Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Abusive single purpose account: Response to more dragging of feet and dishonesty.
→good bye: new section
Line 864: Line 864:


:I have been involved, with Mjroots, in attempting to resolve this informally by asking the involved editors to take a step back and remain civil, so far without result. I have also raised the discussion at two project talk pages in an attempt to bring neutral editors into the discussion. I support the statement above by Mjroots and believe the situation requires intervention from an administrator. [[User:ColourSarge|ColourSarge]] ([[User talk:ColourSarge|talk]]) 08:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
:I have been involved, with Mjroots, in attempting to resolve this informally by asking the involved editors to take a step back and remain civil, so far without result. I have also raised the discussion at two project talk pages in an attempt to bring neutral editors into the discussion. I support the statement above by Mjroots and believe the situation requires intervention from an administrator. [[User:ColourSarge|ColourSarge]] ([[User talk:ColourSarge|talk]]) 08:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

== good bye ==

okay man, i've had it with you and wikipedia - i left, don't bother banning me but if you can't resist, then go ahead and bring it on! you guys gave me a hard time, i'm done with this shit. see ya! <font face="Arial Black"> [[User:Jouke Bersma|<font color="728B22">Jouke]] [[User talk:Jouke Bersma|<font color="FF8000">Bersma]] <sub>''[[Special:Contributions/Jouke Bersma|<font color="1B11EE">Contributions]]''</sub></font></font face color> 11:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:26, 16 December 2008

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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


    Speedy deletion of user's own talk pages?

    Are currently active editors allowed to have their own user talk page deleted via WP:CSD#U1 (a la {{db-user}})? I was under the impression that they did not qualify because these sorts of talk pages were "useful for the project." --Kralizec! (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I wouldn't think so..only in a case of right to vanish..--Crossmr (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's certainly my understanding. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    So far as I know, deleting the whole history of a talk page is only done through WP:RTV and never with a CSD tag. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Correct. User talk pages should only be deleted in conjunction with one's exercising of their Right to Vanish. — Satori Son 16:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleting user talk pages means that only admins can review the history of warnings received by a user, and then only at some inconvenience. Deletion is not something that should be done lightly. Of course, users who aren't intending to come back are an exception. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A user can blank his talk page, showing that he has read any warnings there, but leaving them in the history for all to read. He generally should not be able to delete it. I would delete a User page (but not a talk page) at the request of a user. Edison (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. We may need to fix the WP:RTV page. We currently have there "To vanish more completely, you may wish to blank your userpage, talkpage, and any subpages in your userspace, and/or tag them with {{db-user}}, which will notify administrators that you wish them to be speedily deleted." I was partly responsible for putting that there, and it may have been a bad idea. WP:LEAVE and WP:RTV go to the same page, so that's the main "how to leave Wikipedia" page, and it needed instructions on the various ways of leaving other than "vanishing", which I added. What should it say about this? --John Nagle (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That advice follows from WP:U1, which says a user can request speedy deletion of their user page and subpages. Does that include their talk page? Maybe WP:U1 needs clarification. --John Nagle (talk) 17:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added some clarifying language[1] which also brings CSD U1 inline with WP:User page#How do I delete my user talk pages?. — Satori Son 18:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't like deleting user talk pages as it breaks up conversations so other non-admin users can't follow previous discussions that happened there. I don't care about userpages and sub-pages though. I think it's better to just blank and protect talk pages when people RTV. Sarah 08:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting Topic ban for User:Fru23

    Fru23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    The above user has been on a bad faith campaign to disrupt Wikipedia since he started posting. In the last 24 hours he has started a bad faith AfD. [2] He also then went on a bad faith WP:POINT tour on the Franken and Olbermann talk pages when it became apparent his AfD was going to fail under WP:SNOW. User is a disruptive SPA who has already logged two blocks in his month of editing. - Ramsquire 17:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Clarification I never meant to imply a request for a permanent topic ban. I was thinking a temporary topic ban may allow Fru the opportunity to get a better idea of how to work collaboratively, while working on articles he is not as emotionally involved in. My major problem with him, is his refusal to actually discuss what is bothering him specifically. He makes claims that "the source does not exist" when it does, or "the source does not say that" when a quick review makes it obvious he did not read the source. In sum, I do not support a permanent ban of any kind against Fru yet. However, I do think he should show some ability to work here in other articles to stop his disruption on the more contentious articles. I apologize for not being as clear in my initial request. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • BOLP Before you say I have a pov take into consideration that I removed poorly sourced contentious material from the Micheal Moore article, Fred Phelps and material claiming that Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist from his opening. The editors of those articles also said I was pov-pushing. It is clear that there is a obvious double stranded on what sources are expectable depending on the biases of the editors. I know a lot about the rules of wikiepdia bolp,coatrack, and npov. I admit that part of my recent contributions to the TALK Pages of olberman and Al my have been to make a WP:POINT. Fru23 (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse - I personally see absolutely no constructive contributions from this editor, and only seems like he's here to service an agenda and disrupt Wikipedia in the process. I would endorse putting all of his editing privileges on probation pending constructive contribution elsewhere. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse. I have no interest in knowing, or debating, anyone's personal political beliefs. This is not why we are here, and simple decorum demands we leave such topics out of Wikipedia. However, when a user makes edits in such a manner that there political views become not only obvious but problematic, then some action has to be taken. Fru23 does not seem to understand why we are here, and shows no sign of wanting to improve as an editor. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 20:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppetry?

    • OK, so at the risk of turning this into WP:SSP:
      • We've established (and he's admitted) that 72.192.216.42 was Fru23 at one time.
      • Looking at Special:Contributions/72.192.216.42, we see this "dynamic" IP's second edit, in July, was to Cesar Millan. It was a revert to a previous version by....
      • Special:Contributions/KingsOfHearts. Looking at the edit summaries of KingsOfHearts' September edits, it's clear that all the "LOL your sources suck" edits from the IP this summer and early fall were the same person as KingsOfHearts.
      • Looking at the articles KingsOfHearts has edited, we see that there's an amazing overlap with...
      • Special:Contributions/Fru23.
      • Quack.
    I think the only question now is, are Fru23 and KingsOfHearts the same POV pushing vandal who should be indef blocked, or are they friends who have been socking on Bill O'Reilly and other conservative articles, and should be blocked? Luckily, per WP:SOCK, it really doesn't matter. Don't subject ban, Block indef.. --barneca (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's impressive detective work. It does seem like we have sock/meat puppetry going on here, and that would call for a block. Croctotheface (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)As Gordon Ramsay would say: "Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear." Permablock, yes. // roux   01:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Check your facts, KingsofHearts has been editing for a year, longer than the ip which supports my claim that it is dynamic, I started editing on the ip but stopped after noticing its past contributions some which were on BILL OREILLY which is why I went there in the first place, I said all of this about a month ago. Barneca, do some research on my past edits before accusing me of conservative pov pushing so you won't look like such a .

    So far I have edited the follow articles.

    • Criticism of bill oreilly Removing contentious nonnotable material
    • Michael Moore controversies Removing contentious nonnotable material sourced by only newsbusters or national review
    • Media Matters for America Removing Quotations from every other word in a section
    • Osama Bin Laden Removing terrorist accusations from the opening turned into a big argument that I avoided, in the end my edit stayed in place.
    • Fred Phelps Removing a list of God hates slogans from the opening.
    • Todd Davis Removing his social security number from the page
    • Life lock Removing Todd Davis social security number from the page
    • Jersey girls Changing 9/11 terrorist attacks to 9/11 attacks
    • Muhammad Rewording picture info on the page to say "an artist's depiction of Muhammad doing something" instead of just say Muhammad doing something.

    The only edits of mine that could be even remotely seen as conservative pov pushing is some to Bills. If anything most of my edits seem to be pushing a progressive/liberal agenda. Fru23 (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    After Looking through again I have not edited ANY page that kingofhearts has edited. Croctotheface stop praising him for this and what would I be blocked for? Fru23 (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also recommend a comparison to Wikiport (talk · contribs), another short lived POV pusher who showed up to complain about sources[7] on the Fox News Channel and Bill O'Reilly articles (also note the reference to Olbermann). My guess? Fru23 is yet another sock of the same disruptive user who has been showing up on the FNC related talk pages for a very long time. The quacking is getting louder. - auburnpilot talk 01:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec) ::: Fru23 should NOT be lblocked right off the bat. quite rnakly, the phony "checkuser" induction reaosning used above seems dody; while its certainly possible that Fru23 is the same person as the origial vandal, the fact of tha matter is that there is a possibility that his issues/conflicts are likely to be unrelated and thus we should assess Fru23 as Fru23 and not as twhoiever he might have been in another increasquitian. I recommend the WP:MENTOR option and iwouldnt mind taking on that role is no one else has the time/icnliantion. Smith Jones (talk) 01:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (ecX2)I think I hear quacking as well--but just to eliminate any doubt, a Checkuser is in order. But in the meantime, endorse topic ban, pending acceptance of mentorship Blueboy96 01:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC) (ecX3) i concur witht he above, asa reatlional conpromise. Again, a topic-ban temporary might be in order until i can hamer out a deal with Fru32 to manage contentiaos article editoring. Smith Jones (talk)[reply]

    I just listed every page I have edited, NONE are the same as kingsofhearts, plus only one can be even remotely considered conservative, most are liberal. Please one of the people going OMG SOCK!!1! respond to this. Its is entirely possible that we at one point had the same ip that does not mean we are the same person. Even if we were that is not a warrant a ban or even a block, wikipedia has no rule against having more than 1 account http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry Fru23 (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fru23 is obviosuly not a sock, so lets dropt his line of ringworm snot right now please and ge back to the original content conflictSmith Jones (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "increasquitian" and "dropt his line of ringworm snot"--Smith Jones, WP would be a much less-cromulent place without you. (More comprehensible, perhaps, but definitely less-cromulent.) You should write poetry in your spare time. :) GJC 02:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I must say, I'm going treasure being accused of speaking "ringworm snot" for quite a while. --barneca (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ask and ye shall receive ... Blueboy96 01:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. :) DurovaCharge! 02:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Blueboy, for picking up the ball and running with it. I'd planned to file a checkuser request after Fru23 denied it, but I was pulled away from the computer rather abruptly. I'll go there now to see if there's anything I can add. --barneca (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Meatpuppetry to stir up contentiousness most assuredly IS against the rules, regardless of their physical proximity, and I remember very well at least one very contentious case where both of them were banned despite checkuser showing no relationship at all. One tidbit I find interesting is his edit on Muhammad, which seems off track from his usual editing. However, it is on my watchlist (which is up to 2,500 items now - yikes) and I had edited it recently, so he might have been looking at my recent edits and decided to make a small edit just to give the false appearance of some diversity. I could be wrong about that, though. However, it would be interesting to see if a checkuser tied these various guys together, or if its coincidental. A look at the history of Fru23, the IP, and KingsOfHearts does seem to bear out his argument that the common articles are only or primarily on the IP, not on the named users alone, indicating that they are sharing the IP somehow. The bizarre use of caps is fairly common to Kings and the IP, but rather less often for Fru23. It might also be interesting to put a hard block on that IP 72.192.216.42 and see what the fallout is, if any. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They have the same passwords, they are indeed socks. Lobocf (talk) 02:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
    "Lobocf" might be Serbian for "troll". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • bolp = biography of living persons. its ia perfect valid annunciation of the term WP:BOLP that I personaly use every often day when relevent as it means the same thing and is actualy more clearly the n the more inaccurate WP:BLP which could mean anything since it has no palindromatic information attached to the link. Smith Jones (talk) 03:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wacknowldged you but the point i am trying to say that is WP:BOLP is an existing redirect, which eans that it must hav ebeen used by SOMEONE before fru23. while i admit its (unfortunately) rare but that doesnt mean that Fru23 is somekind of sockpuppet mastermind. lets wait for the checkuser to tell us who is a sockpoppet of whom and deal with the matter of Fru23s behavior pthus far irrespecitve of the nature of his alleged sockpuppets if there are any which whom I am in seriously doubt-mode. Smith Jones (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I "wacknowledge" that it doesn't prove sockpuppetry. It's just a little piece in a puzzle. Checkuser would likely tell us for sure, one way or the other. But that oddity jumped out at me when I was looking at Fru23's contrib list. Similarities in style are worth looking at when sockpuppetry is suspected, even though they may be coincidental. For what it's worth, the alternate WP:BOLP was created nearly 2 years ago: [8] whose span on wikipedia was a grand total of 20 minutes, in which he (or it) created a number of variations on WP:BLP and other wikipedia abbreviations. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    again, i agre wthat there is probalb ysomething fishiny about these two accounts, but to me tocontineu arguing here is to have WP:ANI usurp the role of WP:sSP THERE Is alwready a checkuser request underway re: this user and it makesmore sense to do the sockpuppet investigations via WP:SSP and dea l with the mentorship/conflict resolution/etc elsevhere. Smith Jones (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it possible that you need a new keyboard? New Monitor? My typing is often lysdexic, but I bow to the master. Edison (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see what this is supposed to prove. Even if you decide to say I am a sock I have never crossed paths with kingofhearts, so I can't be blocked for that. See legitimate uses of sockpuppets. Fru23 (talk) 04:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What a positive result would show is a history of seven recent blocks instead of only two. DurovaCharge! 04:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Which may or may not be the reason he was trying to get at least one of his blocks deleted from the log: [9] and [10] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (OT) I'm confused that User:KingsOfHearts even exists. Care to comment at WT:U#How confused do I have to be? Shenme (talk) 04:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd just like to point out the remarkable coincidence that while others have mentioned that Fru claimed on IRC that he works for O'Reilly, KingOfHearts claims in this edit summary that he personally took this picture of O'Reilly during taping of the O'Reilly factor. Something he would obviously be in no position to do unless he (yes, you guessed it) works for O'Reilly. It's getting a little hard to hear in here, what with all the quacking. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A Foxy sock drawer

    Checkuser on Fru23 returns not only KingsOfHearts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but a few others including Xrxty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See this edit. Fred Talk 14:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    distinctive edit by KingsOfHearts Fred Talk 15:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC) Similar edit by 72.192.216.42. Fred Talk 15:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This family of editors, particularly Fru23, KingsOfHearts and the ip, use the same half dozen identically configured computers, as one might find in an office. Fred Talk 15:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Welly welly welly welly welly welly well! A real-life version of Fox in Socks. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    They also edited from a second ip which has been blocked for 6 months as a "schoolblock". Fred Talk 15:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Here an edit from the ip reverts to the version favored by Xrxty. Fred Talk 15:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you list all the socks at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/KingsOfHearts? Time to close this on-wiki puppet show. Blueboy96 15:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fru23, KingsOfHEarts and Xrxty all blocked indef, while 72.192.216.42 has been blocked 48 hours. This show is over. Blueboy96 16:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There. Not a single grain of evidence of abuse, but who cares. Opposition to the prevailing pov must be removed. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 20:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Around 10 blocks for disruption. Several grains' worth there. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Afterthought

    I've been trying to come up with a term to describe what seems to be an increasing phenomenon - a user who brings a complaint here only to end up getting blocked himself once others investigate. Sometimes they make a simple mistake, such as inadvertently tipping off editors, as with Fru23 managing to tie himself up with that IP, which opened the lid on the case. Other times they simply don't see the forest for the trees. At the risk of falling into the "recentism" trap, I'm thinking a good term would be "Plaxicoed". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Happens all the time, Bugs. Ever since I first became a sysop I've noticed it. That's a typical arc for disruptive users. Probably better not to name it after a particular person, because if the matter becomes too personal for them they're apt to stick around and become an even bigger problem. See User_talk:BooyakaDell#Sockpuppet, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of JB196, and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of JB196. DurovaCharge! 17:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Another thought is the Homer Simpson response to when he messes up: "D'oh!" In The Hunt for Red October, the enemy ship managed to torpedo itself. Maybe "wikipedo". Or "wikipe-D'oh!"
    Hey, by the way, we now know what the deal is with those guys, as they "retired" within 4 minutes of each other: [11] and [12] They're brothers! Shazam! This is a twist on the usual "my evil twin brother did it", the dilemma being it's hard to figure out which one was the evil twin. Ironically, KingsOfHearts' talk page initially said, "I will try my best to help wikipedia. Any suggestions?" Today, he helped wikipedia.
    That still leaves Xrxty. That must be the "evil cousin" who's out of town. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One semi-serious question: KingsOfHearts had uploaded a photo of O'Reilly that he took on-set. Would it be presumptuous to license-tag it as PD-self, since he says he took the photo only he didn't seem to get that it needs to say PD-self? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it can be presumed he meant PD-self, but the question above suggests a possibility that it's not- if FRU did once work for O'Reilly and he took the picture in the line of work, the image might well be a work product, and thus ownership would go to O'Reilly's production company. On the other hand, if KOH wasn't an employee, and just happened to be on the set with a camera, it's a different story. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I had best leave it alone, then. I see that Blaxthos has un-deleted the two talk pages, since the "retired" stuff is a lie - it's kind of like Larry Miller's pub-crawl joke, "We decided to leave, right after they threw us out." So the next question is, where does one request page protection? I know there's a page for that somewhere, but I've never used it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ==>WP:RFPP Deor (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Danke. Blaxthos, in fact, already has it covered. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading through fru23 arguements, he has made many good points, there apears to be a double standard on which sources are exceptaple on differant articles on similar topics, mainly depending on the bias of groups of editors who feel they own an article. I am going to continue what he was doing. I am not a sock of fru23. JcLiner (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    However, this is evidence you are simply reverting to old habits. This edit that you made does not accord with the content of the source cited. Why don't you quit making edits like that for a while and maybe we can address the questions you raise. There is a serious question as to whether blogs are appropriate sources. Fred Talk 21:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hold the phone

    Here's a brand new redlink jumping straight into this debate. Imagine that. [13] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Criminy... —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, but everything's OK, he says he's not a sock of Fru23. He just happened to jump into this debate, as a brand new user. Must be a miracle of some kind or other. P.S. I posted a note on the checkuser's page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if this is an attempt to make a WP:POINT about AGF, considering this comment. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading through fru23 arguements, he has made many good points, there apears to be a double standard on which sources are exceptaple on differant articles on similar topics, mainly depending on the bias of groups of editors who feel they own an article. I am going to continue what he was doing. I am not a sock of fru23. JcLiner (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reported the above user, who is obviously a sock and promises to continue his predecessors' disruption, to the checkuser and also to AIV. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea, though honestly I don't think AIV will do anything as this sort of gaming/socking doesn't really qualify as vandalism (see here). Also, I wonder what the CU will turn up, considering both IPs that they're known to have used in the original CU case were blocked at the time of account creation. I wouldn't rule out going over to a coffee shop or some such, but I doubt a CU would be able to determine anything from this. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)Quoth the ravenduck: neverquackermore. "I am not a sock of X" is kind of proof of being a sock of X, all other things taken into consideration. // roux   20:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I figured posting to AIV wouldn't hurt, especially in light of his threat to continue his predecessors' disruption. BlueBoy is preparing another CU case. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fortunately for us, the user doesn't seem to be trying at all to hide his tracks, so it should be very easy to spot future puppets. I actually didn't realize this had gone this far up until stumbling upon this page earlier today. It's really quite something. NcSchu(Talk) 20:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sockpuppets often assume the collective editorship here is as stupid naive as they turn out to be. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Bugs, would you consider a refactor there? I know this is frustrating but it's better to take the high road. DurovaCharge! 21:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. :) DurovaCharge! 22:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Baseball Bugs, I do not understand what flawed logic you are using. I am neither disruptive or a sock. JcLiner (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are actually a legitimate sock, prove it. Contact someone on Arbcom and tell them in strict confidence who you really are--with proof, naturally. They can then convey that you are indeed the legitimate alternate of another account. Or just wait for the CU request to be processed. I don't think anyone here is in any doubt of what those results will be. // roux   21:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of which, it's been filed. I have a feeling this isn't going to end well. Blueboy96 21:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm inclined to block based on behavioral evidence. I don't think we need to wait for the checkuser results. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please block me now so if the results come back negitive you will look like an idiot. I expect an apoligy and for everyone to remove all acusations against me when this is disproven. JcLiner (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Checkuser results came back as "possible." Similarities noted by Fred, coupled with JcLiner's behavior, were enough for me to indefblock. (sigh) I have a feeling we're going to end up playing whack-a-mole with this one for awhile. Blueboy96 21:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he owes you the "apoligy". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He has graciously supplied us with his current IP 64.72.89.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and is now in the wikilawyering stage. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You guys are so obvious. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fortunately, so was Mr. Fox 'n Socks. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave the IP an extra day off (for a block of two days) and disabled user talk page editing. If he wants to contest the block, he can use one of his accounts. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've invited him to email me and given directions for how to do so. DurovaCharge! 22:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The banned User:Tecmobowl also tried to get the checkuser to tell him how he identified him when he used socks. As if. Fred gives a hint of it though - it seems like the PC itself can be identified through some kind of signature, the technology of which is beyond me. It's kind of scary from the Big Brother standpoint, but it's also necessary in the hit-and-run world of the internet. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's most likely from information that your web browser transmits to a server whenever you make a connection to it. Unless you're crazy and do certain strange things with your web browser it wouldn't ever be personally identifiable on its own, though it could be used to rule out a relationship if it were significantly different. From what I understand it was the behavioral correlations that sealed this case more than anything else. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll take your word for it. Just as long as checkusers continue to snag the socks and launder them, that's the important thing. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    JackyRT is indefblocked. Time for WP:RBI. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Another country heard from

    A red-link user [14] whose very first edit comes to Fru23's defense. Right. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This has gone on long enough

    It seems you are turning this into a witch hunt against anyone who does not agree with you and tries to point it out. Stop bulling other editors into supporting your pov. JackyRT (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have clumsily attempted to file another sock checkuser case: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/KingsOfHearts Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not very imaginative- I wonder if a CU is even necessary, but it'd certainly be a nice icing on the cake. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just in case an admin doesn't block him first. I probably should have filed at SSP, but I'm not sure how to do it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Admin just indef-blocked him. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, already done. WP:RBI. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Another admin, User:Nishkid64, has confirmed 3 other Fox 'n Socks at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/KingsOfHearts, all of which were apparently "sleeper" accounts. I'm assuming they will get blocked in due time. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    And Wknight94 has wielded his wiki light-saber and dispatched them to the wiki phantom zone. That makes 4 RBI's for Wknight94 today, from this thread alone. Every time one of these socks makes his voice heard, 2 or 3 more of his socks get sent to the laundry. Do I detect a trend here? Wknight94 has indef-blocked them. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Bugs, you might be taking a wee bit too much delight in all this. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 21:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, and I might just be encouraging him. Enough of this. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just when you thought it was over

    Now KingsOfHearts is claiming they are brothers...who happen to edit the same articles and sometimes accidentally use the same incorrect Wikipedia terminology? Since I was accused of bad adminship by Bstone for declining what I thought looked like a fairly obvious unblock request...I'll let some other folks look at it. --Smashvilletalk 18:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    KOH was claiming this when he was originally blocked. I'm not sure if it's a reasonable story to accept... and even if it's true, KOH can still potentially serve as FRU's meatpuppet. Furthermore, I question whether an unblock is in order considering KOH's editing history. In any case, if he is unblocked he should be forcibly renamed due to name similarities to King of Hearts. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)I'm not an admin, but the dog ate my homework "my brother is the real vandal" is the most transparent unblock request ever. Good decline, Bstone is incredibly wrong. After ec: he shouldn't be unblocked. Net negative to the project, no interest in contributing positively, quite apart from the sock/meat issues. // roux   18:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm too involved myself to review your <subliminal message> completely reasonable and correct </subliminal message> unblock decline myself, but for any other editors choosing to waste their time reviewing this, note that the checkuser's conclusions indicate that the half dozen or so sockpuppet accounts were all editing from a "similar set of computers similar to those which might be found in a typical office environment". So these brothers evidently work together too.
    Might I suggest that we've allowed this person to waste enough of our time? When we have ANI threads about sockpuppetry that go on for this long, the case is usually more complex and the puppeteer is at least slightly less obvious than this one. Time to let the thread die and let the bot do it's job, I think. --barneca (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    KingOfHearts came into IRC and asked if anyone would be willing to post a message for him here. I agreed. He asked me to say: I have two computer in a room at my house that connect through a router that does not mean we work together, me and my brother are still in high school the reason why one of the ips is registred to FCPS. Raul654 (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    "Methinks thou do'est protest too much" ♪BMWΔ 19:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know Bill O'Reilly employed high school students. Didn't one of them claim to work for Bill O'Reilly? --Smashvilletalk 19:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He just made a post that his "brother" made...only his brother said his real username was KingOfHearts...whoops! Plaxicoed! --Smashvilletalk 19:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    IRC transcript

    I talked with KingOfHearts in IRC about his claims of innocence. Here is the transcript (I am Ceiling_Cat)

    <Ceiling_Cat> KingsOfHearts - I have a question for you
    <Ceiling_Cat> And I intend to post my question and your answer to the AN
    <Ceiling_Cat> Agreed?
    <KingsOfHearts> Ok
    <KingsOfHearts> yes?
    <Ceiling_Cat> I'd like to get something straight. You're saying that your brother made this edit - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fru23&curid=20171985&diff=257717171&oldid=257705823 - from his computer
    <Ceiling_Cat> right?
    <KingsOfHearts> Ya
    <KingsOfHearts> Yes i also retired mine
    <Ceiling_Cat> And then you want and made this edit - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KingsOfHearts&curid=14957465&diff=257718062&oldid=257604179 - from your computer, yes?
    <KingsOfHearts> Ya
    <KingsOfHearts> we got caught
    <KingsOfHearts> so i was trying to get out of it ad save one account
    <KingsOfHearts> and save one account.
    <The359> those edits 4 minutes apart is quite suspect
    <KingsOfHearts> Ya I was with him.
    <Ceiling_Cat> KingsOfHearts - and you made them from seperate computers?
    <KingsOfHearts> I think it was same comp
    <Ceiling_Cat> that's awfully convenient
    <KingsOfHearts> He told me that irl that i was going to get banned
    <KingsOfHearts> But the fact that we are brothers goes back like 4 monthes ago
    <KingsOfHearts> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex_Bakharev#Please_UnBlock_me
    <Ceiling_Cat> were you ever editing at the same time from seperate computers?
    <KingsOfHearts> Ya
    <Ceiling_Cat> when?
    <KingsOfHearts> I don't know
    <KingsOfHearts> i could get him to though.
    <Ceiling_Cat> Ok, one last question
    <KingsOfHearts> Ya
    <KingsOfHearts> sure
    <Ceiling_Cat> These edits:
    <Ceiling_Cat> (one sec)
    <Ceiling_Cat> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_O%27Reilly_(political_commentator)&curid=188564&diff=256944340&oldid=256510063
    <Ceiling_Cat> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_O%27Reilly_(political_commentator)&curid=188564&diff=256946659&oldid=256944340
    <Ceiling_Cat> 14 minutes apart, to the same article.
    <Ceiling_Cat> Explain please.
    <KingsOfHearts> I don't know
    <KingsOfHearts> I can't realy
    <Ceiling_Cat> were you on the same computer?
    <KingsOfHearts> No
    <KingsOfHearts> same Ip yes
    <KingsOfHearts> we have to computers it the same room
    <KingsOfHearts> *two
    <Ceiling_Cat> KingsOfHearts - unfortunately, I have checkuser, and checkuser tells me that you're lying.
    <The359> Shocker
    <KingsOfHearts> So is the ip differant
    * Rjd0060 has been telling him that for days, with no checkuser :P
    <Ceiling_Cat> I am posting the data now

    Checkuser evidence shows the edits in question [15] [16] almost certainly came from the same computer. He's lying when he says they used different computers. Therefore I am inclined to disbelieve his claims in their entirety. Raul654 (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You know, we have a saying: "admit you screwed up, the repercussions will always be less than if you deny and get found out". It goes hand in hand with "make me come investigating, and you're gonna get screwed". ♪BMWΔ 19:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully request redacting that log unless both parties gave their consent to have that published here. DurovaCharge! 20:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was on the channel too, KingOfHearts has said that he "has no objections" at 20:47 --Enric Naval (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If he agreed then... DurovaCharge! 20:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Endgame

    I don't see any acknowledgment of impropriety, respect for rules, truthful statements, or constructive edits forthcoming. Given the shameless pattern of deceit, disruption, and denial ad infinitum, are we to the point of WP:RBI for all subsequent issues involving this editor? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    He certainly seems to be trying very hard to exhaust everyone's patience. Shimgray | talk | 01:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    De facto RBI on a given person/user strikes me as sounding a lot like a community ban. Is this what we're proposing? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment If you look all the way up, you'll notice the original request was for a topic ban, akin to community ban, and sock puppetry was discovered later. :) PS: I'd like to congratulate everyone on finding the sock puppetry and blocking KoH so fast. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh jeez... guess I forgot what we had set out to do here anyway. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's called serendipity. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments on if we should propose a defacto RBI / topic (aka community per Mendaliv) ban would be welcome. Although I guess RBI is de facto for any new sockpuppets either way.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User:KingsOfHearts is being advised to create a new account to get around the alleged compromising of his account by his alleged brother. Supposing that actually happens, how would this proposed topic ban come into play, if at all? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So we will be ignoring the sock puppeting then? Its one thing to be compromised, but another to create at least 5 sockpuppets.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's hope not. What I'm asking is whether any new user that KOH creates should be pre-empted from editing this topic. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I'd like to remind everyone that the checkuser turned up a few "sleeper" accounts (at least it says so above, I think), so I endorse a topic ban at the least. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, request indef block of User:HelpPlease234 based on probable sockpuppet relationship (see KoH's talk page for evidence/ here) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I posted on WP:AIV, but they might decline it. Maybe coincidental, but notice the HelpPlease234 vs. Fru23. What's with the digits? And I wonder what Fru is supposed to mean anyway, but we never got that far. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know but I'm guessing there are probably more sleeper accounts that has slipped by us, I mean this confession was from September! Lastly, if you think about it, if KoH KNEW his brother had access to his account in September, why didn't KOH change the password since obviously, right now the "legitimate" KoH owner has access to the account (why they are asking for compromised issue)?ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 08:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Because he/they are trying to figure out how to get unblocked somehow. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The checkuser did not turn up the now-indef-blocked User:HelpPlease234. Perhaps a checkuser should be requested on that one and see what else crawls out from under the Fox 'n Socks rocks. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Death threats

    70.224.54.239 has posted a threat on an article, and probably needs to be blocked. Although it may not be likely that the vandal will carry out these threats, it is common practice to notify ANI in these cases. If consensus expresses that an abuse report should be filed, I can do it. NOT ALL ISPS IGNORE ABUSE REPORTS (although this is an AT&T IP). PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 01:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 31 hours in the meantime. Dunno if an abuse report is merited, but definitely contact the police. Blueboy96 01:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Are such death threats typically reported to the FBI? If so I don't think an AR would be necessary. In any case, the Template:City-state police might be worth contacting, as well as the Indianapolis local FBI office since the threat was made across state lines. Contact info for the cops and the feds. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    According to WhoIs, this IP address is registered to a "Private Address" in Chicago. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 13, 2008 @ 02:18
    I'm reasonably sure that's in error or is just referring to the network backbone controlling that area (see the custname "rback4b"); South Bend is very close to Chicago anyway. The hostname (adsl-70-224-54-239.dsl.sbndin.ameritech.net) indicates it's a South Bend, Indiana address. You could also check the geolocate info which backs this up. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    EC TrustedSource says that this IP belongs to an AT&T DSL customer in South Bend, Indiana, so I'm guessing it's either there or somewhere around there. Note that usually TrustedSource is pretty accurate, it's not 100% accurate; the IP is most likely based somewhere around there (or actually in the city or South bend). TrustedSource says that my Embarq DSL IP is based in Fort Myers, Florida even though I'm in Deep Creek, Florida. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 02:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll contact law enforcement tomarrow, unless someone else wants to do it tonight (or today depending on what part of the world you're in) PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 02:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the contact information for the Chicago Police Department. Probably want to go with the non-emergency number. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 13, 2008 @ 02:22
    See my previous comment- this is not a Chicago address. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct. My mistake, I guess WhoIs needs to update their information. My apologizes. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 13, 2008 @ 02:26
    I've contacted the FBI at http://tips.fbi.gov and asked them to contribute to the discussion here. A copy of the message I sent them is here. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 02:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to FBI: to contribute to this discussion, simply click the edit button next to the text "Death threats." PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 02:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not particularly keen on the language you use in your message to the FBI; when one acts to report on-Wiki behavior to law enforcement he does so as a private citizen and, as the community have said many times, in the context of all manner of extra-wiki interactions one might have with non-Wikipedians, must be at pains to make clear that he or she does not speak for the Wikimedia Foundation or even for our particular project. The "you are welcome" and (particularly) the "we look forward" locutions suggest that you speak in an official capacity. Anyone is, of course, welcome to report putative threats to law enforcement (as a libertarian who would not support the criminalization of the instant behavior [who is disposed, for that matter, to support the disassembly of the body of criminal law] and who is disinclined to see taxpayer monies be used in frivolous pursuits, I do not undertake so to act), and for various reasons we permit such reports to be discussed on-wiki, but in its rejection (or failure to adopt) WP:SUICIDE and WP:TOV the community have made clear that we take no broad official position on how threats ought to be dealt with and most especially that once an editor in his or her individual capacity has reported a threat we must not permit the project to be disrupted any further; inviting a law enforcement agency to join in a discussion about a threat is altogether inconsistent with those understandings, and inviting in an official capacity is even more pernicious (and makes us look profoundly silly, but we need not reach that issue). Joe 21:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, that's not a death threat. It may be otherwise criminal (although most probably not), but it's not a death threat. "I'm going to kill John Doe" is a death threat; "I'd like to kill John Doe", "I wish I could kill John Doe", "I wish someone would kill John Doe", "I wish John Doe would die", and any variants thereof are not death threats, at least to the extent that they are not said to evoke the same reaction from a target as would a death threat. Joe 21:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What he said. C'mon people, use your noodles. Reporting childish vandalism like that to law enforcement is a tremendous waste of time and resources. L0b0t (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This didn't need to be reported, and the failure to explicitly note you are not a representative of the Wikimedia Foundation was extremely poor also. Daniel (talk) 08:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the harm with erring on the side of caution and reporting this. Look at it this way: it only goes to show that different people's views of credible threats vary significantly, including those in the media who latch onto stories of unreported threats of violence. The best position to take for the project is to report something if you consider it credible. As to PCHS' message... yes it could have been written better, but considering the circumstances... I think we should have a form letter for this sort of situation. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've written a basic page on a form letter here. Input and suggestions would be welcomed! —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is almost at WP:Perennial proposals stage. Thus far, there hasn't been any consensus to support the promotion of a WP:TOV type page. There's two issues: 1) whether or not editors (or just admins) should be required to follow a policy mandating that they respond appropriately to threats of violence or suicide, and 2) if so, does it require that someone contact the authorities, or is there room for judgment? As far as I can see, opinions are widely spread and more or less equally divided. Trolls? Cries for help? There are very strong believers in both camps, unlikely to be swayed. So we get what we have now, which is a horribly predictable weekly reenactment of of "So and so posted made a TOV! What'll we do?!?". It's becoming farcical. Or Sartrean. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 00:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at it this way; there's going to be situations where we should report a threat. I recall several from a little over a month ago. Shouldn't we try to encourage those reports to be straightforward for those having to read them? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's been far more simple vandalism than this that has been brought to the attention of law enforcement, and the consensus at the time was to report to law enforcement. My proposal was to bring this to the attention of an ISP. :S PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 01:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing you at all. The issue here is that we have an issue with meat world consequences (up to and potentially including criminal charges, death, etc.) that nobody can come to an agreement on, because they either see all threat-makers as childish trolls to be RBIed (0 cries for help), or they see them as 100% cries for help, and any failure to promptly call the authorities will surely result in a disaster. This stupid schism needs to stop before the confusion results in somebody actually following through on something they pledged on Wikipedia. The fallout would be immense. You think Siegenthaler Sr. was bad PR... Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 13:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The FBI should just set up a special web site labeled Click here to report anonymous death threats made over the Internet. (We thank our sponsors TOYS R US and DUNKIN DONUTS for their help.) Then anyone who feels wracked by guilt if they do not report every childish prank can drop their report and get a good night's sleep. The pranksters too can eliminate the middleman.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    IP 69.138.182.154 (talk · contribs) has removed information from the DeAngelo Hall article twice now, with the edit summary "The deleted content was slanderous in nature, and could result in legal action against Wikipedia." [17] I know this isn't a direct legal threat, but it seems to hedge up against using a legal threat as leverage to get your way in a content dispute. I figured it would be best to bring it here for admin attention. Please note I'm not commenting on the quality of the edit here, just bringing it to more experienced eyes. Dayewalker (talk) 06:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just warn, I think, nicely, and with links to policy. The edit was squishy and probably a BLP vio (though the legal threat is more than thin). IronDuke 06:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I generally believe statements of that sort qualify as in-spirit violations of WP:NLT: they are used for the same sort of bullying during disputes that direct legal threats are, and have the same potential for discouraging good editors. While I don't suggest a block at this point, I do believe these sorts of statements must be discouraged. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 10:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So educating people who need educating about extremely important issues should be discouraged? I think letting ignorance continue on unabated should be discouraged. It's not an in-spirit violation of anything, and it was absolutely correct. To even talk about a block is discouraging good editors from doing what should be done. DreamGuy (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think we should remember DOLT--Ipatrol (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Poorly done, but a good edit, nonetheless. BLP violation sourced to a blog? Should be removed. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lightbot

    I've only followed the previous discussion with this bot in passing, but isn't this the exact opposite of what it's supposed to be doing? JPG-GR (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yep. // roux   17:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is his explanation: "I said that I would stop fixing these errors because I got frustrated. I am no longer frustrated. I see these errors still exist so I decided to start fixing the errors again. ... I find it hard to be persuaded that errors should not be fixed." Tennis expert (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is his alternative explanation: "Due to frustration at the hostility, I declared that Lightbot would not fix these errors. I was hoping that would stimulate somebody else to fix them. However, it seems that people are prepared to complain when others fix errors but are not willing to fix errors themselves. So I decided that I would start fixing them again.". Tennis expert (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The following are some links to related discussions regarding this bot: the operator's talk page and the old AN thread.--Rockfang (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    And an additional discussion that started yesterday on the operator's talk page and has since moved to the MOSNUM talk page. Mlaffs (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Removing piped links is a bad thing? Why? Tool2Die4 (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Removing piped links isn't necessarily a bad thing, particularly when they're scattered throughout the text of an article. What's happening here is removing piped links from inboxes and tables. Removing piped links from an infobox or a table, where MOSNUM explicitly envisions they might be appropriate, is a bad thing. Removing piped links that provide valid contextual information, without replacing them with a link to that same information in a different manner, is a bad thing. Removing piped links, when a previous AN thread on the exact same issue was resolved by that same user saying they would no longer do so, is a bad thing. Mlaffs (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a side note: IIUC the 'bot operator's rational in the current sweep is that autoforatted dates ([[Month Day]], [[Year]] is incompatible/not allowed with a piped link. Accepting that statement on faith, it is reasonable for the 'bot to delink both halves of [[Month Day]], [[Tear in field|Year]] and point out that only autoformatting or piping may be used. The 'bot had been changed to do that.
    The troubling thing is that it looks like the 'bot cannot identify when the mark up is in a 'box/table or in the body of the article text.
    - J Greb (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be wise to wait until this is closed before making these automated edits. However unless the consensus changes wildly in the next days I see no community support for keeping these Easter egg links anywhere. --John (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the introduction to the relevant section of that RFC specifies that the discussion there concerns piped links in the body of articles, not within tables and infoboxes. The latter is the issue here. Mlaffs (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Lightmouse also is removing piped links manually. See, e.g., this, this, this, this, and this. So, regardless of whether there is a technical problem with Lightbot, Lightmouse obviously believes that piped links should be removed on sight. Tennis expert (talk) 06:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because some of these removals are in infoboxes and tables where they are permitted to be piped, the bot needs to stop removing any piped links unless it can distinguish between those that are permitted and those that are not.--2008Olympianchitchat 00:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    To answer the original question:

    • Combining a concealed link with autoformatting is wrong because it is a broken and invalid format.
    • It has always been wrong.
    • It is wrong if you like concealed links and it is wrong if you don't like concealed links.
    • It is wrong if you like autoformatting and it is wrong if you don't like autoformatting.
    • It was wrong before the RFC and it will be wrong after the RFC.
    • It has never been permitted in any location on any page.

    Those editors that are most involved in the debate about date links, should know why it is invalid. Those editors that understand why it is invalid and broken should be able to explain to those that don't understand. It is not a matter of opinion and I am tired of having to explain the valid formats for a technology that I don't even like. I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 10:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm tired of you confusing the issues. What I'm talking about is your (Lightmouse) systematic removal of piped links that have nothing to do with autoformatting. See, e.g., this, this, this, this, and this. Tennis expert (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not the topic of this ANI. Do you want to start another ANI? Lightmouse (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is part of the topic of this ANI, and I recommend that you start participating fully. Tennis expert (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And I've just burned another chunk of valuable editing time fixing another large batch of articles where Lightbot has taken to stripping the brackets from both the month-day pair and the "year in radio" contextual year link even though simply stripping the brackets from the month-day pair would fix any possible autoformatting issue. (Sample diffs: here, here, here, here, here etc.) Given Lightmouse's earlier promises to stop stripping "year in radio" links and his recent dismissal of that promise as his being "frustrated" I feel we're well past the point of continuing to assume good faith. - Dravecky (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I ask that this bot stop operating until these complaints are fixed. I am not blocking the bot at this time as it is not running. However irrespective of the bot's task, (ignoring that there is currently an RFC on the MOS guideline that this bot is acting on), if the bot is creating a mess it needs to stop. Lightmouse, why is the bot doing this? If it is a bug, please fix it, or disable the buggy function(s) before the bot runs again. In short please fix the buggy behavior. My comments do not apply to whether or not the bot should be running at all, merely the fact that we have a buggy bot operating —— nixeagle 20:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    CARLMART continuing unsourced article creation after block expired

    CARLMART (talk · contribs) was previously blocked for one month (old ANI report) because he repeatedly created unsourced articles which turned out to be false, and has not offered any explanation for his conduct as requested by the blocking admin (again, he has never once edited in the Talk or User talk namespaces in over a year and 1000+ edits despite numerous warnings about his conduct). Instead, after his block expired, he immediately started creating his usual form of unsourced articles again: Iranian Mexican and Afghan Chilean. After some examination of other page histories, it looks like he was also editing while logged out to evade his block, with his usual unhelpful habits (e.g. here claiming that some sportsman is a "Prominent Korean-Spaniard" when nothing in his bio indicates Korean citizenship/ancestry, or here claiming that there are a large number of Iranians in Venezuela). IMO this guy needs to be blocked indefinitely, as suggested by others in the last thread. cab (talk) 06:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Without communication between editors we're nowhere, WP:COMPETENCE, etc etc. Per the last discussion I'm assuming there's consensus for this, I've indef-blocked. --fvw* 06:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I endorse Fvw's block. We shouldn't bury our heads in the sand when dealing with chronically disruptive editors who cannot seem to "get it" after a myriad of chances. Master&Expert (Talk) 08:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse; every article has a talkpage and every editor has one too - it therefore presumes that dialogue is considered to be an essential tool. Anyone disregarding the facility is unlikely to be contributing in an appropriate manner. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Question: Does this article (Armenians in Japan) seem related to the above? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Higly unlikely, as it has a few references and was made by a different editor. A lack of referencing appears to be the problem with CALMART's articles. Then again, I doubt that particular ethnic group is significant enough to warrant inclusion. Master&Expert (Talk) 08:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Misuse of making citations by an IP user

    Resolved
     – Not the right venue for this. Black Kite 18:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to report an anonymous user 125.54.251.167 (125.54.251.185) whose referenced contributions on this article, were different from the relevant data in the source paper of Itabashi Yoshizo(2003),板橋義三 (2003)「高句麗の地名から高句麗語と朝鮮語・日本語との史的関係をさぐる」"Research on the historical relationship between the Goguryeo language and the Korean/ Japanese languages on the basis of the Goguryeo toponyms."「日本語系統論の現在」 "Perspectives on the Origins of the Japanese Language."

    Basically, this user strongly tends to change, remove and correct her/his previous own edits. Therefore the correctness and accuracy of her/his contributions cannot be guaranteed at all. So I have been monitoring this user, correcting a great deal of her/his wrong edits. Probably, that is why s/he invented some false citations as a pretext to justify her/his bad faith edits and to keep out of my corrections. By altering deliberately the cited data taken from the paper of Itabashi, her/his referenced contributions were different from the information of the original source[18], [19](upper and middle one), [20], [21](the lowerst one), and by adding a cited contribution whose relevant data is in fact not existent in the paper of Itabashi Yoshizo at all. [22](lower one) By this, I would like to make it clear that this is not the complaint of misrepresentation of sources, since this user altered the data given the Itabashi’s paper citied by this user.

    Although this user seemed to acknowledge at least my accusation that he had abused citations in bad faith [23], basically s/he made no reasonable excuse for her/his wrongdoing [24],[25], but just tried to cloud the issue. Considering her/his attempts to maintain false referenced edits despite my four times warning. (See also my Edit summaries) [26], [27], [28], [29].

    False citations made by this user are listed below:

    False quotation Original source notes
    ɣapma 盒馬 (山 : mountain) ɣapma 盒馬 (大山 : big mountain) Initially, I corrected this wrong contribution made by this user, based on the academic research. After a while, s/he insisted on her/his previous wrong edit once more by making citation. So I had to correct her/his edit based on the source s/he cited for it.
    mi1ra (蒜 : garlic) mi1ra (韮 : garlic chives)
    kuət-・ιəi kur'iy The reconstruction of the pronunciation of the Goguryeo word.
    kata- (tough, firm) Not existent in the original source I removed the false reference note.
    kari (犁 : plow) kar- (刈る : to cut off)
    so2ɸo(赤 : red) so2ɸo (赤土 : red soil) I corrected this edit made by this user, based on the source s/he cited for her/his contribution. After a while, s/he repeated this bad faith edit again removing her/his own previous citation. So I had to undo her/his unexplained deletion.

    Above all, her/his misuse of making citations may not only degrade the authority of Wikipedia, but may also affect badly to the academic reputation of the author of the original source material. So this user should be blocked for her/his fabrication from editing Wikipedia. However hard one may work to correct intentionally wrong referenced edits by trying to verify the correctness of citations, such cases will happen again and again, if there is no ban for abusing citations.

    In order for this user not to abuse her/his anonymous IP by making further significantly disruptive edits with irresponsible attitude, the article Goguryeo language should be semi-protected as a preliminary measure until this case is finally settled.

    Jagello (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    And, I don't mean to be rude, but a report of this length is only going to delay action on your case. In my observations, long reports tend to get ignored. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Jagello has tried short reports before (twice), and been ignored because the issues are too complicated for anybody else to understand. That's still the case, but it might be reasonable to do a long semi on Goguryeo language, so that the IP editor would have to open an account in order to edit it, and therefore would be more available for communication. It's not like there are vast crowds of people eager to edit this article on a thousand-year-extinct language. Looie496 (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since that's the case, I've watchlisted the article and dropped a message at Jagello's talk page. Hell, I have a degree in linguistics, I might as well use it. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Swedish Ski team/Swedish bikini team!?

    Why is Swedish Ski Team redirected to Swedish Bikini Team. Seems very stupid. The Rolling Camel (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears that they are the same thing, more or less, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swedish Ski Team. DuncanHill (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No way, Swedish Bikini team has nothing with it to do, Maybe swedish ski team is not notable for an article but the redirect schould be deleted if so. The Rolling Camel (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Take a look at this diff [30] - as originally created, they are the same thing. – ukexpat (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, They are not, Seems to be a joke edit. Anyway i think we schould keep Swedish Bikini team as it is and delete the redirect from swedish ski team. The Rolling Camel (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, can someone see something on google that fits whit the diff? The Rolling Camel (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to agree with Rolling Camel somewhat. Since Sweden does indeed have a national ski team[31]. having that term redirect to a beer commercial "bikini team" gag is a little silly. I've created a new disambig page. — Satori Son 20:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ironically, these teams seem to be in pairs. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm considering blocking Webman1000 (talk · contribs) (see also 189.137.164.252 (talk · contribs)) for the implied legal threat to Wikipedia left on my talk page along with three other editors and the talk page for Kink.com. It's obviously an SPA with a gripe against Kink.com. While not an outright "I will sue you." threat, legal action is implied. Before I issue the block, I'm looking for feedback from other admins about the account. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm one of the editors who received Webman1000's post on my talk page. Worth noting is that I, with at least one other editor, appear to be completely unrelated to this - I posted on Webman1000's talk page to advise them that they had deleted another editor's comments; other than that the only contact I've had with this editor has been to question why I'm involved with their "campaign". Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 23:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (I've advised the editor about this discussion) This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 23:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What the hell is it with all you people seeing "implied legal threats" everywhere?! There is no legal threat in there — it is just a rant by some incoherent dude who thinks he knows better than our legal council, and wants to give us the benefit of his 'advice'. Hesperian 23:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That's pretty much how I saw it, and I won't lose any sleep over it. However, as I understand it, one of the points of WP:NLT is to prevent the chilling effect talk of the law has. This editor spoke of the cost I might have to personally bear if a legal action was taken, and signed off by saying "good luck". I've been around Wikipedia for a while, and I'm also fairly au fait with the relevant laws in my jurisdiction, so I didn't feel especially "chilled" - but this post was made to several editors, most if not all of whom had had no relevant contact with Webman1000. I personally do not believe that posts such as this should be made by the clueless to the impressionable. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 00:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely my view of it- one of the purposes of WP:NLT is to prevent one user from using fear of legal retribution to win arguments, the legality of someone who likely isn't a licensed lawyer providing what could be construed as legal advice notwithstanding (and I don't mean that as legal advice). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No, a purpose of Wikipedia:No legal threats isn't "to prevent the chilling effect talk of the law has", else it would be Wikipedia:No legal discussions. WP:NLT is quite clearly limited to threats, not any "talk of the law". It is becoming more and more common for people to screech "legal threat!" any time anyone makes any comment on the legal obligations or vulnerabilities of Wikipedia and/or Wikipedians, or even uses a vaguely legalese term like slander. To threaten to block someone over such harmless comments is much more chilling than the comments themselves. Hesperian 04:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. Let's not go OTT here, Theresa Knott | token threats 05:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I just wanted to note that I also have received a legal threat here on my talk page. I don't like it one little bit, I think this editor really is implying a legal threat, and at the very least being extremely uncivil. I'm asking the Wikipedia admin to issue this user a warning about their behavior, or even a temporary block until they shape up. I'm sick to death of this editor trying to bully other editors into towing his or her personal moral line. If admins don't do anything here, I'm taking this to mediation. This has gotten to be ridiculous. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 07:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparently, the consensus here is that the comments were not legal threats and not blockable, which is fine. I asked for other admin's opinions, I got it, and I'll go along with it. I'm not particularly concerned about the message, but I do believe that this account is not here for anything constructive. I would like to note that I'm not one who commonly throws around "legal threat!", so I'm a bit perturbed to be lumped in like that. But whatever, back to editing. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The person in question didn't just talk about legal issues. They mentioned the financial implications for the person if they took action. That's intended to scare them off - in my opinion that's a threat. - Mgm|(talk) 10:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • They state; "... the 6 million dollars that wikipedia is trying to raise may not be enough to withstand the lawsuits that will come from the open and blatant access to porn to minors ..." (emphasis mine) That is, in every sense of the term, a legal threat; it is used to try and make editors reconsider their evaluation on a subject and remove material for fear of "... lawsuits that will come ..." as opposed to being based on consensus or censorship concerns, which is exactly the situation WP:NLT is designed to prevent. -- TheIntersect (talk) 12:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Assuming that this isn't a legal threat (and I'm still in two minds about that), I believe that it can be (and has been) perceived as a legal threat. WP:NPLT would therefore appear to be relevant, and I think an admin should raise the issue with Webman1000. WP:NPLT states "While such comments may not be per se legal threats, they may fall under the scope of the aforementioned policies and repeated or disruptive usage can result in the user being blocked." - Webman deserves to be warned if a future block may result from their actions. To date, the only contact with Webman1000 has been from regular editors who took umbrage at receiving Webman's missive. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 12:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO the rant is ill advised, and pretty flawed but isn't worth a block. If they persist in their behavior, I'll support a block for disruptive editing. -- lucasbfr talk 12:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's extremely obvious that there's no legal threat involved here. The person is simply explaining what he sees as the legal situation and what could happen to Wikipedia if his interpretation of the law is correct. People weigh in on such topics all the time on any thread related to copyright concerns, and so forth. It's strongly worded, but even calling it uncivil would be exaggerating things. If anything it's a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL to suggest that it was an attempt at censorship, legal threat, etc. The people complaining violated more policies then the person being complained about. People need to chill out and get a reality check. DreamGuy (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Out of curiousity, and I'm in no way denying that I may have violated a policy or two, but what policy/ies do you (or indeed anyone) feel I (or the original poster) have violated? Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    WTRF-DT3 possibly copied on station's website

    It seems---and let me stress seems--that WTRF-DT3's article is copied on the station's website without credit to WP: [32]

    Your thoughts??? Willking1979 (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There was a note about this on the page but Metros/Either Way removed the note as "trivia". The Wikipedia page was up first before the company's website was. The company's website is a direct copy of the Wikipedia page. This also happened with WBOY-DT2 and [33]. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 15, 2008 @ 04:18
    • Wikipedia is free content released under the GNU free documentation licence - meaning that it can be freely distributed by the public without having to worry about copyright infringement. Now, if we copied the text from that site, then it would be a problem. But it appears we were the original creators of the text, as cited by NeutralHomer above, so it's fine. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Should the note stating that "we were first" go back up so another user doesn't get it confused that someone copied the page from the company website? - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 15, 2008 @ 04:24
        • I don't think it's a good idea to mention it in the article, as it would make it sound less professional - however, it might be a good idea to mention something at the top of the article's talk page. Or am I mistaken? Master&Expert (Talk) 04:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically, that's not quite sufficient, Master&Expert. Our GFDL-licensed content can only be freely distributed by the public without having to worry about copyright infringement...if they comply with the terms of the GFDL. If WTRF fails to acknowledge the authors of the content, if they fail to include a copies of the GFDL notice and license, of if they fail to adhere in some other way to the terms of the GFDL, they are very much infringing copyright.
    Now, the carrot usually works better than the stick in these situations. A polite email or phone call to the station – from someone cool-headed, with a good command of English – is probably sufficient. It's even possible that the web design company they hired nicked our stuff without the station being aware of it. Something along the lines of "We're flattered that you're using our article, and you're welcome to continue to do so provided that your site is updated to acknowlege its source and license. All content on Wikipedia is released under the GFDL, which means this, that, and the other thing...and so forth. Wikipedia articles are written entirely by volunteers, who receive no compensation beyond public acknowledgement for their work...." You can also feel free to use some of the polite phrases from Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ten, you seem to know much of the policies and the language of them. If you want to give them a call, phone numbers can be found here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 15, 2008 @ 21:51
    • Just for reference, this edit of August 2 appears to match History of WVM Properties nearly word for word after the first 3 words. It is possible that they both came from a common source. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we were first, the GFDL still applies, notably: "You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License." [emphasis added] On the other hand, if the editor making that change grabbed it illegally, then we have to remove it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This wouldn't be the first time that a media outlet (be it radio or TV) used their station's Wikipedia page word-for-word on their corporate or station website. Radio Station WDHC copied the History section of the Wikipedia page to their station's website....verbatim. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 15, 2008 @ 04:41
      • Goes to show that Wikipedia is a popular website - which is why we must take our copyight policies seriously. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is what I tried to show in this from the WTRF-DT3 page, but it was removed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 15, 2008 @ 04:46
          • Maybe the most important part of this is not so much to include that statement part of the article content, but to inform editors that the Wikipedia content was used on the company's website, so that editors don't use the station's website as a source to support the article content in the future - because that would be a circular reference. That could be done by entering the information as a comment in the Wikitext and also noting it on the talk page (as suggested by Master&Expert) in an infobox at the top. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't know how to enter informtion as a comment. If you want to do that, please feel free. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 15, 2008 @ 05:03
    I haven't researched the article details enough to enter the comment myself. I'll place a note on your talk page with the wikimarkup for entering comments so you can proceed yourself if you want to. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That would work great :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 15, 2008 @ 05:39
    I wrote the comment to the WTRF-DT3 page. If someone wants to reword it or update it, please feel free. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 15, 2008 @ 05:52
    There's a template for article talkpages for this situation... let me see if I can find it. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    {{Backwardscopyvio}} is the one. Take a look. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note that it's probably not a great idea to mention the copyvio in the article text unless the copyvio becomes notable. It would seem to violate WP:UNDUE and it's not a great self-reference to make. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you would like to change/update the intext comment, please feel free to do so. I put it there so there would be any confusion as to which page came first. Didn't want an editor "down the line" coming across the page and the corporate page and thinking someone copied the corporate page to Wikipedia (when it is the other way around). - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 15, 2008 @ 21:48
    Well that's more or less the exact purpose of {{backwardscopyvio}}; it indicates to bots/editors that the article is not a copyvio of the link provided, but the other way around. I've added it to the talkpage now. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Remember that Wikipedia does not hold the copyright to the article, the individual editors of that articles do. If one of them wishes to do so, there are examples of letters that can be sent to the station. -- lucasbfr talk 16:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The proper way to handle something like this is to notify the WikiMedia Foundation. If individual editors or admins try to handle it on their own, it will only lead to confusion. Looie496 (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure the WMF has the resources (and will) to ask every website that reuse our content without proper attribution to stop. -- lucasbfr talk 09:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Protection and wholesale removal of content at Joseph Farah against consensus

    Resolved
     – Stubbing has support, disagreements over how to expand from here can take place on the article talk page.

    Could someone take a look at Joseph Farah please? After the article's subject wrote a column trashing Wikipedia for some vandalism that appeared on the page, User: Sarcasticidealist protected and then proceeded to remove all content from the page, without so much as justifying the change on the article's talk page. Thanks! 76.210.68.126 (talk) 04:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The article was not compatible with any of WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, or WP:RS. I made several attempts at removing the offending parts before realizing that everything in there that was based on reliable third party sources could be summarized in one sentence. I reduced the article to that single sentence. I am in favour of it being expanded, provided it can be so-expanded in compliance with our content policies. In the meantime, the article was causing Wikipedia embarrassment and providing unfair coverage of a living person. As to the allegation that any of this was done against consensus, the article talk page had been inactive for several months, and none of the issues I raised had been previously discussed there, so that allegation is plainly false. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If the edits you made to the page weren't against consensus, we wouldn't be discussing it here, would we? Please rv. 76.210.68.126 (talk) 05:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I just had a look through your edit history and found [34], from which I have concluded that further interaction with you would amount to feeding the trolls. If any editor in good standing has concerns with my action, I'd be pleased to discuss them further, though I'd suggest that Talk:Joseph Farah would be a better venue than here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AGF, this is a dynamic IP. I'd still like an admin to review the actions of User:Sarcasticidealist, please. 76.210.68.126 (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not an admin, but I looked at the edits in comparison to the sources, and wholly endorse Sarcasticidealist's actions. WP:BLP, in particular, is a policy which cannot be beaten by consensus--not that any consensus was evident on the talk page in any case, as those issues hadn't really been raised there. Please go read and internalise WP:5, WP:BLP, and WP:BRD before commenting further. I have commented in a similar vein at the article talk page. // roux   05:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, looks okay to me too. Grsz11 05:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a hot one. 76 actually wants us to believe that it's pure blind luck that the same IP that posted the vandalism calling Farah a homosexual also started this thread. Just a coincidence. Not the same editor at all.
    Excellent work, SI. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we can have a decent article here, and some of the previous content might be reusable, but a lot of the previous content was "sourced" to some pretty partisan stuff and overall it looked like a subtle hatchet job. I don't think SI has a bad idea at all in letting things cool off and starting over, nor do I believe our anonymous editor here has a significant interest in writing a neutral article. Seraphimblade Talk to me: 08:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Lots of the content from wnd.com can be restored per WP:SPS--It's Farah's website, and his self-disclosure is fair game for things like, oh, his Lebanese ancestry. However, since Farah may attract the ire of some here, I think it would be reasonable to put him on WP:BLPWATCH and indef semi the article to avoid repeat trolling: not like he needed another reason to dislike Wikipedia... Actually, on second thought, do donations go up when wnd.com bashes Wikipedia? Jclemens (talk) 08:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that there's some room for using Farah's own articles per WP:SPS. With regards to the Lebanese ancestry, Farah took the position in correspondence with me that it (and more especially his religious beliefs) was unduly emphasized in the other article, which I think is a reasonable concern. I'd rather not re-add any of the self-published stuff until we have a solid core of an article to build around, which I think has to come at least in part from third party stuff (and, if course, if none of that can be found, then the article should just be deleted). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he had one valid point and one only, which was the vandalism. A lead sentence "Joseph Francis Farah is an Evangelical Christian American journalist of Lebanese and Syrian heritage" based on his own information is hardly overemphasis. His complaint of vandalism was of course justified, but we are basically moving in the position of removing the biography because he does not like it. He has a site, and we can say what he posts on it is what he posts on it. Given that among the present lead stories is "Don't be afraid to champion truth of Scripture" i do not think his protests about over-emphasis on religion hold water. DGG (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that stubbing for now was a good thing. Some of the old content should be added back in but it should be done so carefully. Incidentally, Farah has written an op-ed about the matter here. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone try explaining to this putz guy the difference between 'slander' and 'vandalism'? HalfShadow 16:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Halfshadow, your attitude is appalling: he didn't sign up to be covered by "the encyclopedia anybody can edit", and it's not incumbent on him to accept that one of the top Google searches for his name might call him a homosexual for a couple of days. Nor is it incumbent on him to accept that we provide a platform for his detractors to libel him. We took it upon ourselves to have an article about him, and it is morally incumbent on us (and to some extent legally incumbent, though this incumbency probably falls to editors rather than to Wikipedia) to prevent this kind of libel. The brief answer to your suggestion is that there *is* no difference between 'slanderlibel' and vandalism, at least not where the vandalism is libellous. Suggest you give your head a shake, putz, Sir. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In order: It's capital 'H' capital 'S', the depth of my apathy concerning what you think about my 'attitude' would either frighten or impress you, nobody does - what's your point?, I agree but screaming 'Lawsuit!' should never be step one, we don't and when we find it it is swiftly reverted or deleted, we do and it's called 'vandalism patrol' but as I said a lot goes through here in a little time - things are bound to be missed and 'Bite me.' HalfShadow 18:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    People get understandably very upset when such material shows up on their Wikipedia pages. Such material is libelous(note not slander. That's a distinction someone should actually explain to Farah)- the main reason we get away with it is because Wikipedia is a common carrier. Insulting BLPs because we don't do a good enough job dealing with vandalism is not good. Hopefully we will switch to sighted versions at some point and this sort of thing will be less common. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You wish... :( -- lucasbfr talk 16:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any idea how many edits go through here in a five-minute period? I don't see why we should take grief from him simply because it wasn't seen immediately. If I see vandalism, I revert it; if I don't see it, I can't. I have no reason to believe this is any different for any other legitimate user. Oh, and when he's not insulting us ("...wholly unreliable website run by political and social activists promoting their own agenda...", "...a corrupt and morally bankrupt institution...") He's trying to sell you his book. Autographed. HalfShadow 17:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is a not so unreasonable reaction if you were in his position. And promoting his book is how he makes money. I still see no good reason to insult him here. Now, I need to go back to work but I think we can reasonably mark this thread as resolved and people with time can go look at the earlier versions of the article and very carefully see what should be restored and how. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    76. is obviously trolling, but the greater concern is that Farah's current column is asking for help in "dragon-slaying" - i.e., exhorting his readers (who are, in my opinion, some of the biggest crackpots and cranks on the Internet) to take action against Wikipedia. I suggest we need to be on guard for this one in a big way, and that the Foundation needs to get in Farah's face over his claims immediately. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that this is unfortunate, but strongly disagree that that is our greater concern. Our greater concern is fairness in the treatment of our subjects. Moreover, none of our subjects have a duty to consent to this sort of treatment; that they have very little effective legal recourse against this treatment makes it somewhat more understandable that they'd resort to vigilante-ism. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course. However, frothing at the mouth in a column and declaring war instead of, perhaps, correcting the article oneself (and yes, I know he says he tried to correct 'inaccuracies' in the past and was reverted) is a touch of an overreaction. I'm curious as to how he tried to contact Wikipedia prior to writing the column; did he contact OTRS? Did the ticket get caught in a backlog? Did he phone the office and leave a message on the weekend? Did he try to phone Jimbo, who was out of the continent this week? At any rate, my point is that we may have a lot of WND readers joining the party to try and avenge Farah, so we should watch for that. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Defamation

    Last 2 months I am (and others) reverting 4 different SPA (user:I am Sario, user:I am Mario, user:NoseNDAh) and IP accounts (user:72.75.20.29) which are deleting well sourced Albert Einstein protest for killing of one of the founders of albanology Milan Šufflay with explanation defamation of Einstein.

    Einstein statement is well sourced with 3 sources and 1 of this is New York Times [35] which is wikipedia reliable source. My question is if adding this Einstein statement in article Ustaše is is defamation or removing this well sourced statement is vandalism [36] ?--Rjecina (talk) 05:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Legally speaking it is not defamation because you cannot defame the dead. – ukexpat (talk) 05:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember Mario; there seems to be some serious socking going on as expected. MuZemike (talk) 08:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've notified all recently involved in the edit-warring of WP:ARBMAC, and the likely consequences of continuing to revert the article (I am Mario is currently indefblocked and I am Sario only made three edits back in November). It's quite possible there is some socking involved, but WP:SSP might be a better place to bring that up. EyeSerenetalk 14:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note that there was the same issues with the article Ustaše, so someone may want to review the characters there as well. Also, see User talk:72.75.20.29 along with my statement on Mario at ARBMAC for exactly how seriously they are taking this. We need to put a stop to it before they start harassing newer editors. I'm wondering about blocking 72.xx for repeating the ADL allegations. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP is probably NoseNDAh - see User talk:NoseNDAh (though it depends how one reads it). Both are also probably I am Mario, given the edit patterns. I certainly don't have any problem with you blocking the lot, per WP:DUCK. EyeSerenetalk 23:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Go ahead with the block. My goal was to warn some of you publicly about this and other cases of political propaganda and public acts of defamation - spotted and exposed by other editors too - who were already blocked. What we are going to do - is outside Wikipedia and their 'experts' (EyeSerene, Rjecina, Ricky81682, etc). --72.75.20.29 (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked User:72.75.20.29 following the comment above and the further incivility at Ustaše. Can a checkuser please determine if this is rotating, static or what and block this mess? It's stressful to have constant "I'm going to report to the Anti-Defamation League as a Holocaust denials" threats from all over the place. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It was the Ustaše article I looked at. At the risk of making myself sound even stupider than I really am, I'm still not completely sure who is claiming what, and about whom, and from which POV, with this whole circus. I know disruption when I see it though, and my watchlist grows regardless... if it's possible to get some checkuser help, that would be very welcome. EyeSerenetalk 10:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jack Baker (activist)

    The article Jack Baker (activist) is currently a single-editor magnum opus written by User:Baker's Friend which appears to be an NPOV-free zone; it also makes numerous statements about other living people which I am concerned may raise WP:BLP issues. Just to give you a flavor of the article, it has subheadings like "Bigotry", "Trickery", "Abuse of Power" and "Justices compete for public flattery".

    Although it contains vast numbers of cites, many of them do not directly support the substance of the statements being made, instead only supporting some tangential point. This article is so vast, and so full of contentious statements, that I can't see how to fix it other than more-or-less completely deleting it and starting again. -- The Anome (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: I've now reverted the article back to a very early version, removing nearly all the content. I will notify the article's author of the BLP policy. -- The Anome (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For reference, the pre-snipped version may be viewed here. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Removing material that is factually accurate

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
    Resolved
     – This is a content dispute. Take it to the talk page or to WP:DR.

    Can a majority of editors remove material that meets the standards of WP:verify, and WP:reliable source? In the Shlomo Sand article there has been a series of reverts, in which I added, and others removed, the information that Shlomo Sand had belonged to (now defunct) group called Matzpen that was both Communist and anti-Zionist. It seems to me that since it is not disputed that Sand belonged to Matzpen, and it is also not disputed that Matzpen was anti-Zionist, deleting information that Sand belonged to an anti-Zionist group amounts to removing WP:verify information from the article that is highly relevant to the subject. This revert by PalestineRemembered [37] is one in a series of such removals of this information. To me it appears that a majority of editors are trying to outvote a core WP policy be removing information that meets WP:verify. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This looks like a content dispute that doesn't require any administrator action. However, to address your question, policy trumps consensus... although you need to be sure that you're not making an original inference from the sources by going beyond what they actually say (even if it may be implied). Since you've been reverted, you should really be discussing this on the article talk page rather than continuing to insert the material - the relevant guideline here is here. You may also find some of the ideas on dispute resolution useful. EyeSerenetalk 14:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To say it another way, WP:V is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to include information in an article. WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTHESIS also need to be considered; merely because something is reported somewhere does not automatically make it relevent to an article, and one is not allowed to draw unsupported inferences based on that information, especially where those inferences are not themselves explicit. Beyond merely noting that, notions of "undue weight" and "novel synthesis of ideas" ARE open to interpretation, and as such should be considered a content dispute, which is properly handled via civil discussion on the talk page, or by starting any of the numerous dispute resolution methods described at WP:DR. Neither is ever a reason to WP:EDITWAR and using multiple reverts to force others to accept your point of view in a content dispute is a sure path to getting blocked. I am only speaking in general terms here; I take no stance on this article in question, only to note that if disputes exist, this is not the forum to solve them. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a very worthy and pithy question to ask, but not on ANI. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    (edit conflict)Nobody (as far as I can see) has deleted the sourced information that Sand used to be a member of Matzpen thirty years ago. What has been deleted, by several editors, and repeatedly reinserted by Malcolm, is an unsourced statement in the lead that Sand is a communist and anti-Zionist. Editors have quoted interviews in which he states that his positions have changed since then, and Malcolm has repeatedly been asked to produce a reliable source that Sand is still a communist and anti-Zionist. He has failed to do so, and in the absence of such evidence, the overwhelming (I think unanimous, except for Malcolm) consensus is that such a description should not be included, least of all in the lead. RolandR (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC):[reply]
    The deleted material says that Shlomo Sand was a member of an anti-Zionist group. The information is highly relevant to an article in which the content is mostly given to his latest book (not yet available in English) in which Sand attempts to discredit the (what he considers) the foundational claims of Zionism. To remove a clear statement about the nature of his known past affiliation to an anti-Zionist Communist splinter group amounts to an attempt to use the article as political propaganda. I asked the question here because I think a WP core principle is being violated. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But it hasn't been deleted; the article still clearly states that he left the communist youth group "to join the more radical Matzpen". This is wikilinked, so that interested readers can see in what way Matzpen was "more radical". I am concerned that it is not the other editors who are attempting to use this article as political propaganda, but rather that the insistence on inserting repeated references to Sand's political allegiance thirty years ago is an attempt to poison the well and to pre-emptively discredit his views. RolandR (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the information encyclopedic? There is no policy on this, everything is case-by-case and mediation and arbitration groups tend to give great latitude to the editors of the article to come to their own consensus. This is why just because a policy or guideline says something "should" be in an article doesn't mean it "must." Here's what you can do if the active editors have a majority or supermajority favoring a particular point of view:
    • Use logic to argue your point. This doesn't always work, especially if the other parties' point is also grounded in logic.
    • Look for a 3rd opinion.
    • Claim an NPOV violation and either add substitute material or remove existing material so NPOV is restored. If the result is still NPOV take it to mediation, or in a worst case, arbitration. You better be right and able to prove it before taking anything to arbitration though.
    • Re-assess the article on the WP:ASSESS scale, if it's a B- or higher article a downward assessment may be in order due to the article being "incomplete." Note that this can set off its own edit-wars, but it can also be used as a compromise position: "OK, I see the majority of editors think whatever should not be in the article, but I think that any complete article must contain whatever. I'll bow to the will of the majority but I will change the assessment from it's current B-class to C-class" may get a lot more sympathy than a revert war, assuming it doesn't start an assessment-revert-war of its own. By the way, if the article is GA or particularly A or FA, it's very likely to fail a review if there is an active content dispute and wind up as B or lower.
    The bottom line: If you are in the minority, it's frequently best for the project to "give up" and let the article be incomplete than to spend a lot of time championing your pet cause. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The dispute is over one word: "anti-Zionism" [38]. If Sand belonged to the Communist and anti-Zionist group, Matzpen, what objection could there be to saying that, since no editor has contested that he had belonged to Matzpen? Certainly, the conclusion follows from the premises. Certainly few readers would know the Matzpen was anti-Zionist without that being said, and the information is highly relevent to the article because Sand has published a book on issues underlying Zionism. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User talk:Lear 21

    User talk:Lear 21 keeps insisting on putting the EU flag in Template:Infobox German Bundesland despite the consensus on the talk page against it and it going against WP:Flags could someone stop him please.--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 16:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lear 21 reminded of WP:EW and WP:BLOCK... EyeSerenetalk 20:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A longstanding version (more than a year) of the Template:Infobox German Bundesland have been recently altered by two users claiming WP:Flags. There is no policy that suggests or recommends the edits done by these two users namely User:Barryob and User:Gnevin. The two users refuse to argue otherwise than upholding a "recommendation" of a "guideline" or are incapable of citing other arguments. Since Wikipedia is based on discussion and consensus, I consider the established version as valid. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you will find there are at least 5 editors on the template and a page of talk . You can't ignore that just because it doesn't suit you Gnevin (talk) 08:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Abusive editing at Charles Foster Johnson and Little Green Footballs

    There's a bit of an odd situation going on that seems to involve sockpuppetry and abusive editing.

    A little bit of background info... Charles Foster Johnson is the webmaster of the Little Green Footballs blog. Although a conservative he rejects the Barack Obama "Nirth Certifikit" controversy as a conspiracy theory, resulting in many alienated and angry former fans.

    This started when User:LGOutcast began POV-pushing and vandalizing the Charles Foster Johnson article. He was indef-blocked the same day he started editing, the 8th, with administrator Tanthalas39 protecting his talk page.

    IP address 98.194.194.45 starts editing by complaining about Tan on the talk page of another administrator involved in the blocking of LGOutcast, slakr. He then proceeds to take the same argument that LGOutcast did. Soon after, he is joined by a very blatant Single Purpose Account, User:LittleGreenVolleyball .

    Aside from general tendentious behavior that's seen LittleGreenVolleyball blocked once already, the accounts are attempting to merge Charles Foster Johnson into the Little Green Footballs article. I suspect there is sockpuppetry going on here, probably with an experienced editor at the wheel, and feel it should be brought to the community's attention.

    McJeff (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd say your report easily passes the WP:QUACK test, although the non-blocked accounts (LittleGreenVolleyball and the IP) haven't been active for a few days. Anyhow, I've blocked LittleGreenVolleyball indefinitely on principle for block evasion/abusing multiple accounts; the IP I've left for now as it may be dynamic. Please re-report if there are any more problems. EyeSerenetalk 18:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see this. I'm involved and the subject of the threat, so I would like an uninvolved admin to take a look and indef block the account if my concern is substantiated. Looks like the various warnings (e.g., sockpuppetry, uploading copyrighted content with false attribution) are still listed on that user's talk page. Jclemens (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Meh, for once I'd say NLT might be applied wisely by showing him the door, here. -- lucasbfr talk 17:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree; I've indefblocked until the legal threats (made to multiple users - see contribs) are withdrawn. Apologies for the cross-editing ;) EyeSerenetalk 17:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're the one who did it right :o -- lucasbfr talk 17:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, good block, whoever got there first. Reading through the talk page makes me wonder how they've lasted this long. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Eric returned... LOL... good thing it happened after your RfA Jclemens. ;-)---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 17:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I wouldn't have minded him showing everyone firsthand what prompted others involved to commend my patience and/or excuse my lapses thereof. :-) Jclemens (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there even a real court thing because now he's accusing you of subpoenaing him...?--Smashvilletalk 21:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading through this, I'm trying very hard to assume good faith, but have to wonder whether there's some underlying psychological issues involved here. The entire talk page leans towards being very paranoid. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, even if somehow someone decides WP:LEGAL does not apply, he is making all kinds of paranoid accusations and attacks against Jclemens...--Smashvilletalk 22:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My skin's thick enough, I just don't want him unleashed back on mainspace with that sort of vitriolic attitude. Fact is, once he was out of the picture, all the rest of the editors involved in a couple of articles (Thomas Muthee and Wasilla Assembly of God) were able to quickly come to consensus versions without the BLP and unreliable sourcing issues that had plagued all of his edits. If he's staying blocked until he admits that WitchieAnna never existed and he made up the legal threats, I'm fine with it. Jclemens (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at their edit history, I'm inclined to agree. The legal threat was, in one sense, a fortuitous 'open-and-shut' block, but unless they have some kind of Road to Damascus experience I see no benefit in their returning under any circumstances. EyeSerenetalk 23:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion of File:Bernie Madoff.png

    Resolved
     – Image speedily deleted by Fred Bauder. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone speedily delete this image under NFC #12. This image is taken from CNN, and is not a free image. Another user keeps inserting the image into the article after being told numerous times that the image is not acceptable. Thanks. miranda 20:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have deleted Image:Bernie_Madoff.png. Images of Bernie Madoff are readily available on the internet, see http://images.google.com/images?gbv=2&hl=en&sa=3&q=%22Bernie+Madoff%22&btnG=Search+images but all seem to be copyrighted. It is possible we could eventually get a mugshot, or since he will be appearing in court in New York, someone could take a picture. Fred Talk 22:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Abusive single purpose account

    More random musing (talk · contribs) only edits at Akbar the Great, an article currently quite unbalanced in its perspective. I first had problems with him when he kept using blatant original research to tie the subject of the article to the Nazis, which he first introduced in June [39], and disputed before I came around [40][41].

    He took one source for a dress code under Akbar and another source about a dress code for Jews under the Nazis (that didn't draw a comparison to Akbar), and drew an original comparison [42][43]


    This is incorrect. Other sources also say Hindus of India were forced to wear discriminatory patches. I have addedd today one more source: [44]. We also know that Nazis forced jewish people to wear patches of colors to discriminate against them. More random musing (talk) 07:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've explained too many times, the comparison to the Nazis was not found in any sources; this comparison was your original research. It is difficult at this point to believe that you still cannot grasp this. Chedorlaomer (talk) 11:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I painstakingly explained this violation to him [45], and after many unconvincing claims to not understand how it is original research [46][47][48], he eventually stopped (likely because other users were noticing his abuse).

    Now, he is trying to mine quotes also to make Akbar look more "jihadi" than mainstream accounts [49]. I undid this extensive quote-farming [50], but he re-added it while describing my edit as "vandalism" [51]. I repeated with a greater explanation [52], which he again reverted suggesting my edit was vandalism [53].

    While this went on, he also accused me of vandalism on my talk page [54], claiming that undoing large edits is vandalism (as if I should tolerate a big bad edit), and again [55], this last being my "final warning."

    Yes I was planning on seeking help because you were not explaining why you deleted this [56] and this [57] which had been there till it got deleted as part of these bogus edits [58] , [59] and this revert [60]. More random musing (talk) 07:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was "not explaining" why I deleted your quote mining? That's a dishonest description; I explained that you were mining quotes (ultimately from primary sources), further skewing the article. I don't know what some of those other edits are, some of them don't seem to have anything much to do with me - maybe they were collateral damage during a revert, but one of those you weren't using a source for anyway. Chedorlaomer (talk) 11:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems that in the past he has behaved similarly, with quote-mining, possible original research, and generally attempts to make Akbar look like an extremist by removing claims of moderation and very selectively exploiting sources to emphasize the alleged extremism:

    Now, I'm not sure how many of these really follow from the sources (he has shown himself willing to construct OR), but the general picture does not look good. He seems dedicated to using various forms of abusive or exploitative editing to skew the article against mainstream accounts of Akbar, and his single purpose nature is also suspicious. Perhaps he is a banned Hindu nationalist who has different accounts for different pages so that the pattern cannot be detected? Whatever the case, his editing has clearly been abusive and now he has been calling me a vandal. I haven't the slightest idea why we should tolerate this kind of editor. Chedorlaomer (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    More random musing has sometimes exceeded proper bounds, but generally seems to cite references for his addiitons. There is an element of anachronism involved here. Akbar the Great was liberal for his time, but followed many traditional practices which seem oppressive by modern standards. A balanced article would place him properly in his historical and cultural context and not compare his actions to modern practices. Fred Talk 23:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Citing references does not guarantee that it is not original research or out-of-context, as the attempt to tie Akbar to "Nazis" well demonstrates. That he cites so many (that can be difficult to check) is even more dangerous. One editor on the talk page stated that checked a few references and found them to be "neatly synthesised hoaxes," though I'm not sure if they were specifically from More random musing (I'll look into it). Aside from his blatant agenda and disregard for policy, his approach to disagreements has also been quite inappropriate, including calling others vandals and dragging his feet when confronted with explanations of how his edits violate policy or at least show no care for balance. It is very frustrating; it seems that he is not so concerned about our rules, but rather will ride anything to get where he wants. Chedorlaomer (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Psch1986

    Recent edits by Psch1986 (talk · contribs) appear to me to be both spammy and in an inappropriate in tone. Should an admin roll them back? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have dropped a uw-spam3 warning on said user's talk page. Should they continue, I or some other admin should block. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The user seems to be amenable to working within Wikipedia's policies regarding external links. See my talk page and his talk page about this. If anyone else wants to chime in at his talk page, feel free, but I don't see this as blockable right now... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I also reverted his edits since December 13th, as they were clear WP:EL, and in some places WP:COPYVIO violations. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    problems with printing out some pages

    Please try e.g. to print out the article on Foucault. IOt does not work well! The pages 3 and 5 (out of 10 total) persistently do not print. Also, printing out a Discourse article (5 pages total) you will always get p. 3 without text (as if the page setting of the pages is in white colour so it does not show up). The only way is to block it and paste to Word, then the printing can be done. This is just to bring to to the attention of the Administrator. Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.53.11 (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've had difficulty printing RFAs and articles with {{reflist|2}}. The former print out as almost nothing. The latter have references that extend outside their columns. It's two separate problems. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't something that admins can deal with (unless the fix somehow involves editing protected pages, which I guess isn't impossible). I think the best place to raise this would be on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Similar concerns have appeared on Wikipedia:Help desk and Wikipedia:New contributors' help page in recent weeks. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a familiar problem. Last time it sprang up, I recall it was because the discussion headers specifically instruct not to print within that area via CSS. I couldn't print out AFDs. RFAs probably use the same coding. The worst part is, it's substed, so any change needs to be done on hundreds of pages. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A workaround is to use a browser like Opera that lets you view in "author mode." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Antisemitic hoaxer?

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

    This is kind of a strange pattern for a vandal, but Lolcory, a new user today, has only done the following since his arrival: He created Henzar and Henzag, then he vandalized Antisemitism twice 1, 2 and Mein Kampf once. Since the articles are rather long and unreferenced, I think they're probably hoaxes. It looks like he copy-pasted some real text from somewhere and stuck a fake name in. I'm not really sure about the best deletion procedure. I'll give him a vandal warning and a link to this thread. Anything else we should do? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes. We can delete both of the "articles" as being blatant copyright infringements of http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/redriver/index.html, then block the account on the basis that (s)he is clearly not here to contribute constructively. Did I miss anything out? GbT/c 23:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why rush to block? First articles suck? Wouldn't be the first editor. Let's give them the rules, see how it goes. ♪BMWΔ 23:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    its not so bad the much the bad articles but hte weird edits to antisemitism and mein kampf, which are rude, racist, and inflamatory. Smith Jones (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And AGF does not apply to editors whose names begin with "lol". :-) Looie496 (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Peven Everett Page Submission

    I am trying to submit a page for the Artist Peven Everett who is a notable artist. There is a black list on his artist name. I am an Authorized party in writing this page. He meets the criteria as a notable artist in the following ways (minimally) He toured with Betty Carter and acted as her Music Director. He has toured with both Wynton and Brandford Marsalis. He appeared in Marsalis On Music a Documentary with an IMDB credit. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1991691/ He was written about in the NEW YORK TIMES magazine http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE3DE1E39F936A15755C0A963958260&n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FSubjects%2FJ%2FJazz He has more than one release on a major indie label including ABB records http://www.shopabb.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=55 He was written about on more than one occasion in Straight No Chaser magazine http://www.straightnochaser.co.uk/issues.php?id=75 http://www.straightnochaser.co.uk/issues.php?id=24 He also appears in other entries on wikipedia including Roy Davis Jr, American Boy, and List of House Artists

    There are many other credible sources to cite when composing this article In closing I hope I am in the right place and I hope this can be resolved. Thank you "StudioConfession (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

    A far as I can tell, the page has been created and deleted twice, but the deleted page name is not protected and anyone is welcome to have another go at creating it. Having said that, once you begin the page, someone is likely to notice that you're creating a page that has already been deleted which may draw the attention of new page patrollers. Consequently it's a good idea to get all your ducks in a row as quickly as possible once you start writing. It might be worthwhile creating the article in user space first and then moving it to article space so you can work on it at your leisure. Incidentally the last two attempts were deleted as A7 speedies, so there's no previous consensus to overcome. If you have the sources you say you do, it should easily survive any attempt at speedy deletion. I don't know enough about notability requirements for musicians to have an opinion on whether it will survive an AfD, but I think you've got at least a fighting chance.
    By the way, what did you mean when you said you are "an Authorized party in writing this page"? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On the "authorized party" claim - please read Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guideline. Sometimes being an "authorized biographer" specifically makes you unauthorized or, more precisely, strongly discouraged from, creating or heavily editing an article about that person. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Desperate.

    Sprogeeet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) please can someone have a look? Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC) :Possible sock or meat puppet of Putney Bridge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). DuncanHill (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked Sprogeeet for blatant 3RR. Inferno and Duncan seemed to be good-faithedly reverting vandalism (or at least believing they were doing so), so I ignored their edits. --Smashvilletalk 01:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And yes, I made up a word - "faithedly". --Smashvilletalk 01:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Barryob and User:Gnevin

    A longstanding version (more than a year) of the Template:Infobox German Bundesland have been recently altered by two users claiming WP:Flags. Since this policy does not back explicitly the edits done by these two users namely User:Barryob and User:Gnevin, I User talk:Lear 21 kept upholding the established. I have introduced several arguments to the discussion while the two users refuse to argue otherwise than upholding a "recommendation" of a "guideline" or are incapable of citing other arguments. Since Wikipedia is based on discussion and consensus, I consider the established version as valid and ask an Administrator to remind the users to stop edit warring while also reminding them start discussing. all the best Lear 21

    I think you will find there are at least 5 editors on the template and a page of talk . You can't ignore that just because it doesn't suit you Gnevin (talk) 08:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
    Lear21, although I understand your wish to be heard, it's not really necessary to open a new thread and post the same thing in three different places ;) To address your comment, perhaps you are unaware that consensus can change? The old consensus might have been to include flags, but the new consensus seems to be that they should no longer be in the template. This decision violates no policies, so the other editors are perfectly entitled to make it. You rightly registered your objections on the template talk-page, but unfortunately failed to convince the other editors to change their minds, so I'm afraid this is something you'll just have to accept. The other editors have been reverting your edits to enforce their consensus - as long as they don't step over WP:3RR, this is legitimate and not regarded as edit-warring. Your reversions however, which were against the new consensus, were edit-warring. Most of us have been on the 'losing' side in content debates at some point, and although it's difficult (especially when it's something we care about), we expect editors to accept it with as much grace as possible and move on. EyeSerenetalk 10:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A collection of socks

    Resolved

    Rlevse has just completed a checkuser on a collection of socks. I understand that checkusers don't block, and that I need to request blocks here? Accordingly, could someone take a look at the results and take whatever action is necessary?

    The currently unblocked usernames are:

    The temporarily blocked usernames are:

    The apparent puppetmaster is:

    I believe that these socks are all incarnations of User:Bennet556 and User:Nimbley6, however the checkuser was unable to determine that for certain.

    Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 02:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked all of the accounts listed above indefinately, citing the checkuser case. This looks like what was needed here, as the CU case indicated clear abusive sockpuppetry to me. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Harassment at my usertalk by User:QuackGuru

    I have notified User:QuackGuru that he is not welcome to post article/content related discussion on my user talk page, and to take such discussion to the relevant article talk page. Despite these politely worded requests, his harassment continues. I have previously asked him not to post on my user talk page at all, but he has been informed by an admin that he is welcome to post on user talk pages as a form of dispute resolution. While I still believe a user should have control over their user_talk page, I respect the input from the admin, and welcome comments on my behaviour as part of dispute resolution. However, article content is best discussed at the article talk page where all involved editors can benefit from the discussion, and the repeated posting to my talk page is unwanted harassment. Hopefully and admin can find a amicable solution to this. DigitalC (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have notified QG of this thread. لennavecia 03:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Related complaint: User_talk:Shell_Kinney#Possible_3RR.2Fbullying_violation --Surturz (talk) 03:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It was bad faith by DigitalC to accuse me of wiki-lawyering and harrsment. It was bad faith by Surturz to accuse me of bullying. An editor falsely accused me of readding comments to a talk page. We have a lot of WP:AGF violations today. QuackGuru 04:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    AGF does not mean OCTBIGFISOAETTC (Obstinately Continue To Believe In Good Faith In Spite Of All Evidence To The Contrary). Looie496 (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Don't be the pot calling the kettle black. Besides, the user seems to be engaging in some soapboxery intended to harm Wikipedia and/or engage in Wiki-bashing callouts to Jimbo as well as Larry Sanger (see [74] and [75]). User seem to disregard every bit of advice and warnings given and to persist on biting the hand that feeds all of us. MuZemike (talk) 06:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Methinks a short block of Quackguru is in order.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 07:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok after taking a look at what's been going on while I was trying to catch some sleep here's what I've got: Controversial information was added to the Chiropractic article again without any discussion on talk first - everyone involved should be completely unsurprised that this didn't go over well and you should have known better. The fact that Levine, Surturz and DigitalC all showed up to support the change on the article talk rather quickly looks a lot like you coordinated this effort; that's also not likely to go over well and you should have known better. QuackGuru then reacted very poorly and extended the dispute to other editor's talk pages even though discussion was ongoing at the article talk. He then furthered this disruption by attempting to force an editor to answer on their talk by edit warring; it doesn't matter that he changed the wording slightly each time, it had the same effect. Finally this same group of editors plus TheDoctorIsIn all arrived at ANI to complain about QuackGuru, again giving the appearance that you are coordinating your efforts.

    On to outcomes: I have blocked QuackGuru for a week; he has quite a lengthy block log related to similar disruption yet has never given an indication that he understands why his behavior is a problem or that he intends to change it. As for the rest of you Levine, Surturz, DigitalC, TheDoctorIsIn - its no secret that you're here to push a particular POV into the Chiropractic article. Other editors have attempted to work with you for many months despite repeated problems. Because the article is under special ArbCom sanctions which you have all been made aware of, this acting in tandem to push material into an article or sanction other editors is unlikely to be tolerated for long. I would suggest that you return to liberal use of the talk page and avoid the appearance of off-site coordination in the future. Shell babelfish 09:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HonourOfficerMcPhaill

    Well.. To start off, this user has basically, almost only contributed to the article Troy Davis case, in which he or she has removed large amounts of information, changed things to slant in regards to their POV, and added content in regards to their POV. Did I mention the removed content was sourced?

    To clarify, I know that WP:SSP is ---> that way.

    Two editors to my knowledge believe that this user is a sockpuppet, I have asked for evidence regarding this sockpuppetry claim, but I have so far gotten no response.

    The other user involved is Jatkins. And for ease of evidence gathering, and ability to contact, SelfEvidentTruths's user link.

    Please weigh in.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rassmguy again .. sort of..

    This user, as some of you may know, has either had his account compromised, or was actually apart of either a small sockpuppet farm, or a massive one. I frankly don't really have the attention span at the moment to read through his five-hundred-word rant/tirade on his talk page. So far he has accused User:Zephyrad of operating multiple accounts, of violating WP:OWN, and stalking him. He of course has failed to assume good faith here. Up above the rant, I asked for evidence, evidence that I still have yet to receive; and this is when I provided a to what diffs were, along with requesting them.

    For those of you not familiar with this user, and the ANI thread, please view the Checkuser/IP request archive request and the aforementioned AN/I thread. Please weigh in.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    LNER Peppercorn Class A1 Edit war

    This article is a battleground between three editors - Biscuittin, MickMacNee and Tony May. The case is at informal mediation, and a request for formal mediation was rejected because MickMacNee refused to accept the request.

    Issues associated with the edit war include WP:ABF, WP:OWN, possible WP:3RR breaches, and accusations of WP:SOCK without raising a sockpuppet case.

    As a result of a discussion on WT:UKRAIL, I looked over the article. I downgraded it from B to C class and gave an assessment of where the article needed working on. I pointed out to all three editors the WP:CON needed to be gained over the main area that they disagree on, and showed an example of how to achieve this. To be honest, Biscuittin has shown the most positive response to my comments, and is working at improving the article. There has been no positive response from the other two editors involved. I did ask an Admin to intervene, but that admin has declined as he feels he is not able to address the issues for personal reasons.

    Therefore, I'm bringing this to AN/I for discussion as I am of the opinion the MickMacNee and Tony May are not going to stop shouting at each other and start talking to each other. Mjroots (talk) 08:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have been involved, with Mjroots, in attempting to resolve this informally by asking the involved editors to take a step back and remain civil, so far without result. I have also raised the discussion at two project talk pages in an attempt to bring neutral editors into the discussion. I support the statement above by Mjroots and believe the situation requires intervention from an administrator. ColourSarge (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    good bye

    okay man, i've had it with you and wikipedia - i left, don't bother banning me but if you can't resist, then go ahead and bring it on! you guys gave me a hard time, i'm done with this shit. see ya! Jouke Bersma Contributions 11:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=258337781"