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

More edit-warring by Badagnani

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Unresolved

• Subpaged to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/More_edit-warring_by_Badagnani due to WP:SIZE concerns. Protonk (talk)
• I'm archiving this. It's not "resolved" so much as gone into remission, but we can always start over if we decide we like it and want it back. shudder

  If I didn't twiddle the templates correctly, someone please hit me w/ a trout, or just fix it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Neutrality enforcement: a proposal

I've started a proposal to enforce neutral editing on Israel-Palestine articles, which could be extended to other intractable disputes if it works. Input would be much appreciated. See Wikipedia:Neutrality enforcement. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Interesting article but I don't see it becoming an official policy, since deciding if somebody edits from a neutral point of view is often very hard to decide, especially for non-specialists. Also going for a topic ban after just one warning (even if some may deserve it) is over the top and could lead to all sorts of mistakes and unfair bans. In the case of sockpuppets, if I understand correctly, if somebody has been banned from WP and comes back with a sockpuppet they should be blocked immediately even without a warning. Laurent (talk) 10:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
• After reading it, I came away with the same impression as Laurent. It is also difficult to see what is pro- one side or another not only for specialists but by different sides at different times. Even the basics: when does the time-line of the dispute begin? First century, Seventh century, Nineteenth century, 1948? Everything has a potential agenda behind it, and a minefield for admins wading in with a policy which while straightforward is devilishly difficult to employ in actuality. And the inevitable: once an admin uses the policy, he or she becomes "involved" and is no longer viewed as a neutral by one side (or perhaps both sides) so the enforcement becomes wheelwar bait. Best to let the arb committee handle the over-the-top behavior and us mere admins to deal with our current policies - 3RR and page protection takes care of lots of the issues. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• You two both know that Wikipedia talk:Neutrality enforcement is the proper place for those sorts of comments, don't you? Any suggestions, comments, or observations posted here will be lost in a sea of archived noticeboard incidents in less than a week. Whereas discussion of the proposal on its own talk page is likely to be still readily locatable years from now. Uncle G (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
• Things have been rather quiet in that area recently. One of the more vocal editors in that area is taking a wikibreak. Without activity from that source, many Israel-related articles (at least the ones I have watchlisted) have calmed down, with very few edits. I don't think we have a problem that requires new policy right now. --John Nagle (talk) 06:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Crazy block by Connolley

Why was Peter Damian blocked for reverting the insane edits of an anon IP on the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article? Why has the article been locked down ostensibly to protect against the IP edits, but the IP not been blocked? Why was Damain (myself) blocked? Madness. See my remarks on Jimbo's page (he is protecting these lunatics, it seems). 86.132.248.254 (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Since you pre-announced your intention to get yourself blocked, it isn't all that surprising. I think you're one of those people for whom drama is like cocaine, and you started feeling withdrawal symptoms. Looie496 (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, protection and blocking is overkill. Only one of them, please, when dealing with edit warring. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it normal for a blocked editor's block to get extended for blatant block evasion? In addition to posting here, this IP posted twice to the article talk page and then to a user page within the space of less than ten minutes.[1] Even if the block is wrong, there's no excuse for complicating matters by evading it. Surely this experienced user knows how to use the unblock template. Durova^Charge! 01:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This is true. Although I believe Peter has done this before... I think. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• I blocked the IP for block evasion, and anybody is free to extend Peter Damian's original block. --auburnpilot talk 01:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The article Objectivism (Ayn Rand) is only semiprotected, for the benefit of the highly-persistent IP who will not discuss. This action was unrelated to Peter Damian's editing, and his recent use of a sock to evade his block. Damian went to great lengths to violate 3RR, apparently trying to prove a point, and was blocked by WMC. EdJohnston (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"…and his recent use of a sock to evade his block."

What sockpuppet?

More generally, is it our job to run Wikipedia without reference to, interest in, or opinions about content?24.18.142.245 (talk) 09:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned that only one party to an edit war is blocked, especially as the unblocked party has previously been blocked for their editing of the same article and is apparently a pov warrior, and specifically it is WMC who actioned the sanction. WMC is now responsible for 3 of the 5 blocks on the Peter Damian account. I note that WMC took no other action, leaving it for another to sprotect the article nor - as noted - sanctioning the other edit warrior. I feel that this gives the impression that WMC acted disproportionately in sanctioning an editor with whom they have a history regarding blocking. I shall ask WMC if they wish to comment here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, I do. Your impressions are incorrect. PD broke 3RR, so I blocked him. As far as I'm aware, no-one else did. I'm fairly sure that PD intended to merely tweak our noses by using his "quota" of 3R/24h (in which case I would probably have blocked him for edit warring), but mistakenly went over the line. As you'll have seen from PD's subsequent contributions, he did all this to make a point and appears to have succeeded, so is presumably happy with the outcome William M. Connolley (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You noted edit warring in the block log, but took no action other than to block PD - subsequently the ip with whom PD was warring has been blocked for a week for their general pov warring behaviour and the article the two were involved was sprotected; if you are going to refer to edit warring (rather than disruption, also available from the same menu) it behoves an administrator to review the culpability of all involved, or to address the edit war otherwise. If you are going to be inattentive as regards the block reason placed in the log, then you will have to accept that people are going to get the wrong impression. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm pleased to note that you've realised you got the wrong impression; sadly you are still making mistakes; there was no inattention on my part. PD, as far as I know (and no-one has challenged this) was the only one to break 3RR (and did so in a deliberately provocative manner - a point that I don't think you have acknowledged). Your apparent belief that if one person needs to be blocked for edit warring, then so should someone else, is completely wrong. I suggest you review the history of WP:AN3 if you're unclear about that William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Really? The other party to the edit war (not disruption or another reason, but edit war) was subsequently blocked for a week for their practice of reverting other peoples contributions without seeking consensus or even discussing the matter back to their previous edited versions after a discussion between me and another sysop. You have been around longer than I have, but it seemed like an edit war - over several Ayn Rand articles - to us. We didn't need to look very hard, either, since the ip already had a 24 hour block a few days previously for that same behaviour. I cannot believe you could have missed it had you looked, so I therefore conclude that you didn't. Also, the page being warred over was sprotected a couple of hours after the PD block to stop the continuing edit war. As I said, possible inattention to matters outside of blocking PD (which I have noted was appropriate on this page) gives rise to these unfortunate impressions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Peter Damian edit warred with summaries like "about the 6th revert" and then flaunted this on an administrator's talk page, twice. Further he turned the question of whether the administrator would block him or not into a way to make a WP:Point confirming that "I don't have to 'discuss' with lunatics." which constitutes both a personal attack and a stated intention to edit war more in the future, with the assertion that not-blocking would be taken to be implicit permission to do so. How is anyone surprised that this resulted in a block? He begged for it. The semi-protect was done by a different admin for a different reason. Mishlai (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

As I have commented in an ongoing discussion on my talkpage, there are no problems with the block of Peter Damian for the policy violations but I have a concern that there was no other action taken in regard to an edit war (plus the fact is was GMC again who blocked PD). If the block was for disruption, one from the drop down menu I use where other policy violations do not suffice, then there would be less concern; edit warring does require other parties, and resolving edit wars usually entails either sanctioning more than one party or protecting the article involved. GMC's action has, as I said, the appearance of being disproportionate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

WMC, you seriously don't see the other edit warrior at Objectivism (Ayn Rand)? I just popped in, and noted it off the bat. If you need your hand held to see that, and you refute comments by others in that regard, then why perform the block? You should be asking for review and for assistance. seicer | talk | contribs 21:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion

Peter Damian has continued to evade his block using 81.151.180.208 (talk · contribs) and Peter Damian (temporary) (talk · contribs). Both are blocked, but if this continues, the original block will have to be reset. --auburnpilot talk 16:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think perhaps resetting it now would be appropriate. PD is well aware that block evasion is not permitted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I just added 72 hours. This kind of stuff is tiresome. Protonk (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This guy is just yanking our chain. He went to Wikipedia Review admitting to being a previously blocked user (by Jimbo, no less) and claiming that he would sockpuppet but adding good content (which he did, up to a point), and use that to attempt to persuade financial contributors to desist from doing so. However, no admin, including myself, was prepared to give him that satisfaction; we do not dance to the tune of blocked users. However, knowing something of this guy IRL (a minor academic, but no more than that), I suggest it's about time to bring this to an end as far as we can, and I propose a formal ban of User:Peter Damian and all his sockpuppets. A plague on all their houses. Rodhullandemu 23:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• When his siteban was lifted it was against my better judgment: per Wikipedia:Standard offer I prefer to see banned editors demonstrate a fundamental respect for our standards by refraining from evasions of their ban; after several months of that most of them can earn another chance. This one tried to earn his way back through persistent ban evasion, and the block history since his return is not encouraging. Nonetheless, let's give him a fair shake if he's willing to give us one. If he posts a statement acknowledging that site policies apply to everyone (including himself) and pledging to abide by this and any future blocks (or appeal them by normal means)--then I would support a good faith reduction of 24 hours from his current block. Durova^Charge! 00:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if linking off-wiki discussions is appropriate, but since you seem to be trying to evaluate intention/attitude [2] Mishlai (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

A post at his user talk would be adequate. We've all had days when we saw red for a while and then thought better of it. A clear demonstration of that is all that's needed here. Durova^Charge! 00:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't simply a user who is having a bad day and seeing red, but a user who has been blocked repeatedly under numerous different accounts (Peter Damian (talk · contribs), Peter Damian II (talk · contribs), Peter Damian (old) (talk · contribs), Peter Damian (temporary) (talk · contribs), Renamed user 4 (talk · contribs), and several IPs). This is a user who seems to believe he is entitled to act a certain way and do certain things without accountability, simply because he's been here longer than others. This is a user who just today refered to me as an entirely useless person and a prick; he also referred to William M. Connolley as an arsehole. Frankly, he has earned his current block and should be happy it isn't longer. --auburnpilot talk 01:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

And he referred to me as a member of The Cabal. Nonetheless I am willing to let bygones be bygones if he is. What could be fairer? After all the dry cleaners returned my black velvet cabal robes three days late. I was forced to attend last week's Cabal Cocktail Party in a black silken dress--so 2006--so I'm not in a mood to toe the party line today. Durova^Charge! 01:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

⬅I'd suggest a slightly less holier than thou attitude than evidenced above. Peter does hard graft on articles, and is prepared to take on many articles that attract high levels of POV editing. he also does rigourous research and references his material. The complete absence of admin intervention on the IP editor involved in this and the failure to deal with editors who play to the limit of WIki rules while refusing to deal with questions was a contributory factor here. Peter has a short fuse but that tends to go with the territory. If you check the edits he made :evading" they were to talk pages only not the articles. We need to spend a bit more time understanding the context in which these actions take place. Peter is easy to provoke, and doing it is a "game" for some. Verdana comes closest to a mature attitude above, what would be nice would someone with admin powers spending some time looking at the content debates and then checking the behaviour of editors who keep to the letter of the law while driving others to frustrated excess. --Snowded (talk) 06:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Snowded. Peter needs to learn to keep his temper under control, but he makes tremendous contributions to the project. The talk of banning is absurd. Seriously, if we perma-banned every snarky user the place would be a ghost-town. Those of you who think Peter should be banned need to ask yourself if it's worth losing his contributions. TallNapoleon (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, we have plenty of great article contributors who don't feel the need to either get in trouble or wear the fact that they are article contributors on their sleeve when they get in trouble. I don't understand the mentality that if you rack up enough article edits, block evasion isn't block evasion anymore. Protonk (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Then point a few of them at highly troublesome articles like the Ayn Rand ones, NLP and others which have fan clubs of editors, it takes a stubborn personality to stand up to that and a bit more attention to the context should (in my opinion) have resulted in at best a token block, but with a linked block/admonishment to the other two editors. extending the ban when no edits were made to any articles, just a few talk pages was petty. --Snowded (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hold the phone. I can't for the life of me understand how extending a block for block evasion is petty. Maybe I'm still nursing this grudge that Peter has imagined, but I am having some trouble. PD gets blocked for edit warring. As is his MO, he makes obvious attempts to evade the block and either post on talk pages or make article edits presumably so that this exact conversation can be repeated each time. People can come here and complain that "ignorant admins have blocked a hardworking content contributor, see look at how ludicrous blocking someone for good content edits is!" and ignore (pretty blithely if you ask me) the basis for the original block or the block extension. Blocks, as a technical measure, only block the account, but we are interested in preventing the human behind the account from editing during the block duration. So we do two things to prevent technical blocks from being gamed, one which is unambigously preventative and one which might be seen as punitive. The first is that we block the accounts used to evade a block. I don't see that being called petty here, though I don't imagine it is too far fetched for an accusation like that to be thrown about. The second is that we occasionally, but not always, extend the block for the main account. I'm fully prepared to discuss the validity of the block extension but I refuse to do so if we are just going to toss off words like "petty" and pretend that a discourse is in progress. Do you want to tell me under what conditions block evasion is ok? Maybe that can start us off. Protonk (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I can only answer for my own comments not those of others. The only edits Peter made were to talk pages (some of which namely his own he could have made any way), no edits were made to articles. The issue I am raising is that the block was on Peter in isolation and no action was taken against the other two editors (not even a mild warning) (now corrected in the case of the IP). Peter was not the only one frustrated by that. Extending the block TWICE was I think petty, its a legitimate point and you are of course free to disagree with it. It is related to the block extension (your second point). I'll happily change "petty" to "an over reaction" if you want. --Snowded (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't feel compelled to change the wording to assuage my concerns. It appears we aren't going to come to agreement. I didn't block PD for edit warring and I don't much care whether or not the IP should be blocked (the article is semi'd so I don't know what a block would do). All I did was see if PD had evaded the block, noted that he did rather obviously, and extend the block. You remark above that the only edits he made were to talk pages, but that is the point. PD doesn't have a history of evading blocks to do nefarious things. He has a history of evading legitimate blocks (no comment on the legitimacy of this precise one) to perform innocuous edits in order to somehow show that the block itself is ludicrous. That's fine if you like civil disobedience and all but civil disobedience still lands you in jail. Letter from Birmingham Jail was not written at the Hilton. Protonk (talk) 04:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It was an offer as you didn't like the "petty" word. As you say we are not going to agree on this and (if its any comfort or if you are concerned) I think its no an issue with you per se. I think its a significant issue with the tendency in WIkipedia to ignore context on contentious pages. Its too easy just to play to the letter of the law, and that is exploited by editors more experienced in playing the game to the letter of law. Editors who really care (and Peter for all his faults is one of those and i have been on the receiving end an attack or two from him in my time) are punished. The net effect is that it all gets too hard and we end up with corralled articles where attempting to deal with cultists and POV pushers just gets too hard and good editors go elsewhere. --Snowded (talk) 06:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, dealing with POV pushers is a goal we all share. The distinction you're trying to draw about block evasion is not the way it's usually defined. If Peter was blocked wrongly in the first place then the unblock template usually straightens out the error, or if someone else should've been blocked too then a separate thread on the other individual's behavior would be more likely to resolve that. A good way to get attention for priorities is to minimize side issues. Durova^Charge! 14:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Peter has posted in reply to the offer above.[3] Apologies aren't needed, btw--just a commitment to avoid the same problems in future. Also agreeing in principle with Protonk: good content work doesn't generate an exemption from policy (think how many policies I'd be breaking if each featured credit earned a get-out-of block free card). So in good faith let's take a day off the block; Peter's met us halfway. Durova^Charge! 18:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Other blocks by Connolley

If we're allowed to even question this admin's actions without risking further blocks, I'd appreciate comment as to whether this or this is considered appropriate admin behaviour, (background is here). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Imho it is not because WP:BLOCK says that blocks can only be issued "to protect Wikipedia and its editors from harm" and I see nothing of that in this block. While the section about self-requested blocks was removed, I think any admin should be very careful not to take remarks on any other talk page as a request for a block. Especially not when the user they are blocking just criticized their admin actions, because then it's unlikely they are impartial enough to judge this situation correctly and should not perform further admin actions on users involved. Regards SoWhy 22:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That block strikes me as a bad decision. Protonk (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say that blocking someone because they asked you to is about as bad as a decision as asking to be blocked. Chillum 01:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it's far worse, because the blocking admin ought to have known better. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't ask to be blocked, I certainly didn't intend for this to be read as a request to be blocked - Why?! and had I (maybe I could use an enforced wikibreak), I would have written "Could some admin please block me, thankyou". However the whole PD saga seems to have too many admins over-reacting because they can, not because they should. Making any sort of comment on this is the behaviour that attracts blocks for the wikicrime of lese majeste to admins, I posted a tongue-in-cheek recognition that I knew this was likely to happen (and felt the point about PD was worth making anyway) and then this admin was foolish enough to think that such a mis-use of a block, even when the target had already raised its likelihood, was still a valid action.

I'm required to WP:AGF, so my bock must have been for one of four reasons.

1. Preventing imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia.

2 Deterring the continuation of disruptive behavior by making it more difficult to edit.

4 Encouraging a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms

Now please, if I have damaged WP, please point out my error. If I was critical of an admin's actions over PD or their right to act in that way, beyond reasonable and fairly tactful discussion of whether we couldn't find a more productive way to act in the future, then please point it out.

Now I can't see any such thing in my recent actions, which leaves only:

3 Encouraging a rapid understanding that the present behavior cannot continue and will not be tolerated.

So admin Connelly's block is only explicable by either assuming his bad faith (which is impermissible), or a new interpretation of blocking policy such that any discussion of admin's actions, no matter how measured, is reason for an immediate block.

That is not, I believe, how an open system of governance is meant to work. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we credit Andy by assuming he is somehow less capable of knowing better than an admin. Admins are just people not infallible gods, they don't always get things right. While the block was not the brightest move, requesting it to make a point was about on the same level. Chillum 01:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

So your defence of a bad block is that the blocking administrator is more or less dim than the editor who (s)he blocks? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Honestly, I don't see a defense for this one. Permit me to be crude. Andy was either fucking around or spoiling for a fight. In either case, WMC shouldn't have taken the bait. It's his responsibility to refrain from doing so. Period. I don't like "requested blocks" one bit, but this plainly wasn't one. However, on the grand scale of things we ought to be caring about, this ranks relatively low. Protonk (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to echo but state more strongly what a couple of other editors have already mentioned—this was just a horrendous block, and while it's over and done with now I'm astounded that William M. Connolley seriously thought it was a good idea (but then again maybe he wasn't taking it that seriously). It's pretty difficult if not impossible to read Andy Dingley's comment as a serious request for a block, and even if Connolley thought that's what was going on he should have at least clarified it first. I have no idea what the backstory to this is and don't particularly care, but whatever it is it does not excuse or justify a block of this nature. I don't think there's anything further to do with this right now, but unfortunately William M. Connolley has made some poor decisions about his use of the bit in the past and now we have another example. At a minimum I would ask William to please stop and think for about 30 seconds before doing something like this again. There is no universe in which that block would have ended up as a good thing for the project. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley, for many more "horrendous blocks" (section written by me, my old user name)Ikip (talk) 08:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Likely image copyvios—hundreds of files

MRDU08 (talk · contribs) has uploaded hundreds of images that appear to me to be clear copyright violations. There is a history of notice messages on his/her talk page (all of which MRDU08 has ignored), but he/she is now tagging images with "I created this work entirely by myself" and licensed with {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}, which will make the bots stop. But it seems terribly unlikely that this user took original photos of all those beauty pageant contestants, and also drew hundreds of flag images. I have previously tried to engage this user on a related issue, but MRDU08 has never replied to any message left on his/her talkpage. I'd like another set of eyes to look at those image contributions before going ahead with deleting the images and perhaps blocking the user. Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I am going to guess that with just this image that the maps are taken probably from Wikipedia and the colors added in with MS Paint. They just look like they are made on VERY quickly. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a good faith user who's just uploading images of his own work. Although there's some suspicion as some images look extremely professional, such as File:MRD 1991 Melissa Vargas.jpg.jpg, there could be a chance that he's a proffesional photographer. -download ׀ sign! 04:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: I'm not worried so much about that kind of image; it's the claim that images like File:Mía Taveras.jpg and File:Flag of Paris.PNG are self-created. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Mía Taveras.jpg seems to be pulled off a blog or imageshack. Protonk (talk) 04:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

@Download: I'm more inclined to believe WP:DUCK than WP:AGF here... But that's why I wanted more opinions. My guess is that the user has good-faith intentions to add pictures to his/her favorite Wikipedia topic, but isn't concerned about copyright. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with that assessment entirely. The image file size and ratios are indicative of being grabbed from web-pages. If he were a professional or amareur photographer it is more likely that some much larger file sizes and much more consistent aspect ratios are being used. My guess is that he is a good content contributor who doesn't understand the copyvio policy. I'm going to look more at the images to see which ones are really obvious. Protonk (talk) 04:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I'd characterize the user as "a good content contributor." He's already created a number of hoax articles dealing with beauty pageants and Dominican Republic provinces that have been deleted at AfD.[4][5][6] It's a wonder that he hasn't been indefinitely blocked before this. Deor (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No metadata, claims images from a 2005 beauty pageant were created by himself this month. Nuke. Durova^Charge! 04:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Given User_talk:MRDU08#Your_moves, it's clear this is not a user who pay much attention to what others are requesting of him. This many months of violations should be enough for most people. I suggest a strong warning that the next copyright violation he has uploaded will result in a block. At the very least, given the ones we clearly know about, he needs to explain to use whether images like File:City Hall in Moca.jpg, more difficult to determine, are really his or he's just been lying the whole time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the fact that he has zero talkspace edits (all page moves) and minimal user talkspace edits (majority actually in Spanish) should clarify. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I randomly fed some images into Tineye and got:

• File:MRD 2005 Renata Soñé.jpg <= [7] - might find a few more here as well
• File:Municipalities of the province of San Pedro de Macorís.jpg <= [8] - is this a Wiki mirror? What is the license? MER-C 07:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

contributions is a pretty obvious role account for the Miss República Dominicana Universo, likely created for the 2008 pageant. It's likely they own the copyrights to the images being uploaded, but they're giving no evidence of permission. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, judging from MRDU08's user talk page, he/she likely does not speak English (or at least does not speak it as a primary language). It might be worth asking someone to translate a necessary request for confirmation of permissions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree w/ that conclusion too. I think it is obvious that the account was named in the fashion you describe, but it is not obvious at all that this means the account owner is the pageant operator. Furthermore, there is no indication that the pageant owns the copyright for the bulk of these picture (rather than the photographer at the shoot). And again, if they were the pageant operator and did own the photos, why would they upload compressed jpgs in sizes and ratios common to websites or promos? Protonk (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I've seen similar behavior before in role accounts. I've got a couple thoughts as to why this is. First, organizations have press kits and promo materials made to standardize their appearance in the media, and to make it substantially easier for media people to write about their organization. Second, it's likely that the agent or agents responsible for editing Wikipedia on behalf of this organization do not have access to full-resolution images, and likely wouldn't seek access because of the extra time and trouble involved for their superiors/clients and themselves. But, I agree, it's not blatantly obvious that the account is related to the pageant.

But... if the account isn't a role account, then the username itself is inappropriate per WP:IU, as it is deceptive (leads outsiders to believe that the account is being operated by the pageant operators). Yet, if it is a role account, it's in violation of m:ROLE. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Uploaders have a proactive responsibility to demonstrate that the images they contribute are legal. AGF doesn't mean assume competence; it only means we assume the intention to comply. There is no evidence at all that this person has a right to upload this material, which is presumptively under full copyright. Durova^Charge! 16:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I've asked for a fluent spanish speaker to leave a message on his talk page. I don't hold too much hope, but we should exhaust that option before moving to the next step (blocking and working backward through the uploads to remove likely copyvios). Protonk (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Jmabel has been kind enough to translate the warning. I'm going to give things a day or so for a response. If the warning is ignored then I plan to block the account and start tagging images. Protonk (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

In regard to the above, the image File:Miss France 2009.jpg would appear to have been taken from Reuters. While I can't confirm it, it appears as a Reuter's image in a (now inaccessible) database that Reuters had been supporting in the past. It may be significant that this is from the Miss France 2009 competition, rather than the Dominican Republic. - Bilby (talk) 06:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The user has received two warnings in Spanish and has failed to reply. Has continued to edit without responding. Although the new edits aren't uploads, WP:COPYVIO authorizes blocking until the user acknowledges the existing problem and helps to remedy it by disclosing which sources were used. Durova^Charge! 15:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Added a third request in Spanish for this user to begin a dialog. Durova^Charge! 15:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Obvious sock is obvious

Resolved

 – Registered and anon editors all blocked (again!), many thanks! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

My quacking chum, User:Nimbley6 has a new sock: Noyougirls55 (talk · contribs). Could a considerate admin aim their WP:DUCK-shooting shotgun and dispatch Noyougirls55 to the great duck pond in the sky?

Background material for the novice hunter may be found here.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I took a punt.LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

(Groan!) Well, thanks for sending the sock down the river. Hopefully the sock master will go south for the winter. Thanks again! Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Nimbley6 is now socking as 78.144.121.179 (talk · contribs) - could someone zap? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• If anyone is interested, if it edits Leon Jackson it usually is. Anyhoo, I've blocked this one too. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Many thanks! Though I am extremely disappointed at the lack of puns... ;-) This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 09:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oh how I hate weekends and school holidays. It's back, editing as 78.144.83.232 (talk · contribs). Could a WP:DUCK-hunting, WP:BLOCK-wielding, WP:SOCK-cleaning admin stomp please? Nimbley6 appears to be unsure what "indefinitely blocked" means. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Now if I could only find where I put my light gun . . . TNXMan 12:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks! Alas, no light-gun puns from me, I'm all out of photonic puns. Thanks again, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hey, at least tomorrow is Monday, right?! The little troll will be back at school (and, apparently, the school are wise enough to forbid access to computers. Anyhoo... a fresh IP has popped up: 78.144.95.111 (talk · contribs). Could some kindly school-master or school-marm educate my school-chum? 1000 lines - "I must not sock when indefintely blocked..." Thank you! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• I keep on having to do this - to whom do I send my bill? LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Your bill? Are you a duck too?  ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• You mean you've not got the cheque from Student Awards Agency for Scotland? It should be in the post, I'll chase them in the morning. Meantime, many thanks. Unfortunately a rangeblock is probably out of the question, because the ISP uses several ranges. My hope is that with enough blocks, and enough reverts, the silly little troll will get bored and go off and find a more suitable activity for a Scottish youth. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet/probable meat puppet

I will take this to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations if deemed more appropriate. The reason I posted here instead is that the user in question is clearly editing under the persuasion of Douglas Kmiec, but I have no real reason to believe it is Mr. Kmiec.

The last time Dkmiec (self acknowledge account of Douglas Kmiec) was on Wikipedia he was warned about his COI editing of Douglas Kmiec. Today, a brand new user Gwmthomas shows up and his very first edit is to remove a warning from Dkmiec's talk page. He then proceeds to edit Douglas Kmiec to remove the {(tl|COI}} tag among other things (currently ongoing).

I have warned the user, but I could use some admin eyes on this situation. Also, any editors that want to work on cleaning up the (obviously POV driven) article would be appreciated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It does look WP:DUCKY but there is a chance that this is an earnest Kmiec-admirer concerned by the treatment of the subject on Wikipedia. I don't see any harm in sending it to SPI; the results will be useful if the purported sockmaster were to strike again. Skomorokh 23:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and opened an SPI and requested checkuser, since that is the only way to get any clue about the nature of the two accounts' relationship.

Also, thanks for making an effort to clear up some (of the many) POV problems in the actual article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries; I fear it would need a rewrite from scratch to be a proper biography. Hope the SPI case is productive, Skomorokh 02:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Case closed, enforcement needed

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dkmiec has been declined by administrator Avi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on the grounds that "This account passes the WP:DUCK test; a CU is unnecessary". However, no action seems to have been taken against the alleged sockpuppet or sockmaster. Skomorokh 18:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• They have since been blocked. Didn't check the IPs. Protonk (talk) 03:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ruuta 25 uploading copyvio images

Resolved

 – User blocked. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 23:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ruuta 25 (talk · contribs) has been concerning me for a while now. He is indefblocked from es-wiki, and has thus chosen en-wiki instead as his dumping ground. Basically all he does is edit a large array of journal-like pages in his userspace all day long, it's something to do with his conversion to Islam; he has almost no contributions anywhere outside his mainspace. He is also obsessed with 9/11 and spends a lot of time uploading copyrighted 9/11 images and posting them in his userspace (it's not just 9/11, though, he has also uploaded a bunch of TV show screenshots that have since been deleted); see Ruuta 25's upload log) for details. On top of all this, he refuses to communicate in English with anyone, per this and this, and in fact his English proficiency is probably not good enough to participate here even if he could; he basically uses his userspace as a mirror for whatever garbage he wasn't allowed to put on es-wiki (see, for example, this page).

Given his constant uploading of copyright violations, I would like to see the user indefinitely blocked. I held off for a while on posting this thread (his refusal to communicate, and to edit anything other than his userspace, is annoying but not necessarily blockable), but just today he uploaded another copyvio file and it needs to stop. By the way, I have asked User:Jmundo to watch this discussion and help with Spanish, in the off chance that Ruuta 25 comes here and posts in Spanish. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse block. Refusal to communicate, absolutely no usefulness to the project and putting the foundation in legal jeopardy? Not a happy camper. Ironholds (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• I've taken the liberty of blocking this user indefinitely. Under normal circumstances, 72 hours would have been enough to give this user a chance to read WP:COPY, but since he's been indef'd on the Spanish Wikipedia for similar behavior, I didn't think there was a need for a grace period. Blueboy96 23:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Good move, this seems like the right course of action. Marking as resolved. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 23:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Request re-opening. Blocking this user does no good so long as his subpages are not deleted, and his Talk and User pages are not protected. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

72.199.110.160: topic specific ban request

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

The Ayn Rand article has been viewed over 136,000 times in the last 30 days alone [9]. It is viewed more than articles of far greater importance to the Western canon of philosophy such as Rene Descartes [10], Immanuel Kant [11], or Jean-Paul Sartre [12] and is curiously viewed almost as much as the articles on Plato [13] and Aristotle [14].

To be sure, the article attracts its fair share of partisan traffic, tendentious editors and single-purpose accounts. (NB: almost 30% of the article’s edits come from anon IPs.)

The original intention of the ArbCom ruling for the curious case of Ayn Rand and related articles was to stop all of the bickering and disruption. ArbCom issued the following relevant enforcement points:

1. “Editors not specifically named or sanctioned in this case are not excused or exonerated for any inappropriate conduct. Administrators and the community may choose to enact additional topic bans, blocks, site bans, or other sanctions, as necessary to prevent disruption and ensure a productive editing environment.”
2. “Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to respond to further disruption with escalating (in scope and duration) topic bans.”
3. “Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to use escalating blocks, as necessary, to enforce topic bans and prevent disruption.”

Now consider the case of 72.199.110.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The anon IP has been editing Wikipedia since 7 October 2008. The user has roughly 1,300 edits under its belt, dispelling any notion of being ignorant of Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines.

An analysis of the user’s edits reveals that it is largely a single-purpose account used for the editing of Ayn Rand-related articles [15]. Indeed, 160 has edited the Ayn Rand article more than any other editor [16]. By themselves these facts would not be problematic were it not for the following:

1. The “abuse filter log” indicates the new user has removed verifiable content over 30 times in the past few months alone.
2. The user has been blocked for edit warring and disruption. The first time on 26 April 2009 by MBisanz for a period of 31 hours. The measure was ineffective.
3. The user does *not* discuss its edits on Talk pages. Rather, it chooses to edit unilaterally forgoing discussions leading up to WP:CONSENSUS.
4. The user persistently and aggressively reverts edits it dislikes. example, example, another example . (Note: there are many more examples).
5. The user has been asked multiple times by multiple editors to take its contentious edits to the talk page for the purpose of discussion and consultation. [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]
6. The editor is known to be uncivil, rude, and disruptive.[23][24] [25][26]
7. If it disagrees (which is often), the anon IP loves to shout at other editors in BOLD CAPS. One of too many examples to cite here: [27]
8. The user assumes bad-faith of others who edit collegially. [28]
9. Now there is talk on the Wikipedia Review that anon IP 160 is none other than James S. Valliant himself, the author of a minor partisan work, The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics, which received absolutely no attention in either the media or academe according to JSTOR, LexisNexis, Google News and Google Scholar. Should this IP verification prove correct, anon IP 160 might be in breach of a conflict of interest.
10. Indeed, should this IP trace prove correct, anon IP 160’s repeated re-insertion of Valliant’s work throughout the Ayn Rand-related articles makes a great deal of sense. The conflict of interest alone should garner serious consideration as the user is unable to edit neutrally.

Overall, my recommendation is to enact ArbCom’s ruling and ban anon IP 160 from Ayn Rand-related articles. Currently, the user is blocked for a period of 1 week [29]. The block is insufficient. The history of this user suggests that further disruption to Ayn Rand-related articles is inevitable. Thank you for your time. J Readings (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that a ban is a social mechanism. If he breaks it, it needs to be immediately and strongly enforced. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This ip is currently blocked for a week, following a discussion on my talkpage. It should be noted that the article is already semi-protected, so the block on the account is in respect of the civility, WP:OWN, and other issues. The tariff of one week was agreed since the previous block was for one day and the suggested 1 month block was felt to be too large an escalation. The ip has been notified by the blocking admin EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) that the block may be lifted if they agree to use the talkpages and obtain consensus for their preferred changes. Any discussion here that may vary these actions should be promptly notified to the ip. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The IP won't engage with anyone. That's the problem. Maybe the threat of dropping the block-hammer on him every time he tries to edit a Rand-related page will fix that. I don't know... but I doubt it. TallNapoleon (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

But that's the way things work. First, talk to the editor, then second, enforce our editing norms with escalating blocks. An eventual topic ban would be difficult to enforce (since it would largely rely on the WP:DUCK test and similarity of IPs) but not impossible. Thatcher 13:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

In this case, though, we do already have the ArbCom ruling which prescribes topic bans, enforced by blocks, for the conduct of the IP editor.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Other editors have expressed some opinions on this issue at User talk:EdJohnston#Lock down of Objectivism article. It's worthwhile to keep enforcing the rules against disruption, since this is something that admins can correctly do, and it is likely to be beneficial in this case. Since this editor is a fixed IP with 1,300 edits, a topic ban could have some effect. The ban could be lifted if he will agree to change his behavior. The 'talk to the editor' option doesn't work for this guy, since he never responds. EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

How about a six-month topic ban on all Ayn Rand and Objectivist-related articles? The anon IP cannot edit the mainspace articles, but would be free to participate in talk page discussions to express concerns and suggestions about content improvement. This way, the restrictions can lead to an evaluation of whether the desired behavioral changes take place. Of course, should it be proven that anon IP 160 is in fact James Valliant, I would seriously recommend that he be banned outright from Ayn Rand-related articles. The conflict of interest would pretty much guarantee the user cannot edit neutrally. Thoughts? J Readings (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Mascot Guy?

Quack? --Rrburke^(talk) 03:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

User was already blocked May 7 as a sock. Icestorm815 • Talk 04:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

[Smacks forehead. Slinks sheepishly away.] --Rrburke^(talk) 19:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Steam5

Resolved

 – Steam5 appears to finally understand that edit-warring is wrong, and IP will be warned as well

This user is having a dispute with an anon IP User talk:99.7.171.33 regarding a year of birth on Natasha Yi. I've already posted on the article talkpage when I checked Steam5's contributions and saw he'd added an indefblock template to the IP's talkpage. I'm certain he's not an admin, doesn't have the ability or authority to block someone and certainly shouldn't be trying to trick an IP into thinking they are blocked when they are not to gain an advantage in a content dispute. Relevant diff is [30] - can a real admin weigh in please. Exxolon (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This editor is simply angry and clueless, not malicious. Writes like a young teenager. Looie496 (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Steam5 has been an editor for a very long time, they should know that this isn't the way to solve disputes. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 03:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Just in case anyone checks I did notify Steam5 about this thread, they've deleted the notification on their talk for some reason. Exxolon (talk) 03:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologized, I am not strong enough as an administrator, but User:99.7.171.33 kept on changing the wrong year, I told the anonymous IP to stop and keeps on doing it over and over again. I know that in fact she was born in 1979. Steam5 (talk) 04:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Both of them should be blocked for edit warring. Just look at the article's history.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 04:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't block me from editing, I made the right editing and other contributions. Plus I didn't made vandalism. Steam5 (talk) 04:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Steam5, you have been around long enough to know how to get little disputes like this one resolved. Poor judgment, but don't block him for this.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't made poor judgment, I am quite that she was born in 1979 not 1981 go to the article's talk page. Steam5 (talk) 04:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Steam, I don't think you're helping your case here. Toddst1 (talk) 05:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I am helping, I don't want an anonymous IP user to change the wrong year to 1981, I said on the article's talk page and I already talk to the IP's talk page is 1979 let me repeat one more time 1979. Steam5 (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that if an IP edited changed the year again, you'd revert it once again? Toddst1 (talk) 05:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did. To make the correct year of birth 1979 a year that she was born. I don't want an anonymous IP user to change the wrong year to 1981. Steam5 (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thats edit warring. Read and understand WP:EDITWAR before you reply or get yourself blocked. Matty (talk) 05:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Read my comments above Matty and I don't want to get blocked and I'm waiting for a reply to Toddst1. Steam5 (talk) 05:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Natasha Yi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), this sounds like a case of Wabbit season! Duck season! MuZemike 05:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You might as well be wrong, there is no reliable source referencing her birth date on the article. Regardless, WP:EDITWAR doesn't care if you're right or not, it's the act of constantly reverting users that is the problem. Instead of reverting the IP over and over you should have assumed good faith and asked them why they were changing it and then asked for additional input on the talk page. The block notice was very inappropriate as well, you've been here since 2005 and should know better. Matty (talk) 05:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Reading between the lines I get the impression Steam5 thinks that as a registered editor they/their edits outrank/have priority over an IP editor/edits. Steam5 - this is not the case, we treat all editors as equals whether registered or not. Exxolon (talk) 06:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I was watching "The Price Is Right" while Barker was host and she was a former Barker's Beauty, I already went to The Price Is Right website at CBS.com and there was her bio, And CBS.com said she was born in 1979. Steam5 (talk) 06:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Link, please? I don't see anything likely at http://www.cbs.com/daytime/the_price_is_right/. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Natasha is no longer a Barker's Beauty and her bio is removed on the website. Also, Anonymous IP user 99.7.171.33 was involve in an edit war by editing the wrong year of birth, but the IP user did not participate in the discussion. Can you write a warning to 99.7.171.33's talk page for a little warning, Also, one user named Matty is trying to accuse me for blocking from editing. Steam5 (talk) 06:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I found a different website and that has her bio, Her bio is at AskMen.com, and I found her correct year of birth it is located at AskMen.com it is under biography and AskMen says the year was born was 1979. Go ahead and take a look. Steam5 (talk) 06:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU'RE RIGHT OR WRONG. What matters is the way you went about handling the dispute. You edit warred, threatened another editor with blocking then tried to trick them into thinking they were blocked. As you've been here since 2005 you really should know better than this. Exxolon (talk) 07:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

While we have your attention Steam5, can you pay closer attention to your use of edit summaries? They are an important part of Wikipedia. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to comment that although an ip has every right to edit, we should remember that an anon ip is more likely to add false information than a logged in user. We seem to be piling on a good user who has contributed signicantly to wikipedia. Steam5's edit history shows no 3rr violation, and if it did, he obviously feels that this is some form of vandalism, and vandalism is exempt from the 3RR policy. Many editors are shouting ASSUME GOOD FAITH, yet no one seems to assume good faith that Steam5 thinks that this is vandalism. If so, then Steam5 is helping the project, not hurting it. That said. I feel it was bad judgement on the part of Steam5 to add a blocked templete to the ip's talk page. Steam5, you know better. I think a lesson was learned and we need to move on. Don't block Steam5.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• an anon ip is more likely to add false information than a logged in user — That, in my long experience, is simply rubbish. I've seen plenty of occasions where it is the editors with the accounts that are adding the tomfoolery to Wikipedia, and it is being quietly, and with little fuss, reverted, nominated for speedy deletion, or otherwise dealt with by editors without accounts. Editors without accounts often don't have stable user pages for bragging about how much vandalism they revert. But they do so nonetheless. I direct you to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GrantLumb/Archive as one recent example of this. All of the libel vandalism was coming from a person with accounts, and people without accounts were quietly reverting it. Not having an account is not an automatic indicator of bad faith. Uncle G (talk) 01:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
• You're not listening administrators! Take a look at other websites that was born in 1979, AskMen.com, Amped Asia, CelebrityFuzz.com, Mystique Magazine, ModelCruz.com, FanMail.biz and eBay and other websites says 1979. Steam5 (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • You're not listening. This isn't about being right. I think you are right, and most everyone posting here thinks you are right. However, even when we are right, we do not edit war. Do you understand? AniMate^talk 17:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
    • You're missing the point, Just check on any of those websites located above and any website should say 1979 and I found one more at FanPix.net. Steam5 (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Steam5, you're missing the point and seem to be refusing to hear what we are saying. We all know she was born in 1979. We all know that edit warring is wrong. You know she was born in 1979. You refuse to understand that edit warring is wrong. Get it? AniMate^talk 17:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Ermmm.. just to be clear, changing a birthdate to one that is known to be wrong is vandalism, and as such is exempt from 3RR. //roux   17:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
          • It wasn't known to be wrong until he bothered showing us some sources here. When two users are both insisting on reinserting unverified information, that is edit warring. AniMate^talk 18:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
• I read the edit war guideline and I understand the guidelines, and anonymous User IP User talk:99.7.171.33 made the edit war the make the wrong year of birth to 1981 and 99.7.171.33 did not participate in this discussion and won't talk back could you write a message for a warning to 99.7.171.33 on the IP's talk page. Steam5 (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • No, the IP didn't make the edit war. It takes two people to edit war. Don't do it again, and I'll drop a warning for the IP. AniMate^talk 17:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Before we can solve it, take a look at other websites that is located above that I already said for the links and I hope will not edit war between me and the IP user, could you write on Natasha Yi's article talk page for the correct year of birth that's 1979, other websites also say the correct year of birth 1979, and no registered and IP users not to change the wrong year of birth. Could you write a message to Natasha Yi's article talk page for a little message and everything will be resolved. Thanks. Steam5 (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I think a better solution would be to add a reference to her birth year. Just make sure to follow WP:Sources. Icestorm815 • Talk 18:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Eliyyahu and Judea and Samaria Area

Recently Judea and Samaria was moved to Judea and Samaria Area after I raised the problematic name on the talk page [31] and then two weeks later formally proposed a move [32]. A week after that, an admin who as far as I know has no history in the Israel-Palestine conflict are closed the proposal recorsing consensus on the move.[33]

Two weeks after that user:Eliyyahu rolled back thde article to a version [34] nearly 80 days old cancelling out the edits of ten other editors and then moved it back to the original name.

I reverted this activity and posted to his user page explaining why such conduct was unacceptable and advising him to obtain consensus for any move. [35] I also posted to the article talk page. [36]

Eliyahhu has now reverted again without any explanation on the article talk page [37] and in a way which loses the edit history of the current article [38]. I am about to rollback as this will mean that the article will be reconencted with its edit history, although I realise that this might be construed as edit-warring. I am therefore bringing things here. I'm sorry to have to raise issues to do with a subject that is already at Arbcom, but I think you will understand why I've seen this as necessary.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm now in discussion with him about what to do. So administrator action is not required at this time.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Welshleprechaun's conduct at Swansea Metro

Welshleprechaun is disrupting the Swansea Metro article, reopening an old edit war he was involved in that was settled in February 2008 [39] (also see his talk page archive). Instead of abiding by the "bold, revert, discuss" process and/or pursuing dispute resolution, Welshleprechaun is constantly re-inserting his contentious edits after being challenged.[40] I have warned him about his conduct on the article talk page,[41] but he's disregarded this [42] and continues to try to bully objecting editors into accepting his POV.[43] Three editors (RFBailey and I in the current dispute, and in the Feb 2008 dispute, MickMacNee) disagree or have disagreed with his edits.[44] Pondle (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The edit-war was not settled, I discontinued editing rather than breaking 3RR and edit warring. It's ironic that Pondle, who comes from Swansea, finds my edit bias as omitting the information would mislead readers into thinking that Swansea has a metro system, whereas it does not and is unlikely to any time soon. There is nothing wrong with clarifying that the system is not a metro system as most articles titled X Metro are in fact metro systems, unless the intention is to mislead readers. A bully is not simply someone who disagrees. Perhaps you could explain in what way my edit shows POV? Welshleprechaun (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out in my most recent edit summary, "Metro" does not exclusively refer to light rail. See King County Metro, Austin Metro, etc. And you can edit war without breaking WP:3RR, but it's still wrong.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - the city of Ottawa has mass transit, but light rail is but a dream. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to except the third opinion (User:SarekOfVulcan). But Pondle, you have no right to call me a bully simply because you don't agree with me. It is clear that no POV-pushing was involved in this, and you continuously seek to revert my edits when no other editor would. Can you stop this little vendetta please? You know what I'm talking about. Welshleprechaun (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Welshleprechaun, you knew what you were doing wrong. You are an experienced editor and should understand WP:BRD by now. Two other editors (RFBailey, and in the original dispute MickMacNee) also opposed your edits but you only relented when this issue was brought to the Administrators' Noticeboard. If you follow the guideline of avoid reverting a revert yourself when making a contentious edit, then these problems won't arise.Pondle (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Mengistu Haile Mariam

I am writing with regard to the biographical information titled Mengistu Haile Mariam. Dears sir/madam, you posted completely falacious information regarding Mengistu's early life. I guess that information was provided to you by a member of ruling junta clans of the current ethiopian governemnt. You have to balance the information you get, and you must be hold accountable for any abuse of information under data protection and privacy policies. In this particular case, you have breached the legal threshold by posting an information which is compeletly fabricated, racist, and offessive of the individual in question. The only thing I couls say is I fee shame on you for acquiring someone's information from third party and posting false data with out cross check. Shame!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.254.184 (talk) 09:30, May 10, 2009

I moved this to the correct noticeboard, I think--Unionhawk ^Talk 16:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea where this belongs... it was initially on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, but, I truly have no idea where this belongs or if this belongs on any noticeboard.--Unionhawk ^Talk 16:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The article talkpage? I had a look, and there seems to be citations for much of what is written - although I have not checked the references themselves - so there isn't a BLP issue as far as I can see. As this has been transposed from the original place it was posted I doubt there would be much point in asking the ip what specific concerns they have. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like a legal threat to me, so it should be deleted. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's a legal threat; IP did not mention taking any action, and "you have breached the legal threshold" is a mere statement of opinion. Rodhullandemu 17:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)IP 89 has a point. The article has plenty of good sourcing (BBC, Associated Press, Times of India) for Mengistu as a perpetrator of mass murder, but the complaint focuses on the "Early life" section of the article and has nothing to do with that. The first two paragraphs there focus on two relatives of Mengistu and have no sourcing. Some of the information in those paragraphs could be embarassing or even libelous regarding those relatives, and in any case, that information isn't crucial to the article or even important to it. So if someone hasn't removed that passage by now, I'm going to do it. (Done: here and here.) So, yes, shame on us for having those paragraphs in the article. -- Noroton (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, IP 89 seems to be referring to the remaining part of the "Early Life" section, which is footnoted to the Paul B. Henze and Bahru Zewde sources. It's worth a note on the article talk page, and maybe a WikiProject page that someone has disputed this. I'll do it. (done [45] at talk page; [46] at WikiProject:Ethiopia; [47] at WikiProject:Africa) -- Noroton (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow. This is the first time that anyone has complained about this article being too hard on this guy, who is probably the most hated individual of Ethiopian history -- perhaps even more than Ahmad Gragn. Even the most objective take on Mengistu must admit that he is quite the piece of work. (If anyone wants to discuss this, please bring it up on my talk page.) And it's doubtful Mengistu would raise an objection about this article (unless our anon is him); he probably hasn't heard of the Internet in his part of Africa, let alone Wikipedia. But because he's the most visible symbol of the Derg, the article has turned into an extended argument whether the Derg did anything right -- not about Mengistu.

I've been slowly trying to clean this article up -- add sources, provide details, remove the extensive argument whether the Derg was a good or bad thing. Sadly, I don't have the time to do the research needed, so it might be a while before anyone cleans it up. And maybe longer before someone who is willing to rewrite it to conform with NPOV. -- llywrch (talk) 04:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I took another look at the article yesterday since my last post here, and I see Mengistu is so old (72) that his grandmother is either dead or one of the oldest people in the world by now, and his father is likely deceased as well, so information on them is unlikely to be a BLP issue, at least regarding the relatives, although there might be a WP:COATRACK reason not to include that information, and therefore, maybe, a BLP reason regarding Mengistu. (BLP concerns extend beyond whether or not Mengistu knows or can be hurt much by one of our articles -- WP's credibility and accuracy are two other reasons for BLP policy.) I struck one of my comments above, and I have no wish to criticize Llywrch, even by implication. Any more about this is really best discussed on the Talk:Mengistu Haile Mariam page or potentially the BLP noticeboard. There doesn't seem to be anything about this that can be addressed at this noticeboard, especially since the focus of the original complaint is on sourced material. -- Noroton (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

A Case of wiki-Hounding

Editor FyzixFighter (talk · contribs) has been engaged in a prolonged campaign of wiki-hounding. Since I opened my account last April, FyzixFighter has only ever come to physics pages to undermine my edits. There are no exceptions to this rule. This wiki-hounding has taken place on a number of pages including centrifugal force (rotating frames of reference), Kepler's laws of planetary motion, and Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction. His style is to claim not to have any opinions on the topic and then to proceed to undo the coherence and contents of my edits by purporting to quote from reliable sources. Recently he has been distorting the facts. At centrifugal force (rotating frames of reference), he attempted to turn the centrifugal force into a centripetal force. He has now followed me to the combined centrifugal force page and yesterday he undid a sourced edit of mine and replaced it with false information. On having this false information pointed out, he admitted it but nevertheless continued to undo my edits.

I can give a list of dates that will help to confirm this allegation,

25th April 2008

28th April, he went to the administrator's noticeboard and accused me of disruptive editing. Arguments continued into May and June.

23rd July 2008, he reverted an edit of mine on centrifugal force which has now finally been accepted in the light of sources provided.

23rd October 2008

31st January 2009, "Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction".

16th February 2009, "Kepler's laws of planetary motion".

22nd March 2009, "Kepler's laws of planetary motion".

23rd March 2009,

24th March 2009 "Faraday's law of induction".

A few days ago, he returned to centrifugal force (rotating frames of reference). When I deserted that page and went to 'centrifugal force', FyzixFighter also deserted that page and followed over to 'centrifugal force' were he has continued to undermine my edits. David Tombe (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Please provide diffs, not just lists of dates--it's highly time-consuming for everyone to try and hunt down the specific edits you're talking about. //roux   19:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing evidence of hounding here. But perhaps if you provide some diffs things will look different. Disagreeing with you isn't the same as undermining you. Theresa Knott | token threats 19:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is my take, based on looking at talk pages and contribs. David Tombe (talk · contribs) has been blocked repeatedly for edit-warring, disruptive OR, and sock puppetry; he received a "last chance" unblock in October 2008. He is once again trying to insert his opinions into articles with no support from other editors, and is frustrated by the opposition. I don't see Wikihounding -- what I do see is an editor who is being kept on a very tight leash because of past misbehavior. I also see that David Tombe is an SPA who has very few edits outside the topic of centrifugal force. Ironically, some of these few edits were stalking of editors he disagreed with, notably of edits by FyzixFighter relating to Mormonism, but this has not happened since May 2008. Looie496 (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Looie496, you obviously didn't look at the whole picture surrounding that incident with FyzixFighter last May 2008. It began when FyzixFighter reported me for disruptive editing in relation to subject matter which has now been accepted into the article. FyzixFighter began at that time to revert all the edits which I was making in an attempt to suppress a perfectly legitimate viewpoint on centrifugal force. That's how that incident began. And you have obviously failed to note that I have edited on many topics other than centrifugal force. David Tombe (talk) 01:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

David Tombe also raised this on Jimbo's talk page [48]. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, and as a question to the responding editors, what should be my appropriate action with regard to this thread? That is, should I provide rebuttals or any other types of responses to the accusations in the thread? I really don't want to turn this into a accusation/counter-accusation mess. --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not start by looking at the edits which FyzixFighter made yesterday to the centrifugal force page? You'll find the evidence if you want to find it. David Tombe (talk) 00:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• We will probably start by examining any evidence you present, in the form of diffs. Asking admins and uninvolved editors to wade through hotly contested physics articles to substantiate allegations of hounding will not avail you. If you don't provide evidence the most likely outcome is that your complaints will go unanswered and this thread will be archived. If you feel you have a long term problem with this user, please pursue dispute resolution. If you have an incident that requires immediate admin attention, please detail it here with diffs and we will try to sort things out. Protonk (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
• Do you mean the ones where xe thanked you on the talk page for catching a mistake and then proceeded to fix that mistake with a corrected version of xyr previous edit, or the one where xe corrected a clear grammatical error? Uncle G (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a good one to start with [49]. He had no reason to alter the edit which I had just made and his alteration introduced an error. This has to be considered in light of the fact that he regulary arrives on physics articles which I edit and often reverts them without discussing the matter. You would have a hard job finding a physics edit that he has made that hasn't been for the purpose of undermining my physics edits. You've only got to look back over the last week. He came to one centrifugal force page (rotating frames of reference) and when I deserted it for the other page, he followed over. David Tombe (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's another example. He arrived out of the blue at 'Kepler's laws' and did this [50]. He had not been previously editing on the page. David Tombe (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

And here's another, [51]. He arrived out of the blue for that regarding a fact which was being denied then but is now accepted. David Tombe (talk) 01:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

On Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction he removed this sourced edit {http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Faraday%27s_law_of_induction&diff=267702399&oldid=267607403]. He had not been previously editing on that page. David Tombe (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I looked at two of your examples -- one is from 2008, and in the other the passage that FysixFighter reverted doesn't make sense. You're not going to get anywhere fighting this out on your own. Unless you can persuade other editors that you are right, it's a losing cause. Looie496 (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This does not seem to fall under WP:HOUND, which says "The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." A lot of editors track problematic users, this can be to the benefit of Wikipedia. I certainly do at times. If David Tombe can provide evidence of "tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior" as being the reason, we can examine them, but if not, I suggest he drops this. Dougweller (talk) 04:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I never said that this would be an easy problem to solve, and I didn't come to this page eagerly to report it. What finally prompted me to report this issue was the fact that the basis of a settlement had been reached on the centrifugal force page with the assistance of a neutral arbitrator (Wilhelm-meis). The situation looked promising, but then FyzixFighter came in again and trampled over all my edits and essentially removed them. The edits in question were actually my contribution to the alternative point of view which I am actually opposed to, and I was supplying interesting information regarding its development. FyzixFighter's alterations were factually incorrect and he did later admit that and thank me from bringing the matter to his attention. But the overall effect has been that, as on the Faraday's law page and the Kepler's law page, it became clear that I wasn't going to be allowed to edit without FyzixFighter unnecessarily trampling over those edits. I can list alot more cases. But I think that the most recent case is sufficient evidence in its own right, as it exposes the sheer emptiness of FyzixFighter's intervention. If the whole matter were to be fully investigated, I think that you'd all find that FyzixFighter played a major role in getting me brought to the attention of the administrators in a bad light, this time last year. And it was in relation to my attempts to insert the planetary orbital approach into the centrifugal force page. That approach has now been accepted, but the arguments continue on a more subtle level due to certain editors trying to play it down by subsuming it into their own point of view, or by relegating it to the history section.

At any rate, the important thing is that the matter has been brought to your attention. I will continue trying to improve that article, and other physics articles, and indeed other articles generally. I hope that the situation will be monitored with impartial eyes.

I would however like to say one thing in FyzixFighter's favour. I can see from the arguments on the talk page that he has clearly learned alot about these topics as a result of his interventions. Often he was forced to research the issues subsequent to his reversions. There was a time (see his talk page) when I thought that maybe he had realized that he had been prematurely intervening. I thought that some kind of understanding had been reached over the issue of the Stratton reference (Faraday's law page) (see his talk page). FyzixFighter clearly does have the ability to comprehend complex physics subjects. But unfortunately the last straw came when he trampled over my edits on Saturday. His intervention was totally pointless and he does not appear to be willing to discuss the wider aspects of the subject with an open mind even though I'm sure that he is fully capable of understanding the issues. For some reason, he wants to bury Leibniz's approach to planetary orbits. David Tombe (talk) 10:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

User talk page whitewashing by User:Alex2706

Resolved

User:Alex2706 has received numerous warnings for vandalism, NPOV, deletion of well-sourced material, and blanking. Ironically, he has chosen to blank all warnings, messages, and blocks he has received from his talk page, leaving only a generic welcome message from 2007. This leads many to a good-faith assumptions that may be unwarranted. At least once has he gone from Template:uw-vandalism4 to Template:uw-delete1 in the span of 13 days due to blanking of his talk page.

I have restored the messages on his talk page, (as has been done partially by User:Viriditas and User:Zazaban, but I fully expect it to be blanked again as it was previously.

Under Talk page guidelines#User talk pages it recommends that users be free to remove things from their own talk pages, but I feel this crosses the line into abuse. I know I don't read talk page histories when determining good faith, and apparently few other users do either. EdgeOfEpsilon (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of a warning by an editor is tacit acceptance of the warning. They're free therefore to remove them. A good admin takes a close look at the talkpage history before determining a block. Please do not revert an editor's edits to their own talkpage. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the advice! I will check talk histories in the future. EdgeOfEpsilon (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible autoblock

A few minutes ago I received an e-mail that seems to be asking about an autoblock (the e-mail shouldn't have come to me, but for some reason arbitrators seem to get a lot of misdirected traffic, especially if you are first on the list). As I don't know how to deal with autoblocks, could someone else find time to deal with it?

• E-mail: "Hi, I am blocked from editing wikipedia and I really don't know why. The appeal process seems very confusing so I am trying this email. My ISP provider recently changed my IP address so it's probably why there's a a block I suspect. How can I log back in as Tisey again. BTW, I needed to reset my password. Thanks."
• My reply: "You are not actually blocked. It is probably something called an autoblock. I will post a notice to ANI, asking an administrator to go to your talk page and deal with things there. Please go to this link and hopefully there should be someone there soon to help you: User talk:Tisey. I also notice there are some image issues. I will ask for someone to help you with those, as well as leave you a welcome template."

I'm rushing slightly here, so I may have missed something. I've also just realised that the quickest way to deal with it would have been to direct him to his talk page, and tell him to put an unblock message there, or do it for him. Or maybe just learn how autoblocks work. You have to ask them to provide something don't you? I suppose I could have just sent him to Wikipedia:Autoblock. Anyway:

• Deal with {{autoblock}}
• Explain image stuff
• Add {{welcome}} template
• Anything else that needs checking (especially if I've missed something obvious here)

Carcharoth (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, one clear idea would be to tell them post an auto-block unblock request on their talk page. Nobody knows what address to unblock. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I've done that. They don't edit very often, so whoever watches that page might be waiting a long time. I'll update if I hear anything by e-mail. The user does have e-mail enabled as well. Carcharoth (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if they just use Template:Unblock-auto, it'll show up in Category:Requests for unblock which plenty of people watch. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Concern over young editor

I just read WP:CHILD and it has me kind of concerned over User:Keri Marie Davis. User hasn't been disruptive but considering the fact that she self-identified as being in 10th grade, should we be concerned with the fact that she's putting up pretty much her whole life story on her talk page? -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 00:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

10th grade would make her over 13, which seems to be the de-facto cutoff for applying WP:CHILD.—Kww(talk) 00:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

A more interesting question is what exactly are they doing here, but I think they're still learning. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would caution any young woman from putting too much personal detail on such a public, and mirrored, site as Wikipedia. I would speak to them on an adult to adult basis, which will likely be more effective with a teenager, than the WP:CHILD approach. I will do this if asked, but the I consider the above editors more than capable of getting the tone right. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Yamh91

Not quite AIV material, but I don't know what to do next. Yamh91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a habit of edit-warring redirects of Raven-Symone singles. I eventually took them to AFD, where they have since all been deleted. Unfortunately, in the case of Backflip (Raven-Symoné song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), there's a problem. WP:Articles for deletion/Backflip (song) resulted in a delete, but I hadn't noticed this redirect to it. Of course, Yamh91 undid the redirect there, effectively recreating the article. I CSDed it as a g6, and, of course Yamh91 reverted me, calling my placement of the speedy tag "vandalism". That seems to be his only edit summary. Putting on an AFD notice? Vandalism. Redirect an article? Vandalism.

Anyway, can someone please speedy Backflip (Raven-Symoné song) before he removes the tag again. As for Yamh91, he's already been blocked once for removing AFD notices. It wouldn't bother me to see spuriously removing CSD tags and making false accusations of vandalism result in a renewed block.—Kww(talk) 00:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedied the article as WP:CSD#G4 (recreation of deleted content). It might do well to leave a final, strongly worded warning that if s/he continues to recreate deleted content or remove deletion notices s/he will be indef blocked. Or maybe the last block was warnings enough...don't know. --auburnpilot talk 01:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

He did this after the last block, so the last block obviously wasn't warning enough. It also seems apparent that warnings from me are useless.—Kww(talk) 01:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Lordvader2009

• Lordvader2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user keeps ignoring warnings. He removes them by blanking the page, which I have been informed it OK (that was my mistake earlier by restoring them. Nevertheless, this user keeps getting himself warned and I am under the impression that he would receive a final warning/type of block at this point.--Christopher Kraus (talk) 01:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, CK! Do you think you might be able to point us in the direction of what he's doing wrong? Specifically, WP:DIFFs would be really helpful. When you can post back here and we'll have a look see. Thanks!! Basket of Puppies 01:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Here is where it looks like he keeps re-adding content that he has been asked not to, Some Edit Warring, Some Un-constructive Edits, Adding Unreliable Info, I'm sure there is a bit more of this.--Christopher Kraus (talk) 01:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Those diffs are of him blanking his talk page, any diffs of his actual wrongdoings?-- Darth Mike ^(talk) 01:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment I know nothing about the underlying issues here, but I thought that I should add that this section was blanked by Lordvader2009 [52]. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 02:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, that is quite concerning. Perhaps we can ask him to comment here on why he made such an edit? Basket of Puppies 04:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Truthfully, AGF and all, about the only edits I've seen him do are mass upload untagged unfree images (which I've brought up before and he got warned and then blocked for) and blanking his talk page (ignoring all comments automated, handwritten, helpful and/or informative). Just seems to take WP:IAR a bit too seriously. Q ^{T C} 04:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Some of his recent contributions seem to be, well, not so wonderful in language: 1 and 2. It seems he's not keen on communicating about these issues and at the same time he's making some poorly worded statements. On the other hand his content contributions are generally constructive. I am not so sure how to handle this other than to monitor his contributions and handle the issues as they come up. Thoughts? Basket of Puppies 06:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Warn him that if he continues he will be indefinitely blocked until he is responds and then do it? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Aren't we getting just a teensy bit carried away? The original complaint raised here was a total non-issue. Blanking the section wasn't great, but could easily be justified. Now we're switching to a completely different issue and talking about indef blocks? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but a year of warnings and requests to use edit summaries? How many warnings does a guy need?[53][54][55][56][57][58][59] (a number of probably duplicates and some are minor), all from a guy with ZERO talkspace and pretty bad user talkspace edits. I don't know how great his editing is but there's a real civility issue with him and a tendency to edit war. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll toss in my two cents on this item since I am one of the folks who is often keeping an eye on User:Lordvader2009. I realize that the complaint that spurred this discussion was not valid (it is okay to blank one's own talk page). However, working with User:Lordvader2009 is a frustrating experience. I'll preface what I'm about to say with, User:Lordvader2009 for the most part stops, at least temporarily, the activities we warm him of. They are very good about not continuing activities often enough to be blocked by a strict interpretation of Wikipedia policies (as I understand them). With that in mind, here's a list of recent things I've seen this person do that are.... frustrating:

• User never uses an edit summary to explain edits though they've been asked to: [60] and [61]
• User has removed maintenance templates (deletion tags in particular) with no reason: [62], also occurred with File:Avera.jpg
• Edit warring: [63] and [64]
• Creating of articles of questionable worth and/or with little content: Edgar Garcia, Levi Avera
• Rarely responds to talk page comments, and when they do it is not the most helpful: [65]

With the exception of the edit war on Levi Avera, nothing that is really blockable, but all of it is very frustrating. Okay, I've had my vent. Thank you. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Rogue bot?

Recently I have spent something like a dozen hours reverting well intentioned contributors who have been adding "listas" parameters to articles -- based on misconceptions.

Many of the individuals in this big old world have personal names that do not follow the European paradigm where the last component in their name is an surname inherited from father to child. For those individuals I think it is a huge mistake to try to shoehorn their name into the European naming style.

Nevertheless it seems these good faith contributors were relying on the advice of robots programmed to assist in the performance of repetitive tasks.

Recently there seems to have been a bot started that guesses at surnames, without any human sanity checking. I suggest this is a clear example. Is this individual named "Jan Baz" or "Jan Baz Khan"? We don't know. And even if we did know Pashtun names are like Arabic names. These individual use their father's first name as their last name. So each generation will have a different last name.

Unless your bot can be made smart enough to reliably figure out who uses the European style of names I suggest it simply should not run -- ever.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The bot's edit summary suggests that you contact the operator on its talk page if you have any questions. Nakon 01:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the name is "European style" or not, we still need a way to sort it with other names. Are you suggesting these should be sorted by their first name, when others are not? That seems much less useful than sorting by what appears to be the surname. The issue here is not about inheritance, it's about sorting. We should verify and then follow the pattern established by professional publishers of English texts. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. here is the advice of the Chicago Manual of Style on this point (section 18.74): "Himsi, Ahmad Hamid", "Sadat, Anwar", "Hakim, Tawfiq al-", "Jamal, Muhammad Hamid al-", "Abu Zafar Nadvi, Syed, "Ibn Saud, Aziz'. Note that they do move part of the name to the beginning in order to set the sort order. Is there any style guide that recommends alphabetizing by the first name? — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Modern practice differs from traditional practice in some countries, having become more Westernised. On Arabic names see Arabic names#Westernization of Arabic naming practices and names, for examples. Similar issues will occur with different styles of naming. Unless the bot can work out the subject's nationality and the time in which they lived, and apply rules accordingly, it should stop operating. But yes, this is something to bring up with the bot's operator. --bainer (talk) 11:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion?

Indefinitely-blocked User:Simulation12 appears to have returned as User:The All New Improved Sim12. Shouldn't this editor, who has a history of sockpuppetry, try requesting to be unblocked rather than simply creating a new account? --Rrburke^(talk) 02:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep. I blocked the sock. Icestorm815 • Talk 03:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat from 216.254.x.x

IP-hopper has a long history of incivility and rambling, finally came to this [66][67]. User has several times claimed to be Archimedes Plutonium, one of the subjects of the List of Usenet personalities articles, and apparently objects to how he is included in that article. See edit-history of the List page and its talk-page and its recently-concluded AfD for his long pattern of disruptive and incivil edits. His IP changes within hours within and among several different /24, not sure collateral of several rangeblocks. DMacks (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I definitely support some sort of a block of the IP range for making (legal) threats. The IP ruined it for everyone else. MuZemike 07:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

However, (the above was a tad hasty) there has to be some other way of making a block without blocking a wide range of other IP users on the side. MuZemike 07:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

They all link to PrairieWave Dialup DHCP, according to the Geolocate information. It's likely that the specific ISP is providing all those addresses. However, a couple of them (according to the edit history of List of Usenet personalities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), clearly link to Freeman, South Dakota. MuZemike 07:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

There is little doubt that this is Archimedes Plutonium, as he occasionally mentions his dial-up ISP in his newsgroup posts. The location for the IP range coincides with his geographic location in South Dakota. He has cross-posted his recent writing on WP to sci.math and other newgroups, apparently so that there is a second public record of his exchanges with WP editors. Lastly, the style and tone of writing and the grammar employed make it very clear that it's the same person. It seems that he really does not like being labeled an "eccentric" Usenet poster, and does not like being placed in the same category as other Usenet personalities of comparable fame/infamy. I recognize his desire to be taken seriously as a misunderstood genius (his own words), but attacking WP editors for documenting from reliable sources how the Usenet community views him is a dubious way to achieve this. His claims against WP and its editors are baseless. — Loadmaster (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Bizarre advocacy of violence and BLP issue

I'm not quite sure what to make of this. 58.10.68.142 (talk · contribs) went on a strange editing spree adding several edits, all looking like this. I've blocked the IP for 6 months which is probably too long, but this is about as strange an edit as I've seen. I'm not sure what else to do here. If someone is inclined to shorten the block, be my guest. Toddst1 (talk) 06:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It geolocates to Taiwan. Suggest someone local contact authorities to see if he needs some help? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what to make of this either, but if you take a look at the /24, you'll find a number of IPs which this "Erik Young" has edited from before, including 58.10.68.122 (talk · contribs), 58.10.68.230 (talk · contribs) and 58.10.68.77 (talk · contribs), from March and July 2008. I'm also seeing that he's been moderately proliferate spreading some kind of similar story around comment sections and message boards on various websites. Very bizarre, but IMO the block and length is entirely appropriate. Probably a low risk to range-block the whole /24, and I didn't check any wider ranges. Given the outlandish claims, either he needs heavy military support, or this is delusional. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 07:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

He's advocating running people down with cars. Someone should absolutely notify the Taiwan authorities. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

RBI. This is WP:LTA#Erik Young. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible return of Anonimu or Jacob Peters

User:PasswordUsername, a relatively new account -- first edits from middle of April -- has displayed a pattern of behaviour, interests, and editing that resembles User:Anonimu to me. Anonimu was indefinitely banned by User:Maxim in November of 2007, and subsequently banned for one year by the Arbitration Committee, for a number of gross violations.

When Anonimu was active on Wikipedia, his primary goal was keeping articles dealing with Marxism-Leninism, Communism, and their offshoots, "clean" of criticism. Similarly, PasswordUsername's bulk of edits deals with such topics, and PasswordUsername caught my attention by the longest CfD nomination I'd ever seen, trying to get Category:Neo-Stalinism and Category:Neo-Stalinist organisations deleted. When, after a little digging, I asked PasswordUsername if he might know Anonimu, he responded in a way rather uncharacteristic for a new user -- by deleting the question from his talkpage within about a minute, claiming it was "bad faith edit". When Anonimu was active, he was very aggressive in removing all criticism -- including warnings -- from his talkpage, going as far as to post a set of rules about how his talkpage should remain blank onto his talkpage.

When Anonimu was active on Wikipedia, some of his most noticeable antics involved abuse of ALL CAPS and meritlessly calling content opponents vandals. Compare [68]. Content-wise, this edit matches, too: it involves an attempt to paint Mumia Abu Jamal, a convicted murderer of a policeman, as a political prisoner -- based on an attempt to construe the World Socialist Web Site's polemic article as a reliable source.

Today, PasswordUsername asking Petri Krohn for help regarding the Neo-Stalinism categories. It is unlikely to help him -- Mr. Krohn has been behaving rather well in the recent months -- but since this is his very first edit on Krohn's talkpage, and they do not seem to have had previous contacts regarding Stalinism -- neo or otherwise --, it raises a question of why he'd pick Petri Krohn out of the thousands of editors. If PasswordUsername is, in fact, Anonimu, the answer is obvious: he would have remembered Petri Krohn's antics from 2007 (for which he was subsequently banned for a year by ArbCom).

Normally, returns of banned users would be under checkuser/SPI purview, and when I shared my concerns with Newyorkbrad, that's where he suggested I should go with them. However, this does not appear to be a checkuserable case. There is credible data that PasswordUsername is located in USA, whereas original Anonimu in 2007 dwelled in Romania. Therefore, even if the data from Anonimu weren't stale, somebody experienced in comparative style analysis would be needed. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Note. Anonimu supposedly came from Constanţa, i.e. Romania. see link.--Miacek (t) 11:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I've made the appropriate correction. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 12:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Other possibilities

A Wikipedian has assessed the situation and privately proposed that PasswordUsername's behaviour may match that of User:Jacob Peters, a known sockpuppeteer from America. Unfortunately, I'm not particularly familiar with Mr. Peters' behaviour, so I can't say, either way. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 12:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply

It's very bad faith to accuse someone of being a sockpuppet because they have put forward a lengthy case for removing your category–and, since you're not going to be assuming good faith about me, as politically-motivated as your deletion of a POV tag after talk comments by myself and another editor, which you made right here– that looks kind of bad. I guess your evidence here is that I quickly deleted the insult as a bad faith edit and asked Petri Krohn for his input as far as voting on your category–since he participated the last time the cat. was up for discussion (and Anonimu doesn't appear to have voted in that one). And yes, I am located in the USA. This looks like harrassment, plain and simple. Please try being a bit more decent. PasswordUsername (talk) 11:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, nowhere did I try to portray Mumia Abu Jamal as a political prisoner. I did list him among the "Examples of individuals believed (or claiming) to be political prisoners"–which is factually accurate, and isn't some sort of list of my own making. 63 was a revert of an unjustified deletion to the Political prisoner page by User:Luis Napoles, who's been accused on numerous occasions of bias on Cuban-related issues (which has been documented on his user talk page by User:Cosmic Latte, User:Redthoreau and User:Andy Dingley) after a typical revert of this sort. I see why you might not like alternative qualified points of view, but it's not OK to go around accusing others of being sockpuppets, and you're welcome to discuss our editorial stances in a civilized tone. PasswordUsername (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only one...

... who thinks this is an abuse of ANI and Digwuren needs to stop crying wolf and start apologising, unless there is some pretty good evidence other than a mysterious email by an undisclosed sender? --Hans Adler (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This user also edited as several IPs (User:166.217.251.170, User:166.217.128.203 and possibly User:166.217.202.68). Is that correct? Moreover, he edit warred in Neo-Stalinism yesterday using several IPs. The suspicion about Jacob Peters might be justified since the knowledge of Leninist literature and the editing pattern by both accounts are remarkably similar: compare edits by 166.217.251.170 and by Drabj, a sock of Jacob Peters, although they came from different areas of the US. However, this all should be probably reported to SPI after collecting some evidence. I do not see any bad faith on the part of Digwuren.Biophys (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Please. I identified myself in each case as the IP user because I was not logged in when I began editing. I disclosed this voluntarily, yesterday, on Talk:Neo-Stalinism.

"PasswordUsername (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC) (the IP editor)"

I said the exact same on the edit history page, so where's the supposed anonymous hiding? The Lenin edits were also self-disclosed back in April. I applied for an account around that time, and wrote as much on User:Alex Bakharev's talk page:

Best, 166.217.251.170 (talk) 09:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC) (This is me – PasswordUsername (talk) 09:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC).) Thanks for registering, good luck! Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with doing an edit from an IP, right? Since when does limiting oneself to three reverts constitute edit-warring? What is the basis, exactly, for being accused of sockpuppetry? PasswordUsername (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

No there is nothing wrong with that. There are numerous precedents that it's OK if you don't do it to deceive. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I looked at these edits and don't see enough there for an application of WP:DUCK. If you think otherwise, open a report at WP:SPI, which exists for this purpose (not just for checkuser, as Digwuren mistakenly believes). If you are not sufficiently confident to do this, you shouldn't be engaging in character assassination. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

PasswordUsername, you did not answer my question. Did you also edit as IPs 166.217.128.203 and 166.217.202.68? I only made two points here: (a) one should go to SPI with such materials if he has enough evidence (agree with Hans Alder), and (b) I do not think that Digwuren acted in a bad faith.Biophys (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do you continue beating a dead horse? This is obviously the very common situation of someone beginning to edit anonymously and then creating an account, and PasswordUsername said "I identified myself in each case as the IP user". Do you think it takes criminal energy to change IP addresses occasionally? For a large number of users with no control over their IP address this happens all the time. For example me when I am on a visit to my parents and must use their ISDN line and pay by the minute.

When you are unhappy with a new user who opposes you personal POV, going around making ill-founded sockpuppet accusations as publicly as possible is not an acceptable reaction. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

request for a correction

I would like to request a correction on the Boron page. In section "Characteristics" there is a phase diagram reproduced from our paper (Oganov et al., Nature 2009), but this is not reflected in the caption. Unfortunately, the editor NIMSOffice has personal interests not to give us credit. I am investigating possibilities to block NIMSOffice from editing Boron page due to conflict of interest (any suggestions welcome). In any case, if a figure is reproduced from our paper, we hope that proper credit can be given.

Furthermore, NIMSOffice made another sentence (also against us): "It is not clear yet whether the atomic bonding in this phase is partially ionic[11] or covalent[12]. " In fact, it has been shown by us [11] that while bonding is predominantly covalent, the partial ionic character is surprisingly important. Term "atomic bonding" is non-existent in chemistry. I suggest a sentence like this: "Chemical bonding in this phase, while predominantly covalent, has a surprisingly important partial ionic component [11]. "

Thanks a lot!

Artem R. Oganov Aoganov (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the phase diagram that appears in that section does cite your 2009 Nature paper as one of the sources (#11 in the references section) (at least from the current revision of the page, I haven't checked further back). It is also not an exact copy of the one in your paper, which is a subset in a larger diagram and in color.

In general, the second part of your complaint appears to be a content dispute. Syrthiss (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

On the phase diagram - our paper is the ONLY place where this diagram was published. NIMSOffice gives lots of references, none of which contain this diagram. Yes, he also cut our diagram, presenting only the lower-pressure part of it. Even that part appeared only in our Nature paper.Aoganov (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, thats what I get for quick checks... I've removed the other sources. I was able to view all of the other papers save one, and none had even anything close to your diagram. Syrthiss (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

JBsupreme edit summaries again

JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

JBsupreme was the subject of a recent AN/I thread (found here) of which the result was a message being left on his talk page, advising him to stop his “problematic edit summaries” or stop using edit summaries altogether, and to report problems to administrators directly rather then in his edit summaries. Anyway, since then I've kept half an eye on him, and for a while he seemed to improve. But recently he's managed to stack up quite a few (some more serious then others):

[69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] (dunno what this one is) (see below)

I attempted to leave him a message regarding this, which he promptly deleted and left me this message. So basically, continuing from the last thread which obviously had little to no effect, this is a shame because he does do good work. Also, could someone notify him of this please? (although he can't stop me from posting at his talk page, he has asked me not to) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

the last one is internet speak for 'die in a fire please' Syrthiss (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, couldn't find any google hits - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Notification given to the user, by Jauerback (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The last warning User_talk:JBsupreme#Edit_summaries_again from admin Chaser (talk · contribs) was pretty clear. Further admin action could be in order here. Cirt (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary example: this goddamn article is getting semi-protected RIGHT FFING NOW. Out of step with the appropriate tone: imagine if everyone wrote that way? Durova^Charge! 14:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

What bothers me most out of the above, is this. I believe a block may be appropriate? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Overuse of punctuation is a horrendous offense against good taste. ;) Seriously, that's no way to write a warning. The reason behind the warning may have been correct, but it's much better to go with a simple template. If the vandal was a troll that only encourages more trouble. Durova^Charge! 15:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Durova. However JBsupreme's only left one ALL CAPS edit summary today. A block would seem a little punitive to me. I agree this is incredibly disruptive behaviour and if it happens again then it'll be time to block, but the diffs look a little on the stale side. I suggest we give a last and final warning and monitor his use of edit summaries and if they are in any way problematic in the future go ahead and block starting with a week's duration--Cailil ^talk 15:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that he's been given plenty of warnings, and still doesn't seem to be about to stop. However, I'm happy with a final warning, on the basis that it is a final warning and this is made clear to him. Naturally, the best result would be for him to keep up his good work but stop with the uncivil behaviour - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Some sketchy stuff going on

Ebickerstaff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• A user has been uploading tons of non-free images to politicians and placing them in articles and messing with previously existing pictures. A quick look at their talk page reveals tons of warnings [79]. What caught my eye was the addition of a viscous cartoon on Sarah Palin, see [80]. This is more complex than your run-of-the-mill vandal and something should be done to stop them from causing more disruption. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 14:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)