Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Bart Versieck

Despite having been blocked several times in the past for editing other's comments, he continues to do so

Examples: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]

These are just some of the examples from the past two weeks alone. Here's one from a little earlier where he completely deleted someone's comment.

When confronted about this on his talk page, he responded disrespectfully to the user's request.

I hate to be a tattletale, but his edits are becoming disruptive. For example, on Marie-Louise Meilleur, he continues to revert my attempts to format her lifespan per WP:DATE, claiming that he doesn't need to follow the MoS. I'm not exactly 100% sure whether he's right or not, but it was my impression that WP:DATE should be followed unless there is an exceptional circumstance. I cannot even fix it today, because I'd be in violation of the 3RR. Cheers, CP 16:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe someone can try being Bart's mentor? I've tried to do so in a sort of unofficial manner for the last few months (search his talk page archive for my name to see our many discussions), but I don't seem to have really gotten through, since the editing-others'-comments problem has come up again. Ideally, if there's an experienced editor out there who's fluent in Dutch, I think mentoring could make a big difference, as Bart is clearly a productive editor, just one with issues surrounding following the rules/observing good Wikiquette. Pinball22 17:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how much a mentor will help - he's obviously not interested in following the rules, because even when alerted about a discussion concerning editing other's comments he continues to do so, even to the point of breaking someone's link: [11]. At least a third editor came in and put a stop to the Marie-Louise Meilleur edit war. Cheers, CP 15:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Still: [12]. I wasn't even looking for them anymore, it just cropped up on a page I was editing. Cheers, CP 15:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Bart Versieck is just trying to help out and correcting peoples spelling mistakes. I don't see anything wrong with this. King Lopez ^Contribs 09:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, please see here on why it is a problem. The page says that guidelines on the page should be met with "an occasional exception," and I don't think 11 times in the past two weeks alone counts as an "occasional exception." Secondly, he has been blocked four or five times in the past for this behavior, so he has no excuse to be continuing it. Third of all, in one of the cases I pointed out above, he completely deleted someone's comment. In another, he edited someone's link so that it was broken. So yes, for the above reasons, it is a problem. If this was the first time he'd ever done it, you're right, it wouldn't merit attention here. But after four or five times being blocked for the behavior? I think it does, not to mention that WP:TALK isn't the only guideline he chooses to ignore. I'm not particularly here to complain about the rest of it, except for above when the anti-MoS edits were becoming disruptive (but that has been resolved now). Cheers, CP 15:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Durin

Yet another image patroller harassed off the project. I've mostly given up on this myself as well, as the vitriolic attacks (and the blind eye that is frequently turned to them) are just not worth it. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

More than just an image patroler, a very valuable member of the project, this really depresses me. Pete.Hurd 20:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Alas, my admin nominator. Here's hoping he changes his mind, and here's hoping the Foundation will put some teeth into its fair use policies soon. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Could I ask what exactly is this "e-pol" organization which apparently claims some sort of jusrisdiction? I visited their website, but there is nothing there to indicate what, if any, legal status it has. DuncanHill 21:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I sure second that question. Is this organisation for real? I mean, the website e-pol.org is (link now on WP spamlinks list) most certainly is not the website of an international organisation with any sort of jurisdiction and it looks like nothing else than an elaborate hoax. Well actually, not even that elaborate. Pascal.Tesson 21:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I am taking the question to the Humanities refdesk, we have some wonderful people there who may be able to pin this down. DuncanHill 21:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's sort of all under control, if I could get a straight answer out of anybody I'm in contact with. It does appear, at present, that e-pol is part of some organisation called UNOP Liaison EU, there's no information on the internet about them, however, so establishing the validity of them and e-pol is difficult. Nick 21:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Which apparently is tied to this obscure organization www.un-net.org (link now on WP spam links) which as far as I'm concerned looks like the webpage of a bullshit hoax of an organization. Pascal.Tesson 21:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_International_development#UNOmbud. I think someone is just fucking with Durin... Pascal.Tesson 21:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

UNOP = United Nations Office for Partnerships. It promotes furtherance of the Millennium Development Goals. Hardly likely to be an investigations arm. Orderinchaos 17:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, he was a great contributor. I hope he comes back... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's fucking ridiculous that Durin left in such circumstances. Maxim_(talk) 23:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

So why doesn't someone file some e-pols against the nutters that file them? like the poor misunderstood copyright violator who was hassling Durin? --Rocksanddirt 00:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, maybe I'm just being hopelessly naive, but this could all be a misunderstanding. User:DannaShinsho is rather new and doesn't seem to speak English that fluently, so the language barrier could be contributing to the confusion. From what I gather, she uploaded some images, that she claims she created, using an incorrect license. This was tagged by Durin asking for a source, and things seem to have spiraled downwards from there. As for the "legal action", it seems to be directed not at wikipedia or Durin, but at those other websites that Durin has claimed hold the copyright to the images.75.116.41.73 01:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to dissapoint but I'm afraid you're hopelessly naive. Admins should really take the time to go and check the 5 deleted images that were at the root of this nonsense to clear up any doubt they may have had about DannaShinsho's claims that she was robbed of her precious copyrights. We're talking here about an image of clothes hanging on a clothes line with a funny caption, an image of a dummy witch crashed against a tree with, you guessed it, a funny caption, an image of a funny sign over a road with yet another snarky caption and an image of funny cats (no caption, so not so funny). I just wish Durin had taken the time to tell someone before this got out of hand. Pascal.Tesson 01:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, but I would just like to express my gratitude for all the fair use patrollers out there. While I may disagree with you sometimes, you play an incredibly valuable role, and you get way too much flak. --Haemo 01:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't what Durin did that generated this animosity, it was his/her attitude. I also find it hard to believe e-pol has the power and jurisdiction it claims.Rlevse 01:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's settle that question once and for all. Not only does e-pol have no power and jurisdiction, it also happens to be a phantom organization most likely created as part of some sort of scam. Either DannaShinsho was too naive to realize that or he/she is actually behind that phantom organization. Not that I want to play detective here, but the website of e-pol.org is pretty clear about this: you should only contact them through your local police (or to be precise your local Data Crime Unit) or through some big international organization. In any case, DannaShinsho is not welcome here and now the only question left to settle is: how do we get Durin back? Pascal.Tesson 01:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Has the Office been made aware of this situation? I know that they don't usually get involved in garden-variety on-wiki disputes, even when legal threats are involved, but setting up an organization to make such threats and targeting them against people enforcing Foundation policy really is not acceptable and I think counsel should know this is going on. Newyorkbrad 01:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that what actually happened here? Are we sure that e-pol is tied to DannaShinsho?

If this was a credible threat we would need to involve Mike; as it apparently isn't, we don't, but perhaps Jimmy would want to know.

I've emailed Durin, who is frustrated over several things. We'll see. Georgewilliamherbert 03:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This is creepy, and harrasment in the extreme. I hoep that Durin returns soon. It is a growing trend, and problem, here on WP, that often our best admins and editors are targeted for harrasment by those who have axes to grind, and agendas to war over. frankly, I'm surprised that the rabid extremist groups of the world aren't all putting up attack site pages outing wikipedians left and right for editing in a manner contrary to the extremists on any given subject. ThuranX 04:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I'll miss him too. Though it's sure nice to see at least some moral support for nonfree image patrolling here, sometimes it seems like you're the only one and everyone hates you for it. I wish the Foundation would give some type of clarification on "minimal" here at some point. (Personally, I think German is ahead of the curve, get rid of the damned things altogether, but that's probably not something we could get done here right now.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is at least partially Durin's fault. First, he asked DannaShinsho to add proper tags to images. When she did that, he accused her of lying, and claimed he had proof that she is not the author.[13] She asked him who claims the copyright,[14] and he replied with this rude statement.[15] Of course I don't know DannaShinsho's intentions nor if she created the images or not, but Durin is not innocent. He needlessly escalated the conflict. And the legal threat was clearly not against him, DannaShinsho even asked him for evidence:[16]--SuperElephant 06:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The diff that you give does not show that Durin accused her of lying. He simply said he had verifiable evidence that at least two of the images were not hers, and were not available under a free license. He explained that finding something on the internet and downloading it to your computer does not transfer the copyright to you. And he was not in the least bit rude. Durin has done wonderful work trying to keep Wikipedia a free encyclopaedia, and I very much hope he will be back. ElinorD (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What is e-pol ? and what authority and jurisdiction does it have over Wikipedia ?

I don't know. But it's irrelevant in this case.--SuperElephant 18:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If you go to their website, you will see that it is incredibly uninformative. Legitimate organisations are always prepared to be informative and communicative about their aims and intentions, going to the e-pol website, however, leaves you as uninformed as ever. It is strange that an organisation that claims global jurisdiction should have their website written in bad English.

There must be serious doubts that it is a legitimate organisation. A Google search reveals nothing.

I propose that Wikipedia should set up a committee to look into e-pol and basicly tell them where to get off.

Tovojolo 11:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

An e-mail from the internet service provider basically confirms that they are not a Governmental organisation and should not be treated as one. The contact at the ISP goes onto say that if impersonating a government official or police officer is a criminal offence in your country, contacting the police would be a sensible suggestion. Nick 14:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's servers are based in America, so it is subject to American Law, above all. Impersonating a governmental or police official is definitely an offence in America so Wikipedia should make a complaint in America against e-pol.

We cannot allow any Wikipedians to feel intimidated by such groups as e-pol.

Tovojolo 15:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Assuming there really were such a thing as "e-pol", does anyone not born yesterday really think a police organization would post their planned arrest activities, or whatever, on a public website? Good grief, Charlie Brown.Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}

3 things to say: (1) Durin shouldn't have left during those circumstances. (2) The WMF needs to become more stringent with its FU policies, and (3) Epol.com should probably be put on the spam blacklist... –Animum 16:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I can only help with one of the above, and that's just confirming e-pol.org plus all of the UNOP Liaison EU websites we are aware off have been blacklisted locally. Nick 17:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[deindent] Off topic, but that e-pol.org website has some horrible web design. I can't even read the font, it's that small. —Crazytales (t.) 23:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

E-Pol is definitely not a bona fide organisation.

Look at the company's internet profile E-Pol Internet Profile.

If you look, you'll see that only one organisation links to e-pol – and that's www.bn23hosting.com – which is a Linux web hosting company !!!!!. So this great "regulatory" organisation that's supposed to police the Internet, has, in reality, no internet presence and is hosted on Linux !!!!!! I'm guessing some college kids in Hong Kong set it up – which is where Danna Shinso who threatened all the legal action comes from.

It would all be so laughable if it hadn't caused so much trouble.

I think someone should tell Durin so that he can come back.

Tovojolo 02:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame he left when he did, as he was in the middle of a debate on the inclusion of fair use images in the List of Pokémon series of articles (see discussion here). Now no one knows what to do - the Pokemon Wikiproject wants to re-add the images as soon as possible, but as Durin is unable to defend his point, they're understandibly unwilling to do so unilaterally. It's just led to image-warring and inclusion of pointless cruft, which no one on either side wants. Morgan695 06:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This "e-pol.org" website resolves to the same address as "specialdataservices.net" and traceroutes through Amsterdam, Netherlands. When I go to that page I get a web page design effort a high schooler could have bettered, complete with really annoying Flash noises, and isn't even complete and doesn't give a phone number. The website itself, while better designed, tells you nothing, makes vague claims, and uses terrible English. If I were not mistaken I'd say this is a very small company that does some sort of investigations for a fee. It also does not provide a contact telephone number. A random selection of 10 private investigation companies' websites stop short of putting their contact details in lights. Another site (which I just discovered when trying to save is in Wikipedia's spam filter list) is the backup site and also does not provide a phone number, and is also hosted in the Netherlands. On hitting Google, only 3 unique hits, one of which is DannaShinsho's talk page and another of which is a web designer from New Jersey who claims he worked on it. Factiva, a search engine which indexes newspaper articles from all over the world, does not have even one hit for this organisation. Orderinchaos 17:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. Why was this user blocked? It doesn't look to me as if he was threatening Durin, or Wikipedia, or WMF. The post he left on Durin's talk page is not threatening him. It seems as if he is using e-pol.org to take action against the people elsewhere on the net who are using the images he claims are his, not Durin. He presumably notified Durin of this because Durin was the one who said they were being used elsewhere without Danna's consent. i ^said 19:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

New message from the same user

Please have a look at this doozy on my talk page, which I can see was canvassed to other peoples' pages as well. It seems... Semi-legitimate, at first glance (through sleepy goggles,) though I do get the feeling this user is trying to game things at least to a small degree. I'm very tired right now and can't really give this my full attention tomorrow either, so, there you have it. Good night (in Central Time Zone (North America),) all. Grandmasterka 09:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the diff I think you were referring to, the content has since been removed from your dynamic link above. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yes thanks Chairboy, I was about to post that diff. Seemingly, this is a misunderstanding, but I am still interested in this e-pol. This person said they found out about e pol from "Dean", and since I haven't dug to closely into this, I don't know who that is. The e pol website does look very shady, if they are a genuine organization, which I doubt, they do a terrible job of conveying that. daveh4h 16:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

After doing a little digging, it seems clear to me that e-pol is not a legitimate operation, and is at best a silly hoax, and at worst part of a fraudulent charitable organization. According to PIR whois, epol.org is registered to "UNNET," and lists a contact email at "ns213un.net". That website in question is a mess of poorly obfuscated JavaScript and pseudo-classified-information gobbledygook. un-net.org, which seems to be intended as the main website of this "organization," is the same. I'm not sure what the point of this "organization" is, but it's clear that this user is only citing e-pol.org as a childish scare tactic. --krimpet⟲ 20:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This website needs to be reported, nonetheless. Anyone know how we can do that? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

That site (and it's clearly bogus) is trying to suggest a link with the UN, I suspect there legal people would be unimpressed to say the least - not sure what department to contact there... --Fredrick day 23:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, harassment is bad, and this unquestionably was harassment. But when someone asks you for evidence behind your assertions, you can't just ignore it and assume you're right. That is what Durin did, and that is what many of the "image patrollers" do. -Amarkov moo! 23:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that normally, one cannot casually ignore such requests. In this case, however, the editor in violation was uploading standard internet meme images, and now is claiming they are 'his' because he uploaded them here. I recognized, jsut from Durin's description a number of them, includingthe witch into a tree with silly text image, which shows up all over livejournal, myspace, and so on every october. It's at least 4 year old. That this guy seeks to lay such specious claim to such inattributable items isn't really worth the response time. ThuranX 02:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

So what was wrong with Durin responding with what you just said? What you said was more informative than what Durin said. The thing about image enforcers is that they often try to do too much, and get burnt out. If more people helped out, then there would be more people to help explain things to those image uploaders who get upset. If Durin's retirement is permanent (and I hope it is not), then it sets a bad precedent that could encourage some people to think that issuing legal threats is enough to drive people off Wikipedia. Does Wikipedia give advice to people on what to do if they receive off-wiki legal threats regarding their on-wiki activities? Carcharoth 03:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible that E-pol is a primarily Chinese organization, and that the "fraudulent" website is just a poor translation for the benefit of English speakers? That seems most likely to me, seeing as the Dean of Shinsho's college recommended it.

As for who owns the images - unless we can prove that others hold a copyright to these images, it's quite silly to claim that they are not fair-use/public-domain/etc. I'm not an admin, so I can't check the actual images in question, but from the description of events it appears that Durin never actually verified, other than in his own assertions, that these images were copyrighted - even if they are not Shinsho's creation, they could still be used unless copyrighted.

It also seems pretty clear, at least from the message left on Durin's page, that no actual legal threats were made (unless he got some e-mail that he didn't post on wikipedia). Yes, it could be interpreted that way, but that would be by taking it out of context. Shinsho has denied threatening Durin, and unless we get some proof that there is a threat, then all of this hullabaloo (kaneck, kaneck) seems to be a bit retaliatory.

For the copyright bit - Shinsho did ask for them to be removed, which seems in keeping with Durin's wishes, and then asked for the necessary info in order to correct the copyright info - thus allowing for her to fairly re-add the images, which should be in keeping with Durin's wishes. Unless it was in some response that only admins can see, I don't see how this is an unfair request - this should actually be what the whole "image deletion" thing should be about - not deleting non-free images, but replacing them with free ones. Otherwise, we're just anally deteriorating the project.

Basically - for e-pol, that's fine, you guys do your thing. For Shinsho - unless we can prove that those images were copyrighted, and that a legal threat was made, this whole punishment is quite biased, and seems illogical.KrytenKoro 20:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

"Is it possible that E-pol is a primarily Chinese organization" - not really, according to the WHOIS lookup, they use an American for-profit registrar and gave an address in Belgium (also, there were no link to other languages, including Chinese). One of the uploaded pictures (a cartoon) had the author's signature on it. It is highly unlikely that after signing it, the author (who was not Shinsho) would release it under a free license. Finally, none o f them were remotely encyclopedic and could only have been used as userpage decorations. Mr.Z-man 20:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

How can you know that Shinsho wasn't the author?--SuperElephant 21:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me, looking at the whole history, that you can't discount the possibility that it's just a misunderstanding, as some others have said. The user doesn't seem to speak or understand English very well, which may explain the clumsy ineptness with which they expressed themselves, and, while that e-pol organization seems bogus, we don't know that this user has anything to do with it; they may have just stumbled onto it and thought that it could help their problem. The "legal threats" (which are bogus if this is indeed a bogus organization) do seem to be against the (unnamed) other websites that allegedly "stole" the images, not against Durin. The later actions of immediately deleting all efforts by that user to appeal his banning give an impression of unfairness. *Dan T.* 21:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Dan, maybe I'm just a disgruntled, old editor but looking at the edit history of User:DannaShinsho, I'm surprised to discover that he showed a lot of interest in things like Template:User Nice to Newcomer & Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the newcomers without any evidence that he encountered any hostility from other editors. Add to that interest his activity with a WikiProject (whose goal I don't understand), & I can't avoid suspecting that Durin was driven away by a troll. His interest in e-pol.org (whether or not they are a real organization) is just frosting on the cake. -- llywrch 00:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Durin's and DannaShinsho's first contact seems to have been a disagreement on User_talk:^demon. Later Durin tags DannaShinsho's images, and she retaliates by tagging his articles. Template:User Nice to Newcomer was created by User:DannaShinsho and advertised on Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the newcomers, which doesn't strike me as suspicious. As to the WikiProject, perhaps try reading their page again as it's objectives seem clear. I agree that e-pol.org seems to have been designed by an eleven year old, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's illegitimate. There are a whole lot of suppositions, and it could turn out to be a troll, but it could just as well turn out to be a well meaning contributor. I don't see the negatives to allowing User:DannaShinsho to explain herself, but meh. Just a whole bunch of very short fuses all around. 166.166.23.212 02:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:UNCIVIL User

Resolved

Hi. I'd like to report a user who, despite frequent and strong warnings from multiple parties continue to make inappropriate comments and personal attacks against other users.

Grandia01 has been warned multiple times, see here and here for the more recent warnings relating to this AfD. (At present there are ~7 personal attack / rude comments from the user there). After his last warning at 18:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC), he continued to make rude comments at the AfD. See this made at 18:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC).

As best I can tell from his contribs, this is not a single purpose account, so hopefully someone will see fit to respond in a way that persuades him to contribute in a more productive manner. Thanks --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Comes off as being quite young, probably in need of some expert guidance to get him going (he's been in trouble for creating articles which are basically copyvios, one from the Columbia Encyclopaedia, one from I think a UN website). Orderinchaos 18:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Grandia01

User:Grandia01 has been warned twice in the past and three times in the past day over personal attacks. He has gone past his final warning. He doesn't seem to or doesn't care to understand that calling a person stupid or calling a person's contribution "bullshit" constitutes a personal attack. Smashville 20:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Support block. This kind of behavior needs to stop, and letting it continue would hurt. The Evil Spartan 20:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

See also this above — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well...he decided to lob one at me now...[17] -Smashville 21:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

So is someone going to block this user or not? This behavior is unacceptable. The Evil Spartan 03:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the block. Is this going to happen? Can someone please block for an appropriate length of time please? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

He also deleted the warnings here claiming some sort of bias...which I don't understand...I don't know him from Adam, I don't know how I could possibly have a "bias". Smashville 04:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

He's allowed to delete the warnings per Wikipedia:User_page#Removal_of_warnings--danielfolsom 03:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

And yet more attacks on his usertalk page. Smashville 19:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I see nobody has done anything about this User yet. Corvus cornix 23:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

And it's been over 24 hours...and he's well past his final warning... Smashville 23:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

However, all of his warnings came over basically the same incident, from the same people. This can be seen as provocation, especially with an editor who's so far shown an inability to handle criticism. The whole incident seems to have blown out of someone posting a rather unintelligible comment at an AfD of an article the user had written, and another person writing one which included the word "bullshit". (It wasn't strictly bullshit, it was copyvio.) I'd suggest laying off him unless he does something drastic, most of this is over a single AfD. I've left comments at the user's talk page as well. Orderinchaos 03:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Matter now appears to be resolved, with the user saying: "i'll try my best to calm down first hopefully to see the big picture before i judge anything". If something flares up again, that can be dealt with as a new issue. Orderinchaos 09:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Orderinchaos, you wrote, "However, all of his warnings came over basically the same incident, from the same people." Actually, Grandia01 has been warned on many occasions to refrain from personal attacks, beginning with the very first messages to his talk page:[18],[19],[20]. More recently, he left an extremely vulgar message on my talk through an anon IP (which he never denied), as discussed in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive268#Abusive use of anon IP by User:Grandia01; however the report was terribly mishandled, and nothing was done. As here, he removed this discussion from his talk page.[21]Proabivouac 00:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My review solely addressed the present incident, where it seems there was overreaction on both sides. From what I can tell the user involved is a very young person (as in, *well* below 18), and as I said above, has a very low threshold for criticism of any kind - something which they will need to address if they intend on sticking around. I've seen a fair bit of this kind of thing before, some have ended in community bans, others have ended in unexpectedly productive and useful editors who cringe at their earlier contributions. Orderinchaos 06:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I protest image deletion

I am really irritated with the deletionists here. I posted a 1951 diagram of the Polo Grounds for the express purpose of factual verification in that article and also in The Catch (baseball). Now it has been deleted, of course, despite my attempts to explain its necessity to those articles. I would like for someone to explain how I am supposed to prove the facts in the article without providing the diagram in question, owing to the fact that your average wikipedia reader does not have access to the Official Baseball Encyclopedia of 1951. As I told the potential deleter repeatedly some days ago, and which I also posted on the illustration's page, there is no free alternative. The structure was torn down over 40 years ago. And drawing it myself, besides being a dubious notion in itself, is also blatant original research, as I could draw any bloody thing I want to from some obscure book, and who would know if it's true or not? I explained this stuff to him over and over, and he does not care. Apparently his pleasure in life is in deleting things, and in irritating those whose efforts he deletes. I say in my editing philosophy that I don't like "running to Mommy", and here I am doing just that. But I am getting fed up with these guys. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would suggest that just as a person's having died does not make it impossible for one to find a free image of him/her (I recognize that we have sometimes taken a more liberal view here, permitting, for instance, the use of non-free images of individuals immediately upon their deaths, and I think that to be a good thing), a structure's having been destroyed does not make it impossible for one to find a free image of it (diagrams are, I know, a bit of a special class), although surely—especially where a structure has long been gone, such that there are likely to be fewer readily available photos (and likely even fewer on sites such as flickr)—the task is more difficult; one cannot, of course, simply take his/her camera out and capture the needed images. I absolutely agree with you on the underlying question, of course, and I think that we ought definitely to treat instances images that are practically unreplacable a bit differently, but I would submit that the present incarnation of NFCC criterion one doesn't really make any grand distinction. Joe 21:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

As a side point, drawing and uploading something yourself isn't really original research, an element of artistic license is inherently implied in the context of artwork, simply be clear in the image caption what it is your showing. Original research really deals more with text contributions largely to do with science and pseudo-science topics. For example; say you were to come up with a theory that cats evolved from trees, and you'd done a few basic unpublished experiments to 'prove' it. Then you came here and edited the cat article to say they evolved from trees... thats original research, its unpublished and frankly 99.999% likely to be very wrong. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 21:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If the facts come from the Official Baseball Encyclopedia of 1951, just cite it; the fact that it may not be available online or in most readers' bookshelves is not a problem. Incidentally, uploading a scan from a book doesn't really prove that's what's in the book any more than you simply saying so, since retouching a scan is pretty easy. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a pretty obvious case of fair use being legit. I suggest going to WP:DRV - I would certainly back you up. Unless we are going to get rid of fair use altogether, this is clearly a legit picture. The Evil Spartan 22:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand why we don't simply create an equivalent diagram. The dimensions of the stadium are known and creating the diagram is a 3 minute exercise in whatever software you want to use. In that sense the image is definitely replaceable by a free equivalent. Pascal.Tesson 22:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The point is that the full dimensions of the stadium are not altogether known to the general public. The key point of fact is that the scale drawing includes a measurement the authors took, showing that the center field bleacher corner was only 425 feet from home plate, not "about 460" as Brickhouse said on the broadcast and which many people thus believe, especially since it's quoted in the article. Aerial photos suggest the truth of the matter also, reaffirming the diagram. And the diagram (drawn by professionals rather than by some idiot like me trying to draw one) jumps out at you, whereas words just lay there. There really seems to be some kind of anti-illustration sub-culture on this site, and I just don't get it. Illustrations say a lot more than words do. Meanwhile, the argument that a free equivalent could be found is made by someone who clearly knows nothing about the subject. I know a lot about this subject. There is no free equivalent. You have this one, and you have similar diagrams in The Sporting News Baseball Guide. Those are the only sources for this information. Everything else I've seen on the subject is taken from those sources. And none of them are free. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The really sad part about all this is that if I had uploaded it and claimed it as my own, the odds are good no one would have made a peep. Instead, I'm honest, and it gets deleted; and you expect me to do some hand-drawn thing. Neither the punishment for honesty nor the encouragement of amateurish illustrations does anything to enhance the credibility of wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers free content to professional-looking content. If it was the other way around, we'd just rebrand ourselves as a licensed vendor of the Encylopaedia Britannica. Also, the same principles that apply to text apply to illustrations in the same way. We always post a new article and cite its info to the source; we don't just copy/paste the source. Same deal with this stadium diagram. nadav (talk) 03:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

In short, you want wikipedia to look like it was done by rank amateurs (which it too often does already). So how does that enhance its credibility? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It occurred to me that there's a possible compromise. The hardest part about drawing the Polo Grounds is getting that half-circle and those quarter circles down. But I theenk of great Lobachevsky and I get idea - aha! I could take the 1951 diagram and revise it sufficiently so that it isn't "theirs" anymore, by adding additional info from the Sporting News Guides and from a photo source that's mentioned in the Polo Grounds article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

As long as the diagram is your own work, you can certainly use that, just make sure you don't use the copyrighted diagram and just add or change things. That would be a derivative work, so it would still be covered under their copyright. And in answer to your early question, yes, we prefer amateurish free content to professional nonfree stuff. This isn't "the any old encyclopedia", it's "the free encyclopedia". And it is written by amateurs, for the most part. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

And in the peculiar world of the internet, looking like it was written by 15-year-olds is somehow considered a good thing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

And amateurism and deceit get by, and honesty gets punished. And yet you wonder why wikipedia as a target of scorn and ridicule. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"Hey! We're wikipedia! We look stupid and ugly, and we want to keep it that way!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The diagram was vectorized. Comments please. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me.Problem solved. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 12:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeh, it's a gem. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I know you meant well, but that illustration is just not bad enough to meet wikipedia's low standards. Maybe you could try throwing the diamond more noticeably out of square, or have a different font size for each numeric digit. With a little more effort, you could draw something so amateurish that even the most ardent wikipedia deletionist will like it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If your only response to people working out a solution which satisfies all our guidelines is snide and childish whining, you need to re-evaluate what you're trying to accomplish here. --Haemo

The problem is I didn't fully understand the "guidelines" before. Until yesterday, I had thought that the bad illustrations that kept turning up were some kind of anomoly. I foolishly thought that wikipedia would want to look professional and attractive, despite much evidence to the contrary. Then that one user set me straight, informing me that looking "amateurish" (i.e. looking stupid and ugly) is actually an objective of wikipedia. And your own comment just confirms that epiphany. You may now close this entire section if you want to. I started with an honest complaint, and the appalling responses I got have really lowered my expectations of what this website is supposed to be. I appreciate that one editor's offer to support my argument, but it is clear that the situation is hopeless. Despite that, I will continue to try to work in wikipedia... only I will also try to steer totally clear of any contact with the deletionists, whose viewpoint I find extremely offensive. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve, AN/I is not a forum for bitching about graphics design. If you encourage cooperative editors to adapt the diagram, you'll eventually arrive at a satisfactory render. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The original complaint was not about graphic design, it simply evolved into that, pushed by the deletionists who won't accept the fact that there is no free alternative. If you draw it graphically correctly, with all the information, you have effectively produced the exact diagram that already exists in the book. That's a copyright violation as surely as posting the original diagram is. I say again, and again, and again, there is no free alternative. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, what else can I do? You complained someone deleted an image, so I used my admin tools to see what it was. It turned out to be an outline, which I drew in Inkscape. (That is the whole point of the replacability factor people mentioned earlier). I drew it and now you are treating it like trash. What the hell are we supposed to do? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You're supposed to use the actual diagram, the unimpeachible source, with a reasonable fair use argument, rather than making a drawing which has no factual standing and amounts to original research and thus is a violation of wikipedia policy, no matter the argument to the contrary that someone made earlier; and which is also geometrically incorrect. Oh, and thank you for the civil remarks in the edit summary, which I have no doubt will be ignored by the admin who complained about my heated but G-rated complaints. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

And just to clarify the issue, it's not with your diagram, it's with the idiotic policy that wants to make wikipedia look as amateurish as possible, as if that were somehow a plus. I'm still waiting for someone to explain how the purposely-ugly look of wikipedia helps its credibility. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I used the source diagram, it is still in the history as the first upload. It includes the numebrs and stuff, so I am not sure what is OR about it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, if you drew it yourself, based on nothing, then it's original research. If you drew it incorrectly, then it's distortion of the facts. If you drew an exact copy, then it's a copyright violation. Any way, it's a policy violation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It also occurs to me I've been too generous with my phraseology. Of course the home grown diagram is an "alternative" in a loose sense of the word. It is not an equivalent. If it were, it would be an exact duplicate, and hence a copyright violation. FYI, when you switched it from svg to png a minute ago, I can't read it on my PC anymore. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The SVG version is gone, since it didn't include the arrows. Now with the PNG version, it has them. It works fine for me. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record I think you've done an excellent job in the circumstances Zscout370. :) I was in the same position when writing an FA, as all maps were copyvio. However, drawing one in SVG was actually permissible, on the grounds that the area existed in that exact form and it itself was not copyright, so making a new representation of the area was fine so long as I did not use the intellectual property of the mapping firm. This is obviously more of a problem with a *defunct* venue, but a diagram of this type seems to meet the need well as long as it acknowledges the source of its information. Orderinchaos 04:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It "seems to meet the need" to someone who has no idea what the issue is. It's just as well I can't see the new version. I've had enough of this already. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

By US copyright law, creativity is required for copyright. The aspects of the original diagram that were not creative are not copyrightable. Facts are not copyrightable. The shape and dimensions of a baseball ground are not likely to be copyrightable; furthermore, if there IS any copyright possible in them, they would be owned by the designer of the ground, not the person diagramming the facts in existence.

If there is no copyright issue with the diagram from that book, then it is, in fact, free, and there is no need to find an "equivalent" somewhere. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

And on the strength of your explanation, I intend to upload the original diagram again, as there is no longer any reasonable argument against it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The diagram is not a violation of copyright, IMO. As to original research: of course it isn't. It's taking documented facts and illustrating them. It would be original research if one obtained the measurements oneself or out of unpublished data. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

In general, you could be right. You just don't get the issue in this specific case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, above you say you can't see the png version of the image. This is almost certainly because you have an overzealous advertising blocking filter, as the image is in the /a/ad/ directory. If thats the case then you also can't see roughly 1/256 of the other images on Wikipedia. You should exempt Wikipedia from your advertising filter,as we do not have ads here, and if we ever get ads you should get a filter which isn't rubbish. --Gmaxwell 08:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at that. Thank you for your help. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I adjusted one of the parameters in ZoneAlarm, and now I can see the illustration, which is nearly the same as the original and thus nearly a violation of its copyright, if any. I wasn't aware that ZoneAlarm was considered "rubbish", but if so, perhaps you could suggest a superior (even if not free) alternative. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Donny417

Donny's been trolling for the past couple of days on Arabian horse, where he's tried as an IP and as a registered user to insert a discussion of Kenneth Pinyan's unfortunate death while having sex with a horse. After a sustained argument on the talk page and around five reverts between his account and the IP edits, he's moved on the the main Horse article, with diversions at Zoophilia. He's wandered over the line on WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT, and now wants to argue over whether it was really him as an IP editor. He's made it clear [22] that his focus is the insertion of the Pinyan incident where he can, regardless of consensus. He's asked for checkuser to prove his innocence on 3RR, which is fine as far as I'm concerned, but he's mainly become a disruption under his user account. Some other eyes and opinions would be appreciated. Acroterion _(talk) 21:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment but usually checkuser requests for the purpose of proving one's own innocence are not accepted. Checkuser is not definitive and there are simple methods around it. Analysis of the users contributions is often a far better way of identifiying a sockpuppet or a supporting meat puppet. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 21:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I haven't pursued it myself - Donny can try it if he wants to. A look at the contribution pattern pretty much puts the issue beyond question. Acroterion _(talk) 21:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser's irrelevant to the editor's clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia with the constant addition of what I can only assume is either his personal fetish, or his personal animus (no pun intended) towards the human involed in the story. A substantial block would be appropriate. His movement from article to article to expand and spread his nonsense indicates he's aware that his material is unwelcome, and thus, a block is timely now. he's done this for days, so the 'he's not doing it right now' argument doesn't hold ground; he'll undoubtedly resume his activities next time he's on. ThuranX 02:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Man, the things one finds on Wikipedia. Orderinchaos 19:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, CheckUser shows that he has edited articles as an IP, seemingly to avoid 3RR. My opinion: a substantial ban. He knows the rules and is deliberately playing games. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not an admin, so I can't do much, but FisherQueen's keeping an eye on Donny. He's been laying low ever since this [23], so the net effect is the same. He won't be hard to spot if he comes back. Acroterion _(talk) 15:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

HAHAHA That made me laugh out loud. no, for real. not just a LOL, not the lolz and lulz, a real Scare-my-cats and wake the fert laugh. That ought to make ANY editor sit up and knock it off. ThuranX 19:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Calton...again

As asked by admin El C, I have had zero contact with User:Calton, have not posted to his talk page, have left him be.

A discussion of radio station articles with VigilancePrime somehow drew the attention of Calton and this response. Calton was not apart of the conversation nor is he apart of the group in question, WP:WPRS.

I responded on VigilancePrime's talk page, as the "advice" Calton had given in his unrequested post was incorrect and I don't want VigilancePrime having bad information.

About 25mins ago, I am greeted with this beautiful post on my talk page. An incivil, ranting, demanding post, again stating the same bad information quoting on VigilancePrime's talk page.

It has become obvious that Calton is not going to curb the behaviour that many admins have asked of him, for us to leave each other alone, which I have. Posting on VigilancePrime's talk page about radio stations needed no response what-so-ever from Calton. I am tired, oh so tired, of asking for help with Calton and would like it very much if he would curb this behaviour and leave me alone as I have him.

So, I kindly ask an admin to please have a word with him, it probably won't do any good as he doesn't respond well to messages from anyone especially criticism from admins and even people work Wikimedia.

Many thanks for any help that can be provided. Take Care....NeutralHomer ^T:C 04:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Calton is absolutely right here, your assertion was false, having an entry in a directory s not and probably never will be a qualifier for inclusion on Wikipedia. Your best way forward here is to stick with the policies which do govern content, notably verifiability, neutrality and attribution. When giving advice to others I advise the use of qualifying terms. So: in general having an entry in the directory is taken as an indication that the subject is likely to qualify. That would be unproblematic. Was that the kind of help you were looking for? Guy (Help!) 10:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• It's my experience -- and I'm being perfectly serious here -- NeutralHomer doesn't track nuance or qualifiers. He wants everything black-and-white. --Calton | Talk 11:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• All right, NeutralHomer is at least partially right: I mixed up -- God knows how -- his reply as being in response to a message I left for VigilancePrime on August 29th, not to an earlier message (which I'd forgotten about) I'd left for VigilancePrime on August 23rd. I blame sloppy reading, and I apologize for that.

On the other hand (and I note he left this out, despite my putting it in my message linked above), it seems obvious he HAS been stalking my Talk page. The chain:

• User:WarthogDemon leaves a note on my User Talk page about a suspicious user page at 03:26, August 26, 2007 [24]
• Twenty-five minutes later at 03:51, before I even have read the original message, NeutralHomer responds to this message left on MY page to WarthogDemon's User Talk page [25].
• Later, after seeing the notification on my User Talk page, I go to WarthogDemon's page and discover that NeutralHomer has been, in effect, "reading my mail" (despite an admin's friendly advice to stop the stalking) and has gotten there ahead of me. I am irritated, but too busy to respond.
• Today, while scanning the Talk Page history VigilancePrime, I see NeutralHomer's name, and respond -- sloppily -- as above.

And you might want to take some of his "evidence" with a grain of salt: eight of them concern the same editor, who was blocked for edit-warring over adding tags to an article -- followed about an hour later by vandalism to my user pages by an IP from said editor's city [26]; and two are simply my adding a {{trivia}} tag to said article. His padding the evidence ought to give the reader pause.

While I was wrong on the most recent incident, as far as I'm concerned I'm right on the specifics: he's been trying this stunt for months, of watching my edits, putting his oar in where he can, running off to tattle to WP:AN/I in hopes of getting me banned, and pouting when it isn't done. Rinse, lather, repeat. And I'm getting tired of it. --Calton | Talk 11:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Calton, your confrontational manner of talk page posting seems to be escalating relatively minor editing issues into personal grudges. Might I suggest that you'd be much more effective with a little politeness? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 13:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, Calton was right about policy, and the supposed complaint is extremely thin stuff that would be laughed out of court in any kind of dispute resolution. Now would be a good time to chill, people. Guy (Help!) 16:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: I am only commenting on the policy (as I am not allowed to comment on anything else). As far as I have been told as apart of WP:WPRS, radio stations are allowed an article. LP stations, given their small broadcast area are as well, but will more-than-likely be deleted because they reach like 12 people. The same "if it has an FCC link, it has a page here" ideal is what gives us pages for almost 98% of all TV stations in the US on Wikipedia. Which is what is trying to be done with the radio stations.

Again, I will only be commenting on the policy and nothing else, as again, I am not allowed. Take Care...NeutralHomer ^T:C 21:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, either you remain consistent to that, or you don't. But you cannot play both ends. El_C 21:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

NeutralHomer, what you are saying is that you are attempting to make a directory of radio stations. But Wikipedia is not a directory. No amount of consensus among people interested in a single topic area will trump Wikipedia policies. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

On the WarthogDemon related incident... I note that Neutralhomer apologizes for taking so long to get to it. Which doesn't make alot of sense in relation to something posted only 25 minutes prior... on someone else's talk page. WarthogDemon responded with a simple 'no problem' message. Are we sure that there wasn't some prior notification of this issue that Neutralhomer was following up on?

Given that the page in question was deleted as spam at 3:44, 18 minutes after WarthogDemon's message to me but 7 minutes before NeutralHomer's message to WarthogDemon, it's pretty clear to me why NeutralHomer apologizes to WarthogDemon for the "delay" -- but that should have been easy enough to check, even for a non-admin, and an admin could certainly have checked the page history for added tags or whatever during the time it took to compose the sentence above. --Calton | Talk 15:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Er, I'm not sure of the whole thing going on here. I just dropped by this page and since I saw my name pop up. I'm not sure if I've caused any confusion/problems. But in any case, I will throw in my recap if it helps clear up anything.

I sometimes browse usernames for inappropriate use of userpages. (Usually I do this by going to the User Creation Log, selecting whatever name is at the top of the list, and putting it in Special:Listusers.)

In this case though, I came across it in Recent Changes. Now admittedly enough time is past that I don't remember if it was band promotion or something else. I do remember not being sure what it was, or what to tag it with. So I decided to bring it to Calton's attention, figuring he'd be in-the-know. So I did and moved on to other Wiki-editing stuff.

I do like to check back on my Recent Contributions. (Various reasons: Too see if I've made any mistakes others have corrected, check on users I've talked to recently, etc.) Plus I also wanted to check the Rome User's page in case Calton had already tagged it. Checking Calton's page again (since I made no edits to Rome's page), I found Nihiltres had deleted Rome's talk page and so I went to Calton's page to say it had just been taken care of. Nothing further on that until I got a message from Neutralhomer. I didn't think anything odd of this; I just assumed that Calton and Neutralhomer were working together or something, so I just told NeutralHomer "no problem" and that was that.

In the interest of full disclosure, I found my name using this. As a bored Wikiholic I sometimes get curious of where things are linked to. Saw my name here and wondered if I had messed something up. I hope I haven't and that my recap clears any confusion. (And hopefully doesn't cause more...) -WarthogDemon 18:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As to Wikiprojects having, "zip, zero, none, zilch, nada, nil" authority... technically true, practically inaccurate. In 'The Great Road Names Debate' state road wikiprojects which had established and updated the relevant pages to a particular naming standard were given deference even when that standard contradicted a later general standard for road names. Many of the notability and manual of style guidelines for particular topics have been drawn up by the related Wikiprojects. Et cetera. It is certainly accurate to say that Wikiprojects have no inherent authority. However, Wikipedia works by consensus and the consensus of a group of people actively working on a particular topic (aka 'a Wikiproject') is seldom going to be over-ruled in relation to that topic... basically only when the community at large disagrees. So, no, Wikiprojects 'have no authority'... but groups of people working on a topic and establishing a consensus about it do. And that's what a Wikiproject is. In the absence of a community holding to the contrary, the consensus of the people actively working on the topic is alot more than "zip, zero, none, zilch, nada, nil". --CBD 08:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

and that's why the special interest groups (Wikiproject is the wrong word, it implies a level of professionalism that is absence from most) we have are so dangerous - especially on the cruftopedia side of wikipedia - those SIGs are self-selecting groups of fans who work in their best interest of their fan-based interest not wikipedia. Yes I agree, that they might have some authority when left unchallenged but we should be ever vigilant against those SIGs and constantly challenge their ownship of articles. --Fredrick day 08:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Noone owns articles, that's the whole point. And I agree that some WikiProjects are unprofessional or in some cases even unnecessary (then there's the cases of the one-person wikiprojects)... however, many projects are professional, organised and well-maintained, and are able to handle internal differences of opinion and are often better at reaching consensus than official or semi-official Wikipedia processes. Orderinchaos 09:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

CBD is somewhat missing the point, since NeutralHomer kept making reference to the "rules" of his particular Wikiproject -- not special interest, not special knowledge, rules -- and declaring implicit ownership over such pages. --Calton | Talk 15:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• NeutralHomer is clearly not getting the message. Worse, he appears to be personalising the dispute to a quite unacceptable degree, see this diff. I have blocked hiom for 24 hours while we decide what to do for the best. Will an RfC be necessary? Or do we simply need to spell out the fact that Wikiprojects don't override policy? How best to progress in correcting a pattern of problematic behaviour form this editor? Guy (Help!) 09:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't disagree with this block - that comment was pretty below-the-belt - and In light of Firsfron's diff below, I have struck this part of my comment. I'm a bit amazed now. ~ Riana ⁂ 16:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC) An RfC might be a very good idea, considering this NeutralHomer v/s Calton farce has been going on for long enough. I do have to say at this point, however, that Calton does not go out of his way to interact politely with his fellow users. In most of the interactions I've noted I've seen what I can only describe, and forgive my bluntness, as an overriding desire to impinge his apparent intellectual superiority onto people. I realise this is not a violation of policy, and I value straight talk as much as the next person. Calton, however, seems to take this to another level entirely. This is not merely with Homer, but in most cases, so I don't know whether he's been pushed into such actions by these disputes, or it's just his style. IMHO the actions of both contributors need to be examined. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I have to agree with Riana. Carlton is usually right about policy, but some of his responses are so unpleasant that minor issues grow into these unproductive feuds.--Kubigula (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with Riana and Kubigula. I really can't understand why we keep turning a blind eye towards Calton's rude and contemptuous behaviour. I haven't had to deal with him since his proposal to community ban User:GordonWatts where he was generally patronising and nasty, down to referring to User:Musical Linguist as "my dear", in an obvious attempt to antagonise. Sadly, I see nothing has changed in intervening months. I really don't care if he is right about policy or not, there's no excuse for his abuse. I also agree with Riana that there seems to be "an overriding desire to impinge his apparent intellectual superiority onto people." I honestly don't know why we keep turning a blind eye to his abuse and the fact that we have done so for so long just plays into the apparent sense of superiority over everybody on the project. I would support looking at the behaviour of both parties, this provocation and abuse really needs to stop. Sarah 16:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I"m inclined to agree with Riana here. This has been going on some time and Calton has been rude in the extreme. Looks like NH just had the wrong buttons pressed in their exchange. No excuse for that, mind, but the circumstances show a certain provocation here - Alison ☺ 17:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse the block, issue a general reminder to everyone to be just a little more civil, and try DR/mediation/RFC for any other lingering issues. Moreschi ^Talk 12:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I will not endorse this block. It is clear Calton has acted equally incivilly as NH in previous disputes between these two, and talk page edits in June indicate JzG is not exactly a neutral party. NH's comment that JzG can go ahead and laugh at him is met with "Thank you, I will do just that." and this comment ("I will be standing in line when it comes to time to ban you ") worries me, too. Baiting users into giving them blocks should be discouraged, and the blocking admin shouldn't escalate the situation by insulting the user. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse the block - we're talking about a 24-hour, not an indef here. That is not to say there is not issues which need resolving on both sides, but some of the stuff that has been going on on this page with new sections opened up in short order seems a bit disruptive to me. WP:DR is the place for it. Orderinchaos 20:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

User Spylab - irrational abusive behavior and the Sajmište concentration camp article and talk page vandalism

I am trying to tell this person that the reference (s)he is irrationally claiming on [27] is given, quoted, and moreover - online readable and accessible. See [28] I explained it on the talk page here [29] which (s)he removed twice. Overall, we have pointless edit war unnecessary damaging this atricle by Spylab.--4.249.72.18 18:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This IP comes from a range that has been editing the article since the block of Guivon (talk · contribs) as a sockpuppet of Velebit (talk · contribs) with similar edits. Spylab has accused the IP range of being a sockpuppet in edit summaries, I've let them know about the debate here. Orderinchaos 19:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, pay attention to the problem as reported. Do not sidetrack the issue! The accusation, even if might be justified, does not justify this vandalism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.0.233 (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Guivon (talk · contribs) a.k.a. Purger (talk · contribs) a.k.a. few dozens of other sockpuppet accounts is banned. Dispite of that, he stil disrputs wikipedia, as he did for last 16 months. Since he is banned, each and every od his edits should be reverted. I think we should deal with this vandal from 4.249.x.x IP range once for all. Anything else is of less importance. --Ante Perkovic 09:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, it is totally obvious that the anonymous IP is a sock puppet of permanently-banned User:Velebit aka User:Guivon aka User:NovaNova aka User:Modelsides, etc. See my IP check request here: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check#Obvious IP socks of banned individual. He has made a few posts at the administrators noticeboard trying to get me blocked, and every single one of them failed because he is the one who violates Wikipedia rules, not me. This individual has been harassing me for months, making personal attacks, vandalizing my user page; and doing the same to other editors as well.Spylab 12:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Ronz and User talk:Mdebow

After responding to a mailing list request for an unblock, I unblocked User:Mdebow who had been spamming links. He promised to me he would no longer spam, so I unblocked him. I cleared his talk page, which was full of template warnings, and block message, and replaced it with a welcome template, to start again. I am then reverted [30], so I revert back [31]. It should have been left at that, and the user could start to contribute. User:Ronz then comes and warns the user, for some reason [32], even though the user had been warned previously (and blocked) - note he'd made no more edits since being unblocked. I then remove the warning [33], as the user in question had already been told numerous times, and in any case the warning was dated. I'm undid by Ronz, who states it "assumes good faith" - hardly. I then revert Ronz.

I'm later informed by User:Tango on my talk page that I had been reported for 3RR [34].I explain my reasons to Tango, who agrees with me, and told me next time to get an outside opinion. I then have a conversation with Ronz [35], but he's since readded the link to the page, so I'd like others' opinions. Yes, he might have been spamming, but Ronz has effectively driven off a possibly good contributor by the insistence on readding the warnings - Mdebow told me by email about stuff he'd write about, and I think it's a shame he's been supposedly driven off by this. Majorly (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

As an example of WP:POT, here's an entirely separate incident from this one whereRonz telling me that I am "piling it on" after he warned an editor about edit warring with me. I don't believe what I said would be considered "piling it on" but rather just a friendly reminder about WP:NPA. I just think it is a tad hypocritical considering Ronz's argument here, and he has - in my opinion - shown a history of baiting and bullying seasoned editors such as me, as well as biting many newbies. That's my two-cents. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I have little to say concerning my interactions with Majorly. The warning I gave by definition assumes good faith - that's what it's for, to give a good-faith warning. Accusations of editors actions driving off others are completely baseless as far as I can tell. As for the edit-warring and other interactions, I wasn't a part of any of it, other than my putting the link and only the link onto the page [36]. --Ronz 19:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as Levine2112's comments are concerned, they're irrelevant and harassment. --Ronz 20:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think re-adding warnings after the fact, and after the user has been unblocked, is unhelpful? We're allowed to remove warnings from talk pages, and Majorly was trying to give this editor a clean slate to work with. "Good faith" only stretches so far when you keep re-adding warnings like that. Grandmasterka 20:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The most that can be said is there has been some mild "doubtful faith" issues between various of the above (reasonably or otherwise). It's clear that all parties have tried to support the project... Majorly has dealt with the unblock in a way that seems fair... and Ronz has left a warning/note that I agree is basically an AGF note on the editor's page (perhaps because of his history). Maybe what would be best is if Ronz and Majorly can agree that the editor has spammed in the past, and has agreed to be unblocked and to not continue, to AGF of the editor based on his email conversations, and wait and see how it works out when he/she resumes editing. An informal agreement to talk by email and close the matter without illwill by the above named, and an email to the editor to apologize for the minor misunderstanding which was in good faith, may be a reasonable first approach to resolving it. In other words - make peace, let it go this time. Simple and easy miscommunication, no drama, no bad faith obvious :)

If there's more to it than that, or it's a repeated problem in the past, then I would withdraw from the discussion -- this is a "first take" on it, without having looked deeply. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

(Responding to Grandmasterka and FT2) To clarify, I placed the warning as context for the link. I placed the link as a reference for other editors that might later be investigating similar vandalism (the link is easy to search for). My original edit was just to identify the link for future reference. I prefer not to include such links without context of some sort. --Ronz 20:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I've never known of anyone putting text on a user talk page in order to facilitate searching like that - is that common practice and I've just missed it? I don't really see a need to know who else has spammed a link in the past when dealing with a new case of spamming, it might be nice to know, but it's certainly not necessary. The harm done by issuing warnings for acts that have already been dealt with appropriately far outweighs the negligible gain. --Tango 21:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We all can (and do) examine the contribution history and Talk page history of editors when funny things are afoot. Talk pages are not intended to be nor are they typically used as permanent records of alleged or actual misdeeds or mistakes. --ElKevbo 22:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"is that common practice and I've just missed it?" I don't believe so. Given all the spam investigations I've done, this may be the only one where all warnings were removed, leaving no context for adding a link. I'd prefer not to write up a WT:WPSPAM report for fairly minor cases of spamming such as this (sadly this is a fairly minor case of spamming even though two editors spammed some 30 articles in less than a day), but that is an option that I could take instead if others feel it's inappropriate to leave any indication that an editor spammed a link in cases like this. I'd rather leave some sort of indication, even though it is not a permanent record. --Ronz 02:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

How often do people actually search talk pages for spammed links? What do you get out of it? --Tango 13:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be getting off topic here. No matter. When ever I find a spammed link, I always run a search to see if it has been spammed elsewhere. I don't know how often others do so, but link searches are a basic tool for spam and coi investigations. --Ronz 15:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Horlo

This user has been crusading to move Kiev to Kyiv. He refuses to accept the fact that a poll has already voted against the move and is using sockpuppets to push his POV. After the poll closed, an influx of anonymous IPs that had little to no other contributions to any other article (seven of which were in Toronto) came into the discussion advocating for the move. There was also a large influx of newly established users that also made little to no other contributions to any other article. He needs a nice long block. Reginmund 20:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It may be of interest that Toronto has a large and well-known Ukrainian community. Orderinchaos 21:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you open a case on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets and list out all the IPs and users you believe are associated with this? I don't disagree that there's evidence of a problem, but admin review will go much faster if someone who was following the conversation can summarize which ones you think may be socks. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 21:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't figured out how to work that contraption. I can however list the suspected sockpuppets of Horlo. Reginmund 21:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that blocking Holro is unneeded not because he is useful (he is not), but because he is harmless. He used to Kyivize articles around. He does not do it anymore. He used to flood talk:Kiev with his campaign making the talk page unreadable and useless for discussing the articles. This has ended too as the subpage was created specifically for him to type his kilobytes. Unless an addition of harmless (but useless) rant in an amount of several kilobytes per day is really the load that matters for the WP traffic and hard-drive space, he may continue this activity just as well. --Irpen 08:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a rather ingenious solution to this kind of problem that I might well use one day. :) 385k... that's some dedication. Orderinchaos 15:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Incivility User:Jay32183, possibly bullying in afd

User:Jay32183 is responding to a disagreement of a loosely worded item in WP:NOT#DIR by basically calling me an idiot who can't understand English and should shut up, here [37] and here [38]. He also in my opinion is attempting to bully editors who are voting keep by replying to them with a message restating his position - like so [39] - something that I am not sure is a violation of policy but which seems a little off to me.

Could someone maybe have a word with him? Artw 04:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Done.Rlevse 11:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking and harass by DHeyward

Chaplain Kent Svendsen (USMIL) User:ChaplainSvendsen is a 'public figure'. He talks on Wiki about the articles he wrote. That's the name he signed when he canvassed me with email. User:DHeyward (who just changed his name) is following me and making unjust edits to mine, and trying to provoke me. (IMO) [40] Please ask him to leave me alone and leave my edits alone. If he or any of his group have a problem with my edits, I ask that they complain to Thatcher131, who they complained a lot to in the last days, but who is pretty fair. •smedleyΔbutler• 04:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

See WP:BATTLE, WP:SOAP. Raymond Arritt 04:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct. Here was his last account where he was warned for doing the same thing (the Chaplain) ChaplainKent. Dheyward is wrong. •smedleyΔbutler• 05:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

(Irony meter pegs scale and bursts into flame; shards damage all within a 10 m radius.) Raymond Arritt 05:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I would remove such trolling but maybe thats expected. •smedleyΔbutler• 05:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, you've come off a 1 week block and within a couple of hours, you put your name/account back on this board again? Voluntarily? It's like you want to be indefinitely blocked. (Disclaimer: I take no responsibility if any admins reading this take that last statement as a suggestion). R. Baley 11:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Here, SSP, or CU?

Asking for an admin to step in, as I don't want to seem like i'm on a vendetta.

I noticed this edit [41] today, and what concerns me is that it's a first edit that handles an external link with ... do we call taht cover text, or labelling, or what?... whatever it is, perfectly. It supports the website of this user, User:AdamFendelman, who runs that very site(evidence of which was on an article about him). I don't want to pursue this, because I already nominated the article about that user, as a Speedy A7 after trying to clean it up left me with nothing BUT extenal links and peacock terms. To go after him any further would seem like I'm 'after him'; I'm not, but this is sort of foolish stuff. AF has been adding his site in as a reliable site and so on, and been reverted a few times[42] and [43], so this is more than coincidental, I think. Thanks. ThuranX 06:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

AdamFendelman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a COI/spam-only account. Virtually every edit he's ever made has been reference spamming for hollywoodchicago.com, and citing himself. [44] [45][46] This account should be indef blocked.

Itsallthat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has only made one edit [47], spamming that same, obscure, PageRank zero website. This is an obvious sock, so it too should be blocked. - Jehochman ^Talk 06:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The editor has contacted me, and left a note at the article talk, protesting complete confusion about the reverts of his edits, but his talk page has a lengthy litany of warnings and communiques about this sort of thing. I find it hard to believe that when you declare it to be your original content blog, you don't understand, as a journalist, the sort of unverifiable nature of the writings, and the conflicts it sets us up for. ThuranX 06:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Despite asking me on my talk page, and at the article page, for how to cite things correctly, the editor immediately jumped to another article nad did EXACTLY what got him into conflict before. See his contribs here. [48]. While my reply to him came at the exact minute as his First edit to Julie Delpy, he made another right after, which suggests to me that he really is a spam account. ThuranX 06:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an obvious case of a disruption-only account. The user has made virtually zero good faith contributions. Everything is spam and COI. - Jehochman ^Talk 06:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, he readded the link to Julie Delpy, because I just removed it along with another one he added as an inline ref. He knows what he's doing. - KrakatoaKatie 11:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

User continues to act in the same manner, despite my attempts to communicate with him, after posting here and talking to Jehochman. ThuranX 06:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup. I've cleaned up about 50% of the spam, but I have to go to bed. Here's the rest that needs mopping up. - Jehochman ^Talk 07:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Please be patient with the editor and talk to him rather than snap-blocking for this. If that's really his name and his userpage is accurate, he's a legit journalist and this is just a communications gap over what Wikipedia is all about. Try to explain nicely. Georgewilliamherbert 07:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

His actions are not limited to The Dark Knight. He attempted to add content to Spider-Man 3 back in May 2007, and he was warned by another user and myself, as seen on his talk page. I agree that his contributions do not seem to reflect good faith -- to constantly cite your very own site and pretty much nothing else does not reflect positively on the editor. If the editor's contributions reflect a more varied background of contributions, there may be some argument here, but there is not. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

GWH - As mentioned above, I have, in fact, tried a couple times to explain to him that linking to his own blog, especially in the self-promotional manner he does it in, and quoting his own reviews about movies, represents a violation of the COI policy. He keeps asking how he's supposed to link to his blog correctly, and how he's supposed to link to his blog if we don't let him link to his blog. As such, his primary, if not only, concern in all this is getting his blog out there. After being notified of this AN/I thread, and having it explained to him a couple times, he continued to edit to include his blog and his commentaries on the film and actor/-ress pages that his blog had covered. Perhaps hearing from an admin would help? ThuranX 12:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, this editor has made virtually no good faith contribution. He's added dozens of spam-COI links to his own site. That's all he's ever done. If you like talking to a brick wall, fine, but please don't expect the rest of us to assume good faith when there's overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The fellow has received numerous warnings and hasn't stopped. He's not clueless. He knows exactly what he's doing, and he's playing us for fools. This is why it's so damn frustrating for some of us who don't have tools. After we spend the time to investigate and clean up a mess, most admins still want the formulaic four warnings within 7 days. A savvy spammer can run a slow-motion spam campaign and fly below the radar. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Grawp the Giant

In under half an hour, this editor has redirected dozens of articles to non-existent pages, used offensive language and deletes warnings from his/her talk page. I request that this person be blocked. faithless (^speak) 07:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Was blocked indefinitely about 40 minutes ago. I think that all of his moves have been successfully fixed. I have posted a WP:RFCU on the account to catch any sleepers they may have created. Georgewilliamherbert 07:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, send this to WP:AIV—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, this was my first time requesting a block. Thanks! faithless (^speak) 07:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. You did a good thing. AIV is a more precisely right thing, but this would have been helpful if the incident hadn't already been under control. Definitely, if you see something like this in the future, check if the vandal is still active, and if so take it to WP:AIV as soon as possible. You may help save us much pain and suffering. The more people help, the better our reactions are. Thanks! Georgewilliamherbert 07:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Might wanna get this checked to see if isn't a Hel Hufflepuff (talk · contribs) sock. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Heee's back

Returned as HAGGGER? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and did 20-ish page moves, similar target set as last time. Another sleeper account waiting since Aug 19th. CU assistance would be very useful right now... Georgewilliamherbert 00:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparent IP-sock of indef-blocked User:Klaksonn

I have blocked (for one week) the anon IP 83.229.104.4 (talk · contribs) for disruptive editing and as an apparent sockpuppet of the indef-blocked Klaksonn (talk · contribs) (see discussion of my indef-bloc of Klaksoon at ANI284#Blocked_user:Klaksonn).

I was notified of this by a message on my talk page by another editor, and the reply by the anon IP is definitely Klaksonn's style: a personal attack rather than a discussion of the issues. The contribs also fit Klakson's style: same areas of interest, and the same PoV-pushing abusive style.

In any other case, I would have asked for a checkuser and if the sock was confirmed, blocked indefinitely; but I was unsure what to do with the case of a blocked user clumsy enough to edit from an IP, because WP:CHECKUSER says that privacy policy "does not allow us to make a check that has the effect of revealing IP addresses".

Since I have not previously encountered a situation like this, I'm not whether I have taken the right steps. Can anyone advise? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Given the repugnant edit summaries you can see just from looking at Special:Contributions/83.229.104.4, I would have softblocked it for a year, given there's been not one good edit. Neil ム 11:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough! Block now extended to one year. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently now 77.42.178.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log); I've blocked for 24h. Antandrus (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Please Advise Me

If I am using an image from wikipedia which in public domain on the Front Page of my magazine, is it compulssary to give the credit to wikipedia as [Source: Wikipedia] or shall I mention the source without bolding it.Kaystar 11:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If, and only if, an image is marked as public domain, you can use it without any conditions at all; read the linked page for more information. You can click on an image to view its copyright conditions. --ais523 12:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.Kaystar 14:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Although, you may want to check it really is public domain - some images are tagged incorrectly. Wikipedia doesn't own the copyrights to the images (or text, for that matter), so you need to find out who actually owns the image and make sure you have permission from them. --Tango 13:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.Kaystar 14:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Kudos would be nice! :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

User:The Road to 10 million accounts

User:The road to 10 million accounts appears to be dedicated to fulfilling the promise of the name, with the creation of multiple accounts, some using inappropriate names. [49] Among them are User:Myspace is amore reliable source than wikipédia and User:Wikipédia is myspace for fat aspergers losers. All six current accounts were created at the same moment. The user has made no other edits yet. Kablammo 12:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

They are playing to see what we pick up. The bots don't seem to pick up wikipedia with the accent. I've blocked a few with account creation blocked but presumably this is having no effect. Secretlondon 12:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

There are more of similar ilk:[50],[51],[52]. Someone has a lot of time on their hands. Can the IP[s] from which the user it editing be blocked? Or should this be ignored until the user gets bored, or actually starts editing? Kablammo 12:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, [53] and [54] (took a few minutes to figure out how to find this). ThuranX 12:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

He's a prolific one, eh? [55], [56], [User:User Norm was WoW's "good" account until it "departed"], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61],

[62]... and on and on... the IP needs a hardblock. ThuranX 13:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It was given several. It was clearly getting new IP addresses, and we then need to be careful of colateral damage. Secretlondon 20:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The accounts are actually an almost daily occurrence, and usually four or five new accounts are created from each original one. They are sometimes accompanied by articles about raping babies, but most of the time they don't edit at all and can be ignored. My guess is it's a dynamic Optimum IP range. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added Wikipédia to HBC bot's blacklist. I might or might not add one or two other things based on this... Grandmasterka 21:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Blanking of Maburaho's critical reception section

Yesterday, an IP editor had blanked a section on Maburaho about its critical reception three times without any explanation.[63][64][65] The IP editor was given a warning each time for blanking the section. Now this morning, a newly registered account blanked the section again.[66] I have strong suspicion that this was nothing more then an attempt to get around WP:3RR. --Farix (Talk) 12:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I highly suspect the newly created account and the IP address as sockpuppetry. The blanking of the critical reception is a disgrace. The reasons explained by TheFarix is why blanking it is really bad. Greg Jones II 13:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The user has deleted the section again.[67] I've went ahead and issued a {{3RR}} warning considering that this is his fifth time in 24 hours he/she has removed the section. --Farix (Talk) 20:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the user for 31 hours for violating 3RR, and commented that removing cited text without consensus is also vandalism. Hopefully they will become more communative when the block expires... but if socks appear, report it here or at WP:AIV. LessHeard vanU 21:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

And here I was filling out a 3RR report when you blocked him. I guess I can just ditch that now. --Farix (Talk) 21:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Njyoder (talk · contribs) continues personal attacks

This editor continues to make personal attacks in the course of this discussion. he's been twice reminded about NPA and CIVIL, and has a long history of being blocked for this very thing. His latest [68]. You can see the paypal talk page in the sections previous for several more examples.--Crossmr 15:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the template in the heading. x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Liancourt Rocks

Note: If you are involved in this dispute, or have strong opinions about it, please do not comment. The intent of this section is to find a way to make the discussion on the talk page more productive, not to discuss a content dispute.

This ancient content dispute (already listed at WP:LAME) flamed up again, and after a request at third opinion, a page I frequent, I wrote the following third opinion there:

Third Opinion - This whole section violates WP:TALK and WP:OR. Unless all of you happen to be doctors of international law, stop the discussion and find sources. Remember that talk pages are for discussing changes to the article, and are not a forum to discuss the subject. Wikipedia is not a forum. User:Krator (t c) 13:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Another user came from WP:3O and reaffirmed the above. From their responses, however, it seems the involved users are not inclined to heed my advice, and will instead continue their forum like chatter on the Wikipedia talk page.

After reading all recent and ancient discussion on this dispute, I do not think the current discussion will become productive after the involvement of third opinions, requests for comment, or even the mediation committee. I think, and fear, that some administrator involvement, and use of fancy buttons, is needed to get any productivity. Either a block per persistent violations of WP:FORUM and WP:CIVIL, or a more friendly method - asking editors involved to collect their thoughts on a wikibreak with the wikibreak enforcer.

Your thoughts and suggestions are appreciated. User:Krator (t c) 15:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFAR#Liancourt Rocks disputes? Daniel 02:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Good faith editor, bad edits

Can someone advise or help out with AnnieTigerChucky (talk · contribs)? Based on his/her edit history, I suspect she or he might be very young, or there could be some sort of communication impairment. S/he makes good faith edits, is not a vandal, but all of the edits need to be reverted for a number of different reasons (take your pick—removing references, violating MOS, inserting duplicate text, etc.) and efforts from numerous editors to correspond with him/her via talk pages have been unsuccessful. It's not clear that she or he even reads talk pages or knows how to use them. I'm not sure what can be done here, but now s/he is cruising close to a 3RR block and may not even know it. Maybe a block would get his or her attention and help him or her find talk pages, but I really don't know what we usually do in a case like this, where it's not so much vandalism as inability to communicate with this editor at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This editor is far past the 3RR and continues to revert even after I gave them a 3RR warning. Their reason for including duplicate text of List of The Naked Brothers Band episodes in The Naked Brothers Band (TV series) was that it's for people want's to print it out all at once as stated here. I, like SandyGeorgia, don't know what to do in this situation. Many editors have tried to communicate with them but they continue to revert and ignore the other editors. Any ideas as to what to do would be fantastic at this point. AngelOfSadness talk 17:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

My sense is that Annie doesn't read edit summaries or talk pages; the issue is how to communicate with him/her. Annie is spreading from the Wolff brothers now into autism articles as well; s/he does make some good edits, but how to get him/her to communicate? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to block her to get her attention. There's nothing else that can be done to get the message across that hasn't been done already. Sarah 17:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Another editor just tried something on his/her talk page that might work (a "click on the edit button if you're reading this" message). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a really good idea Sandy, I noticed her earlier and was mulling over what might catch her attention without alienating her. I was going to have a word myself, but what could I say except more of the same and I didn't think that would help? --Zeraeph 18:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

She's got an interesting thing about light switches on her talk page. Perhaps someone can guide her regarding how to add that sort of content to Wikipedia, as the actual article lacks the facts she's written? might make a great 'hands-on' sort of way to show her the right way to work WP by using somethign she does seem to know, and showing how to include that as positive editing? ThuranX 20:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Not that anyone would necessarily suggest it, but it would be a great shame to ban someone simply because they are difficult to communicate with. As far as she seems to understand, she probably isn't doing anything out of the ordinary. Perhaps another request should be made, but the rest of her page blanked to avoid confusion? Because as soon as you click on the "new messages" bar, every time, you see the same top to your userpage. Maybe it doesn't occur to her that new messages are posted at the bottom of the page.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 21:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

After stepping through some of her edits at The Naked Brothers Band (TV series), I note this editor is not a pure vandal and has some literary skills. She knows all about making wikilinks. She knows where the 'undo' button is and she uses it, assuming that anyone who doesn't share her vision is completely mistaken. IMHO she can't go on contributing here unless she is willing to (a) communicate and (b) cooperate. After a certain point, I think we need to ease off on the good faith assumption. Have we never before seen an editor who was well-intentioned but very stubborn? Isn't that about half the cases at Arbcom? EdJohnston 21:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This perspective is relevant to the situation. Raymond Arritt 22:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me direct your attention to the remarkable phenomenon known as:

MASCOT GUY!!!

I'm sure he's glad to have made your acquaintance. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 22:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we have a winner. Raymond Arritt 22:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

And ThuranX's light switch has gone on, indicating possibly s/he is reading his/her talk page. Interesting, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If he's autistic, as seems to be the case, it's possible that he'll read but not respond verbally. Raymond Arritt 23:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, some of the resident MascotGuy experts are telling me that this is not his handiwork. Striking similarity, though.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 02:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

So I went back, and left another note for her, with more suugestions, a welcome template, and a direct link to my talk for more help. Let's hoep that helps. ThuranX 04:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Negroid2

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

What about "this is not in the purview of this board" did you not understand?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

---

We need some intervention before things deteriorate. Muntuwandi 18:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Again - this is not an admin matter, please see either the request for comment page or the third opinion page--danielfolsom 18:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually this is an administrative manner. The article has been preserved in a version that is factually incorrect and appears to have been made up. I've asked that the article be at the very least tagged to indicate this, but immediate doesn't appear to mean much. This is a serious matter when Wikipedia allows to stand for any length of time articles that are composed of multiple fake original assertions tied randomly to references with which they are not related. The article appears to be largely composed of made up statements randomly connected, and it's short enough that it should have been read by the administrator before being locked in this seriously problematic article state. Would someone at least tag it with Verify sources, Original research, and Disputed, so that readers don't think this crap is what Wikipedia produces? KP Botany 19:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Made up? That's the charge now? If you honestly think it was made up then it should be deleted - not tagged, but frankly I see no evidence to support that - and plenty of users obviously think otherwise.--danielfolsom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielfolsom (talk • contribs) 19:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

So, you disagree with the evidence I posted on the talk page, but you can't be bothered to discuss it on the talk page? Sorry, those statements do NOT come from the literature posted. If you disagree, it's a simply matter of quoting precisely where in the sources they came from. Go for it. And, yes, it should be deleted, every false statement incorrectly tied to a source. KP Botany 19:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not an admin provides the tags, please recognize that Wikimedia policy is to only ever protect the wrong version. Someguy1221 19:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know the little sarcasm, that whatever an administrator did it's wrong. However, this article has not been verified, it's internally inconsistent, it hasn't been spell checked, and the cited literature is not about the topic (the citations are about modern research on admixture mapping, a big clue that they're not discussing "negroid" being the fact that the term isn't use in the articles at all, much less do they discuss what is referenced in the article). The article is mostly original research tying historical usage of the term "negroid" to some editors' modern and incorrect viewpoint on conclusions that can be drawn from how racially mixed Americans are. Please just read the article instead of dismissing my comments--although I am quite familiar with the latter on Wikipedia. KP Botany 19:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The article needs some work. I have been planning on working on it until we got sidetracked with the photo. Muntuwandi 19:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

But what do you want admins to do, specifically? Is there a version that is agreed upon? Are there any statements that there is consensus to remove/change? If yes, indicate so on the talk page and put an {{editprotected}} on it, saying exactly what you want done and pointing to consensus to do it. Admins are not mind readers and I would wager that most of us are not experts in this subject (I certainly am not). Mr.Z-man 19:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I provided the sarcasm to help you understand that, as blatant as this all may seem in your eyes, they people who disagree with you probably feel just as strongly that their own preferred version is better. And this is why we have various methods of dispute resolution. Until bad faith is clear, it doesn't really need to be here. I suggest this thread be closed. Someguy1221 19:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mr.Z-man - sorry for the late response - I didn't see you had posted. I'll look more closely at the talk page - for some reason I didn't see your section where you had all the details - however, there is nothing an admin can do. Debate it with the people on the talk page - that's what talk pages are for.-- danielfolsom 19:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No one has disagreed with me and they can't. If you have an article about moon craters and you can't find anything about a species of ant in it, it's not a disagreement--the articles are not about "negroid," go ahead and read the references and find out that I'm wrong. KP Botany 19:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I posted precisely what I want an admin to do when I added the request for immediate editing. I want the article tagged immediately. The lines should all actually be deleted. I discussed this on the talk page, posting all of my concerns, tagging them in with specific references, I added the tags to the talk page, that I think should go on the article page, I asked the protecting admin to do this. I didn't ask anyone ever to be a mind reader. KP Botany 19:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC) The people on the talk page are not debating the issue, they are ignoring it and fighting about the picture, and now someone has posted a "straw poll" to guarantee that the real issue of the article--that it's a worthless piece of crap not about the issue it purports to be about--will continue to be ignored. KP Botany 19:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

People have replied to you - and your description of the articling is borderline incivility.--danielfolsom 20:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Crap is crap. It's inaccurate, the sources are not relevant to the topic, and are improperly cited in the article, words are misspelled, it is internally inconsistent. The facts are wrong. The article is about an historical concept and is tied to unrelated modern research on a different topic. That's crap. KP Botany 20:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I give up. No administrator is willing to actually look at the article, least of all the adminsitrator who locked it into a version that has misspellings, inconsistencies, poorly written and unintelligble statements tied to unrelated scientific journals. This is what Wikipedia wants, and is going to attack me and ignore me and fight me tooth and nail to keep it--verifiability and citations are apparently no part of Wikipedia. Enjoy. KP Botany 20:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Deleting references to competitive products and adding self promotion.

63.249.108.50 appears to be Steve Yatson V.P. of e-frontier America, Inc. who is erasing all references to competitive products and is promoting himself. ~ Robert Elliott 18:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Report to AIV. That constitutes as vandalism. -WarthogDemon 18:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually that IP hasn't edited for about 2 weeks now... -WarthogDemon 19:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Warned with my customized high-performance {{coi-stern}} template. The IP is a DSL line but seems to be static, as all of the edits are to the same article for many months. Raymond Arritt 19:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

(argggh, e/c with WarthogDemon then Raymond) Maybe I'm missing something, but AIV isn't really the thing for this, and indeed I don't really get why this is here at ANI at all. (1) IP hasn't edited since August 22, (2) zero warnings (or discussion, or anything) on IP talk page (before Raymond, obviously) or on the talk page of either article, (3) all their edits have already been reverted, and (4) no evidence provided, or (admittedly only looking into it for 5 minutes) visible to me on-wiki, that this is who you say it is. Instead of AIV, might I suggest (1) Continuing to keep an eye on the article, as you are obviously already doing, (2) if they come back, discuss it with them, (3) don't worry about it unless the inappropriate edits come back, and (4) if you have evidence this is a COI, report it to WP:COIN if they come back and talking with them doesn't work. --barneca (talk) 19:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I should've looked at that more closely. I do concur with Barneca. My bad, gentlemen. -WarthogDemon 19:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Notice the IP locates to Santa Cruz, California which is -- guess what -- where the corporate headquarters of E-Frontier America is located. The writing style sounds like it was written by the PR dept of the company that makes the program. Putting these two together gave a sufficient score on the duck test for me to apply the warning. But if the two of you don't think the warning belongs, I won't complain if you remove it. Raymond Arritt 19:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, well at the very least that seems to be enough to warrant an eye or two being kept on that IP. -WarthogDemon 19:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any real problem with the template, although I might have used a customized high-performance {{coi-halfway between gentle and mildly stern, but a little closer to stern I guess}} template, since no one has talked to them before. However, I agree, after seeing your comments above, that a COI of some kind is likely, even if I don't see evidence that the IP is actually the VP of e-frontier America. My comments are more directed at Robert Elliott, just to say that this report to ANI seems to be a little premature. Agree with WHD's last. --barneca (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

68.239.144.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

68.239.144.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) keeps inserting a spam link at Universal Life Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) GreenJoe 19:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That's definitely something for WP:AIV. -WarthogDemon 19:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I was going to say that - but I blocked and templated the editor first. Also, there should have been a final warning but it was obvious vandalism. LessHeard vanU 20:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

editor protecting page... OWN problems?

University of York Music Press has had some troubles. It was tagged as copyvio, and the creating editor promptly removed that [69]. I added a speedy deletion tag soon after, and that was removed to add more advertising type spam to the article, again by the main editor [70]. I've reverted tot he tagged version, but would appreciate a review of the page and if needed, action on the speedy delete, as I believe the editor will rapidly move to protect it again. Thanks. ThuranX 19:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I have unspeedied it, since I found enough Google hits showing some history, with a suggestion to take it to AfD. LessHeard vanU 20:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the review. ThuranX 20:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thijs!bot (talk · contribs · count)

Resolved

 – Account is different, bot on en.wiki is approved ~ Wikihermit 23:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thijs!bot is a unapproved bot on en.wikipedia. It also vandalized the simple english wikibooks with a similar pattern; make good edits, then vandalize (which it hasn't done yet here). ~ Wikihermit 21:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

My bad, it is approved, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Thijs!bot. ~ Wikihermit 21:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The "robot" at Simple English Wikibooks didn't have the same username. Thijs!bot versus Thjis!bot. — Alex 21:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the nick caught my eye. Just a impersonation it appears (on simple.wikibooks). ~ Wikihermit 21:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

BLP: Johnny Rutherford

Alleged bio includes derogatory and unsubstantiated criticism. Please review for inaccuracies and potential libellous accusations.

S. Wade —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.195.71.193 (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Johnny Rutherford and Johnny Rutherford (baseball) both look fine to me. Could you please clarify? Picaroon (t) 23:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a thing, either. Both articles are pretty much 'career' biographies and nothing else. HalfShadow 23:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

He may have been referring to John Rutherford (sheriff), specifically to this edit, which sadly lasted for almost two weeks. Someguy1221 00:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparent IP sock

Resolved

 – Sockpuppet blocked for a month. — Malcolm (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

82.83.159.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is blanking userpages of suspected sock puppets of User:Tajik. Mighty suspicous. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks for the alert. — Malcolm (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I appear to have pissed someone(s) off...

I've had 9 if I count right separate IP vandals hit my user talk page ( User talk:Georgewilliamherbert ) in the last 9 minutes with various minor and widespread vandalisms. I would guess that there's a site or chat channel somewhere involved; the IPs resolve to Pittsburg, Washington State, Chattanooga, and elsewhere. I would appreciate anyone keeping an eye out for other mischief around my account. Georgewilliamherbert 01:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, I am 1-month blocking the IPs involved. If anyone feels this to be overkill, feel free to discuss here, my talk page (heh), or reduce the time and then let me know. Georgewilliamherbert 01:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, this seems to have started right after this, so logically, that's probably who's responsible; random IPs are literally a dime a dozen. HalfShadow 01:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That guy was quite reasonable, and I just recommended him to get a WP account and keep editing. I think it's more likely any of the many trolls I've been dealing with this weekend... Georgewilliamherbert 01:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not just protect your talk page? Random IP crap go bye-bye. HalfShadow 01:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm attempting to figure out what's going on and find the source; I don't want to put other admins / editors through a whole night of pointless reverts, so at some point in the not too distant future I expect to semi-protect it.

That said, there was a named account which had been here for at least 2 weeks which was one of the vandals, so there's a real chance that it's a longtime troll and that they can keep throwing sleeper account sockpuppets at it for a while if I just do that. So keep an eye out. Georgewilliamherbert 01:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Aha. This edit [71] appears to tie it to Naius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and a hoax article Gilberto Quan Miguel. This is an apparently fake rap artist and a related now-speedied fake CD article, created by User:Naius and some involved socks. Georgewilliamherbert 01:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know how the hell he managed to do that? That wasn't your regular average dynamic IP... that was from all over the place! Gscshoyru 02:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect an IRC channel, or a chat elsewhere; there was a mention of 4chan in passing in one of the edits, but I don't know if that's related or not. Any ideas would be appreciated. The IPs do literally appear to have been all over... Georgewilliamherbert 02:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

So it looks like we had 23 (!) unrelated IPs around the country. I'm in the process of making a list for followup purposes. Georgewilliamherbert 02:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Admin Maxim just semi-protected the page; it was about time, now that we have a suspect. Georgewilliamherbert 02:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

And now the socks are attacking me <super sarcasm>oh what a tradegy</super sarcasm>. Anyways, I'm just block for a month for every vandalism now. Quite simple. Maxim_(talk) 02:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's probably 4chan... no point in collecting IPs, they're actually different people vandalizing the page for fun (or maybe there was a good reason mentioned on the board, but either way it's not some huge sockpuppet effort or anything)... Blocking for 1 month might be a bad idea considering that usually these things are one-time occurrences (i.e. someone makes a post "vandalize this page", a person reads that, vandalizes the page, and forgets about it 5 seconds later), and it's quite possible some of those IPs are dynamic... ugen64 05:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal rapid transit article, again

User:Avidor is again repeatedly adding the POV tag to the PRT article without specifying any actionable items to fix. I've asked him on the talk page to provide specifics for his concerns, and he refuses to do so, but continues to add the POV tag. This dispute has been going on for almost two years now, we've been through multiple rounds of mediation, and every line in the article has been meticulously battled over. And since I don't know what Avidor's problem is with the article, I couldn't even go to RfC if I wanted to - Avidor is the one who has the complaint but he refuses to fix it or specify what needs to be fixed.

Avidor recently opened two COI cases, neither was judged to have any merit, so he started posting his appeal on admins' talk pages - the last one (Radiant) told him to go to dispute resoution. Avidor didn't do that, and now is warring on the POV tag. I should point out that Avidor is a SPA that has never edited any article other than PRT-related articles.

I've reverted the POV twice, and I've asked him several times for specifics, but he hasn't provided any. I have no issues with the article so I can't even file an RfC, yet I'm hesitant about reverting the tag because of 3RR. Can someone please help? ATren 01:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I did that here That PRT article is full of POV pushing, weasel words, original research and uncited sources. Many of the sources are self-published and unreliable (see discussion on talk page)...Avidor 01:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Which weasel words, and which uncited sources? You've been making the same claim for 20 months without specifics. And I also believe someone told you RfC is the next step, why haven't you filed? I am asking you to stop making vague assertions of POV and please provide specifics, otherwise this is just a never-ending game. ATren 01:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

ATrens User Page: "Full disclosure: I have a blog (written as "A Transportation Enthusiast") called "Weiner Watch"... I really don't think I should have to argue with an anonymous editor who links to an attack blog on me on his user page....Avidor 02:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As an interesting side note, immediately prior to Avidor going on his latest kick, somebody with the IP address 71.222.132.52 tried to delete virtually every Wikipedia reference to PRT that they could find. Curious... 69.114.55.236 02:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That IP appears to be from Albuquerque, NM, and Avidor is located in Minnesota, so it may be just a coincidence that those edits appeared now.... ATren 03:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have posted a detailed answer to all of Avidor's stated complaints on the PRT talk page. It is my conclusion that there is nothing actionable in Avidor's complaint: every concern he raises is either (a) already covered by the article or (b) original research with absolutely no support from reliable sources. I will let this sit for the next day or so, and if nobody objects, I will remove the POV tag until Avidor can provide specific details as to his complaint. I don't wish for this 2-year-old war to be rekindled again, so I would appreciate others' suggestions as to whether this is the best approach, or if there is some other path I should take. ATren 03:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

ATren's user page refers to 'fraudulent claims made by Ken Avidor about PRT'. I suggest that this language on a user page violates policy, and ATren should remove it. Our article says that fraud is a crime, so you can't keep the phrase there without attacking Avidor. EdJohnston 04:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

On rereading what I wrote (a while back) I agree that "fraudulent" may be construed as an attack and so I've removed it. Do you have a comment on the POV tag issue? ATren 06:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'd hate to say this, but if this dispute really has lasted for two years, I'd suggest taking it to the ArbCom directly, as other methods are unlikely to help any more. I realize this is at heart a content dispute, but I've seen many allegations of misbehavior, POV-pushing, revert warring, and of general nastiness from both sites. The ArbCom also has the authority to determine conflicts of interest, if any. >Radiant< 09:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit war on List of classical guitarists

Resolved

 – Semi-protected. —Kurykh 01:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

A numbder of IP editors have been edit warring on this article over the removal of some sort of spam image from an article that is currently AfD. One of the IP's appears to be static and has gone way beyond WP:3RR(7 rv's so far) including very uncivil edit summaries. This IP is also trolling the AfD page related to the image in question. I left a 3RR warning on the IP users talk page but it was ignored. Perhaps a lockdown and a revert back to the last logged user edit will put the fire out? 216.21.150.44 01:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected on whatever version was the most recent per The Wrong Version. The IPs seemed dynamic, so blocking would be pointless. —Kurykh 01:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

User Democrat4 paid to create articles in wikipedia for customers: A new MyWikiBiz?

There is an ebay user with multiple listings not unlike MyWikiBiz, offering to make articles for a fee [72] . The user, Diremine (ebay account) also Had a wikipedia account that was indefinitely blocked, now has another sockpuppet, user:Democrat4.

The evidence, showing little need for checkuser other than to make sure he or she has no other sockpuppets: Old edit on Diremine's page about a blog

And Edit with same edit summary, same owner of same blog

The user is creating articles that on the outside appear to be perfectly legitimate, but seems to be gaming the systems by carefully stylizing the articles and being careful not to break any rules, but in the end the user is just a paid editor.

An example was Gloria Irwin, which was recently deleted.

A current example is Kevin_Eggan, which is currently listed under AFD.

Just thought I'd bring this here to see what should be done. Note that in the previous case, MyWikiBiz was blocked indefinitely (twice by Jimbo, in the end by the community). Cowman109^Talk 02:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Is there any wmf policy prohibiting this that we can block him under? —Crazytales (o rly?) 02:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I went hunting with checkuser, and Diremine is the only sockpuppet I found. Raul654 02:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've indeffed per WP:SOCK. Someone please take care of the templates. Durova^Charge! 03:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I used a screen shot of that eBay auction at a recent presentation on the "SEO Reputation Problem". Somebody should complain to eBay because the seller has a very strong reputation score: 6580. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

User:UkraineToday

I have blocked the user indefinitely for his violation of WP:NLT in his wikimail to another editor. I can forward the email in question to any other admin interesting in reviewing the block Alex Bakharev 04:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. This was an extremely weird account anyway but NLT is a no-brainer. --Irpen 04:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Allgoodnamesalreadytaken: Abuse of Warning Templates, Stalking

I made a SSP case against User:Allgoodnamesalreadytaken, and as part of following the instructions, put an SSP tag on the relevant pages. He called that vandalism and slapped a vandalism tag on my Talk page. I restored SSP tag, and requested that he follow WP policy of leaving it there for 10 days. I gave a link to the relevant policy if you are suspected in sockpuppetry. He slapped another vandalism tag on my Talk page (and deleted the SSP tag). I tried one more time, and he put another vandalism tag on my Talk page. I now have 3 vandalism tags on my Talk page from this user, even though I committed no vandalism, and actually just tried to follow the WP instructions.

He is also stalking me. I added a comment to an incident report here about User:Reinis (now archived) and he immediately added an attack against me to that section. I made a comment about whether policy and practice were properly aligned regarding SSP cases, and he immediately added an attack there [73]. I am not averse to flame wars, but I don't think Wikipedia is the place. If this continues, and there is no aparent way for WP to stop it, maybe I should just let him have it (???).Bsharvy 05:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope this is considered unacceptable

Please look at this diff by user:Jeeny [74]. I sincerely hope Wikipedia does not condone this sort of behavior --Common Sense Prevails 05:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not condone that sort of behaviour. I have taken action by warning the user. Let us hope that the user makes no more comments such as these. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

anonymous edit warring over Legazpi City and Naga City

Involving at least four anonymous editors:

• 62.140.210.158
• 203.131.133.141
• 87.194.3.169
• 121.97.230.61

All of whom have violated 3RR at some point. It has been going on for awhile now. It seems to just be 87.194.3.169 and 62.140.210.158 reverting to one version of the article (which seems to be the more up to date, better quality version) against 203.131.133.141 and 121.97.230.61 reverting to another.

Diffs for Naga City:

• diff for 121.97.230.61.
• diff for 203.131.133.141.
• diff for 87.194.3.169.
• diff for 62.140.210.158.

Diffs for Legazpi City:

• diff for 121.97.230.61.
• diff for 203.131.133.141.
• diff for 87.194.3.169.
• diff for 62.140.210.158.

The edit histories of these articles are just a mess. With probably a few good contributions lost in reverting. Little discussion seems to have taken place between the editors. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk|Contribs) 06:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

User:EH101

This guy is making here a campaign defamatory against me extrapolating discussions from other wikipedias and making spamming in user's pages here[[75]], with the clear purpuse to hurt me. Despite i have deleted the parts in question and warmed him to NOT continue in such manner, he continues to do so re-writing the same things as they are untouchables, because he evidently don't accept that a wiki page can be edited from other editors, expecially if personal and denigratory actions are making. This is one of my 'detractrors' in other wikies, and needless to say, his purpuse is to make bad publicity also here, for his own reasons. When i advised him in his talk page he simply (yes, him) had talked about 'personal attacks' because i told him that he should have shame for what he's doing. Cleary he searches to use every occasion to hurt me in every way he can. But after some other stuff already happened, i have really enough of his manners.--Stefanomencarelli 07:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletions

Are users allowed to delete entries from someone else's pages? One user deleted a passage from my personal user's page, and also deleted a message from someone else's talk page. Is this "legal"?

Sardaka 09:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's controversial, sometimes it is, sometimes it is not. But please provide diffs so others could judge the cases in hand. Suva 10:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

MJis AFreak

Resolved

 – with the banhammer. Guy (Help!) 10:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi this is the second time in 2 days that the user MJisAFreak has vandalised my user page, I reported him /her before and it got a warning, now it has to be banned!!![[76]] , when you have taken action would you please let me no on my user page. Cheers. Realist2 09:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Further more he has been making offencive comments on the michael jackson talk page, its clear that his actions are unproductive on wiki.[[77]]. Realist2 09:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC) You might even like to see his edits here [[78]]. Realist2 10:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Please block this stalker

Can somone please block this stalker? 70.222.238.80 Thank you. •smedleyΔbutler• 10:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)