Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead.
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Template:Active editnotice

Why some (unsourced) BLPs are a huge problem.

We have been lucky that we didn't have a second Seigenthaler incident. For a year and a half, from 26 July 2008 until today, we had an article claiming that someone who in reality is a University professor, former Italian Minister and former President of Sicily (as evidenced by the interwiki and by a Google search) was in fact a "flashy mobster" who "was imprisoned in 1999 at the age of 53, for: narcotics trafficking, conspiracy to commit murder, several counts of murder in the first degree & several counts of assault on an officer." Fram (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and the article was...?

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The revisions have been deleted; publicising the name of the article helps nobody. ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 08:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can easily check it in my editing history (my log of deletions will help as well), but for BLP privacy sake, I'ld rather not put the name here. Yes, I realise that that makes this a bit awkward... Fram (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look... If you're going to bring something to a noticeboard, it needs to be useful in some way. Informative - there's a problem we didn't know about, etc. Alerting - do something about this. Those sorts of things.

Posting the equivalent of "Elvis is still dead" is not useful. Yes, we know there are problem BLPs out there. We weren't given any useful information here - no article to check the edit history on, to see if editors are still around who contributed to this mess, to cross-check other articles they were involved in. No information to better inform future decisions on either operational response or policy decisions.

I would accept "other admins / arbs / whoever have already done those other reviews, all taken care of". But in that case... why put any mention on AN at all?

Putting something here is asking for attention. Don't do that if you don't want attention...

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a wake up call, a notice that despite the claims of some people in e.g. the BLP RfC or other pages, there are a number of very serious, long term BLP violations on (unsourced) BLP pages which could harm those people seriously (the article in question has been spread over many, many WP copies, with the result that any English language search for his name gives rather bad publicity), and could harm Wikipedia seriously as well (our reputation didn't really get a boost from the Seigenthaler incident). Furthermore, anyone can very easily find which article this is about, so people can check whether I handled this delicate situation correctly and whether any further action (oversight, rounding up of every involved editor, ...) is necessary. Fram (talk) 09:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to reinterate (once and only once more) that this is a curious approach to and goal in posting something to a noticeboard, and that it was not perhaps entirely useful. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the discussion caused by your objection to it is even less useful.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* - the edits have been undeleted now and suppressed per policy. You can see who made the edits but not the edits themselves, thankfully. That article was an utter disgrace - Alison ^❤ 09:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done everybody, and it is a bit of a worry that this survived for so long. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that that vandalized BLP was not an isolated instance, but its not about having a few sources cited. The reason we don't have a second Seigenthaler incident is because the press won't cover every wikivandal case. Its not exciting to be "second" in the news about such things, aside from an occasional "wikipedia reported XX was dead for 10 minutes today". To the extent the general public knows anything about wikipedia, they know that anyone can edit it, and thus sometimes its wrong. But the root of the problem is not whether an article has a few sources or not--its about vandals who wish to deface a page. One day when I checked out what Wikipedia Review was, I became aware of a trio of articles repeatedly vandalized by a troll for over 2 years, where he asserted (with different usernames or IPs every few months) that one person was not a person at all but a pseudonym of the other. This started happening in mid-2007, and was last vandalized earlier this month. The articles are Chris Gore, My Big Fat Independent Movie, and Philip Zlotorynski (the last of which currently redirects to the movie article as a protective move). These articles were not unsourced BLPs -- they had some sources cited, and the blatant vandalism was slipped in, and overlooked despite other editors stopping by from time to time (like one editor suggesting that the two BLPS be merged if they were the same person, oblivious to the fake claim). Sample diffs for Zlotorynski:[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Since I am watching the articles now, and have berated the loser vandal, I suspect the problem will be controlled (but now that admins will read this, feel free to ban him). So, while unsourced BLPs are the bogeyman of the day, I have had trouble finding any link between BLPs that are sourced and whether they become a vandalism target. The vast majority of BLPs, sourced or otherwise, are uncontentious. Though, if BLPs could not be edited by IP editors or unconfirmed users, this case may have not happened.--Milowent (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that 'xyz was a former President of Sicily' is now considered just as much of a BLP violation as 'xyz was a flashy mobster'. Yet all you have done here is replace one unreffed BLP with another. So, per BLP, somebody delete the professor's article, and then someone can replace it with a sourced article about the mobster of this name, who actually lived in the 19th Century. MickMacNee (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, its still a BLP violation, but negative material that is provably false is much greater of a violation. Mr.Z-man 15:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The sort of vandalism claimed here is not he dangerous kind, for such edits will be very quickly spotted. The people advocating strong action on unsourced BLPs have been generally highlighting the danger of the less watched and unnoticed articles, where vandalism can stay for a very long while. I'm not sure either is as much of a problem as the potential for damage to people in what are ostensibly non BLP articles. There are a great many many problems, and the attitude that all usourced statements are harmful prevents a focus on the true problem areas. Given our basic principles of editing this is hardly surprising. Given them, I'd say we had a rather low lever of vandalism, and I think a number of outsiders have commented that we are among the best sites in attention to removing them. The reason we have a very low level is because of the great number of editors, and the true solution to the problem is to encourage new people to become active, which is not done by deleting articles. (In the meanwhile, the existing ones will need to work a little more carefully and perhaps a little harder.) DGG ( talk ) 17:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For a year and a half, from 26 July 2008 until today, we had an article claiming that someone who in reality is a University professor, former Italian Minister and former President of Sicily (as evidenced by the interwiki and by a Google search) was in fact a "flashy mobster" who "was imprisoned in 1999 at the age of 53, for: narcotics trafficking, conspiracy to commit murder, several counts of murder in the first degree & several counts of assault on an officer. - is that what you mean by being spotted quickly? Guy (Help!) 18:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well unless people actually check the sources to see if they're true or unwarped, it won't help, as many entrenched users use fake sources etc. And people are reluctant to make a stand against entrenched editors, especially when a lot of the pov pushers are part of an ethnic/religious bloc YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to defend BLP violations, but are we sure it is vandalism?

I cannot see the deleted edits. However, the Italian corresponding article is weakly sourced but enough to confirm that the guy has indeed a criminal record as being involved with Mafia, even if dissimilar in the details from the one cited above, and he has indeed been involved in that at the age of 53. See here for example if you can read Italian -the source is one of the main Italian newspapers; I am happy to provide a translation if needed. (The thing is complicated by the subject having the same surname of a notable Italian mobster -with whom he is involved in the events leading to the arrest, making the whole thing a bit convoluted). --Cyclopia ^talk 00:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see [7]. Again, the details do not fit with what Fram says it was in the article, but the situation is much less clear-cut than it seems. Again, happy to provide translation if needed. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclopia is right. The guy was "presidente della Regione siciliana", and was also arrested as a mobster; he was also addressed as "professore", which doesn't necessarily mean he was a university prof. Did you think their mafia has no political connections?! Surely references are good, but there seems to be no contradiction here between the two statuses. Reminds me of a recent similar case in Romania, but I forgot the name of the guy. Pcap ping 02:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not the same person - the problem is there are two separate Giuseppe Provenzano's. One is a 19th century Sicilian mobster (see [http://www.onewal.com/w-proven.html this link). The other one is a former President of Sicily who was in office from 1996-1998 (see Politics of Sicily). Unfortunately their names both linked to the same article, which apparently contained both the mobster bio and the President's bio scrambled into one. They need to be disambiged and separated into 2 different articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.136.35.108 (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two different Giuseppe Provenzano. But the professor (who was a university professor indeed) we're talking about was also arrested or otherwise implicated for strong suspects Mafia connections, due also to turncoat's confessions, and not in the 19th century but few years ago. An excerpt from one of the refs above "Ma l' incarico di "curatore" dei patrimoni del boss di Corleone - è la rivelazione di Francesco Di Carlo - sarebbe stato affidato poi a Giuseppe Provenzano, eletto deputato regionale in Forza Italia il 16 giugno scorso e diventato presidente della Regione. Il pentito Di Carlo avrebbe raccontato di conoscere queste vicende "per averlo appreso personalmente" da Totò Riina e da Bernardo Brusca. I due boss sostenevano - sempre secondo Di Carlo - che il professore Giuseppe Provenzano, commercialista, docente alla facoltà di Economia e commercio dell' università di Palermo, un tempo anche perito del tribunale, avrebbe fatto quadruplicare i capitali di Binnu." ("But the responsibility of managing the belongings of the Corleone boss -that's the revelation of [turncoat] Francesco Di Carlo - has been delegated then to Giuseppe Provenzato, elected as a deputy in Forza Italia 16th of June and became president of Region [of Sicily]. Turncoat Di Carlo explained he knew about this for "having personally learned" from Totò Riina and Bernardo Brusca. The two bosses claimed -according to Di Carlo- that professor Giuseppe Provenzano, accountant, lecturer at the Economy and Commerce faculty of Palermo University and even assessor to the Palermo court, would have made the fortunes of Binnu quadruplicate") --Cyclopia ^talk 13:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was arrested for suspected mafia connections, he was not convicted for murder and so on, and didn't die in prison last year (as the article also claimed). Some vandal used the bio of the 19th century mobster, and pasted it on the current professor/politician. That minor parts of it were correct does not mean that it is somewhat better. Was the professor ever convicted? Fram (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know. Don't take me wrong, you were absolutely right in removing such unsourced information, being it true or not. I was only presenting such info here because, being unable to see the edits, I wasn't able to decide if they referred to the real arrests or not of the subject. --Cyclopia ^talk 22:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The article did not refer to the actual allegations of links with the mafia, but only linked the actual 19th century mobster facts with the current politician (using his date of birth and so on). Fram (talk) 08:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with my trez kewl Admin powerz I can see some of the edit history of this article, & it appears that the material Fram is using to argue that unsourced biographical articles on living people is a problem was added by an editor using an anon IP address. Ignoring the possibility of a mistake made in good faith here (it appears both persons with the same name were arrested for being alleged Mafia members), since this derogatory information was added by an anonymous editor, then we should ban anonymous edits from Wikipedia! (Oh wait -- that's one of those perennial proposals which will never be accepted.) Then the unsourced controversial information remained -- despite the fact over half a dozen people editted the page -- for over a year & ahalf until Fram came along. (Maybe we ought to sanction all of those editors for failing to remove this information. That's not a perennial proposal -- yet.) I'm not saying that we shouldn't keep such unsourced information out of Wikipedia, but that WP:BLP is rapidly becoming one of those slogans -- like "Think of the children!" -- which will lead us to cures that are worse than the illnesses. -- llywrch (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does who added the material have any relevance on this discussion? No one has argued for any of your strawmen here. Fram (talk) 08:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who added the material is not the issue; I don't know why you would think it is, unless you fail to recognize & understand sarcasm. The issue is that derogatory material was added, & the fact this biographical article about a living person was unsourced is irrelevant to how the derogatory material got there. Putting sources on the article would have been as ineffectual as banning anons from editting or punishing editors for not removing derogatory material. This instance does not justify the claim you made in the header of this thread. You made an error in logic here. (I can't believe I need to explain what I was saying in this post; maybe I should start using more words of a single syllable or less.) -- llywrch (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The claim I made in the header: "Why some (unsourced) BLPs are a huge problem." This article is a BLP, right? And it was indicative of a huge problem, namely that we can have content that is so negative that it needs to be oversighted hanging around for a year and a half. So I hope you do agree that some BLPs are a huge problem. And in this case it was an unsourced one, hence the (unsourced) in brackets. If it had been sourced, people could have more easily checked it (certainly if it had been an online source: just a click and you can see for yourself). With an unsourced article, you have to make more of an effort to check it, or just believe the contents as they are. But anyway, my header focused on the BLP problem, and added the unsourced because this was an unsourced article. I have not made an error in logic, and it appears that your opposition against the unsourced BLP RfC has blinded you here. I agree that if you would use words of less than one syllable in this discussion, it might be a bit more constructive (and would have been archived already). Fram (talk) 08:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No blindness on my part. Unsuitable information is added to Wikipedia as we write this, not only to biographical articles on living people, but to articles on dead people & to articles on various useful subjects. The original concept of Wikipedia was that many eyes would be sufficient to keep this unsuitable material out. Sadly, over half a dozen people editted that article & never thought to remove this unsuitable material -- which means either we accept that this situation is the best the Wikipedia model can do -- proprietary reference works have the same problem, yet fail to respond to mistakes as quickly as Wikipedia has done -- or we openly admit that the "many eyes" concept isn't good enough & stop calling Wikipedia "the encyclopedia anyone can edit." Because the BLP policy is being invoked more & more frequently to overrule any process of discussion, thus becoming a nuclear option that will eventually be used by someone in a way that will destroy Wikipedia -- just like an exchange of nuclear weapons. -- llywrch (talk) 06:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Community ban proposal for Jack "Red Hood" Napier

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Ban enacted [8] [9]. –xeno^talk 16:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Posting this proposal under a sock name because the original account may be the user's real name. Last year Drew R. Smith was caught deliberately falsifying a reference source and was nearly community sitebanned afterward for that and serial copyright violation. The closing administrator gave a final warning:

While many users have expressed support for an indefinite ban, no clear consensus has been achieved. Drew has been reblocked for 30 days, with the understanding that once his block expires, he will be under close scrutiny. Any further misbehavior, or the revelation of non-confessed past behavior, will result in an immediate indef block/defacto ban. Vicenarian (Said · Done) 04:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually there were other undisclosed copyright violations at that time and afterward he made more copyright violations. Recently he also falsified sourcing again and checkuser has confirmed a sleeper sock as well as a likely result on a vandalism-only account. Those vandalism edits included adding obscene images to other people's user pages (caution--explicit content in link).[10]

Evidence

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drew R. Smith

Confirmed - the following accounts as being the same editor;

Drew R. Smith (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Jack "Red Hood" Napier (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Davis Bloome (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Likely

MakemydayOW (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Additional sock confirmed by previous checkuser

User:Larry Sanger's revenge [11]

Another admitted sock

User:Ender The Xenocide (account created from unified login after first attempt to change user names)

Undisclosed copyright violations prior to final warning in lieu of siteban

File:Knight Goby.jpg, from here: identical background, simple crop.
File:Diagram of swine flu.jpg, claims self-made, appears to be a derivative work from here.
File:Abramites hypselonotus.JPG claims to be self-made public domain release. Image has halftoning; obviously duplicated from a book.

Subsequent copyvio uploads

File:Pompom.jpg The upload at Wikipedia asserts "Disclaimer states images can be reused under cc by sa." and links only to the image itself, not to the license statement.[12] The top result on Google Images for this image states "Copyright © 2007-2010 All About Aquarium Fish. All Rights Reserved."[13]
File:Michael Grant Cahill.png
File:L. Eduardo Caraveo.png
File:Michael Pearson.png
File:Russell Seager.png
File:Francheska Velez.png
File:Juanita Warman.png
File:Kham Xiong.png
File:Justin M. DeCrow.png
File:John Gaffaney.png
File:Frederick Greene.png
File:Aaron Thomas Nemelka.png
File:Jason Dean Hunt.png
File:Amy Krueger.png
File:Long-beakedEchidna.gif
File:Echidna, Exmouth.gif
File:Player at Island Paintball.jpg Copyright defaults to the photographer, not the subject. No OTRS submission.
File:Player at Island Paintball.png Copyright defaults to the photographer, not the subject. No OTRS submission.

Source falsifications

2009: File:Insectivorous Plants Drew's copy.jpg deleted as blatant hoax after this admission: Drew R. Smith had used an image editor to alter the text of a reference source, then yellowed the background to make the image look like a scan from an old book.
17 February 2010: creates article at Wikipedia.[14] The entire text is a cut and paste from a Citizendium article[15] that was written in 2009. Violates Citizendium's CC-by-sa 3.0 license[16] by failing to give any attribution to Citizendium or the article's authors,[17] plus falsifies sourcing throughout the article. Sample for comparison: Wikipedia paragraph,[18] identical uncited Citizendium paragraph,[19] irrelevant reference added to Wikipedia paragraph does not substantiate the paragraph.[20]

Other problems (copied from User talk:Moonriddengirl)

Heart Full of Black (song): (1 edits, 1 major, +663) (+663) Y, problem, in that he incorporated a non-free image without a FUR. I don't think a FUR can be made to use the album cover to illustrate a single, so removed. Otherwise, article is unsourced & does not seem to be copied. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Paintball: (1 edits, 1 major, +552) (+552) ? Not a copyvio, but a peculiar use of its sources to support the statement "Fields may choose to use field paint only to offset insurance costs." One of the three sources focuses on insurance costs and liability, but the other two list insurance costs as just one of a long series of reasons. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

After his hoax admission and apology last year I attempted to coach him in digital image restoration with the hope of integrating him into the community on a good footing. He did not follow through enough to make any substantial progress. His final responses to attempts at outreach within the last day and a half have been defiant.[21][22]

Many thanks to Alison, Jack Merridew, and Moonriddengirl for their assistance.

Per the above, I propose a community siteban. Durova⁴¹² 05:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Support
See:
- ani#597#Disruptive signature
- ani#597#user talk:Jack Merridew
I spotted this reincarnation the other day while checking back on an unrelated thread on the same page and my first comment on it was at:
- User talk:Tbsdy lives#My Userpage
This fellow is unrepentantly disruptive and sees this project as a game. Enough already.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
more:
- File:Wewillfuckyouup.ogg, by Drew, which I just cut from his userpage^{false citation}
- User:Drew R. Smith/Goldfish which needs vetting for copyvio images (and teh text?)
- and there's all the other stuff in his userspace that should probably all be deleted
Jack Merridew 06:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- cough — Jack Merridew 10:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can't just say cough and expect him to be blocked. Have you got any evidence? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have email off him. It's him. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC) I just saw the timing of the last few posts; I wasn't coughing specifically at you; I'd not seen the block-comment below when I made my post; maaf, Jack Merridew 10:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Enough is enough. I'd also like to point out that Drew is denying that User:MakemydayOW is a sock of his. However, MakemydayOW chose to vandalize Jimbo's user page. Jimbo's user page was also a target for User:Larry Sanger's revenge, another sock of Drew's. I don't trust him and he's not worth wasting any more time on. AniMate 06:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearly they are not here to contribute, but to play games. Show them the door and block new socks on sight. There ais actually an additional sock not mentioned above [23]. -- <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The imagevios by themselves are a bannable offence. MER-C 09:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked both Drew and Jack Napier account so I obviously support this. Enough is quite frankly enough. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At least ban from uploading images. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He also copyvioed an entire article two days ago. Durova⁴¹² 16:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support siteban Were the effort and consideration into inserting falsehoods and copyvio's into WP directed toward working within policy then we would have an excellent contributor. That they were given that opportunity and spurned it is evidence, I suggest, that they are unsuited for the Wikipedia environmet and they should not be allowed to participate further. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. I was the one that blocked him for 30 days last year. In retrospect, we should have just banned him then. A cocky, holier-than-thou editor who is either a) bent on discrediting Wikipedia or b) obsessed with people thinking he takes good photographs or can come up with airtight references, neither of which he is capable of doing. Toss the key. Tan | 39 16:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The user's "contributions" are highly disruptive. There have been many attempts at guidance. Enough, already. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I noticed User:Durova's subjective 'defiant' comment in the summary and read User_talk:Durova#Being_reasonable, a section that was started by Jack "Red Hood" Napier. If that's going to be the quality of a summary then I have consider doubts of the quality of the investigation and the evidence but forward appears considerably distorted and quite one sided. I don't have the time to investigate but I feel at least opposing here will give others an opportunity for others to take a deeper look and review there supports with less herd of sheep type responses. SunCreator (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That conversation was not actually started by Jack Napier; the thread header is a sarcastic response to an invitation at his user talk.[24] Compare:

You may wish to comment here. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drew R. Smith. If you'd also like to discuss this with me at my user talk, please do. I'm willing to be reasonable if you are. Durova412 23:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes Durova, I am willing to be reasonable, but it seems a bit late for that as you and Jack have already publicly outted me, and any contributions I make will be looked at with my past actions in mind. I made this account to get away from all of that. Thanks for nothing. Jack "Red Hood" Napier (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

- I was hoping he would admit to the copyvios and help with cleanup. If he had cooperated I would have sought a structured editing restriction if an experienced volunteer agreed to oversee his edits. Instead he replied "Thanks for nothing". That is not the reply of an editor who intends to adjust to site standards, and improper licensing is not an issue where we can be flexible: it's the law. Durova⁴¹² 17:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the response to an invitation. I hadn't found that although it doesn't alter my view of the use of defiant in the summary.

Please be aware of the saying Sarcasm on the internet is like winking on the phone. You may give that some consideration. Over years of internet communications I've found that treating anything as sarcasm is likely to lead to a breakdown in communications. Perhaps this sarcasm perception lead to the 'defiant' claim? SunCreator (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, a real and genuine example of the Chewbacca defense. Bleating marvelous! LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)(Resp to SunCreator. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Yes. Quite funny that he/she compares the support responses to a "herd of sheep", when he/she apparently cannot bother to do any sort of research before coming to conclusions. If the glove doesn't fit... Tan | 39 17:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness to SunCreator, a few hours after this siteban proposal started someone redirected the Jack Napier user talk page to the Drew R. Smith user talk without porting its contents. So part of the leadup discussion became hard to find and that might have confused SunCreator. Durova⁴¹² 18:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest at least I'm being honest when saying "I don't have the time to investigate". The editor in question here may of done all sorts of sh!t but I'm not convinced by a selective one-sided argument, especially in light of the closing suammry. SunCreator (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They found their way to this page, and decided that they need not review the very many links by disparate editors to be found here... - but then, why allow evidence to get in the way of an argument (however good faith in being arrived at). LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No argument there. Durova⁴¹² 19:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the contary, it is the evidence of the summary that brings the investigation into question. I think my orginal post was quite clear. SunCreator (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You think I am confusing the jury by questioning the evidence? Your misplaced put down is not constructive. (Response to LessHeard vanU) SunCreator (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misinterpreting "Thanks for nothing". I don't see that as unconstructive. I read this edit as a willingness to make a newstart. (response to Durova) SunCreator (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If he hadn't resumed his old problems, perhaps. Have a read at the preceding discussion at his user talk: not so much a break with the past as an attempt to avoid accountability for prior mistakes. Afterward when I showed him the problem with File:Pompom.jpg and invited him to provide a license reference that didn't state it was under full copyright, twice he changed the subject and finally told me I was wasting my time. Durova⁴¹² 04:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you supply the (three?) diffs for that please. SunCreator (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You stated above that you've read the thread at my user talk page. If that was a true statement then you've already seen all of those discussion points. Durova⁴¹² 04:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support It's amazing reading all of this. Show them the door is definitely needed. Blocking any socks and reverting should be done immediately. Really sad to see this come about, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ban Enough is enough. GlassCobra 18:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ban) We should not be coddling users who treat warnings as sidewalk-chalk scrawls, especially where they're being unrepentant with violating copyrights. Get him out of here. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 02:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I am Drew Peacock, Esquire. I am posting a reply as to me only. I am posting my reply in the subsection below titled "Please block the remaining sock." I am trying to write it all there. However, I can't go post there without saying that I am none of these people, I do not know any of them, I am not in anyway connected with any of them or any of their accounts. Thank for your time and consideration in reading these words and the other words under the next subheading.-- Drew Peacock, Esquire ^{- my talk page -} 07:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Repeated copyright violations and falsification of sources are not compatible with wikipedia's aim of being a "free encyclopedia". Abecedare (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support; exhausted community patience with the continued problems. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support I've been following this whole case(and the previous, too) right from the start and I think that enough is enough. Editor has been given much chance and has broken all our trusts. Time for a community siteban. Bejinhan Talk 04:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please block the remaining sock

According to Jack Merridew above, Napier is still socking with an unblocked sock account [25]. Can someone check and block? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator should probably contact Jack to confirm the email evidence. Durova⁴¹² 19:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll block if the evidence is presented to me. Tan | 39 20:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been emailed the evidence and it's less than convincing - basically, it's the way an email from Drew_Peacock,_Esquire is formatted. I've already refused to block unless there's onwiki evidence or a cu. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not ironclad. I'm saying I believe it and that time will tell. I left Alison a note and maybe she'll comment. I'll sock-tag the new account if anyone nudges me and I'll forward the email to any admin that would like. Tan, it won't fit in the wiki-email-box... Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't User:Drew Peacock, Esquire have shown up in the checkuser that was run? AniMate 20:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's best not to block this one. It appears to come from a different state than Napier. Admins and trusted editors who are curious for details are welcome to email me; best to be discreet with this one. Durova⁴¹² 21:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's always the possibility that Droopy is Grawp, a known friend of Hugh Jarse and Eileen Dover ;) (nb: I had help on these;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's a possibility; can't rule that out by geography. Would be a different discussion, though. Durova⁴¹² 00:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let it dangle. Things Take Time. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse lengthy discussion by/about User:Drew Peacock, Esquire, not central to the ban proposal.

I am accused me of being a sock puppet for this person/these people.

I am not Drew R. Smith, Jack "Red Hood" Napier, MakemydayOW, Larry Sanger's revenge, Ender The Xenocide, or Tbsdy lives. I am not connected to any of them in any way. I have never used any of these names or accounts.

As best as I can determine, I face this accusation because (1) I sent an email to Jack Merridew in reply to his Welcome-To-Wikipedia Post on my talk page, and (2) as Ryan Postlethwaite says, my alleged connection to these other people is “basically, it's the way... (the email is) formatted.” (For easy reference, Mr. Postlethwaite’s post reads as follows: "I’ve been emailed the evidence and it's less than convincing - basically, it's the way an email from Drew Peacock, Esquire is formatted. I've already refused to block unless there's onwiki evidence or a cu.")

If there are reasons other than these two, and if you tell me them, I will do the best I can to respond.

I had never heard of Jack Merridew before reading his post on my talk page (His post read: "Welcome! {picture of plate of cookies} Some cookies to welcome you! Welcome to Wikipedia, Drew Peacock, Esquire! I am Jack Merridew and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing helpme at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: - - - Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Help pages How to write a great article I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! - - - Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes; that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Jack Merridew."), posted at 1:58 a.m. today, Friday, February 19, 2010. I was online at the time. (I will be referring to dates and times based on Pacific Time (PT). Wikipedia identifies this time as “America/Los Angeles” time in the user “my preferences” page.) I thought that I would respond with a thank you note. I first tried to post a note on his talk page today, Friday, February 19, 2010, a few minutes later, but couldn’t because I could see no “edit this page” tab. I guessed that he had modified his page, eliminating that tab.

Because I could not post him a thank you note, I instead sent him a thank you note through Wikipedia’s email system. That note read as follows:

"Thanks for the cookies and the welcome. They were both great.

I went first to your discussion page thinking I would leave a brief thank you there, but when I got there, I was worried for a while that I had messed something up on your page (ARRRGH!), or in my settings at Wiki (uggh!), because my “edit this page” tab was gone. I had just been adjusting some settings and then went back to read more about adjustments and then tried some adjustments again, so it made sense that I did something wrong.

Now that I figured out that your page is modified somehow so it can’t be edited, I’ve had a good laugh at the unintended joke you’ve pulled, and another at myself for the overly anxious concern I was feeling that some guy takes the time to bid me welcome, and in exchange I mess up his tabs on talk page. Whew, am I now relieved.

All The best,

Drew

(I am the author of this note. It contains words written solely by me. As the author of the note, I am the one who has the right to give permission to post a copy of it. Not to be silly, and believing that I have implied permission to post a note I composed anyway, be assured that I have given myself permission in this instance. I say this because I have read the caution on the “Wikipedia:Email” page about posting a copy of an email. I understand the words “without permission” to mean “without the permission of the author.” I believe that I have complied with that caution. I also see that I should have concern that because Wikipedia pages can be edited, my posting of the email could be changed and, if I follow it correctly, people would read the changed version and be mislead as to what I said. I don't see how that is different from anything else that is posted at Wikipedia. In any event, I think that I must take that risk because I want you to know exactly what I wrote in the email)

I don’t know what aspect of formatting I did that caused Mr. Merridew to conclude that I am any of these people. I typed my note up in a word processing program and then cut and pasted it into an email for sending though Wikipedia. I type much of what I post, including this these words that will be my post on this page, in a word processing program so that I don’t hit enter or something else causing me to accidently send a half finished note or half finished comment/contribution to Wikipedia or elsewhere. I don’t know what effect that has on formatting as to the thank-you-email when it arrived to Mr. Merridew, but I mention this fact so that if preparing the email in a separate word processing program plays any part in the formatting, I have brought this to your attention. If there is a specific question about formatting, or anything else you have, I will do my best to answer.

Again, I am not these people. I do not know them. I have nothing to do with any of these accounts.

Today I discovered another post on my talk page (it said "fyi, I was just talking about an account named Drew. Regards, Jack Merridew") posted at 2:49 a.m. today, February 19, 2010. The word “talking” was a hyperlink to this page. I guess it is better to know what is going on as concerns requests to block or ban me, but let me say it is extremely distressing. EXTREMELY DISTRESSING. I am not any of the people. I do not know any of them and I have no connection with any of them of their accounts.-- Drew Peacock, Esquire ^{- my talk page -} 08:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Revised and fixed because I did not know when I posted it originally that footnotes aren't allowed on this page. I had used the button that was above the editing box when I was putting my reply here, and didn't know that although it set my footnotes up and showed a numbered reference for my footnotes, footnotes would not display at the bottom of the page.-- Drew Peacock, Esquire ^{- my talk page -} 09:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request some help please. I used a few footnotes in my reply/comment that is immediately above this request. If anyone coud tell me what I have to do to get my footnotes to display, it would be greatly appreciated. I hope that is what the problem is, because I did spend a lot of time working on what I wanted to say and I would hate to have lost the footnotes. I do have the text of them in draft form before I cut and pasted them from my word processing program, but I made some corrections/changes to them after pasting here from the word processing program, so I would like very much to find out how to display them. I used the button above the editing box to set up the footnotes, so I don't know why they don't display. Thank you.-- Drew Peacock, Esquire ^{- my talk page -} 08:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I refactored your post. We don't use foot notes on our admin boards, only in articles where there is a reference section and template. AniMate 08:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will go through it and maybe put what were the footnotes in parenthesis and in italics or something. Thank you again.-- Drew Peacock, Esquire ^{- my talk page -} 08:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went through my original post to this section and revised it to change what formerly were the footnotes into italics and parenthesis in the body of the post. I dropped one out and moved one because it made sense to do so now that the footnotes were in the post itself. My thanks again to AniMate for recovering my footnotes.-- Drew Peacock, Esquire ^{- my talk page -} 09:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're not blocked. Other than saying, "sorry for the inconvenience", there's not much more to be done here. These things happen. Tan | 39 15:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Mr. Merridew has posted some additional aliases (he posted in this discussion about me: “There's always the possibility that Droopy is Grawp, a known friend of Hugh Jarse and Eileen Dover ;) (nb: I had help on these;) Cheers, Jack Merridew”).

I am not Grawp, Hugh Jarse, or Eileen Dover. I do not know any of them. I do not know anything about any of them. I have never ever had anything to do with any of them or their accounts.

I am concerned. I made a mistake when I emailed Mr. Merridew. He was not sending me a friendly Welcome-To-Wikipedia. I haven’t the slightest idea what made him post to my talk page in the first place. I know of no legitimate reasons for him to say that I am any of these people. I thought that his posting was a genuine friendly welcome to Wikipedia. Why he suspected me in the first place, and posted to my talk page, is a mystery to me - I am struck dumb by the notion that all this could possibly be because one name involved also has “Drew” in it. That would boggle the mind. Maybe it would a good thing for the Administrators to know. Please, ask him what caused his first suspicions.

I now believe that I errored about what I said in the email to him as concerned the “edit this page” tab. I had seen that there was no “edit this page” tab on his discussion page, which is why I emailed him rather than posting. Seeing a page without a “edit this page” tab may very well have been because of my efforts to activate Twinkle and tweak it to work with my browser. I was using Internet Explorer (IE) as my browser Thursday night, February 18, 2010 and early Friday morning, February 19, 2010, my time (Pacific Time - PT), ‘‘‘but’’’ I switched over to Google Chrome (Chrome) before trying to activate Twinkle because I read that Twinkle wouldn’t work with Internet Explorer. Chrome is already on this computer in addition to IE, so that seemed easy enough.

I read that there were some known issues with using Twinkle with browsers other than Firefox, Safari or Camion. The Wiki page only says that Twinkle “APPEARS to play well with the latest version of Google Chrome” - something less than a guarantee, and a much lesser endorsement than using the other three recommended browsers (none of which are on this computer, nor is the other mentioned, but not recommended browser, Opera). There are instructions for enabling a Javascript Standard Library for the browser Opera, and since I was not using one of the 3 recommended browsers, I tried to find the library and use that too. There are also issues with firewall and Norton Internet Security. Anyway, I had some problems, though I’m not knowledgeable enough to say that without a doubt that it related to Twinkle and Chrome. It may relate to any of the other things alone or in combination with the others. I think that I have it working now.

I say all this because I believe that Administrators can see what browsers I was using Thursday night, February 18, 2010 and Friday morning, February 19, 2010. I also believe that you can see what pages I visited. It will confirm what I have said and what I was doing that night and morning on Wiki. Can you see in Wiki when I activated Twinkle? That will be further confirmation of what I have said. Further, my understand is that Wiki’s webpage computer(s) can see a whole assortment of things, which should show that I am not any of these people.

In looking online, I have found http://www.iwebtool.com/browser_details , which says, and shows to visitors to its site, the following information from a connecting computer: IP address, hostname, browser details (User-Agent, Cookies Enabled, Java Enabled , JavaScript Status, Screen Width & Height, CPU class/type, Screen Colour Depth, Window Width & Height) and browser headers. I believe that Wiki has all this information from my visits to Wiki pages. I read on this Wiki page the post directly under Mr. Merridew’s post previously mentioned the following: “Now there's a possibility; can't rule that out by geography. Would be a different discussion, though. Durova.” I take this to mean that Wiki does have the information I mentioned. If someone lives geographically in an area that can’t be ruled out as the area I am in (and there is no way for me to know, because I don’t know any of them), surely all the other information can’t be the same as mine.

These other people CANNOT have my IP. They simply can’t. It’s supposed to be just one computer (or one computer network through a router? -- I don’t know much yet, but I am reading what I can online, and I am trying to apply my thought process to this problem thrust upon me). They cannot have the same hardware as me and the same settings as all of my settings, screen colour depth (don’t know what that means yet, but someone at Wiki knows, and not all the setting can be the same; it just makes no sense), etc. I am NOT any of these other people. Please tell Mr. Merridew that I am not these people.

He’s posting now (here – this post I quoted) that he’s getting help in his efforts against me. PLEASE. I foolishly sent him a thank you note when I believed that I could not post on his talk page. I didn’t realize at that time that he would receive my private email address. I am not blaming Wiki for this issue. But I would like to say that I have other online accounts, and honestly, they work differently. I sign into those websites and then I have a little messaging page there on that website where I can send messages only to other users of that website. On those websites, it does not reveal my private email outside-of-that-webpage email address unless I want it to do so. Additionally, some of them will have a little window pop up if I included anything that looks like an email address in the body of the message I am sending. The message says that the website is protecting its users from the risk of revealing our private email addresses.

The point is that Mr. Merridew appears to me to be gung ho on this, and in strange ways. He doesn’t tell me that he thinks I am these people/a sock puppet for them (these are the same thing by my understanding). He just posts to my talk page “fyi, i was just talking about an account named Drew.” I mean really, what?! He hyperlinks “talking” so I can then read though this lengthily page to discover, near its end, that I’m suspected by him and “cough” (where I see that he has hyperlink the “cough” to my name and the reply below leads me to believe that by doing so, or by email that the "cough" had more meaning to all of you than it would normally for me, he was, or had already, asked that I be blocked).

Please, think about this from my side. I assume he is a friend of all or some or of you and I don’t wish to offend, but I find this strange. It’s more than that, it’s creepy. It just is. He puts another name that I supposedly am, and then two more that he accuses me of being friends with. Then he puts a winking smiley face (in bold to add to the creepiness becuase for what reason one bolds a winking smiley face is is beyond me) and says he “had help on these” and puts another winking smiley face (not in bold this time, and only six words away from the first winking smiley face in this single sentence 23 word message) and then a “Cheers.” Happy winking smiley faces in little note accusing me of being other people and seeking to get me blocked? That is creepy behavior. I don’t care what anyone says they think about that. I know that is creepy.

Tell me the truth, if you were me, how you would feel? PLEASE, you have to have plenty of evidence that I am none of these people. I’m just not. Please, help me. Tell him. I don’t know what data or information he is out there gathering now that he has my private email address, and he’s got others helping “on these” and he’s inserting smiling winking faces in his posting telling you these things.

At first I just wanted not to be blocked or blamed for things I have absolutely no involvement of any kind with. Now, I would like to ask for something else. Please tell him that I am not connected with any of these people. You must have evidence of that, because that is the truth. Please, help me.

Other aspects are bothering me too. I don’t know who “Alison” is, but I see he has “left [her] a note.” I guess that means something to you, but I do not know what it means, or who Alison is. In the note I quoted is also what seems to be a message to "nb:". Needless to say, if that is someone, I don't know who they are. I did not notice an N. B. user posting here, by either initals or name with those initals. Yes, I am guessing that 'nd' is a person, but what else can I do? I was lured into replying to his Welcome-To-Wikipedia post, and lured here to read what is going on by his criptic note that he was "talking" (hyperlinking the word "talking" to this page) about "an account named Drew." He says he will “sock-tag [me] if anyone nudges” him. Please, in all fairness, don’t nudge him. Instead, please tell him I am not involved and please ask him to leave me alone. He wants to forward the email “to any admin that would like.” Please, have him do that. Please, every one of you, look at it. It says exactly what I said it says. Wiki must have a record of it. I see that he says that “it won't fit in the wiki-email-box.” I don’t understand this at all. I’ll try to read about the “wiki-email-box.” The message fit when I sent it. I don’t understand this comment.

Please, I am here because he wanted me to be here reading these things he is saying. He didn’t tell me what was going on, he just hyperlinked “talking” in a strange cryptic note on my talk page (which adds to the creepiness of all this), so I could be shocked to find out that he is accusing me on this Administrator’s Notice Board and asking that I be blocked. I don’t know what he has been saying in emails to some or all of you (but he is clear in his posting he that he is sending them out, and after luring me here, he wants me to know that he is emailing). I think that you should all share them with each other. Please evaluate what’s going on here. Please consider it from my perspective.

I don’t wish to upset anything, but I have to have some piece of mind. Please. You have to know that I am not any of these people. The evidence must show that. It can’t show otherwise. I know the truth and you have got to be able to see that in my visits to Wiki pages and all the computer evidence you have.

I feel that I do have to do something. I am going to post a note on Mr. Merridew page asking him not to contact me in any manner or post anything on my use or talk pages, or, should we find ourselves on the same Wikipedia page (which, if it happens, I will not believe is a coincidence; it is a virtual guarantee that he has been following every letter and punctuation mark of my postings, and has read everything I have posted on Wikipedia; and now that he has my private email address, I am a bit freaked out when I think he can be scouring the internet to gather more information on me with that information), to not post anything directed at or about me on general encyclopedic pages.

Posting on the Administrators' Noticeboard is a different matter. At least this is where one comes when one has some reason to believe something wrong is going on (and sadly, I know that someone can come here and ask that people be blocked, or email administrators privately to ask that they be blocked, and do all that without any reasonable basis to believe that someone (me) is connected to any of these other people). I am very upset and I do believe that his actions are very strange.-- Drew Peacock, Esquire ^{- my talk page -} 15:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This rates as a good reason why only CU-confirmed names were listed on the ban proposal. He is not part of the ban proposal and this discussion can be separated from that. Any administrator (or Drew Peacock) who wishes to understand why I have responded within this section the way I have is welcome to contact me. It won't take long to understand. If Drew Peacock would prefer this discussion strictly onsite, though, please state so. Durova⁴¹² 16:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I'm fine with any route to sorting this. Someone should prolly box the Smith/Red Hood chunk and call it passed. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) LOL. How's it hangin', Drewp?

Ya, that was the email. What's going on here is an attempt to turn this to being about me. The first thing I called Red Hood on was his use of a positioned div to obscure the main username heading and the MediaWiki UI on his talk page. I cut that (also) and left him a note about it. Red Hood copied a lot of code from my userspace, including that technique. I had been positioning the "Cabal Approved" image on my talk, and formerly on my user page. It was positioned differently and was not intended to obstruct the edit and new section tabs. But, when using the modern skin and when the 'new section' tab is set to render as just a'+', it did. See here. I've since cut that.

So, who is this guy? What's his fate? Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm divided between the urge to apologize and methinks the gentleman doth protest too much. Especially the lengthy fears about privacy invasion from a gmail address. Jack, consider yourself assaulted with a Nerf cluebat for pulling this particular can of worms off the shelf while I was sleeping. But things are here now...it's up to Drew Peacock how to resolve his end of it. Durova⁴¹² 17:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should sell tickets

I'm undivided. The protest quote had occurred to me, too. I figured there's a connection in here somewhere, so best to get it into this discussion instead of having to gear-up a new one some days on. I'm gonna have popcorn and watch the show. Cheers, Jack Merridew

I have been trying to find out more about everything, and have been trying to put together a reply. I can’t seem to be briefer in my writing. First of all, it is my nature. It was probably my nature before the working world required it of me, which is a second reason. Thirdly it’s that this is all like some Twilight Zone episode for me and I’m that guy about whom Rod Serling says “. . . but this is no ordinary day for Drew Peacock, Esquire.” I can’t believe what Jack Merridew is doing, and that you all seem to think that it’s acceptable behavior.

But before I finish a reply to the new comments, I wanted to ask something. As I said I would, I posted a note on Jack Merridew’s talk page. It was captioned “Request,” and said “Please do not contact me in any manner or post anything on my user or talk pages. Please do not send me any email. Should you find yourself on a general encyclopedic Wikipedia page where I have posted, please not post anything to me or about me. You know from my post on the Administrative Board what I have to say about posting there.” That’s it. No accusations. He knows from what I said on AN that I am not saying he can’t do as he chooses on AN or such boards, but personal comments about me or personal messages to me don’t belong on the encyclopedic pages. I don’t think it is unreasonable to ask that he not contact me or post on my talk page. I would just like to have some peace of mind as I spend some time on Wikipedia.

Jack Merridew made two responses to my request that I know about. The first I saw was one posted to my talk page about 90 minutes after my request to him. It said “Hey, I got your email, and it seems you've found your way to posting on my talk page. You should know that declaring one's self off limits to another editor is really not jake; this is a collaborative project and that includes efforts to ding the many trolls that abound ;) Sneers, Jack Merridew”

This is harassment. I should not be taunted and harassed on my own talk page, especially from someone who, from what in my very limited exposure to Wikipedia, seems to work closely with or for Administrators. It does seem like you are the judges and he is the prosecutor out there gathering evidence and presenting his case against me, and assuring you that he’s right, that I am these other accounts. On AN, when asked for evidence, he makes a seven word reply, “I have email off him. It's him.”

If I am wrong and Wikipedia is more akin to a “discussion” on the school playgrounds where bullies rule the day, please tell me so. Isn’t he out of line? I didn’t say I was “off limits,” just requested that he not contact me or post on my talk page. It is obvious my request was like waving a red flag in front of a bull. Ninety minutes later, I’m being harassed. He makes every effort to taunt. I already commented about the strange use of those winking smiley faces, and one in bold, on AN where he’s requesting I be blocked. He then posts another winking smiley face in his taunt to me on my talk page, in bold of course. With it he is also calling me a troll.

“Troll” is a new word to me here. I know that all these words and phrases , as used here, are second nature to you. I haven’t been here as long. Because I because I believed that he wasn’t suggesting that I lived under a bridge or such, I looked up what an Internet troll is here on Wikipedia. It says “Troll (Internet): In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community… with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.” This is part of what is so Twilight Zone-ish for me. I’m not taunting anyone. I’m not harassing anyone. I’m not trying to upset someone into a dramatic emotion response. I am the one being taunted and harassed, but I am somehow completely alone in seeing that.

I’ve been here all of 5 days. I’d never heard of any of you (I mean no disrespect), or this whole processes I find myself in, ruining what enjoyment I had first got on Wikipedia as an editor. Out of the blue I get a Welcome-To-Wikipedia, then he post for me a cryptically used hyperlink to AN. I didn’t come looking for trouble and I’ve not sought to stir any up. He’s now posted yet another comment here. He says, in part, the following about me “I figured there's a connection in here somewhere, so best to get it into this discussion instead of having to gear-up a new one some days on. I'm gonna have popcorn and watch the show.” How can I be alone in seeing this? He’s taunting that it’s all for his amusement, something that now that he’s brought me over to this arena and assured you that I these people that I absolutely and not, now he’s going to sit back with his popcorn and watch, and enjoy, the torment of an innocent man. Is this the way Wikipedia runs?

If he wants me to worry if he’s out of control and unstable in some way, or that he’s the biggest bully on the playground whom no one can stop, I absolutely believe that this is what he wants me to believe. He is harassing me.

I wondered if he deleted my request to him on his page. I checked. It is still there and he has added a reply to it. More threats. Now’s he’s not going to stop until I am dead like some game animal he hunted down to hauled away in a bag. He said in his post replying to mine: “I'll likely ignore you once you're bagged and tagged ;) Jack Merridew”. Once again, the bold winking smiley face. Is this some kind of harassment game like in prison? Bullies bet on how many new prisoners they can harass until they break down, but here it’s how many new comers that they can either get blocked or run off?

At least I don’t have to look up “Bagged and tagged.” That is exactly what soldiers said in Vietnam as to dead bodies, especially the NVC, when they were killed, and tags were put on those that we took possession of, and they did put tags on the dead bodies. That’s also what hunters of big game say when they’ve killed their quarry and high five one another.

I don’t know how to wrap up this post. If you don’t see this all as wrong, I don’t know what I can say.-- Drew Peacock, Esquire ^{- my talk page -} 23:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Peacock, would you like me to discuss onsite the things that I had offered to discuss offsite? Out of respect for your privacy discretion appeared to be the best course. But you seem to prefer to discuss the matter here on the admin board. Is that correct? Durova⁴¹² 23:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Drew, your personal life is your own business of course, but around junior high school age did schoolmates tease you in ways vaguely related to an anthopomorphic basset hound and a synonym for a rooster? Durova⁴¹² 00:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Username violation, anyone?[reply]

get your mugs, magnets, mousepads, tshirts and more! ;) Jack Merridew 01:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User indefblocked for username violation. Tan | 39 01:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think we're done here. Keep an eye out for moar lulz. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Normally we'd wrap this up, but under the circumstances it'd be more fitting to wrap this down. Durova⁴¹² 03:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Random comment: This gentleman makes me look succinct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did make an off-wiki comment comparing you two; he's faking it, poorly, and is not the real deal. Your comments, while often long, are worth reading. I was recently reading one of your older statements (about 3 pages;) on an old case's proposed decision talk page. It was spot-on, involving difficult circumstances (and not mine). Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHUNK. Durova⁴¹² 04:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, guys? I'm just getting here late to the party, but this editor is Unrelated to the other accounts above. In fact there's only one other account associated with this one; Andrew Peacock (talk · contribs), as checkuser showed. You can see his old signature file here, which shows the link rather clearly. I once knew a guy called "Richard Head", from Basingstoke, way back when, and I'm kinda wondering if this is a similar situation? BTW, there are no other known troublemakers in his IP range - Alison ^❤ 08:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, it happens! :) - Alison ^❤ 08:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The patterns I saw here seemed to pretty clearly indicate a connection of some sort between the Smith/Red Hood issue and Drew_Peacock,_Esquire. The clincher, for me, was the subject looping back to the positioned div-element technique. I noticed the account because it had edited an article on my watchlist (ABBA) (see here), and because the username seemed a trollish username vio. My initial suspicion was that it was Smith/Red Hood creating yet another sock and then shifted to Grawp, who was behind the /b/ attack on the two user talk pages, when I saw the IP in the user page history. If there is no CU basis for either connection, I'm fine with assuming good faith, for now; I said as much several times, above: "time will tell". Sincerely, Jack Merridew 15:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thesun.co.uk is not exactly a reliable source. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I never thought this was the same person as Jack Napier. Was treadling lightly with the reasons, but this is all public information. The user page for User:Drew Peacock, Esquire includes logged out edits[26][27] which geolocate[28] to Grawp's vicinity. Google picks up no meaningful hits for "Andrew Peacock" in that area (the only results are random returns for people who are either long deceased or live thousands of miles away).[29][30][31] Edits by the Drew Peacock account include local citations to local geography,[32][33][34] which support the conclusion that the IP is the Drew Peacock editor unlogged, not Jack Napier. Other Drew Peacock edits both logged[35] and unlogged[36][37] contain references to controlled substances in regard to the same living person's biography--basically arguing for a BLP violation. Durova⁴¹² 18:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Community ban proposal: JI Hawkins

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

I'm proposing a community ban for JI Hawkins (talk · contribs), aka the "Sanders vandal", for severe disruption and to support AIV reporting of any new sockpuppets.

Since about November, JI Hawkins has been acting as if under a compulsion (The D&D kind, not the dict-def) to alert people to a nonexistent government conspiracy ripped out of a bad X-Files script (which, ironically, is one of his common targets), concerning alien colonization, 2012 (I assume the end of the Mayan calendar specifically), Colonel Sanders, the Men in Black, Adam Sandler, and faked deaths. He has been socking extensively since then, and standard methods are proving very difficult to use because he is evading every single hardblock and hardrangeblock placed upon him to stem his disruption (largely because he's abusing Research in Motion's BlackBerry ranges). There currently exists a filter to try and check his progress, but this, like the rangeblocks, is consistently dodged by him. He presently has a section at WP:LTA. I haven't attempted an abuse report yet because WP:ABUSE is in eternal limbo. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 05:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC) NOTE) A sock of this user posted here. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 06:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links to Confirmed socks and Suspected socks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) Support as one of the involved parties that has been tracking this individual for some time. It has been extremely disruptive, not supportive of our goal of building an encyclopedia, and obvious that the individual understands that his edits are not constructive due to his efforts at evading the filter that has been put in place. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support; although this individual is blatantly de-facto banned anyway due to his behaviour. I have no issue with it being codified it as a formal community ban if desired. ~ mazca ^talk 10:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We have an SPI case for him like, what, every other day? Honestly, though, he's as banned as it can get, as no admin in their right mind would unblock him. Per Mazca. Tim Song (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support As he's been socking and making insults, it wouldn't be a surprise to put him on this list. Minima c (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No discussion required, he's already blocked and nobody is likely to unblock given the abuse history. He can't get any more blocked than he already is. Flag his userpage as banned if you like, it doesn't make any odds by this stage. Guy (Help!) 18:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's unsurprisingly obvious that none of you have opposed the ban on JI Hawkins, so I'm closing it. Minima c (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Ivan guillen and User:Yves Ga

Can someone review this? It appears that Ivan guillen (talk · contribs) and Yves Ga (talk · contribs) are closely related, since they've only edited one thing, and that is a userspace draft, for user Yves Ga, or its direct copy by user Ivan guillen.

I think it is possible that it could just be a new user changing their username by making a second account, so it may not be sockpuppetry, but it just looks odd.

70.29.210.242 (talk) 11:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. One book, published by PublishAmerica, zero independent sources. I foresee disappointment in his future. Guy (Help!) 11:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a polite note on User talk:Yves Ga explaining that his article will not be acceptable, ever, and encouraging him to request a G7 on the userspace draft. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block review?

Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive592#MisterWiki. Again.

MisterWiki (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · sockssuspected) was blocked for a period of 10 years (later altered to indef) around a month and a half ago. I am not questioning the original block, but I am hoping that the community will see fit to allow MisterWiki back. It is my sincere belief, having been in email contact with him, that he has learnt his lesson and is willing to come back and resume his good quality contributions to the mainspace. He has apologised (more than once) for the comment which precipitated the block and struck it out. The Following is a statement from MisterWiki:

Please, my sincere apologies to the admin I offended and the rest of the community of Wikipedia because of that unexplained situation I did in mid-January. I promise that if I comeback here, I'll go back to build articles, specially to Pichilemu, an article that I hope sometime will be a FA, and to get Modern Talking to GA. It was really an idiotic thing to say that you, a jewish admin, were nazi. I know it is very offensive. My great-grandfather itself was killed in Germany because he was jewish, in the World War II. I really need to comeback, it is the best thing I've ever found on the net, and a space to show everybody my knowledge. Again, my apologies. --MW talk contribs 17:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)^[1]

I am more than willing to mentor MisterWiki and will take personal responsibility if the community sees fit to unblock him. If probation or restrictions of some kind are deemed necessary, MisterWiki and I are willing to cooperate with any conditions that gain consensus. I apologise for the tl;dr and thank you for taking the time to read this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ diff

I was the blocking admin, implementing what seemed to be clear consensus. I feel that MW is genuine here. It may be that he should be made to wait a little longer per WP:OFFER, but I would currently be willing to see him unblocked. I base this on my interactions with MisterWiki on Wikinews, where he went after being banned here. He was perfectly friendly towards me and held no grudge; what's more, while he has had problems getting his articles past our deadlines due to hid non-perfect English, he is damn well trying. See Wikinews:User talk:MisterWiki and his contributions, where he has two articles to his name but has tried to get several more published (stale articles are eventually deleted if they aren't published on Wikinews, which can't have been nice). Of course, here there is no WP:DEADLINE so it would be an easier environment. He's keen to contribute, and has become a regular in #Wikinews on Freenode where he is quite pleasant to people and clearly trying to be useful. I say yes. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. The problems extend far beyond simply calling another user a nazi. No. Just no. Why waste the time? → ROUX ₪ 19:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly strong with my view on removing troublemakers. My main wiki - WN - has a blocking policy where admins can hit a disruptive user straight away, and that is generally how it's done. I was recently chastised for getting it wrong here with a block length in excess of what the community felt was appropriate. If I'm saying a user can come back, I'm not doing it lightly. Partly, I am trusting HJ to try and keep the guy on the straight and narrow. I still have concerns about it being so damn soon, but if not now then at some point, yes. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hells to the no. The problems were far greater than "calling another user a Nazi", involving immaturity amongst other things, and the fact that MisterWiki doesn't seem to recognise this is indicative of said immaturity. If he's useful on wikinews, fine! He can be useful on wikinews. And when he's demonstrated 6 months of useful work on a sister-project, maybe we can discuss allowing him back. Welcoming him back with open arms after little or no evidence that he's changed and matured simply demonstrates to blocked users that a block is more a day off then a formal suspension. Ironholds (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a reasonable deal, Iron. I believe something similar was said at the time of the block, actually. HJ, you seem confidant you can mentor MisterWiki. Would you be willing to come accross and help him there? Learning curve is steep but not insurmountable, and we're a friendly bunch. If not, we're doing fine with him and you may not have time to add another project to your workload, but given your willingness to help out I thought I'd throw that out there. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's similar to Durova's standard offer, really. I'm not saying "contribute for 6 months and we'll welcome him back", but if he demonstrates maturity and usefulness elsewhere, then I don't see why there's any theoretical problem to refuse him. Until that point, however, I remain opposed to any unblock. Ironholds (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm keen to agree with Ironholds; we need a bit more time. If MW contributes constructively and with maturity on a sister wiki for a few months, I'll support the unblock, but not right now. Airplaneman ^talk 21:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandman, yes, I'd be willing to do what I can to help out on WN. I've contributed there before. The pace is a bit slower there so it could make for a nice break. I am confident I can mentor him because, at the end of the day, I genuinely believe he means well- I've no tolerance whatsoever for trolls and vandals (and I've encountered my fair share) but I think MW would benefit greatly from having someone to bounce ideas off- he is, after all, a good mainspace contributor, but perhaps needs to think things through. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also with the "wait" crowd here. It has not been too long since MW's block, and I would like to see a little more time to ensure that he won't return to the behavior he was blocked for. (X! · talk) · @971 · 22:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's too soon. When someone gets blocked as a result of prolonged debate at ANI, it's usually a waste to even consider unblocking them for at least a few months. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He'll need to promise not to recreate his one-man Wikiproject on Modern Talking for the third time. He is however, only young (still at high school), so it may well be more likely that the sharp lesson has taught him than with an older person. Give him another couple of months on Wikinews working with HJ Mitchell and review the situation, as he does have the capacity to be a useful editor. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

Attempt at paid editing: http://www.freelancer.com/projects/621555.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.211.75.45 (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paid for by "Polarflamemusic" website, awarded to a freelancer.com user named "earwen86". Jujutacular ^T · C 21:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, someone can keep an eye on it, I guess. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Earwen1986 and their attempt. β^_command 21:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least they are working in their userspace and not starting off with something like that in mainspace. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin needed to close discussion

Resolved

– Closed by Benjiboi.--RegentsPark (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could we please have a completely uninvolved admin review the discussion at Talk:Johnny_Weir#Wording_adjusted_per_archived_discussion and close it if you agree that consensus has been achieved, and that the edit which has been made to the article was appropriate. By "completely uninvolved" I mean, ideally, someone who has never edited the article, or participated in any discussion regarding it. Many thanks. Wine Guy~Talk 21:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you need an admin to close the discussion? All the editors who frequent the discussion seem satisfied with the wording.--RegentsPark (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is appropriate to close the current discussion without prejudice to the topic being discussed further in the future. The current thread has come full circle; a problem was presented and discussed, proposals were made, and one proposal gained support and has been implemented. The reason that I ask for an uninvolved admin to close the thread is that there have been recent closings/archivals/deletions of threads by people who have been involved in the discussions they close, and this has caused further problems. It is also my understanding that in most cases it is best for an uninvolved party to close a discussion. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, or if this request is somehow inappropriate. Wine Guy~Talk 00:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. Discussion has been closed. Wine Guy~Talk 01:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing wrong, but you don't need an admin. No sense in 'admin responsibility creep'.--RegentsPark (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under normal circumstances I would absolutely agree, but discussions surrounding this article the past several days don't really fall into the category of "normal circumstances". It should be fine as is though, thanks for the reply. Wine Guy~Talk 02:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And it was closed by... Benjiboi, who is one of the most involved. Which was a good reason for having an uninvolved admin do it. Guy (Help!) 08:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. This was exactly why I brought it here in the first place. Everyone, editors and admins alike, who has been involved on that talk page has been involved in discussion of article content either in the thread closed by Benjiboi, or in other related threads. IMHO, it may have been more productive to simply close the discussion per my request, rather than question my motives for making the request; but c'est la vie. Wine Guy~Talk 19:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit notices

Request for assistance I tried to add an edit notice to George Orwell bibliography, but found out that only administrators can do this. I would like to suggest that an admin either 1.) add an edit notice to this article of {{British-English-editnotice}}, 2.) add this edit notice to every article that has {{British English}}, or 3.) investigate if {{British-English-editnotice}} can somehow be automatically created as an edit notice for any article that has {{British English}} (or another such English language variation template.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done I think you can request this with {{editprotected}} at the talkpage (someone please correct me if this is in error). - 2/0 (cont.) 18:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't realized this was an admin-only thing, it was just switched on one day and I guess I figured everybody could do it... Beeblebrox (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that the rationale is somewhere along the lines that they are high profile vandalism targets or they should not be added without talkpage consensus or some other good reason. Anyone can create an editnotice in their own userspace, though. I think we have had the ability to create /Edit notice or something like that for a while, but they recently made it much more user friendly (thanks, developers!). - 2/0 (cont.) 18:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I request a similar edit notice for U2? It has undergone similar attempts to switch from British to American English in the past. I'm a bit leery about trying to use {{editprotected}} in case that's the incorrect way of going about it. Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 18:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using {{editprotected}} is in fact the best way to go about it, really. Also, note that account creators (for whatever reason) can also do this along with administrators. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Be Redirected

This Following Article is to be Redirected as soon as possible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_AFC) to the following Article (#REDIRECT [[38]]) Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.66.206 (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you go to edit this page a big fat notice opens up that says "This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally - announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest." This isn't any of those. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done For future reference, you can use the WP:RM for making such move requests, or ask for help about such procedures at WP:Help. Abecedare (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Up in the Air (film)

I tried to close this requested move looking at both the discussion and policies. A few editors are trying to force this move, based on the film being the primary topic. To ensure that it was the primary topic, I did quite a few searches on the internet (attempting to leave out Wikipedia entries, of course) and I came to the conclusion that the ratio of pages out there was around 60:40 film:book. I did not see this as a significantly clear lead (maybe I was wrong...), so I declined the move. That caused much complaining, both on the talk page and my talk page, and one of those editors reverted the close without telling me. I explained my point, and then left it for some other admin to try and close. User:Anthony Appleyard then closed it with "no consensus", and also got much complaining, so he reverted the closure himself. Now the article is sitting there waiting for a third admin to run the gauntlet. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User page text copied

A recent User page, created by User:MrRohanM on 26 January 2010 has the opening text copy pasted from my Userpage, including the Babel tower and the Barnstars! The design format however is not mine original, rather a standard one. Are there any wiki rules that cater to this situation?!! If yes, please guide/intervene. Thanks! --Ekabhishek^talk 08:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user has been recently blocked for ignoring copyvio notices too. It is definitely a mis-representation of himself, especially indicating years of work on articles and displaying barnstars from established editors! Here is another complaint raised by an editor. prashanthns (talk) 09:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I presented the barnstar to Ekabhishek, not MRohan. AshLin (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Material here is released by you per the GFDL guidelines. I will however leave him a note about this discussion and about the false use of barnstars awarded to others. JodyB_talk 14:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a followup, I left a note asking him to remove the false Barnstars. I removed the one from User:AshLin referenced above. JodyB_talk 14:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed them all as they were misleading. I've run into users like this before who have copied a user's page, which resulted in 7 users being errniously added to a project. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cat's for Speedy Deletion

Did I miss a discussion somewhere? There's a crapload of cat's under CSD right now ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kitteh needs speedy deletin Guy (Help!) 17:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic Wikipedia

Hello,

Again, Abnima, who's apparently an admin in the Arabic wiki, is deleting, reverting valuable resources, in the criticism section, applying abusively his point of view. I hope, someone will check this issue, [[39]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by النول (talk • contribs) 16:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or, put another way, you insist on rewriting the article to include a badly spelled "Arabic Wikipedia is teh suck", leading to the obvious conclusion that you've been in trouble there for POV-pushing. Guy (Help!) 17:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another angle, POV pushing, as criticism. you can judge the links instead, and also, correct paragraphs included before, in the AraBic Waykipedia, for I'm not an English Guy!. (i never said it sucked too) --النول (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting the immediate deletion of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/FlyingToaster

The creation of this page is simply insulting. A few articles that were not sufficiently paraphrased in sections does not invalidate my work on this project, which was always done to the best of my ability and always in good faith. Frankly, this is ridiculous, and I respectfully ask that it be removed immediately. Concerns with any article I have written or edited may be directed to my talk page and addressed there. I am working on rewriting problem articles, but doing so mainly off of Wikipedia to avoid unnecessary drama. Flying Toaster 21:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CCI is a great way for us to help you address the copyright issues. It is not intended to be insulting; we are simply helping out. The leftorium 21:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I'm heavily involved with CCI, though I've had nothing to do with this one. But it seems that one of the SCV contributors found current problems in seven of your articles: Irish School of Ecumenics, Canal City Hakata ([40]), Ars inveniendi ([41]), Irving Morrow ([42]), Morgan "Bill" Evans ([43], [44]), Uterine orgasm ([45]), Parastichy ([46]). Having only just seen this CCI, I have not evaluated these. In addition, a good many more were located earlier, as discussed at your talk page. The purpose of a CCI is to aid in evaluating for copyright problems when a contributor has been shown to have placed copyrighted content outside of policy in multiple articles. Even if your doing so was inadvertent, I believe this has been true for you. Is there any reason why your edits should not be subjected to review by others to ensure that they are properly cleaned? (I do see, though, that the list of contributions includes reverts. I'll see about replacing it if the page remains.) This CCI is one of two dozen currently open and is by no means suggestive of bad faith. At this point, AGF specifically discusses that policy and copyright here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)It seems that it was filed correctly, at the appropriate page, and accepted per guidelines. I do not see there is any reason for removing it. I also do not think that you have the authority to propose a different way of dealing with the situation. You can either proceed in your own methodology of correcting the problems, or you can join the others within an established process. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than happy for others to review my work if they wish, but I feel an entire project page on the matter is both punitive and unnecessary. Phrases such as If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately are not applied to editors to whom good faith is being assumed. Editors' dedication to article cleanup and copyright law is laudable - I am objecting to this method and not the work. I'm requesting that since very few articles are insufficiently paraphrased, and the substantive body of my work is not a problem, you let me fix what needs to be fixed on my own, as I have been doing offline. Flying Toaster 21:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ^ diff

[1]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards