondavid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be a single-purpose account for adding external links to greatertalent.com . I think the account should be blocked (at least temporarily), reverted and investigated. Andjam 07:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped after he/she was given a Level 4 warning. Daniel.Bryant 08:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Legal threat/harassment over New Creation Church (Singapore)

User: Holland6 just posted this edit summary: "(Members of city havest church has been vandalising this article. IP adresses has been forwarded to local authority and the church for action to be taken.)" [[15]]. City Harvest Church is another church in Singapore. Does anyone want to follow up? Kla'quot 07:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, not much we can do. We can't stop them doing anything (I personally think it's an empty threat), but I guess we could tell him/her to stop threatening other Wikipedia editors. I'll leave him/her a message. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 08:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Daniel. Kla'quot 04:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Slow anon-IP vandalism at WYSIWYG

Over the last few months, WYSIWYG has been vandalised by anonymous editors roughly once every 2-3 days. I was wondering if semi-protection would be suitable to prevent this problem? The article is also currently in a fairly stable state, and hasn't changed substantially for a while, so it shouldn't get in the way of improving the article. JulesH 08:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, requests for page protection is one board over; they tend to respond a lot faster there. Also, in general, vandalism that occurs that infrequently generally doesn't call for a semiprotection; I'll watchlist it and help revert vandalism, but I doubt that the tag will be put on the article. Page protection, even semi-protection, is a pretty big deal; it temporarily puts the lie to our statement that "anyone can edit." Captainktainer * Talk 13:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

1 month block of 67.163.90.218

After reviewing the contribution history of 67.163.90.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), I have decided to block the IP for one month. This IP has been engaging in persistent, though low-volume, vandalism for quite some time, and has made zero useful edits during this year. The user has been warned repeatedly, but has only been issued a single 24-hour block in May this year. The consistency of the contributions strongly suggest that this is a semi-static broadband IP which is likely, though not certain, to remain assigned to a single user for quite some time. As such, I feel that the prevention of further vandalism while the block is in place, and the possibility of sending the user the message that such vandalism is not tolerated, outweigh the risk that the IP will be reassigned to an innocent contributor who would have to either wait until the block expires or to request that it be lifted before being able to edit Wikipedia. As this is, nonetheless, an unusually long block for an IP address, I am announcing it here so that other may review it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• One month seems like a relatively cautious approach, given the case. I encourage others to similarly stick to a month at the outside for IP's, even stable ones, and to be ready to lift such blocks the moment there is even the appearance of collateral damage. (I'm not sure we can conclude that it's stable, I'm afraid, as I have seen an IP that had garbage only for 8 months and then an academically astute question, and then more giggling vandalism -- suggesting that it was a university library point.) Geogre 23:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• I have to admit that I've been known to give longer blocks, like six months, in similar circumstances. One month does seem to be cautious - but on reflection it is probably wise not to go longer than that. Metamagician3000 03:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Repeated re-adding of speedy deletion tag by DrBat

User:DrBat talk is repeatedly re-adding a speedy deletion tag to Oscar Nuñez, even though the removal of such tags is an explicitly endorsed method (stated in the template itself) to end the speedy deletion process, and require going through normal channels. Gene Nygaard 16:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The article was to simply reverse a redirect. It was a noncontroversal move, and Nygaard gave no valid reason for repeatedly removing it .

Nonethless, the page was locked so I have formally requested a move, though why Nygaard had make such a big deal about a simple move of Oscar Nunez to Oscar Nuñez (simply changing the n to an ñ, as that is how his name is properly spelled) is beyond me. --DrBat 16:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

DrBat has now taken it to WP:RM, as he should have when the "speedy" was first removed, and the template has been removed from the redirect page. The incident appears to be resolved. Gene Nygaard 16:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikinamespace potential attack page

I recommended several times that Shortfuse (talk · contribs) move Wikipedia:Association of 9/11 All Sides Editors to his userspace. I previously nominated it for deletion since the goal of the "association" is to fight attempts to delete articles that have been nominated for deletion based on them being either not notable or POV pushing of 9/11 related material that is outside the mainstream viewpoint (better known as conspiracy theories). In wikinamespace, Shorfuse has declared that he is going to both watchlist articles and editors that he and whoever joins his association are in disagrreement with. I would have no problem with this if he did so in his own userspace, but surely, creating an association in wikispace is simply a poor namespace for such an effort. I recognize other editors use their own userspace to monitor articles and sometimes also editors, but this is the first time I have seen it done in wikispace. I can't even see how this would qualify as a WikiProject, as the purpose of the association appears to be an advocacy platform for vote stacking. I have also firmly told Shortfuse that if he starts adding names of editors, (which is pretty lousy with the article currently at Mfd) the article should be speedied as an attack page and he may end up being blocked. I can't imagine that this effort by Shortfuse can possibly be one of good faith. The talkpage at Mfd[16] clearly indicates this editor is going to add names, and has has already done so[17] and even reverted my removal of the name with the edit summary of vandalism[18]. It's bad enough some of us get harassed off-wiki...do we have to tolerate it on wiki as well?--MONGO 18:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

...the stated purpose on the MfD/project is to ensure 9/11 articles remain NPOV. That means neither pro nor con for any related articles. Including CTs, whose articles are to be neither pro nor con. Like every other article. Per policy. So the stated aim of this group is to protect NPOV, ergo their aim is to uphold policy. Kind of RC Patrol, but NPOV Patrol. Maybe the user section should be dropped, but everything else seems appropriate. · XP · 18:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Kevinprior

Kevinprior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has made no constructive edits to Wikipedia. The only use he has had was advertising his company, and then moving the page around so much that it was impossible to userfy it, and he even removed the warnings on his talk page to get himself unblocked. He has recently made an article about himself that I listed for speedy deletion, and now he continues to just edit his user page, and use it as free hosting. I think that some sort of indefinite block should be put in place for violating guidelines at WP:NOT and WP:U and his user page deleted for those guidelines. Ryūlóng 19:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

user:JayW and Radiant! (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Last night, user:JayW left a message on the talk page of WP:COPPA which appeared to be a personal attack; he vehemently opposes the proposed policy. His comment contained phrases like "shut the fuck up, thanks," " I believe I already asked you to stop lying, sir," "Nice try," "Why don't you answer the goddamn question", etc. full comment here. I removed the post and blocked the user for 24 hours. He had already been blocked 24 hours earlier for (apparently unrelated) incivility by another administrator. Admin Radiant!, who also vehemently opposes the policy, replaced the comment today, in the edit summary stating "Replace comments by JayW that were removed by Firsron. I agree they're not very nice comments, but they aren't meaningless either, and removing part of a discussion is not good." I've had no contact with Radiant! before this, and his talk page is full of nice compliments from people glad to see he's back, but I don't believe reverting to a "shut the fuck up"-type comment is in the best interest of the encyclopedia, and can only cause a disturbance. JayW is free to make his point, but there was no need for that. I seek feedback regarding this incident. For the record, I generally supported the proposed policy, but haven't written there much, and I would have removed an offensive post like that no matter what the position. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• A subject like "children's privacy" is bound to raise tempers with people on both sides. JayW's comment was phrased rather nastily, I agree; however, part of it was a valid argument, pointing to psychological studies in rebuttal of an earlier argument by Captaintanker. It seems JayW feels Tanker is evading the issue, which would explain (though certainly not excuse) him being angry. Thus, calling the entire comment a personal attack is throwing the baby out with the proverbial bathwater. It would be more conductive to discussion to remove or strike the offending parts per WP:RPA, rather than removing all of it. >Radiant< 20:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Since the comments were written througout the message, removing them would leave the message somewhat unintelligible. While I strongly agree with you that a subject like "children's privacy" is bound to raise tempers with people on both sides, I've only seen user:JayW resort to swearing and personal attacks. Replacing a comment like that only encourages users to think that sort of activity is appropriate, and as he's been blocked twice within 48 hours now, that's not the message administrators should be sending. Further, if you felt part of the message was constructive, why didn't you yourself replace the non-offensive parts, instead of restoring the full message, including personal attacks? Firsfron of Ronchester 20:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I had noticed the block, and have no objection to it (although if this is about messages admins should be sending, one could argue that you're not a neutral party because you and Jay are involved on opposite sides of an emotionally heated issue). I didn't do a partial restoration of the message because I don't feel particularly offended by what he says and I have no way of knowing which parts were offensive to you. In my opinion someone who makes personal attacks stands condemned by his own words, and there is no need to hide those words. >Radiant< 20:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I am a neutral party because I have barely participated in the discussion (four posts in a month), never spoke to JayW on this discussion, and only generally supported the ploicy. As I stated above, I would have blocked anyone who left that type of message. It is unfortunate that you cannot tell what parts of a message which contains "shut the fuck up" might be considered offensive, and there's no need to "play dumb". Firsfron of Ronchester 21:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The "play dumb" comment borders on incivility. That said, the amount of effort required to refactor, strike, or clean up the profane/abusive comments in the original messages should be less than what you've expended here in the complaints. I can see that you had a point that maybe Radiant should have cleaned them up, but this is a wiki... you can clean them up too. Please drop this pointless to and fro argument and just fix it... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 21:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand, George: I did fix it. And then it was reverted by Radiant. Hence this discussion. And anyone who says they're not sure what part of a message that contains "shut the fuck up" is offensive is "playing dumb". Firsfron of Ronchester 21:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I am going to assume good faith. You did not fix the specific rude comments; you reverted everything he'd said. You are free to go in and edit the specific rudeness out but leave the rest of the comment. Though it's relatively rare to edit other people's talk contributions, this would be a reasonable exception. Georgewilliamherbert 22:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for assuming good faith, George. According to the WP:RPA guidelines, refactoring can be done to remove the personal attacks while retaining the good, useful parts of the comment. We'd be left with something like: "No, it doesn't; and the substanceless hate speech following this claim doesn't attempt to provide evidence. [...] Thousands, in fact, according to the studies reviewed in Green (2002) and Hunter (1999). [...] What is your agenda? I appreciate your answer in advance." As that would hopelessly destroy the context of JayW's message, it just didn't make sense to me to retain that little bit that was left, although I do appreciate your view (I really do). I am not free of error, I make mistakes, but I feel restoring a personal attack like that, in a place already frought with tension, didn't make much (or any) sense. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Being the person to whom the messages are addressed, I'll admit I do find them very hostile, incivil, and a personal attack. However, I am a large, semi-muscular man; I'm not going to be driven off the project by comments written in anger, and I don't have a particular opinion either way as to whether they should be removed or stay in place. What I've chosen to do is simply disengage from the conversation; I've realized that it's unhealthy to continue with it, neither of us is going to convince the other, and it's somewhat the wrong forum for a discussion of the subject. JayW appears to consider my conception of pedophiles ungrounded and offensive; I can certainly understand why he would lash out. Were I an impartial observer, I would recommend that the block be served out fully (I have strong feelings about incivility on Wikipedia) and then have everyone get on with their lives.

I'd also like to take a moment to thank Firsfron and Radiant for contributing to the discussion on the policy page, and for being willing to publicly address the disagreements we have instead of allowing it to degenerate. Captainktainer * Talk 21:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for having a thick skin, Captainktainer, and for your willingness to just disengage. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Bokpasa tendious editing and personal attacks

After a relatively long time in Wikipedia, this is my first ANI report. I was proud of that but patience got its limits. This user is not a user who can discuss or understand matters easily. Their userpage is an attack on my person. He's got into a lot of troubles in the es and the fr wikis. Only gods know what he's into in other wikis. I accuse them of tendentious editing and personal attacks.

English language wiki

• Calling me a racist, Hitler, and an interist-morroccan censurer
• Lack of knowledge. Refer to Talk:Saadi Dynasty.
• Between this and that i blocked them twice. 3 different admins (User:Redvers, User:Pgk, User:JzG) declined their unblocking request. [19]
• Never brought any single affirmative source or reference.
• Creating a new article which i deleted according to WP:POINT.
• Never sign their comments. He's using a Moi signature which can be confused w/ User:MOI.
• A total non-respect of WP:MoS. Their edits are a total mess, yes!. A poor mastering of English.
• This behaviour reminds me of the banned User:Gibraltarian; an infamous Gibraltar-related articles POV pusher.
• The only good thing here is that he never used any sockpuppet.

Other wikis

Please note that i got accounts at both the French and the Spanish wikis but i rarely edit them. I never interacted w/ this editor there anyway.

• User:Ecemaml (administrator in es:) categorizing Bokpasa's accusations as lies (mentiras). Ecemaml was referring to this edition. In it, Bokpasa states that "Escribo aquí, porque en las versiones tanto inglesas como francesas administradores pro-Marruecos, no sólo han censurado mis escritos, sino me han bloqueado. Esos administradores pro-Marruecos y en contra del Sáhara Occidental son fr:Utilisateur:Pontauxchats y en:User:FayssalF" (rough translation: "I'm writing here because in both en: and fr: pro-Moroccan administrators not only have censored my editions but also have blocked me. These pro-Moroccan and anti-Western Sahara administrators are fr:Utilisateur:Pontauxchats and en:User:FayssalF) Template:Es icon
• Spanish version user Tomatejc notify them of Wikipetiqueta Template:Es icon
• Spanish version admin Javier Carro blocks his account for (recreating a uncyclopaedic article). The article in question was called Derechos históricos españoles sobre Marruecos. Template:Es icon
• Blocked twice in the French wiki for the same reasons he was blocked here. Template:Fr icon -- Szvest 21:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

I fully support Szvest's block. He has endured personal attacks from this user in the past and never took any action, hoping that she/he would change his manners. Unfortunately, I really believe that Bokpasa is here simply for the wrong reasons: To engage on disruptive edit wars and trollish behaviour in order to use wikipedia as a soapbox. He also fails to assume good faith, she/he insults other wikipedians and uses racist-like language. On top of this, she/he is not a newbie and knows the rules and policies, and had been warned to that effect a few times before. As for previous precedents, I would ask other administrators to consider the possibility of a Community Ban. Regards, Asterion^talk 22:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The diffs provided seem to show a pattern of abuse. It does appear to be similar to the Gibraltar case. At any rate, I, too, support the block, and community patience appears exhausted. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I strongly support Szvest's block. Even if some of the arguments by Bokpasa are sensible (and I could even agree with them), his behaviour pattern is quite similar to that of Gibraltarian and nothing can be done to make him comply with wikipedia's policies. The fact that he can barely write English makes the discusions he's involved even worse to moderate. --Ecemaml 12:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal info again

• [20] here. Someone's phone number, suggest deletion of that revision, etc. Thanx 68.39.174.238 23:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal info followup

I don't know what happened to all the stuff that was here a couple hours ago regarding the problem you guys fixed, but I wanted to ask if anything was going to be done for Atomaton - after I tried to erase the personal info from my talk page he brought it back, I don't see how that could be an accident. Well I was just wondering. Thanks :) 65.30.152.217 00:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

What they did was they deleted the page, then restored all the versions except the one with the personal details. No-one except administrators can view it. Daniel.Bryant 01:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone assistance, I will consider it all taken care of :) 65.30.152.217 16:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Mass password requests from 69.50.208.4

Someone from the IP 69.50.208.4 has been flooding me with password reminders. I've been getting several per minute (with some intervals) since Sun, 24 Sep 2006 00:19:25 GMT. Please block this IP immediately. —Psychonaut 03:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocking prevents editing. I don't believe it would solve your problem. You could temporarily remove your e-mail address to stop the flood. - Nunh-huh 03:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Offensive username

User:Fuck卍卍卍卍卍卍, enough said. The account was just created so I'm not sure if there are contribs yet, otherwise I'd take it to the intervention against vandalism page. Crystallina 03:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You should report these as WP:AIV for a faster response. --pgk 08:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Admins who don't edit articles

Available at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

• Ryulong, reverting right away is a bit extreme, don't you think? At least leave a genuine precis so that folks will know to click on the link -- something like: "A policy idea regarding whether people who do not add content should be allowed to be administrators at Wikipedia." It's not an AN/I issue, granted (though it might fit at AN), but just blowing it out of the page is at least slightly hostile. Geogre 13:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Also, the proposal is here [21]. Geogre 13:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

A year or two from now when you have substantial administrative responsibilities and no time to edit you will have a different viewpoint, assuming you become productive. Fred Bauder 13:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Fred, can you possibly be speaking to Geogre, who has been an admin for several years and is a massive contributor of top quality content? He writes an article a day and has created some of our best Featured articles. If I were one tenth as productive as Geogre is, I'd be proud. If you were a hundredth part as productive as Geogre is, you'd be... not sure how to finish that sentence, except you'd be better placed for criticizing him than you are. Did you post in the wrong thread or something? Bishonen | talk 13:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC).

No, although I was not aware of his editing. All I know is my own story, which is that if I start doing a lot of editing (or anything else) I soon fall behind on arbitration work. So if I were as "productive" as Georgre, there would be a mess and I could hardly call myself productive at all. Fred Bauder 14:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the discussion there, Fred. You could offer valuable evidence. It's true that outside work can eat up all one's time, and each of us has to make choices, but I feel a bit irresponsible if I go too long editing and don't do the mopping up that I do have time for (mainly CSD, in my case, as it rarely entails long arguments, but sometimes DRV and less often AfD), and I can assure you that, if I were to be in a more involving duty, I'd feel creepy if I went too long without doing some editing. I, personally, find that disrespect is the real subtext here, and that disrespect comes from either ill will or ignorance. We can't stop the one, but we must stop the other. Geogre 14:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Not knowing what CSD or DRV is, I feel like a just wondered onto a strange MUD and got ambushed by a "killing cloud" just outside the Village Church. I think if someone volunteers 30 hours a week and does good work, they should not be under pressure to do more, whether I know who Giano is or not (I did not, nor had I ever noticed you before). Fred Bauder 14:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't that tell you that you ought to investigate? Wouldn't that be particularly true if you were having to assess the validity of the comments? I won't comment on the logical weakness of insisting that 30 hr a week spent any way is the same as 30 hr a week spent a productive way. If you don't know the players, you could at least take a look at the program. Also, if someone were to be arbitrated for "tagging for CSD ianppropriately," wouldn't you want to know that that's "candidates for speedy deletion?" Geogre 16:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Fred, I want to say this with all due respect to your 30 yours of volunteer work reviewing and adjudicating the "worst and most intractable" disputes. It's a nasty job but somebody has to do it. I understand the argument that admin hours and editing hours are mutually exclusive. Some admins do little editing and some editors have no desire to do admin work. Some people do both and there is a continuing debate whether admins should also be good editors and do substantial editing work.

But, here's what boggles my mind, how can you be an arbitrator and not know what criteria for speedy deletion and deletion review are? These are fundamental concepts of the deletion process which is a core Wikipedia process. Perhaps the acronyms didn't ring a bell so you didn't remember. Or, perhaps you feel that because you are an arbitrator, you need to stay out of AFD and DRV discussions to maintain objectivity?

--Richard 16:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, I think the "editors who don't contribute content should not be allowed to be admins" is a terrible policy idea although failure to show substantial experience in editing is a sine qua non for granting adminship in the first place. I would prefer either fixed terms (not necessarily term limits) or admin recall instead.

--Richard 16:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Tolerance and diversity and respect and a better Wikipedia are all tied together. No one should be insisting any volunteer spend their time by doing good thing A instead of good thing B. Some suggest useful new articles or other good ideas on talk pages. Some start articles as stubs. Some catagorize articles. Some wikify. Some add content to articles. Some source existing content. Some delete questionable content. Some fight the vandals. Some mediate. And so forth. Don't insist liver cells be heart cells too. WAS 4.250 15:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Fred Bauder was admittedly "not aware" of User:Geogre's substantial contributions but chose to denigrate George nonetheless and taunt him as non-productive without bothering to look at who he was lambasting. Upon User:Bishonen pointing out that Geogre indeed has a corpus of work here that puts most of us to shame, Mr. Bauder never apologised and then continued to belittle us all in his next comments. Fred Bauder and James Forrester have acted horribly in this debate and their dismissive and snide attitude illustrate this fundamental "disconnect" between the article editors and the non-editing Admins. --Pewlosels 16:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Meh. I don't much care if Fred personally has heard of me or what I do, but I do think it's essential for anyone in any judicial portion to have as an utmost quality curiosity about the site. I don't want to indict him, even if I think he's made some terrible decisions, because terrible decisions go with insightful ones. People are people. However, I do think that people need to investigate, need to be curious, need to value the side they don't do as highly as the side they do. Geogre 16:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Santorummm

He has the {{protected}} tag on his userpage. When I removed it, he was incivil. Looking at his contributions is rather interesting. TimBentley (talk) 04:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia will be hurt if he isn't dealt with in some sort of way. Ryūlóng 04:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I blocked him indefinitely for extremely innapropriate personal attacks. It is fine that he is upset with the wikimedia foundation and to express his opinion, but making such a scene and going on with personal attacks is completely innapropriate. Cowman109^Talk 04:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, this could blocked under username violation (US Senator Rick Santorum comes to my mind). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Haven't looked, and I'm not going to be speaking in favor of anyone wanting to shadow that evil senator, but indefinite for NPA is pretty extreme. I urge you, Cowman, to lower it to a reasonable time. Let's try a week, eh? One does not go from unblocked to eternity. Geogre 13:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look like the user will be back any time soon, blocked or not. I think they made it clear they have no further desire to contribute to the encyclopedia by the long diatribe explaining his lack of trust in the Wikimedia foundation - if he does come back, he can always request to be unblocked, but I don't see this user improving the encyclopedia in the near future at this rate. The user basically stated that they were leaving and never intended to come back, and then went on to make a scene and swear at quite a few people in anger. If anyone wants to reduce the block, by all means go ahead, but I won't be doing so myself unless it turns out they were drunk or something of the sort and simply got carried away. Cowman109^Talk 18:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer it if you did it, as the principle is more important than the personalities. We, individually, don't decide whether or not someone will ever be productive or not. A pure vandal is a special case, but someone hurling poop and swearing is a problem that needs multiple sets of eyes to assess. Part of the problem causing such rancor right now is that some administrators have been personalizing everything, deciding that they, personally, can block someone else for being angry, etc. If you won't shorten the block, then I suppose I will have to. A month's block is usually plenty to defuse a vandal, and, if he's gone away, then he's gone away. If he hasn't, a week or month's block is better than indefinite and still shows up on his or her record. Geogre 18:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV violations

User:Harlequin212121 (contribs) has repeatedly added NPOV violations and original research to the article Boy Meets World, despite discussion and receiving the full range of warnings. The user also reverted the page more than once with blatant disregard to any other editors' helpful additions or edits just to re-add their commentary. -Shannernanner 08:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I've pointed out in the discussion that the Harlequin is engaging in original research. No policy violation has occurred. Let's hope it stays at that. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Jack Sarfatti

...is on another one his tears, railing against his many enemies and trying to "out" anyone who displeases him, succh as myself. Would some admin mind going in and deleting some recent edits where he tries this stunt, namely [22], [23], [24], and [25] -- though you could probably also lose [26] and [27], too, just on general principle. --Calton | Talk 14:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Attempted Account Theft

I have 2 IP's who attempted to take my account. Please see further detail at User:Ed/Attempted Password Change. Is there a chance these IP's can be banned?--Ed^{talk c E} 14:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like they are using different IPs addresses to do this, which means a block would not be effective. Just to be safe, I'd suggest changing your password on your account AND e-mail system. Otherwise, there doesn't appear to be much we can do.--Alabamaboy 14:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

But with these emails that came to me, is it possible that my account has already been hacked?--Ed^{talk c E} 15:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the emails I received, it just says to enter whatever the password says and to change my password once I log on.--Ed^{talk c E} 15:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Your old password continues to be usable if you don't log in with the new one. – Chacor 16:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It's an oldish tactic. You're pretty much safe, although quite annoyed. Geogre 16:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying this is common?--Ed^{talk c E} 17:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It's...not common, but it's not new. I've had it happen to me, although my vandal ran out of steam after a few. It's one of those WP:BEANS things, though: best not to talk about it too, too much. Unless you act on a password change, the password won't be changed: this particular annoyance campaign has been anticipated already. Geogre 18:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Incivility from User Opiner (talk · contribs)

User:Opiner has been engaging in what i believe is constant incivility:

• his edit history is filled with aggressive remarks where he is trying to force his opinion across through caps[28][29][30][31].

• User:Opiner constantly disrupts wikipedia even though he visibly does not understand the rules he claims to uphold [32]. the most notable incidents of this include his tendentious edits which he justifies under the edit summary "neutral point of view, please"[33] [34] even though such wholesale changes had no basis and no citations.

• User:Opiner has taken a liking to hounding myself in particular, being extremely unco-operative when attempting to resolve image issues and preferring to assume bad faith (one time accusing me of abusing popups with no AGF in sight) any time i make an open and explained alteration, attempting to use it as a scandalous exposition (eg. his response to my edit, was this[35] [36] even though i had fully clarified this previously; his response to my correction, was this).

• User:Opiner has also been lacing his contributions with conspiracy theories and accusing editors of deliberate and organised POV-pushing (per [37] [38] [39] [40] and previous diffs given) or repeatedly proclaiming "censorship" in edit summaries and on the talk page in the light of legitimate image disputes[41][42][43].

i have notified him several times on either article talk pages or his own user page to cease this incivility, one occasion due to his posting an unsuitable comment on my talk page [44]. i am finding it increasingly difficult to ignore this editor's blatantly provocative behaviour and trolling. please can somebody step in? ITAQALLAH 14:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets being used concerning Gabrielangel

I recently deleted Gabrielangel after it had been deleted twice before. Relevant pages are my user talk page, User:Gabrielangel's contributions consisting of two requests to the mediation cabal (here and here), and GamingScholar's user talk page. GamingScholar's talk page mentions that the article had been deleted "over and over" by a "crazy administrator" when he has only created the article once and each administrator that deleted the article only deleted it once. This leads me to believe GamingScholar is a sockpuppet of User:Gabrielangel.

GamingScholar has also threatened me in the quote, "I have recorded the details of this event and am prepared to bring it to higher attention if you continue to harass me," where he states to be quite willing to take the issue to "higher attention." Before this gets out of control, I'd like a fellow administrator to evaluate this claim of sockpuppetry. Thanks, Zsinj^Talk 16:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Anon user vandalizing and then gaming 3RR for POV purposes

65.208.144.67 (talk · contribs) has been causing trouble at the Salman Pak facility article; beginning with blatant vandalism (also here and here and here). I reverted these attacks, which have an obvious POV component, and the vandal has now resorted to making this change, which is a lot better, but is still an obvious attempt to distort the article by diminishing the content of the quoted material under the heading. (To explain - he changed the heading "Consensus view" to "Columbia Journalism Review." While it is accurate that the quote comes from CJR, it is only notable insofar as it reports the consensus view regarding the topic. I have explained on his talk page what is wrong with his change (albeit a bit angrily at first when his actions were pure vandalism, but I tried to engage in dialogue over the CJR change). He continues to make the change despite the discussion there, and he has been gaming the 3RR, making 4 reverts in 25 hours (see history, 04:29, 23 September 2006 to 05:53, 24 September 2006). He refuses to engage in dialogue on the talk section of the page and refuses to compromise. I feel he should be blocked for gaming the 3RR and for prior vandalism, or at least an admin should explain to him why his actions are uncivil and disruptive to wikipedia.--csloat 17:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I've left 3RR warnings on both usertalk pages. Naconkantari 17:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Death threat by Cretanpride

Hi all. I've just received a death threat from the banned User:Cretanpride:

HI Khoikoi, perhaps you have not realized how serious I am about adding my previous edit to that article(homosexuality in ancient Greece). Perhaps you have not realized the length I will go to get it. I will present to you an ultimatum now. Either my last edit stays. The one which shows Bruce Thornton's argument, or a young girl named Emily dies because of your unfairness. Am I bluffing? That's not the question. The question is whether you are willing to take that chance. Do you want this with you the rest of your life? You have 48 hours for the article to change to my previous edit or you can hear about this on the news. I am not asking for much. Just two paragraphs which encompass the truth. I hoped it wouldn't come to this. I have wasted two months of my time, I think I should be rewarded. Its your call.

This is your fault for ignoring me and never considering my edit. You brought this girls death and you are responsible. But you can still save her by simply restoring me edit on homosexuality in ancient Greece. Not too much to ask. Bye. Bye.

This seems pretty serious—can anyone tell me what I shoul do? Thanks... —Khoikhoi 18:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)