Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. |
---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
Possible "good hand" account of banned sockpuppeteer?
I believe User:K'Anpo is a "good hand" account of User:ECW500.
I came into contact with K'Anpo on Talk:WrestleCrap, where he unreverted my reversion of an ECW500 sock's post to the page, claiming the sock's point was valid. Fine, I figured, the sock did have a point. But then today I noticed that K'Anpo has been removing SSP tags from ECW500 socks. Repeatedly [1] [2] [3].
Because ECW500 is already known to take interest in the pages of his blocked socks, has already used User:CrueBall (contribs) as a good hand account, and because it seems odd to me that an account that only goes back to March 27, 2009 would take such an interest in a banned user, I'm bringing this to the community's attention. McJeff (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- What is a "good hand" account? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- See WP:GHBH. hmwithτ 23:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Aha. I've never run across that terminology before. Good cop, bad cop thing, basically. That makes sense. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- See WP:GHBH. hmwithτ 23:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- It is rather suspicious and I reverted the removal of the sockpuppet tags since the accounts in question were determined by CheckUser evidence and both the User:Hippies Little Brother and User:Nina Eve Slabber accounts were both protected for awhile over removal of the tags. The K'Anpo account has not been active for 8 days now, so blocking is probably not necessary. You are welcome to file a CheckUser request on the account. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello. It may have been a good idea to try and bring me into this discussion. I used to edit as an IP, and have previously reverted vandalism on Wrestlecrap and RD Reynolds. As far as reverting a sockpuppet's vandalism, the user above falsely accused some IP editor of "vandalism" and then reverted said IP's comment on a talk page where the IP complained about vandalism! User:McJeff then got the IP temporarily blocked and removed his comment from the talk page, and then went and removed the very vandalism that the IP was complaining about in the first place! I merely reinstated the comment on the discussion page, and assumed good faith on User:McJeff's part. As far as removing tags, well, in the cases of User:Bryan Alvarez and User:Youse can't see Me, we have been over this in excruciating detail before. I never REMOVED tags, these vandal-only accounts had ALREADY BEEN TAGGED on their discussion pages. I merely removed the second, redundant tags from the userpages. perhaps it would have been better to remove the discussion-page tags? Or maybe to just have ignored User:McJeff's ignorance? User:McJeff knows this very well, as I explained it to him before at least twice. As far as the other 2 users are concerned, yes I have removed some tags. I clicked on the "contributions" tag on their pages, and was surprised to see that although these people were obviously vandal-only accounts, none of their vandalism was in any way shape or form connected to RD Reynolds, Wrestlecrap, or Pebbles Cereal. Unless there's something that I'm completely ignorant of, it seemed the correct thing to do, as they appear to be wholly unrelated to User:ECW500. If one checks the "suspected sockpuppets" page, one now sees that User:Bryan Alvarez and user:Youse can't see Me are both now listed twice each, which I guess makes User:McJeff happy, but in no way convicts me of being anything other than a Wrestlecrap fan. K'Anpo (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Further, see the discussion pages and useraccount pages of these blocked sockpuppets. I explained there perfectly clearly what I did, and why, but now those explanations have been removed. If one checks Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_ECW500 one sees that both User:Bryan Alvarez and User talk:Bryan Alvarez are there as are both User:Youse can't see Me and User talk:Youse can't see Me, effectively adding up to four different sockpuppet accounts of user:ECW500. Perhaps someone else should remove the redundant tags, because after I did and explained why, those superfluous tags were readded, and my explanations removed. K'Anpo (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hello. I can't help but notice that User:K'Anpo wasn't actually notified about this thread, and yet that after 8 days of inactivity, he found it instantaneously. Knowing that ECW500 stalks the contributions of people who fight his vandalism efforts, I see K'Anpo's abrupt appearance in this thread as yet another something suspicious about this user.
- Also note this diff where K'Anpo, in a roundabout way, accuses me of being connected with the sock farms.
- Requesting that someone other than myself file a Checkuser, as the last time I filed an ECW500 related checkuser it was declined as "no need". McJeff (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I do no always log in to post comments/edits, but I come here most days to READ and see changes etc. When I feel the need to edit something, or make discussion points only then do I log in. This was clearly such a need. Note that User:McJeff has been blocked TWICE before, once for removing points from discussion pages. I do not mind that when he has removed my comments from his discussion page, but clearly an administrator did mind as he blocked him for it! When he removed the IP's points from the Wrestlecrap discussion page, he went one further even accusing the IP of being a sockpuppet of ECW500. As noted above, and elsewhere, I removed the "sockpuppet" tags from the vandals User:Bryan Alvarez and User:Youse can't see Me pages, as THEY WERE ALREADY TAGGED AS SOCKPUPPETS OF ECW500 and I felt it was silly to tag the same vandalaccounts twice. That's it. As far as the other two, after checking their "contributions" I discovered that they had never vandalized RD Reynolds or Wrestlecrap. Apparently someone worked out that they ARE sockpuppets of ECW500, so it's my mistake and I apologize for that. However we need to understand someone trying to remove duplicate tags, and being genuinely ignorant on one hand, and on the other someone maliciously trying to brand others as socks using only half-truths. User:McJeff showed that I removed the tag from say User:Bryan Alvarez' one page, but never showed that I had already tagged him on his discussion page. Had he done so it would have been obvious that I was merely removing a duplicate tag, and NOT trying to "cover up" anything. Using my comments on his discussion page(in which I admittedly did go overboard being rather emotional at the time) as further "evidence" is equally strange. Also note that one of ECW500's banned socks is called User:Mcleff, and he is tagged on his discussion pageUser talk:Mcleff, and not his user page. If one views the Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_ECW500 one sees the first two vandals User:Bryan Alvarez and user:Youse can't see Me each still appear as two separate socks(totalling four)! All I was attempting to do was make them one sock each. If User:McJeff has problems with that, okay, but that doesn't make me a sock any more than it makes that IP, and it probably won't stop him removing people's innocent and valid comments from discussion pages. K'Anpo (talk) 04:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Further, the "sock of ECW500"'s "vandalism" was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWrestleCrap&diff=286469096&oldid=285908360. Just because User:McJeff claims that this IP is a sock of ECW500 does not make it so, any more than his claim that I am. This was even discussed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_68#WrestleCrap_article_filling_up_with_cruft.3F where I pointed out the same topic on Talk:WrestleCrap. In User:McJeff's eyes that makes both me and the IP who raised it in the first place "socks of ECW500"! One needs only to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMcJeff to see who the real disruptive editor is. K'Anpo (talk) 09:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- So, does lying about someone's block record count as "disruptive"?
- Just for outside clarification, I've been blocked once in 4 and a half years on wikipedia - for forgetting about 3RR. That block was undone ahead of schedule.
- Also, about "innocent" IP that K'Anpo is accusing me of having falsely reverted for vandalism was, in fact, blocked as a sock.
- I hate dealing with these defamatory rants from other editors, as ignoring it makes you look bad and responding somehow always drags you down to their level. McJeff (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Er, the only defamatory ranting is coming from you. The IP was blocked as a sock, only because you hounded them and once again showed half-truths and facts, without stuff such as
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Floater320&diff=prev&oldid-286461060
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lacksjdasfd&diff=prev&oldid=287605323
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bananasgorilla&diff=prev&oldid=287605627
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ADementedSon%diff=prev&oldid=287794722
The IP was "blocked as a sockpuppet" because of the edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bryan_Alvarez&diff=prev&oldid=286600411
however someone has already made the edit(as the IP did explain) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk3ABryanAlvarez&diff=286600385&oldid=286485900 which User:McJeff "forgot" to mention when he reported the IP as a sock. The IP explained this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:41.245.171.28 It was AFTER this that User:McJeff deliberately deleted the IP comments on the Talk:WrestleCrap page, and I reverted the comments about the "WrestleCrap Radio Cruft".
As for myself, my edits include http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Youse_can't_see_Me&diff=prev&oldid=287073352 and I left explanations on the User:Bryan Alvarez and User:Youse can't see Me pages that the new tags were removed only because there were already sockpuppet tags on the User_talk:Bryan Alvarez and User_talk:Youse can't see Me pages!
As far as the other two were concerned this is pure ignorance on my part as I only checked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nina_Eve_Slabber and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hippies_Little_Brother and saw no vandalism of RD Reynolds, WrestleCrap or Pebbles Cereal. User:McJeff can twist facts, display only certain edits while deliberately ignoring others, and as we saw even get an innocent user blocked as a sockpuppet. He is also fond of removing comments from pages, which has already gotten him blocked. But why is he so interested in my edits? How was he even aware that I had made those?
In User:McJeff's own words "...ECW500 is already known to take interest in the pages of his blocked socks..." yet who is the one who trolled the site and "found" this information? I have only discovered this after wasting much time reading the logs, yet User:McJeff seems very aware of the inner workings of User:ECW500's warped mind.
It is not unusual for innocent users to be "Tagged" or "branded" such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:BongWarrior&oldid=293452084
So what have we learned? That User:McJeff a previously blocked user, who has already been warned for removing other poster's comments, has already gotten one IP blocked by only displaying selected facts, and in his mind that IP "must" be a sock. When I reverted that IP's legitimate comments, User:McJeff obviously developed a grudge, and now used half-truths and out and out lies to "brand" me as a sock too! K'Anpo (talk) 07:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Further, as to the IP note the date/time of his/her blocking and the duration....
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3A41.245.171.28
(note also that User:Mentifisto did not regard the IP as a sock http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk&3AWrestleCrap&diff=286843633&oldid=286839123 , after yet another of User:ECW500's socks, this one called User:Marycolemanfan (and see User_talk:Marycolemanfan , making a note that Marycolemanfan is tagged as a sock on the discussion page, and not the userpage) had vandalized the same page, and User:Mentifisto reverted it to the IP's version!)
Now during that period when the IP was BLOCKED as a sockpuppet as per User:McJeff half-truths and lies, User:ECW500 struck again under the moniker User:Huey the Wrestlecrap Ghoul, making destructive edits such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GaryColemanFan&diff=prev&oldid=287076846 Following this obvious vandalism consistent with User:ECW500, User:Huey the Wrestlecrap Ghoul was rightfully blocked as a sockpuppet of User:ECW500.
Some notable facts are that a)user:Huey the Wrestlecrap Ghoul vandalized User:GaryColemanFan's discussion page during the period when the IP that User:McJeff had accused of being a sockpuppet of ECW500 was blocked b)User:Huey the Wrestlecrap Ghoul is indeed a sockpuppet of User:ECW500 c)User:Huey the Wrestlecrap Ghoul (ie User:ECW500 for they are the same person) falsely accused User:GaryColemanFan, an editor who has spent much time both reverting ECW500's vandalism and also having his page vandalized by ECW500, of being a sock. That's right, User:GaryColemanFan was falsely accused of being a sockpuppet of User:ECW500 by User:ECW500 himself at a time when the IP could not possibly have been involved as he/she had been blocked temporarily thanks to the lies of User:McJeff!! K'Anpo (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I see that this topic is nearly "at the top" now, so I would just like to make a few more points... Having reread this discussion it struck me that User:McJeff made some startling comments on this very page, such as "ECW500 is already known to take interest in the pages of his blocked socks" and "Knowing that ECW500 stalks the contributions of people who fight his vandalism efforts". Well, I certainly didn't know that until User:McJeff pointed it out. He seems to be well aware of User:ECW500 's activities. And, as shown above, I AM one of the "people who fight his vandalism efforts". He also said that "K'Anpo, in a roundabout way, accuses me(meaning User:McJeff) of being connected with the sock farms". I never did any such thing. I merely stated that his making this accusation against ME being ECW500, after I'd already explained any prior misunderstandings, was a suspicious action. It was User:McJeff himself who volunteered the idea that there may be some connection between him and User:ECW500!
Furthermore, User:McJeff knew exactly how long it had been since I last edited. And how strange that he waited until I had been inactive for more than week before he presented this "evidence" of his (refuted above) on this page. Did he perhaps think that I might be on vacation or something, and would thus be unable to defend myself? We already know(as shown above with the IP editor, another person who fights the vandalism efforts of ECW500) that User:McJeff has already successfully gotten an innocent editor blocked for being a sockpuppet of User:ECW500, and that User:ECW500 continued his vandalism while this supposed "sockpuppet" was blocked! User:McJeff certainly did not think that I would find his attack on me, and when presented with counterevidence resorted to insults such as accusing me of "defamatory ranting" and claims that even replying to me is "dragging [him] down to my level". He never actually gives any real replies, besides boasting that he got an innocent editor blocked as a sockpuppet of ECW500. And User:McJeff certainly never thought that I would be so anal as to spend the better part of 2 hours reading through revision histories and logs connected with User:ECW500, making notes to present on this page!
As noted above, User:ECW500 has already falsely accused users, including User:Bongwarrior (an administrator no less!) of being a sockpuppet of User:ECW500. More interestingly, he accused User:GaryColemanFan of being a "good" sock of User:ECW500. Yet those are 2 of the most respected editors on Wikipedia, and both have tirelessly fought the vandalism of User:ECW500. Now User:McJeff accuses ME of being a "good hand sock" (which most people here didn't even know what that meant in a manner suspiciously similar to the way that User:ECW500 accused User:GaryColemanFan of the very same thing! We can thus see that both User:McJeff and User:ECW500 are in the habit of accusing people who revert User:ECW500's (and User:McJeff's as per my revision on the Talk:WrestleCrap page) vandalism of being sockpuppets and/or "good hand" sockpuppets of User:ECW500! We can see that User:McJeff has already succeeded once! We see that since I actually REPLIED to his accusations that he first made personal insults, let slip a few choice bits of information, and then disappeared! In fact earlier I did NOT accuse him in a roundabout way of anything. But now, as they say, "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims in the duckpond....." K'Anpo (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
stolen pictures, info requested
I saw a stolen picture and replaced it with another picture. Looking into it, that picture is stolen, too. Given that I saw 2 stolen picture of 3, the limited sample size does show a potentially serious theft problem in Wikipedia. How should Wikipedia deal with this? Please give advice below.
The article is on the main page so many people read it, including me. That also means that many people saw the stolen photo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A330-200F.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F-GZCP.jpg
When Wikipedia is full of stolen pictures, it makes Wikipedia look amateurish and a project of some kids who are just copying stuff. This is bad. User F203 (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Resolved, I see a similar problem about 4-5 threads up where there is a mention of copyright violations. User F203 (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has a number of processes in place to deal with copyright infringement. There is a process page for image issues at Wikipedia:Guide to image deletion that hopefully will help you determine how best to deal with these issues when you find them. If you are unsure, you can always take a matter to WP:MCQ. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)First, neither of the two images you pointed to were "stolen". They are used under a claim of fair use, regardless of whether or not the claim is justifiable. Second, if you feel a claim of fair use is not appropriate, please either tag the image using a template such as {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} or nominate it for deletion. If the claim is not appropriately justified within 1 week, the image will be deleted. --auburnpilot talk 15:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Copyright infringement and theft are two totally different things. If you wish to properly enforce copyright laws, please learn something about them. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Um, actually copyright infringement can be synonymous with intellectual property theft. DurovaCharge! 18:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Which is a misnomer, since nothing is being stolen
--NE2 18:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Certainly it is: the value of the rights to the image. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- To clarify, I don't consider fair use to be intellectual property theft. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- You can't steal something that the "owner" still has. Can you imagine going to the police station and telling them your TV was stolen, but it's still in your living room? It's insulting to compare unauthorized copying with actual theft. Stealing physical pictures makes you a thief, not making a copy, whether or not it falls under fair use. How would you like it if people started calling you a rapist for "raping the English language", by applying a word - theft - to a situation where it doesn't fit? --NE2 08:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- You own a piece of land, your property. I notice that it's empty and no one's using it, so I go ahead and build a building on it. What's wrong with that? I haven't taken anything from you, have I, you still own the property? Well, yes, I've taken from you the right to do what you want with that property, and the right to build whatever kind of building you want, or none at all, if that's your choice, so I have definitely taken something from you. What I've taken is immaterial and noncoporeal, it's not an armchair or a backscratcher, but it exists nonetheless, and you no longer have it.
Similarly, when someone uses someone's else intellectual property without permission, they've taken away the ability to decide when and where that material can be used, and for what fee. Suppose that you're rabidly opposed to the Internet, you're an old fart and you've decided that nothing that you own is going to be on the web. Well, that's an absurd thing to decide, but it's nonetheless your decision to make, not anyone else's, so that when they place your image, your tune, your film, your short story, your essay on the Web, they've taken away your ability to control the way your owned material is used, your right to decide who makes copies of it - the copyright.
Now, it just so happens that under American law, copyrights are not eternal, they exist for only a limited amount of time (a time period that's gotten longer and longer, thanks to the efforts and money of Disney and their friends), and they are not absolute, there are exceptions to the rights that you control, and one exception is the "fair use" doctrine which says that for certain purposes and certain kinds of use, it's OK to make use of a limited amount of copyrighted material without violating the copyright owner's rights, so there is no "theft" involved. But, if I instead totally usurp your rights by making use of your intellectual property beyond these exceptions, perhaps even make money by doing it, I've reduced the value of your copyright, and have, in effect, taken away from you not only your control of the material, but also the ability to make money from it - and that is, indeed, theft. The fact that you can't report it to your local police station is completely irrelevant -- they won't take complaints about insider trading either, because both are civil matters and not criminal ones. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- And, BTW, the imaginative and figurative extension of concrete words to more ethereal uses has been going on for a long time, probably since the invention of language, so complaining about it is pretty much pissing into the wind. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- You're making an absurd argument that taking away any right is theft. If I go door to door in a development that bans soliciting, am I stealing time from others? If I jaywalk, am I stealing the road? If I argue on AN, am I stealing bandwidth and disk space? If so, I'm a thief, and proud of it. But others may not be so happy to be called thieves, and you may want to avoid doing so in case you happen to violate BLP by calling someone identifiable a thief.
- By the way, how many legs does a horse have? --NE2 11:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Unable to stop myself, I have to note that the US Supreme Court would seem to support that copyright infringement is not theft in Dowling v. United States (1985), and yet the US federal government nevertheless adopts the term in the NET Act. This hair can be evenly divided. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- You own a piece of land, your property. I notice that it's empty and no one's using it, so I go ahead and build a building on it. What's wrong with that? I haven't taken anything from you, have I, you still own the property? Well, yes, I've taken from you the right to do what you want with that property, and the right to build whatever kind of building you want, or none at all, if that's your choice, so I have definitely taken something from you. What I've taken is immaterial and noncoporeal, it's not an armchair or a backscratcher, but it exists nonetheless, and you no longer have it.
- Certainly it is: the value of the rights to the image. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Which is a misnomer, since nothing is being stolen
This is a pretty silly place to discuss this, so let's agree to disagree and not steal any more AN space or rape any more horses er...whatever. --NE2 12:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's not just Disney that pushed for or benefited from Intellectual property rights. It's also poor working artist schlubs like myself. Taking an image that I spent 100 or 200 hrs making, reproducing, and profiting from it is part of my liveliood. If you took those images, did the same thing to them, and thereby took my customers, potential new customers I'll never now meet, etc., it is under intellectual property rights laws, theft. Just because you can make cheap or free copies of stuff doesn't give you the legal right to. And just because I still retain the original, doesn't mean something hasn't been stolen from me.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- What Disney pushed for what the extension of the period of rights well past the point where an individual would benefit from them - but a corporation would. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 19:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
DYK is almost overdue (remove this message once resolved)
In less than one hour Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
- Check the Next update if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
- Once completed edit queue #5 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
- Add {{DYKbotdo}} to the top of the page and save the page
- When the next queue is good to go remove this entire message from the board
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKadminBot (talk) DYKadminBot is operated by Ameliorate! (talk)
Xeno changing block settings
Can we get some feedback in regards to this? This is a direct spin-off from the horrific BLP abuses on Catherine Crier, that are so bad that Thatcher indefinitely semi protected the talk page, and Deskana the article fully indefinitely (which cannot be undone without Oversight approval). Apparently, Grawp has taken to abusing this BLP wildly. Go look at it's edit histories for all the hidden revisions. I asked Thatcher here about the situation, and minutes later got a Grawped here. Its a known fact now that Joker is Grawp, and that Grawp has been taking after the Crier article. To the point where I guess even the Crier reps may know about Grawp now, whose real identity is known.
I blocked the IP as a likely open proxy per every reasonable common sense duck test you can imagine--it's a known fact that Grawp breathes open proxies on trojanned and zombied Windows boxes and who knows what else, which is why he's unstoppable. I discussed this with Xeno here and apparently I didn't hit save fast enough (it was still open in a tab on my firefox) to unlock the editing of the talk page, so he shortened the block expressly against my written request that he get consensus. I never ask for my admin actions to not be undone, and go out of my way to say "Do what you need with them," so
- I'm a bit miffed that he didn't do this, and I ask for both admin actions to be reviewed
- I'm furious that I know now we've only been doing waste of time 24-31 hour blocks on these hordes of BLP-abusing proxies
If we block them 3-5 years--it's not abusive to IPs. They can ask for an unblock any time. rootology/equality 20:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- The IP didn't make any BLP-violating edits, so 3-5 years seems entirely abusive to me. I checked for a proxy and found none. Seems like a standard 4chan-style distributed attack. The IP will be onto someone else shortly - it probably already is. If the target articles are locked down, what more can the IPs do but ask admins why they are so serious? –xenotalk 20:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- But, if Root is right, you appear to have undone first and discussed after. That would be wheelwarring. Perhaps better to say why this isn't wheelwarring? ➲ redvers throwing my arms around Paris 20:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, I discussed first and then implemented a compromise when he terminated the discussion on his last word. Further, his words weren't matching his actions (an issue I see now has been attributed to tabbed browsing, this could have been resolved with further discussion, but alas). –xenotalk 20:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know what is going on since apparently all the actual edits have been oversighted into the void, but in general 4chan style attacks that involve repetitive behavior can often be good targets for the abuse filter. Dragons flight (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I tried to pen a filter but by the time I had it sorted, they were on to something else =] –xenotalk 18:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- We don't operate on the basis of blocking every innocent IP until they request unblocking (and as of a few minutes after they are used they are likely to be innocent users). Long term blocks on short term IPs are not effective or helpful to anyone. Not every IP which clicks on the links Grawp posts on /b/ is Grawp or an open proxy - it's far more commonly a board invasion. These IPs are extremely unlikely to be used by the same users again, so long blocks are simply not appropriate. See WP:IPB for more information on block lengths for IP addresses. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- This sums up succinctly my thoughts on the matter. Our default position is to block IPs for a reasonable amount of time appropriate to the offense, incrementally increasing the length as they re-offend. Not to jump immediately to a multi-year block on the back of a single juvenile vandalism to an admin's talk page. –xenotalk 20:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
It isn't appropriate to block an IP for years at a time. And the "zomg BLP" scare tactics being employed here aren't particularly appropriate either. Please stop, Rootology. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Folks here have it right. The IPs that make the Grawp-ish attacks are just following instructions on the 4chan website to click a link provided by grawp and then click save. It is rare that any of them will actually be Grawp or open proxies. Block for 24 hours and submit to WP:OPP for checking if you want to be sure. And it is usually good to semi-protect whatever page is being attacked by the /b/tards for around 24 hours. (Although, with the amount of traffic on /b/, 3 hours is probably enough.) As for the rest, just follow the standard Grawp response, revert, block and ignore. Thatcher 13:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- It is also worth noting that janitors on /b/ give invasion threads and the like short shrift, and will often delete an active thread if it involves invading another site. Don't even bother blocking - just hunt for open proxies amongst the IPs (not likely since 4chan bans OPs as well) and semi the affected pages indefinitely unless there's a very compelling reason not to. Also, in re Grawp's RL identity being known - not so. Grawp is an ED collective; I'd wager pennies to pineapples that J.D.H. has nothing at all to do with its most recent actions, especially given that Grawp has taken to harassing him as well. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 01:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Need technical fixup of Death.jpg and Death (DC Comics).jpg
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
The histories of File:Death.jpg and File:Death (DC Comics).jpg need to be merged and File:Death.jpg deleted so commons:File:Death.jpg shows through. As it stands now, Death has a file and Death (DC Comics) has the image. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Pages cannot be moved in filespace. I'll have to just copy the data, and cut-and-paste the history into a subpage. -- Avi (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- It seems now that the Commons is obscuring the old file. Ouch. Anyone have a way to get around this? -- Avi (talk) 17:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- You got me. Maybe it's time to get a coder involved? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've manually uploaded the old file. Hopefully everything is ok now.-Andrew c [talk] 00:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- It is, and the commons version of File:Death.jpg is now showing through. I've tagged this as resolved. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Before I go to CheckUser, is there any point if I do...?
Tempdude (talk · contribs) and Tom harryson (talk · contribs) are obviously the same person. The thing is, Tempdude began his Wikipedia career by changing the sockpuppet tag on various blocked accounts to claim that they are sockpuppets of Amorrow (talk · contribs). Based on that alone, it's clear that they are someone who knows ancient Wikipedia history and have come here with some sort of agenda. Is there any point in trying to go to Checkuser to see if it can be determined who they might be, or would that just be rejected as fishing? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Since both accounts are now indef blocked, a checkuser will not be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well, yes, I'm aware of that, but there's obviously an agenda here. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but a checkuser would only be carried out if there is strong evidence to suggest there are further socks. Icestorm815 • Talk 20:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- @Who then was a gentleman?, If you're just idly curious which troll this was, then no, don't bother. Half of the long-term trolls are the same people as the other half anyway. Or maybe all of the LTA cases are actually just one person. Who cares. No one is (or should be) keeping track. Wknight94 talk 21:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- If he's got a sock farm going on, it might be good to know about, would it not? Tony Fox (arf!) 21:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Both accounts were created a few minutes before attacking. Checkuser would have been no use even beforehand, let alone now. There's no sock farm. Just get some short-term semi-protection in place and be done with it. Wknight94 talk 21:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Created by which IP and which useragent? Checkuser would be invaluable in making sure there aren't more lurking under the hood. //roux 21:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Both accounts were created a few minutes before attacking. Checkuser would have been no use even beforehand, let alone now. There's no sock farm. Just get some short-term semi-protection in place and be done with it. Wknight94 talk 21:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- If he's got a sock farm going on, it might be good to know about, would it not? Tony Fox (arf!) 21:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- @Who then was a gentleman?, If you're just idly curious which troll this was, then no, don't bother. Half of the long-term trolls are the same people as the other half anyway. Or maybe all of the LTA cases are actually just one person. Who cares. No one is (or should be) keeping track. Wknight94 talk 21:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but a checkuser would only be carried out if there is strong evidence to suggest there are further socks. Icestorm815 • Talk 20:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well, yes, I'm aware of that, but there's obviously an agenda here. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Apologies for being vague, but if those accounts are what I think they are, someone else has already checked them. If they're not, then they don't need checking. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 22:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
There's no sock farm.. And you know that how? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Move it along, people! Both accounts belong to a banned user and were CU'ed more than two hours ago. If you want to get a quick check, go to WP:SPI or contact a CheckUser instead of posting here. End of discussion. Thanks, Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. That's what I wanted to know. What wikidrama was there? All I wanted was a civil response. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Both "sides" here are reasonable positions. There is often very little to gain from checking simple vandals; if they really have sleepers, they can be blocked when they start vandalizing. However, sometimes there are things that can be learned. Any editor should feel free to contact a checkuser or make a report in the "Quick Requests" section of WP:SPI, and the checkusers will decide whether it is worth their time to look it up. Thatcher 01:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Requested redirect concerning protected article
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
I had asked about this prior, and the reason I had asked it is because the article I wanted re-directed was a protected one and so I couldn't edit it myself
I want http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mobile,_Alabama_mayoral_election,_2009&action=edit&redlink=1 redirected to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Municipal_Elections,_2009
My work in progress article on the same subject.--Genovese12345 (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Are you sure that's the correct title? It doesn't appear to be (or ever have been) protected. – Toon(talk) 00:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- When I try to redirect I get this response
The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism. If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions:
Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard. You may also contact any administrator on their talk page or by e-mail. Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit, and if it might be misunderstood (for example, an article with an unusual name), consider explaining briefly what you want to do. If you wrote any text, save it temporarily on your computer until you can edit the page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genovese12345 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ah ok, blacklisted for some odd reason. I've created the redirect. – Toon(talk) 01:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Another question
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Is there anyway to block a user from looking at your contributions sections, say, if you think a user is specifically going through all your contributions for whatever reason and you don't want them to do so?--Genovese12345 (talk) 01:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- No. — Aitias // discussion 01:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Also, please consider posting such questions not here but rather on the WP:HELPDESK. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 01:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Also, by the sounds of it you should read (particularly the second paragraph of) this section of policy. It has some useful information. – Toon(talk) 01:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
How often does the above category get dealt with? I do a lot of other image work and I'd be willing to work on it, but unfortunately, I'm not an admin.--Rockfang (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Holy carp, that's a backlog! This may need a task force or a commission or an ad hoc committee. I'll pitch in, but this needs dozens of admins. KrakatoaKatie 22:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- On my way! :) Seriously though, all of the image deletion backlogs are getting way too big. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- This is ridiculously huge. I just did about 25. These are really laborious deletions because some have multiple versions which have to go, and to cleanup your have to go back to the image, edit and remove the template and save.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, I will get on this as well. Mfield (Oi!) 23:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Just so that you know you can remove the template in one click after deleting an image by using FileScripts. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I just found that and the other image related scripts, thanks. Mfield (Oi!) 00:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- I hope to improve that so that it also helps with the actual deletion, but that will take a bit more time; I just added that functionality in ~10 minutes. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you all for working on this. Like I stated above, I do a lot of image work and I'm willing to help out, but unfortunately, I'm not an admin. :) Rockfang (talk) 16:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Docu's signature violates WP:SIGNATURE
(edit conflict with David's archiving) I'm marking this as archived (perhaps boldly, but hear me out, please). AN isn't an appropriate forum to try to burn an editor at the stake and it nearly never works to adjust behavior of a very longtime contributor. We have a large number of appropriate forums to discuss editor behavior on a broader scale, including WP:RFC/U (which coincidentally is how the last thread regarding this signature issue was resolved when it was brought up on this board previously).
If there are issues with Docu's conduct broadly, please use an appropriate forum. A makeshift one here really isn't helpful or appropriate. Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
More personal attacks + edit warring
Dear Administrators,
I have earlier reported User:Interestedinfairness for a personal attack on myself (diff here), which resulted in that user being warned. However, he has done it again, this time to User:ThuranX, by calling him "childish" (diff here). Furthermore, if you look at the history of the Kosovo article (which is, by the way, on probation), you'll see User:Interestedinfairness deleting whole chunks of referenced text that don't suit his POV pushing. Several users have accused him of POV pushing and have warned him many times to stop doing what he is doing, on his talk page. However, the POV pushing is continuing and he is turning the Kosovo discussion into a "who Kosovo really belongs to" discussion. I propose that some action be taken, as he was already warned too many times and it's not working.
All the best,
--Cinéma C 18:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Editing Einstein Page
I would like to clean up the Einstein page by starting with the "External Links" section. There are some dead links there and other I think may be unnecessary and a violation of Wiki policy on EL. I believe this page can only be edited by registered editors. How can I register? Bigweeboy (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Semiprotection blocks users that are not autoconfirmed from editing. That means your account needs to be at least 4 days old and you need to have 10 or more edits to anything. You have already made one by asking this question, so see if there are any other pages that interest you that you can help and you should be good to go! Livewireo (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Unprotected, has been almost a year, let's give unprotection a try. –xenotalk 18:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- (e/c)Looking at your contributions and the age of your account, you should be able to edit semi-protected articles Livewireo (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks all. I have made some edits to the EL section and the changes seem to have taken hold. Bigweeboy (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Your Vandalism
Why are you(NJGW) vandalizing the 'Race and Intelligence' page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.250.35 (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- NJGW (talk · contribs) isn't an admin. Plus, you should contact them on their talk page about their edits. – Toon(talk) 22:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry for the confusion folks. 86.42.250.35 (talk · contribs) wants to know why I'm telling them they are at 3rr for removing the same bit of info from an article 3 times. Please enjoy the rest of your evening. NJGW (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict, directed to IP) Also, please review the Wikipedia definition of vandalism. You are making accusations with no merit. Tan | 39 23:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Here's one with merit: That statement of scientific research should be sourced to something that is a little better than a web-log whose unidentifiable author is known solely by the pseudonym "Mo", and whose reputation for fact checking and accuracy thus cannot be determined. I observe that the editor without an account has actually made this point twice ("poor quality citation" "Wikipedia should not cite blogs"). Instead of doing nothing more than treating this as vandalism, edit warring back and forth over the content, and then issuing warnings, I suggest treating it as the quite valid challenge to the reliability of the source cited that it is, and addressing the underlying, and explicitly stated, problem by finding and citing a reliable source. That will stop the editor without an account far more satisfactorily than 3RR will. And it will improve the encyclopaedia, to boot. Uncle G (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- I would agree with Uncle G. here. While the IP editor is mistaken that a user should be an admin to issue warnings (they don't; anyone can) the IP editor here has a valid challenge; and as noted in places such as WP:V, and I quote "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." As the article in question is one that is likely to generate a LOT of tension over specific information, and should be scrupulously referenced to avoid the appearance of impropriety, the standard for referencing should be very high. I would support the removal of poorly sourced information at that article until such time as a valid source could be added to support it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Somebody, anybody, please buy Uncle G a Guinness and put it on my tab. Hear, hear! --64.85.222.248 (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- I would agree with Uncle G. here. While the IP editor is mistaken that a user should be an admin to issue warnings (they don't; anyone can) the IP editor here has a valid challenge; and as noted in places such as WP:V, and I quote "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." As the article in question is one that is likely to generate a LOT of tension over specific information, and should be scrupulously referenced to avoid the appearance of impropriety, the standard for referencing should be very high. I would support the removal of poorly sourced information at that article until such time as a valid source could be added to support it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is the anon was removing information typically tagged or fixed per wp:PRESERVE, as well as referred to easily verifiable objective facts as political bias. These edits were singularly aimed at removing any evidence of controversy from the hypothesis that race governs intelligence, leading me to believe that this person is a highly POV anon. The article in question, BTW, needs a total rewrite from a sociologist. If I ever get a free month I'll do it myself (though I'm no sociologist). NJGW (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Let me reitate Uncle G's point. If you don't want the information removed, find a reliable source. Blogs are not generally reliable, especial for an article such as this. Go to the library, find a book, and cite it. The neat thing about that is that the problem goes away when you do that, with two benefits: a) no one gets blocked and b) the article gets better. Its a win-win! If preserving the poorly sourced information is a problem, then copy it to the talk page, and keep it out of the article, but preserved at the talk page, until such time as the information can be properly referenced. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is the anon was removing information typically tagged or fixed per wp:PRESERVE, as well as referred to easily verifiable objective facts as political bias. These edits were singularly aimed at removing any evidence of controversy from the hypothesis that race governs intelligence, leading me to believe that this person is a highly POV anon. The article in question, BTW, needs a total rewrite from a sociologist. If I ever get a free month I'll do it myself (though I'm no sociologist). NJGW (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Harassment/edit warring
72.66.109.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has continuously removed content or reverted to his own favored version of the articles he has edited, and harasses editors who don't agree with his POV. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC))
- That is totally untrue. I have started the section titled Juggalo on the WP:BLPN noticeboard. Please read the Juggalo talk page, my extensive edit summaries and also the BLP noticeboard. I have really and truly tried to talk this out with Ibarnoff but he continues to edit war and ignore the opinions of other editors. I have had a pretty constructive conversation with both Martin and Metropolitan90 (from the BLP board) about why I think the Juggalo page has a BLP issue. All I am trying to do is follow wikipedia policy the best I know how, but Ibaranoff is completely harassing me. Please suggest something, maybe some form of mediation. Thank you. 72.66.109.24 (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- You can find my comments on this issue at WP:BLPN, primarily at this diff. Based on what I have seen so far, I do not believe that Ibaranoff24's accusation of harassment and edit warring by 72.66.109.24 is justified. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Per WP:V and especially WP:BLP, when an editor has made a good-faith challenge to potentially libelous matierial, or other material which may violate the BLP policy, the material should be removed until the dispute is resolved. BLPs are a serious issue, and we can leave some nugget of info out of an article until we are sure that the the nugget is factual and adequetly sourced, then so be it. We aren't in a rush here. Lets get it right rather than get it NOW. Otherwise, since this thread appears to be an extension of an existing thread in another location, we shouldn't split up threads. Let us allow the WP:BLPN thread to play itself out here and not divide the issues up among different forums. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- It is clear that this individual is not editing in good faith. He has repeatedly reverted any edit that he disagrees with, insults other editors and tells them that they make "zero sense", removes content from talk pages, and claims that he has support that doesn't exist. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC))
- Per WP:V and especially WP:BLP, when an editor has made a good-faith challenge to potentially libelous matierial, or other material which may violate the BLP policy, the material should be removed until the dispute is resolved. BLPs are a serious issue, and we can leave some nugget of info out of an article until we are sure that the the nugget is factual and adequetly sourced, then so be it. We aren't in a rush here. Lets get it right rather than get it NOW. Otherwise, since this thread appears to be an extension of an existing thread in another location, we shouldn't split up threads. Let us allow the WP:BLPN thread to play itself out here and not divide the issues up among different forums. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- I no longer assume good faith from Ibaranoff. He has been edit warring, harassing me on my talk page, ignoring other editors and been pretty uncivil in general. It looks like I do have some support and to be quite honest, a lot of your arguments really don't make any sense. If you would have just talked this out instead of continuously reinserting BLP violation material, we could have had this hashed out a week ago. 72.66.109.24 (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- This editor clearly does not understand Wikipedia's policies, repeatedly removes content, harasses other editors, and makes false accusations that are directly contradicted by the fact that he himself is behaving in this manner, not the editors he accuses. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC))
- I would like to point out that the IP editor has been editing the talk page comments of other editors, which is against policy. Until It Sleeps 19:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- This editor clearly does not understand Wikipedia's policies, repeatedly removes content, harasses other editors, and makes false accusations that are directly contradicted by the fact that he himself is behaving in this manner, not the editors he accuses. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC))
- I no longer assume good faith from Ibaranoff. He has been edit warring, harassing me on my talk page, ignoring other editors and been pretty uncivil in general. It looks like I do have some support and to be quite honest, a lot of your arguments really don't make any sense. If you would have just talked this out instead of continuously reinserting BLP violation material, we could have had this hashed out a week ago. 72.66.109.24 (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
calling a cucumber
could someone calm and sensible please review, and maybe close this discussion (a deletion review on departed arb. sam's bio). Thanks :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- ah go on... someone's got to. (aren't I demanding...) Privatemusings (talk) 08:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
request
I'd like someone to take a look at this discussion: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 25#The Money Masters documentary.
cordially, Nunamiut (talk) 04:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Just did. Now what? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Are you saying it needs to be closed? hmwithτ 16:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
help - page formatting messed up
I added to [[29]] but the formatting is messed up and the bots are faster than me in editing. Fixing help would be appreciated. Iqinn (talk) 10:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- The report is fixed and I've commented on the same. TNXMan 13:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
I would move this into article namespace but I can't. I can't remember if you guys can or not but if you can and want to that's fine. I was inclined to suggest deletion, but last time I tried to get an article in the wrong namespace deleted, MfD sent me to AfD and AfD sent me to MfD. So you guys deal with it. Gurch (talk) 10:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- The one image/article looked like G11 to me, and the other image was clearly a copyright violation (I guess it's reasonable to believe the uploader works for them, but without confirmation...). So yeah, nuked. He's also been inactive over a year, so I'm going to assume this is the is the end of it and marking it resolved. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Disruptive, edit-warring editor
In early July 2007, User:Peterdjones did his first beer article edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trappist_beer&diff=142217813&oldid=135505666 The information he added was generally inaccurate and seemed to reflect the POV of Beer Advocate or another beer fan website. He edit-warred with knowledgable editors (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trappist_beer&diff=146165701&oldid=146159214) and by 21 August 2007, he was gone. All the articles that he had inaccurately written and protected with edit-warring had to be rewritten.
A few weeks ago (25 May), he returned. The edit-warring is back: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quadrupel&action=history Plus endless and pointless discussions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Quadrupel#Links
His lack of knowledge about Dutch/Belgian beer is enough of a problem. His edit-warring and pointless discussions prevent editors from working since we need to spend time undoing the damage he caused and trying to explain to him why he is wrong.
I have reverted many of his edits because I: a. hoped/expected he would soon go away, as he had before, and b. it was quicker than having to go through his history to collect diffs to file this notice. Please ban him from the beer article so that we can improve instead of defending the status quo. Mikebe (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- As an independant third party, I have to say that Mikebe is as much to blame as Peterdjones. Pay no attention to this post.Beakerboy (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Two points Beakerboy. One is that you haven't provided any diffs to back up that assertion. Two is that in posting here, Mikebe is also inviting scrutiny of his actions in regards to this dispute. Administrators will look at all actions by all editors when formulating a response. Suggesting they ignore this post is ill-considered. Exxolon (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- What I thought I was doing is making some small and uncontentious amendments to some articles. It seems to have blown up into a huge battle that I don't really have the time to take part it. I find it odd that I can amend the article reality without comment, as I recently did, but the minutiae of Belgian beer have to be argued out exhaustively. If anyone wishes to pursue this
matter (and I can't think why they should) further, I can provide examples of mikebe making misleading edit summaries and getting facts wrong. 1Z (talk)
- Peterdjones, you don't help yourself when you refactor the comments of others to remove a diff (see here) at the same time as stating your case. I have reinserted it, you should note I spotted this and am not even involved in your dispute. Mine's a Leffe Tripel ;-) Bigger digger (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Extra eyes on a touchy BLP DRV, please
This needs more input. rootology (C)(T) 15:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- I closed it. It was 2 weeks old, and the discussion was going in circles. It has been quite long enough. There was no widespread support for changing the current situation, so the article will remain deleted. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- I endorse Jayron32's closure of the DRV. There is no evidence the article would have been kept at AfD, and the arguments for relisting it were not convincing. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- You do realize that a deletion can be out of process and contested as such even if it will likely be deleted at AFD? DRV is not about arguments whether an article should be kept or deleted but whether the deletion that happened was within policy. Regards SoWhy 20:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but I believe this is a proper application of WP:IAR as going through the process for process' sake is not necessarily a good thing. As the article has been deleted, and it is extremely unlikely that the article would be kept if the AfD was reopened, I see no reason to reopen it and undelete the article just to close it as delete and delete the article again in a few days. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- You do realize that a deletion can be out of process and contested as such even if it will likely be deleted at AFD? DRV is not about arguments whether an article should be kept or deleted but whether the deletion that happened was within policy. Regards SoWhy 20:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- I endorse Jayron32's closure of the DRV. There is no evidence the article would have been kept at AfD, and the arguments for relisting it were not convincing. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- A convenient way to circumvent the need for a majority at AFD. 14 people objected to the out of process action, compared to 16 people carrying on the AFD behind closed doors. MickMacNee (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- I closed it. It was 2 weeks old, and the discussion was going in circles. It has been quite long enough. There was no widespread support for changing the current situation, so the article will remain deleted. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: 97.86.82.130
The Technology director has requested that their ip be blocked. I know that blocks are not to be used as punishment, but the IT Director has requested we do so. The E-mail is a follows:
Andrew, I don't know why anyone should be editing anything on the Wikipedia page from our school. My advice would be for you to go ahead and block our IP address from the editing options for the Wikipedia. It is not possible for me to determine who has done the editing at this time. To my knowledge there is no need for anyone here to be editing. Please feel free to contact me if you have further problems or questions. Thanks,
Cathy Zoulek Technology Director Shelby Public Schools
The talkpage can be found Here, along with the e-mail I sent.
AndrewrpTally-ho! 15:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- The IP is already blocked for nearly as long as it has been assigned, so in the absence of a crystal ball there's probably not much to be done here. If it's still assigned to the school after the block expires and the vandalism continues then it will be quickly blocked again. Thank you for taking an interest in stopping the vandalism but I tend to find these emails to school admins generally unhelpful to both the schools and Wikipedia. It's much better for everyone to simply block them if they're vandalising. Complaining about vandalism from schools is like complaining about rain coming in through an open window. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Have them email OTRS. Nakon 23:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/Lolcat2-cropped.jpg/220px-Lolcat2-cropped.jpg)
Should this cat have his own article, as he was once joint leader of a political party? Or am I just being overly hopeful? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Original article. Redirect seems fine, but was he lolnotable? rootology (C)(T) 18:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- A joke political party nominated a cat as its leader, and you want a seperate article on the cat. Really? What more needs be said about the cat than what is already noted in the article on its owner? Does the amount of text occupied by the cat in the article necessitate that the information needs to be spun off into its own article? I mean, seriously, why?!? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- It wasn't a joke party, they actually had some legitimate political viewpoints. And yes the cat fulfils the criteria for WP:N, there are RS on in the article plus there's no shortage of paper round here. I think the original article should be restored. In fact I'm tempted to do it mmyself. --WebHamster 18:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- I LOL'd! – ukexpat (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- A joke political party nominated a cat as its leader, and you want a seperate article on the cat. Really? What more needs be said about the cat than what is already noted in the article on its owner? Does the amount of text occupied by the cat in the article necessitate that the information needs to be spun off into its own article? I mean, seriously, why?!? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
We do have an existing article on Pigasus, for comparison. So long as we don't pretend that these animals had actual political positions, I don't see a problem. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- I long for the day we see an NPOV-citing edit war that we must "respect the party's view per NPOV" that "the right honourable feline" was indeed the councillor from Kittyshire. rootology (C)(T) 19:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's about time a decent pussy was sat on the front benches. --WebHamster 19:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Problem with an IP editor
Hi,
- **Advance apologies for all the diffs, just trying to provide enough evidence. But if you look at the relevant parts of the talk page and the article history it'll be clear**
I am here to ask for admin assistance with 68.111.167.64 (talk). The editor is causing myself and User:Aboutmovies a lot of problems with edits to Intel Corporation. The IP editor is very keen to include a speculative comment without sourcing that is OR. I came to the page after a request for a third opinion (Taking the case). I gave that opinion, and then reinforced it which disagreed with the editor's opinion and they then tried to create an ArbCom case that has been refused and yet still the editor makes their non-consensus changes which I revert, and then ask them to stop at their talk page. The editor doubted my neutrality in the ArbCom case creation and is now assuming bad faith in Aboutmovies, here.
I have tried to welcome this editor and suggest paths to help. Instead I am ignored and the editor carries on regardless. To me this is a clear case of an editor unable to accept that both policy and consensus is against the edit. I don't know if the answer is page protection, a block, or someone telling me I'm being unreasonable, but I'd like to sort this out please as I am tired!
I will notify both the IP editor and Aboutmovies once this is posted.
Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)