Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

User:Luciferwildcat

If lacking clue were a reason for an admin to block someone then we would never have any new users. Its perfectly OK not to get everything about our complicated rules around inclusion straight away. What is disruptive is the way that the two protagonists here can't engage civilly. Its unacceptable and we are all bored by the constant back and forth. Please can you both knock it off and stop talking to each other. Just ignore the others' posts and we can all be happy. If not, interaction bans and worse hover in the background. Spartaz Humbug! 18:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Luciferwildcat (talk · contribs) I didn’t want it to come to this, but this user is sticking in my craw. His biggest problem is a general lack of CLUE concerning sources and civility, especially with regard to AFD and the use of the term “bad faith”. He has blown what would have been a routine AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. David School (Richmond, California) into a battleground, in part by claiming that fleeting and junk references to the school make it notable, and continuing to banter on after two editors noted that the AfD is a lost cause for him. A perfect example of his lack of CLUE (and following me) is his vote here at an AfD I started on a school with no sources…he accuses me of disruptive AfDs when I nominate articles that have been ill-sourced for years; to say nothing of ignoring precedent on elementary schools that says that all schools aren’t notable. When I tagged an article for notability, instead of explaining why it was notable, he accused my tagging of being disruptive. This guy started a ridiculous ANI about me a few weeks back and was blocked for it; apparently he didn’t learn his lesson, as he started a ridiculous pump thread earlier today (one where being at the completely wrong place was the least of its problems). He also left a lump of coal on my talk page. Also concerning me is what appears to be canvassing; with regard to the St. David AfD he messaged every single editor (and that’s over 50), and there are other examples besides. I know this is a loaded word, but Lucifer has, however unintentionally, come off a bit as a troll. I know I am involved, but I would appreciate it if this user were blocked for awhile and topic-banned from AfD for awhile longer until he gets a little more CLUE Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC) Although I share some of Purplebackpack's concerns about Luciferwildcat's behavior, I do not think that the problems have risen to the level where blocks or topic bans are called for. I observe a negative interpersonal dynamic at work between these two editors, and accordingly have offered each a friendly recommendation to disengage from the other. To no avail - so be it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC) I second Cullen's remarks. User Luciferwildcat appears to be overly passionate about everything connected to Richmond, California, and to be unwilling to accept consensus if it goes against inclusion. However, I think these are matters for education, not sanction. This user works hard and is likely to be a valuable contributor, if they can just learn to tone it down a bit - and to accept Wikipedia consensus about what is and is not deserving of an article here. --MelanieN (talk) 07:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC) I personally have an inclusionist worldview and take personal offense when I observe mass nominations from editors that do not put in a similar amount of effort into finding sources or actual editing. I find it perplexing that someone would report that I need to get a "CLUE" while they complain that essentially my disagreeing with them, participating in AFDs, and not voting or holding similar views to them requires I get a clue. It would seem to be quite the opposite. It's not my intention at all to get in anyone's "craw". I don't quite know what that means but from the context I assume it could be replaced with "in my business", "riding my a--", or "britches" (correct me if I am wrong). I don't see how it is constructive to complain about my pattern of discussion as "bantering" when a good AfD would have a lot of discussion ideally. It should be noted that this user followed me to the St. David School article and led me to the AfDs again where I saw several other schools for nomination. As someone that has gone to Catholic schools and lives in the U.S. I remembered that every time I go into the office of a school there are framed news stories about the school from newspapers and magazines and also awards which reminded me of the NRVE argument and as such I decided to chime in. It is a very common but absolutely not universal worldview here that all schools are notable. Not just that the article survived a deletion attempt in the past so I didn't think it was a lost cause and further I have every right to my opinion, comment, and vote as he does and it violates everything that I have come to learn from wikipedia and consensus that I should not be able to state it or someone would whine about me offering my meager 2 cents. Perhaps there is some bitterness from the fact that I have sucessfully rescued several articles he has nominated for deletion. But it is misguided and counterproductive. In the end we both win. The articles were largely saved but the content was much improved. He says I am ignoring precedent which comes off as him attempting to dominate my perceptions and decision making in how I vote and framing it as disruptive in and of itself something that is most disingenuous as it is a fallacy of opinion versus actual policy which is nonexistant with regards to non high schools / colleges. I was never blocked for starting an ANI about this user. This user, simply based on my understanding of "WP:STALK" at the time, elicited me to begin a discussion on his behavior that at the time was annoying me and another user with superfluous and quite pedantic discussion threads on every minute detail and demanding responses to nearly every comment of his mass nominations of city councilmembers (and out of over a dozen AfDs only one was deleted) I thought discussing the matter to help him COOL down and take things SLOW would be constructive. I feel that ANI was rather stonewalled and not taken seriously. Later a made statements that referred to the complaints made therein on an AfD and was given a short block for that and I accept that. I should have focused my commentary on content and not the individual characters (editors) of wikipedia and that should help avoid any such problem in the future. The fact that this editor saw the question I asked at the village pump just goes to show he may be monitoring my edits. I genuinely desire to get along with if not avoid this user entirely, as our interests have collided then the former is paramount and I solicited advice on this matter, but did so with wording that completely avoids using his name so as not to tarnish anyone's reputation (of course I am aware a very interested party might follow my history and deduce his identity but the fact remains I did not lambast him in a public forum, I just would like to resolve any bad blood and therefore chose this approach.) I don't find the thread to be ridiculous it's a sincere attempt at input needed to resolve tension. I did in fact send him a lump of coal, but it was tongue in cheek and I made sure he knew that, in fact he sent me the same thing on my talk page. Apparently the message has been lost and its not something I plan on doing. I informed every editor of the AfD for St. Davids, and that is something that as far as I know, the AfD template itself suggests that the nominator do! Notwithstanding this editor himself has informed every editor for some of his AfDs so this complaint is something that I find quite ludicrous. My message was extremely bland and informed people that have edited or participated in the previous AfD that it was on on the chopping block. I am confused as to why this user's ANI was quickly set aside and mine is still up, as we complained of nearly identical behavior. And I don't mind any of the names he is calling me but If I was blocked for expressing a position that I described at the time this user's edits as "bad faith" then shouldn't he in fact be blocked for calling me a troll? I am not advocating that, but I just would like some feedback on that from the powers that be so that I can better understand the due process here. Lastly I find it very suspicious he would ask that I be topic banned from AfDs since most of the AfDs that we are both involved in I have prevented from being deleted and helped to dramatically improve. I think this would just lead to a loss for wikipedia of hard to source but still notable subjects. Also the best way forward from my end will be to only discuss subject matter and disengage entirely from this user. I do apologize to you sir for any inconvenient feelings or distress that in have in any way brought forth in your spirit. I wish you the best and merry christmas and goodbye. Thank you all for your attention to this matter.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Holy WP:TLDR Noformation Talk 21:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Comment: I think the above banter speaks for itself that Lucifer just can't let this go, and needs to get a CLUE. In addition, within the last hour, he has counter-!voted on some school-related AfDs I voted in (voting with the false/continually refuted premise that all schools are notable); and it honestly seems to me that he followed me to them, as !voting on non-Bay Area articles seems to be out of his general editing scope. (For diffs, see his recent contributions) Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Both editors have presented their reasoning but few supporting WP:DIFFs. Both some to have overlapping interest in school related deletion discussions. There's definitely no justification for a block and not much need for intervention except perhaps, education for LWC in more effective communication on noticeboards. I'd encourage pbp to try to have more patience with new editors Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 01:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Comment A topic thread about me that you started and you pinged me to contribute to is not me not letting go, it's me responding accusations. I did not "countervote" anywhere you did, I simply voted on some school related and Bay Area related topics, because as far as wikipedia is concerned it is the focus of my attention, I also voted on several dozen topics completely unrelated to the bay area or schools or council members. It's unfortunate you assume that is what is going on. I think if anyone needs get a "CLUE" it's you, comments such as this one "Frankly, Unscintillating's obstinent keepism is boarding on disruption."[1] are nonsensical and ridiculous. This user uses talks down to people with an authority he does not have.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Lucifer, you started voting at AfDs today with the ones I had voted in. That seems like a pattern (not to mention that most of your AfD votes disregard precedent). And how is the quote nonsensical and ridiculous? It was in response to Unscintillating a) saying you can't discuss notability in an AfD and that I had no argument when I clearly had an argument; and b) refusing to admit the outcome of the Maria Viramontes AfD discussion by throwing a pile of meaningless references that didn't establish notability in the absolutely wrong place. But this isn't about Unscintillating, this isn't even about me, this is about you Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC) I have already made that clear and I accept your unresponsiveness. No editor that objects to a deletion decision has to "accept" it if they wish to bring it toward AfD. That is why the process exists. I have not "thrown" any references or commented anywhere that I am not supposed to. The only page with a large body of references about Viramontes was not created by me. The Deletion Review process requires contacting the deletor as a prerequisiteBefore listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page. Please stop your pattern of accusing me of violating policy when you are completely wrong.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC) Um, I attributed those things to Unscintillating, not you... Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 21:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Agree that nothing here puts us in block territory, but with that said, no editor should feel obligated to sift through walls of text like that in order to determine the validity of what's contained therein. Almost anything needed to be said on a talk page can be said in about 1/5th of that wall, and that which needs more space should use paragraphs and normal English communication methods. I managed to get through about a quarter of it and a lot of it is just irrelevant. Noformation Talk 01:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Noformation, there's a section of TLDR that specifically discusses Wikipedia:TLDR#Maintain_civility. If you only got through a quarter you really aren't in a position to comment on its quality. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 02:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC) The whole point I'm making is that no editor should be expected to read that and most simply will dismiss it. Noformation Talk 02:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC) I agree; unfortunately TLDR is written it such a way that merely referencing it comes off as rude, especially to a fairly new editor. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 14:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC) comment I apologize for any convolusion and I will try to be more succinct and paragraph things in the future I was just trying to be comprehensive and cover every accusation in depth. Sometimes I forget that not everyone is good at reading a lot and fast as fast as I can type and even if they can it's necessary to maintain their interest. I motion to close this thread then.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Sorry. As the person under discussion, you can't be the one to "motion (sic) to close the thread". In fact your behavior here seems to suggest that I was wrong in my comment above, when I said that all you needed was to get a little education in Wikipedia policy and to "tone it down a little". Far from taking that advice, you are continuing to rant. You appear to be completely resistant to what other editors here are trying to tell you - calm down, listen to others, develop some perspective - while you continue to rehash at great length your battle with Purplebackback and your apparent belief that everything, notable or not, ought to have a Wikipedia article. --MelanieN (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC) You can, however, be the one to decide to let others have the WP:LASTWORD. No one's calling for you to be blocked, so you can review the feedback you get here and use it as guide for future editing . Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 02:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Comment  PBP's open uncivil aggression in this ANI toward me is simply one example of the problem.  The purpose of the aggression is to throw smoke over the unprovoked personal attack being discussed.  What I have learned in trying to work with PBP is that he/she is unresponsive to editorial feedback.  For example, he/she continues to mention WP:ANYBIO and WP:POLITICIAN as if the WP:GNG does not exist.  For my part, I don't know if PBP is WP:CIR incompetent or is just using incivility as a tactic.  Repeated removal of reliable sources from an article being discussed for deletion, and defending the action as a "content" dispute, is another example of deviant behavior.  In general, removal of references is considered to be abuse.  The spamming of AfD discussions is another example of a problem.  Administrative intervention for PBP is needed.  Administrative warnings need to be issued that PBPs behavior must change.  An AfD topic ban for PBP of one month would be a mild and appropriate sanction.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC) PBP has shown some severe "ownership" problems with his nominations at AfD. I counted 17 generally badgering comments in one nomination of a stubbish piece about a borderline local politician, for example. This is the root issue here, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC) A one-month AfD ban would be horrendously inappropriate. I see nothing wrong with commenting many times in an AfD that frankly should've just resulted in an unceremonious delete. And what the heck is wrong with using ANYBIO and POLITICIAN? They are relevant guidelines. And I will not apologize for removing what Unscintillating claims are "reliable sources", as they were junk references that had not been properly integrated into the article, they did not really establish notability as they were trivial, other editors agreed with the removals, and I explained why I removed them on either the talk page or in edit summaries. Not seeing how commenting multiple times in an AfD equates to ownership, either Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Comment I agree, I just got called a troll and as someone that got blocked for three days for expressing that I felt harassed and what at the time I described as "bad faith" edits and mass nominations for deletion, shouldn't he be blocked as well? It seems only fair. So far this user has made Me, Carrite, and Unscintillating feel very bothered and annoyed, and a word that I was told I can no longer use to describe this user. So why no block?LuciferWildCat (talk) 11:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC) Comment - In the interest of ending drama, I think an interaction ban between these two might be an excellent idea. I think both are serious about Wikipedia, each in their own way, but there is bad blood, mutual stalking, and indications that one or both might be sucking up too many addictive adrenaline hits from the drama. It's time for both of these potentially excellent editors to let it lie. Certainly PBP is gonna get whacked in the head by the proverbial boomerang if he pushes this too hard. I'm disappointed that this has been opened at all, frankly. Much head shaking... Carrite (talk) 01:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC) How would that would be implemented without giver a deletionist a first mover advantage? AFD topic ban for both? Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 02:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Just a WP:KNOCKITTHEHELLOFF personal interaction ban is what's needed here, I think. But the AfD situation needs to be closely watched. PBP in particular needs to learn the art of stating his case and then stepping back and letting event run their course on the nomination. Nominations are not matters of personal pride to be fought out to the last ditch... Carrite (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC) What I'm seeing here is "I should be banned because I don't agree with you" more than anything Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC) It's mostly a complaint on civility.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC) User:Purplebackpack89 Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs) User talk:Purplebackpack89's latest contribution to Wikipedia is another personal attack, here.  As stated above, I have found in trying to work with this editor that he/she is unresponsive to editorial feedback, and this personal attack in the context of this ANI discussion is yet another example.  I again request administrative intervention, including the deletion of the personal attack.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Speedy close: For starters, Unscintillating is wrong that that's a personal attack...it's merely an observation that can be backed up by editor's comments on his talk page. Another editors said almost exactly the same thing earlier today in regards to Unscintillating. Furthermore, this seems an attempt by Carrite and Unscintillating to punish me for not cow-towing to their essentially strong keepist views (Carrite, for example, says on his page that AfD should essentially be eliminated). Unscintillating's position can be summarized as follows: If a person is mentioned in a few places, however fleetingtly, he passes GNG If a person passes GNG, it should be kept; any other notability guideline is irrelevant. Whereas I say: A little more than bare notability is needed It would certainly help if the article passed the specific guidelines in addition to the general ones Needless to say, I think my position is better rooted in policy. Yes, I do favor removing references Unscintillating has put in, as they don't add anything to the article (don't establish notability; aren't properly integrated). And I'm not a lone wolf, other people have agreed with my position on both the AfD and the addition of this "references". I think that this discussion should be shelved, as it's little more than keepist banter punishing someone who wanted to delete an article that was an absolute joke prior to the AfD. I think any kind of a topic ban is inappropriate for me. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Oh, and why was I not notified of this discussion on my talk page? That further indicates to me that this is an ill-conceived thread Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Because you started it genius.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC) This is not a soapbox for this user's personal opinion on AfDs. It is a complaint regarding a personal attack. This user has called me a "troll" above and that is another personal attack. This comment is another repeat of his "junk" commment and a repeated pattern that I personally find to be bullying that I need to get a CLUE.[2]. I think a block is on order or a serious warning to stop being uncivil and making unproductive comments and using caustic rhetoric or else he will be blocked.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Um, Lucifer, a great many editors have said "get a CLUE", using different words, in the above thread, in previous ANI threads with which you were involved, and on your talk page. Should they also be blocked? And Unscintillating's main reason for starting this is that he and I call the AfD zone differently; his complaints don't amount to policy violations, which is why this subthread should be closed Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 02:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC) This editor should back off and stop making those sorts of statements. It would really be appreciated. Especially since they are based on untruths. All the articles have been kept except for one, another will be preserved via a merger but still 10 or 12 other decisions have led to keepings. So the message that needs to be understood by anyone missing it is that the general outcome is that they are notable. Regardless this editor should be blocked for his objectionable nonconstructive uncivil commentary.LuciferWildCat (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Starting an AfD that ends up being closed as keep isn't a reason to block, and not usually a reason to restrict. Let the following three facts be submitted about the AfDs I started: There were nine nominations; two were closed "no consensus" and one was deleted. Not a complete mandate Every single one of them had at least 35% of the editors voting delete The articles I nominated were in desreputable states when AfDed. Had they stayed in the condition at nomination, every single one would've been deleted I ask you and Unscintillating to quit misusing terms like "uncivil" and close this ridiculous thread Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 03:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Well, no point in repeating myself again. This user is being scolded over the cited comments, not deletion debate outcomes. This while continuing the pattern of either nominating articles for deletion that are likely to be kept or merged, or for unnecessary mergers. All targetting one city which I find suspicious and disingenuous.LuciferWildCat (talk) 06:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC) If you compare Richmond to other cities of its size, it has at least 2-3x as many articles relating to it as those cities. Many of those articles that are poorly written and/or on questionably notable topic, and therefore should be fixed, merged or deleted. And I already explained why what I said to you wasn't a personal attack; I also pointed out that numerous other editors have said the same thing Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Comment - Oh, for fuck's sake, I give up. You don't want to interaction ban these two, Administrators? You wanna step back and let them squirt each other with lighter fluid to see what happens? Then they'll immolate each other and we're ultimately gonna lose two potentially good editors. Your call. For me, I've said my piece and there's no helping adrenaline addicts that don't want help. I'm out. Carrite (talk) 08:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC) To say that Lucifer and I are equally guilty is making a grave mistake. My edits are grounded in an understanding of policy; not so much with his. I am trying to clean up bad articles and make sure he follows policy. What he is doing I am not sure, but it appears that, despite numerous attempts by various editors, he still doesn't understand policy that well. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Comment How many times do the rest of us have to say it? We are sick and tired of this bickering and it's time for both Purplebackback and Luciferwildcat to Drop the stick and back slowly away from the dead horse. The problem is that both of you feel like you WP:OWN any subject you are involved in, and you escalate your disagreements to nuclear levels out of pride or stubbornness. In order to preserve the sanity of the rest of us without anyone getting banned, how about both of you observe a basic restraint: at an AFD discussion you should state your case ONCE, hopefully at a readable length instead of multiple paragraphs - and then step back and let the community hash it out. Don't respond to each and every user comment, especially if your response consists of repeating what you have said before. Don't get into shouting matches. Don't insist on having the last word. You don't really gain anything for your "side" by repeating fifteen times "this person is notable" or "none of these references are significant". To Purplebackback in particular: I feel you are wrong to delete references from an article under AfD, no matter how trivial you think they are. AfD is a process for developing consensus and people should be able to see all the evidence, even if you want some of it to be tossed out of court. Give the rest of us credit to know a trivial reference when we see it; you are not the sole judge of what does and doesn't count. Someone who wants to "rescue" an article is at liberty to add references, and their efforts should be given a fair evaluation by the community - not deleted by the nominator. To both of you: in this current discussion, you would benefit from shutting the @()*^ up. The more you continue to insist that YOU are following policy and the other guy is dead wrong, the more you demonstrate that your relationship is toxic and is hurting the encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Ownership is the wrong word. I also think that it's wrong to say removing bad references is the biggest problem, because a) There's no reason that being at AfD excuses the addition of bad references or other bad content (and even the closing admin noted that only three of the dozen references added attested to notability), edits that would normally be done should also be undone while an article is at AfD; and b) I was not the only editor to do it, nor for that matter am I the only editor to be critical of Lucifer. This will be my last comment in the thread, unless a new subheading is started Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Coordinated attacks by socks

Resolved

 – articles semi protected for three days Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Several IPs have at almost the exact same time reverted several of my changes at Wikipedia, they go back to different places. It looks like some kind of coordinated sock hounding attack.

1. Ads Israel to the list, though the site added is not located in Israel:[3]

2. Removes sourced information about who called the fortress Nimrod and inserts falsehoods that it was Jews and other falsehoods that the Israel national parks authority is the owner:[4]

3. Ads a falsehood that Hermon is the highest elevation in Israel though Hermon is not located in Israel: [5]

4. Ads a falsehood that the tunnel is in Israel, despite that it isn't: [6]

5: Ads a falsehood that the church is in Israel, despite that it isn't: [7]

(this is continuing right now as Im typing this, the socks are going through my edits)

Every single one of these coordinated reverts by the different IPs is a revert of my edit, you can also look in my edit history the edits I made on 19 December regarding places in East Jerusalem that many socks showed up to revert my edits. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

They are not tors/open proxies and nearly all come from US - looks like many coordinated users (4chan-like). Materialscientist (talk) 07:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I've just semi-protected St. Toros Church, List of archaeoastronomical sites by country, Nimrod Fortress, List of elevation extremes by country and Western Wall Tunnel for three days. Based on this I'm assuming that these IP accounts are sock or meat puppets of Israelite1 (talk · contribs). Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

These look more like some sort of perhaps coordinated or sockpuppet POV pushing surrounding the status of Jerusalem and other territories rather then a hounding attack. Nil Einne (talk) 12:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree, it's much more likely that you happen to have been editing the articles where they chose to go. It's simply that they disagree with you; I suspect that they would likewise have reverted me if I'd made one of your edits to one of these pages instead of you making it. Nyttend (talk) 13:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It is continuing: GRC:[8], Church of St peter: [9], Mary's Tomb:[10], Ecce Homo:[11], Cathedral of St James: [12], Church of St. James Intercisus:[13], Church of the Holy Sepulchre:[14], Lutheran church of the redeemer:[15], Christ Church: [16], Ghajar: [17], Category:Parks in Jerusalem: [18] (I created this cat), Kfar Haruv: [19], List of bees of Israel and the occupied territories: [20]. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Notifying Xerxes1337 (talk · contribs) and RxJar (talk · contribs) - the rest are all IPs, and I'll have those articles protected, if they aren't already by then, in a sec. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Notifications given, and another admin had already protected most of those articles - I got the remainder. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that Bushranger. Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

• Still continuing, with hordes of IPsocks having decided I'm a puppet of the Arabs and saying so on my talk page. I'll continue to revert them while enjoying my Christmas ham. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we could have a user that also uses 4chan, for example, make a thread like "OK lets all vandalize Israel" and then wait until Israel is vandalized and block the users with a reason "This has been a 4chan vandal sting operation", and after a number of times, people wouldn't know if the real vandals are coordinating these or Wikipedians, decreasing the occurences. Thoughts? Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 17:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Satisfying as running a false-flag against 4chan might be, I think WP:DENY is the best way to handle it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Socks are back: [21]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Mass removal of free license tags from files

It looks like Fastily just mass removed several hundred free license tags from images on en.wiki within the span of a few minutes, mostly under his alternate account FSII. This seems to be based on a misunderstanding of how free licenses interact with copyrights. I left a message on Fastily's talk page but haven't gotten any response. It's 3 a.m. on Christmas morning here, so I'm not going to be able to follow-up on this. If someone else could look into it, it would be appreciated. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 11:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

• Good Lord, that was an awful lot of edits in a short space of time.—S Marshall T/C 11:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

• These are images tagged with two or more contradictory tags e.g. [22]. The few I looked at are photos of copyrighted sculptures, possibly being non-free derivative works in countries that don't have freedom of panorama. MER-C 13:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC) I indented your comment to make it more readable. Nyttend (talk) 13:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

However, Fastily's edits completely ignore the benefit of having the free CC licenses. They're added to say "I release my rights to this image under ___ license." Wait until the subjects of these images are PD or until a freedom of panorama law gets passed — or modify these images so that the subjects are either missing or are de minimis — and you suddenly have a freely licensed image. Remove the CC license template in such a situation and you have an image that's all-rights-reserved despite the lack of an issue with the subject. Nyttend (talk) 13:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Although not precisely the same situation, File:JackLondon ADaughterOfTheSnows.jpg is a good example of how these license tags are useful. Someone uploaded a self-taken photo of a book cover and tagged it as non-free; another image of a different cover for the same book was later uploaded in its place. The original cover was wrongly tagged (it's PD-text), but because the photographer didn't say anything about releasing his/her rights into the public domain or under a free license, we can't use that image of a PD original. Regardless of the context, it is harmful to remove statements by uploaders that their own rights over an image are freely licensed or in the public domain. Nyttend (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I highly disagree with the idea of putting free tags on any sort of non-free images --Merry Christmas from Guerillero 16:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree there is a problem here. We have many images that are derivative works with multiple copyright authors. For example, in the US, if you take a photograph of a 3D sculpture, then both the photographer and the sculptor are considered to have creative rights to the photo. We need to acknowledge both on the image description page. Template:Photo of art was recently created as a generic wrapper for cases like this. It allows a photographer to say their creative rights are freely licensed even though the underlying work remains non-free. Removing the photographer's statement simply makes the work violate the photographer's rights. Many of these need to be reverted. Due to the bot-like way this was accomplished, I would support reverting all of them so we can discuss them further. Perhaps we ultimately need a different way of handling this that makes the issue clearer, but we need to respect the rights of all parties that legally have an interest in a photo. Dragons flight (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

It's kind of ironic, but by removing the photographer's statement of free access to the photo (from the photography standpoint), you've actually made them now be copyright violations when they weren't before. Silverseren^C 18:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm concerned that almost no one actually appears to have read up on derivative works before coming here; there are many contradictory phrases above within statements and even amongst statements. Everyone, please, don't assert your own opinions as copyright law. To clarify - a file cannot be free and non-free at the same time. When applied to non-free works, the copyright of a derivative does indeed belong to the original copyright holder(s) and the party who created the derivative. HOWEVER, the party who created a work derived from a creative work is not permitted to license this photo however they wish; the derivative of a copyrighted work may be licensed under the same license as the original work, or under a more restrictive license. By releasing a derivative under a less restrictive license, the party that created the derivative effectively infringes upon the intellectual property rights of the original copyright holder(s). -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The whole idea that the creator of, say, a statue owns the copyright of a tourist's photo of the statue is absurd...but, them's the law. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As I said on User talk:Fastily I do not like the idea of having photos as both free and unfree. I suggested that we could create or tweak a template to something like this {{Photo of <statue/art/whatever>|<Non-free-use-template>|<License for photo>|expiry=<year when the statue/art/whatever will be PD-old>}}. Then the photo can be unfree untill the expiry year and after that the free license could apply. --MGA73 (talk) 22:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Any time I have ever uploaded a photo of a statue, it's been zapped as violating "no freedom of panorama". I'd like to know what has changed, if anything, to where a pic like File:Athletes monument.jpg is now allowed? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

If the statue is not free then any photos of it will be deleted as a copyvio unless you manage to produce a fair use rationale that is accetable. --MGA73 (talk) 23:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The lack of "freedom of panorama" in the US overrides any attempt at a "fair use" rationale - or at least that was the explanation at the time. This sounds like the usual shifting sand of what's acceptable in wikipedia, which is why I don't upload pictures of statues anymore. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

No, you're overreacting. Let's work with public statues in the US , where such works are protected by freedom of paronama. Since it is impossible to take a free image of that image(*) there's no free replacement. Thus you just need to show that the picture meets NFC policy. I'm 99% sure there are articles on these works of art with photos or the like. You can't use them decoratively - so, we can't use a statue of John Q Public on an article about JQP unless there is notable discussion about the statue itself.

(*) That said, I have come to understand that the freedom of panorama rules apply to the photographer. If a photographer from a country with very lax FOP (photos of art in public places are not derivative works), then as I have been told, that photo can be free. (Yes, this screams to be very odd in copyright law). That doesn't mean that we can expect a foreign wikipedian editor to easily make a free photo of a US statue, ergo a non-free of the statue is not easily replaced by a free image. --MASEM (t) 01:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Time for someone to file an RFC? (Why is it Christmas always somehow has a row? XD )Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

As long as the purpose of the RFC is to figure out what the rules are. I would have to agree with Fastily here: Any alleged copyright of the photo is superceded by the artist's copyright on the work of art shown in the photo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyrights do not "supercede" each other, they are cumulative. Regardless, the {{Photo of art}} template needs to be changed to clarify the issues. It should not, however, be mass removed from images (which is in many cases of violation of the uploader's licensing agreement). Kaldari (talk) 23:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Fastily, your response implied that they were all derivative works of copyrighted works, but you did not say that. Did you make that determination on all of these? North8000 (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I think they will have been if they were statues on US soil. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, however I have studied US copyright law and studied many of the important court rulings on copyright. A lack of freedom of panorama is not more restrictive than a routine copyright. It merely means that ordinary copyright does apply. A photo of a copyrighted statue is a derivative work. In plain English this means the image is in effect controlled by two copyrights, the photographer's copyright and the sculptor's copyright. Wikipedia should specifically support the attachment of two licensing sections. To use the image we need to check once against the sculptor's copyright and once against the photographer's copyright. We can use the image if we pass both copyright checks. The fact that a photographer grants an express license is very valuable. It brings us back to considering just the sculptor's copyright according to standard non-free fair use consideration. In fact a photo of a statute is much easier to qualify for fair use, as compared to a photo of an album cover or other non-free image. A photo only "copies" a portion of the statute, a photo is a significant transformation from a statue, a photo does not replace the market for the statute, and the statue only composes a portion of the photo. These four things weigh strongly in favor of fair use. The case for fair use is grossly tilted in our favor once you consider the fact that an encyclopedia is an educational use. Images of statues should have a far easier threshold-of-justification than the use of album covers or other non-free images. BTW, the nationality of the photographer is not relevant. Alsee (talk) 04:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Bot war

There is now an edit war over the hundreds of images changed by Fastily. I would like to suggest that everyone cool their guns and we discuss how to resolve this situation without just reverting each other. My suggestion would be to revise the functionality of {{Photo of art}} as suggested above and restore it to the images in question. This should satisfy both sides of the debate and keep everyone's rights and intentions intact regarding the images. Kaldari (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thankfully a cease-fire seems to be in place now. Kaldari (talk) 00:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Tip of the iceberg, then?

Question: if Fastily's assertion is correct, does this not hold equally for photographs of designed objects like phones, cars, jewellery, or indeed just about any designed object? If this is the case, doesn't that mean tens of thousands of images here and at Commons should be retagged, and many of them deleted? If this isn't the case, what is the evidence that sculpture enjoys more protection than do other designed objects? Testovergian (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the world of media files on WMF projects. We've been having these issues for years now. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Freedom of panorama restrictions apply to telephones, which are utilitarian objects. Statues are works of art and are typically unique. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)::(edit conflict) Yeah, it isn't actually. I should have been more clear, sorry. I agree with the fact that there are many problematic images, but not necessarily with the images above. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

In most countries, utilitarian objects are explicitly not covered by copyright. Kaldari (talk) 00:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

One could argue the iPhone and the Macbook are works of carefully-designed art. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 02:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I note the creative way that File:Group of smartphones.jpg is tagged. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama is a red herring here. If I take a picture of anything that is copyright, I create a derivative work, and will interact with the copyright held by the creator of the object I photographed. All freedom of panorama gives is the ability to make a prescribed type of image of an object in prescribed setting, which is not considered to violate the copyright held by the creator of the object. So in the UK I can take pictures of statues in a garden, embroideries in a church or daleks in a museum, without violating the copyright of the creator of the statues, embroideries or daleks. In the US, I can take pictures of architecture, provided I'm standing on the public highway, but i can't take pictures of statues. In France, I can't take pictures of the Eiffel Tower, because the lighting scheme is considered copyright. If I create a derivative work, copyright vests in both me and the creator of the thing I photographed. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama is NOT a red herring. It's the same situation as what I've described. Just to be clear, there's nothing to stop me from taking pictures of statues in the US. I just can't publish them without permission. And before I knew about any of these details, someone zapped a statue photo I had uploaded, saying, "There is no freedom of panorama in the US." Nothing about "fair use", but only, "You can't do this. It's gone. See ya." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

This photo of File:Honuswagnerstatue.JPG is alleged to be public domain, yet it fails the "freedom of panorama" test. I'd like to know how Fastily missed that one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Er...because it's on Commons. Commons has a robust disregard for all limitations on freedom of panorama - the position taken by Commons is that if it's in a public place, it's available to be photographed.Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that if I upload my own picture of the Wagner statue, directly to commons, I can similary claim it as "free content"??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, if your statement is true, why does File:Athletes monument.jpg say, "Do not copy this file to Wikimedia Commons. The subject of this image is still protected by copyright. Commons does not accept 'fair-use' images"? By your argument, the File:Athletes monument.jpg should be uploaded directly to commons with a free license, just as the Wagner statue photo was. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't bite my head off - I didn't invent the rules in this crazy house!! This is what Commons has to say on FOP - what it does in practice is apply the German law, so if the object is permanently mounted and visible from the street, you can photograph it without violating the creator's copyright. Photos of statues on US soil contain a copyright element from the original work, and so cannot be released under a Wikipedia compatible free license. They can be used under a claim of fair use - but the person who took the photo would need to have permission from the creator of the object to make the reproduction, or it may be regarded as having been made illegally. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't intend to bite your head off, I'm just trying to figure out what the rules are. I thought I knew, but this throws a wrench into it. I have a couple of photos of the Wagner statue. If I upload them to commons, with the same license as the other guy's Wagner statue photo, will it be out of reach of the deletionists? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Following up on the side discussion at the Delta talk page, I'm hopeful we can get an explicit ruling from commons, as there's no point in my uploading something if it's going to be rejected sooner or later. We'll see! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The US does have freedom of panorama (s120 of the Copyright Law) but it only applies to architecture. Statues are copyright under s102. There was some kind of legal case in the US that established beyond doubt that the creator of a statue has a right to assert his legal position where profit from a photo of his statue is concerned. This means that in the US, if you take a photo of a statue without permission, you may have unlawfully created a derivative work (s103), which is why the pictures keep getting zapped. s103 also explains why people are up in arms - if I take an arty shot of a Henry Moore sculpture in the Yorkshire sculpture park - which I can do perfectly legally under the UK freedom of panorama law - I hold the copyright in the arty shot, and it is important to the pedia to know whether I have released it under a license, released it pd, or have reserved all rights.Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand that the copyright of objects (not fixed works) depends on the utility. A car's shape with a generic paint job cannot by copyrighted because that's a utilitian shape. --MASEM (t) 01:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Basically, a "work of art" would be copyright. A non-art work would be trademarked but not copyrighted. Complete non-lawyer opinion from somebody who thinks that the whole "a picture is copyvio" is stupid. The first thing we'll do is round up all the tourists in Paris taking snapshots of the Eiffel Tower. Then we'll turn our attention to the lawyers. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

A non-art work would generally not be trademarked. Trademark is for words, phrases, brands, etc., not for things (we won't talk about trade dress and, of course, there are exceptions to what I'm saying). The Eiffel Tower couldn't enjoy copyright protection under U.S. law. It was created too long ago. As for the lawyers, we could try copyrighting them but they probably wouldn't satisfy the originality threshold.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• If copyright worked the way editors here seem to think it works, then I'd sue the safety camera partnership any time they took a GATSO picture of my car. I'd be getting rich by driving past speed cameras at 100mph every time. Seriously: the commons view is correct. If something's in a public place and it gets photographed, then the photographer owns the copyright in that picture and he doesn't share it with anyone else. A photograph of the Eiffel Tower wouldn't be copyright of anyone but the photographer, even if it had been erected yesterday in the States, because it's in a public place.—S Marshall T/C 02:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The new arty-farty lighting rig on the Eiffel Tower is copyright according to les Frogs legale. The tower itself is pd. As with many things, the issue comes if you try to make money from it - there's no point pursuing all the tourists with cameraphones, and the government writes the laws..... Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, you don't own the copyright on your car. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought the special interests wrote the laws.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If anyone owns the copyright to your car, which is more than dubious, it's unlikely to be you unless you painted something on the car. I suggest you paint a fancy picture of you flipping the finger at the camera. Then, don't forget to register the painting with the copyright office so you can sue properly. Then, try to find a federal judge who won't look at you like you're crazy. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Elen, if it worked the way you say, then all I'd need to do is draw a picture on the side and write (c) S Marshall 2011. I'd be quids in. I'm sorry, but confident though you seem to be of your position, it's entirely mistaken.—S Marshall T/C 02:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23, your position is also entirely mistaken. Besides, there's no need to register a picture with the copyright office to claim copyright in it.—S Marshall T/C 02:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You really need to read more carefully what I wrote. I was talking about suing, not about "claim[ing] copyright." "You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work." ([23]).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're taking as 'my position.' Works of art that are copyright are protected in the US even if they are on the public street. See [24]. Try [25] for an explanation of the position in other countries. It affects your ability to take a photograph of it and publish or sell your photograph. Incidentally, as traffic enforcement agencies in the US don't routinely publish photographs taken with their cameras, it isn't an issue in the US, which requires publication to activate a great deal of its copyright law. In other countries, the government makes the law, and even if it has no freedom of panorama, you can bet it has an exemption for speed cameras.Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Firstly I don't think that 'les froges legale' is quite appropriate phraseology. However, this was a copyright case from last year that resolved in favour of the sculptor. John lilburne (talk) 09:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm sure there's a couple of diacritics missing :) Thanks for the case link - I knew it involved a war sculpture and a postage stamp, but hadn't turned up the actual judgement. Pages 7 (bottom) to 12 (top) contain an excellent discussion of transformative fair use. Page 24 (down at the bottom) contains a concise summary of US freedom of panorama - the copyright law does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place In other circumstances - if it is not an architectural work, if it is not ordinarily visible from a public place, then the copyright holder has the power to forbid the making of derivative works (s102 of the Act), hence there is a concern that the derivative work may contain a contribution from the original work that was obtained illegally, ie. without consent (does not necessarily imply breaking and entering to get the image). Page 4 (at the bottom) confirms that the person who took the photo (which was not taken illegally as photography at the location was permitted) is entitled to his own copyright protection in his photograph as a derivative work which was what started this whole thing off - Fastily's bot removing the second license whereby the photographer releases his own copyright in the image as far as he is able, given the status of the content for which there exists another copyright holder. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Fastily is now personally attacking me on his talk page.[26][27] This sort of behavior is surprising from an administrator. Kaldari (talk) 00:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I recommend not posting there again at the moment - not worth the hassle. In the meantime, Fastily does need to calm down. This is a complicated area and needs more discussion. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason it's complicated is because of the wishy-washy attitude about images which is apparently unique to the English wikipedia. The other wikipedias, last I had heard, don't allow anything except free content. English wikipedia "sort of" allows non-free, and "sort of" doesn't. When you try to have it both ways, these kinds of battles will inevitably erupt. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason English Wikipedia policy is "apparently unique" is probably because the US concept of Fair Use is rather alien to most countries. To the extent that foreign users are familiar with their country's copyright law, the knowledge they have is that non-free images are always illegal to use (in their country). They naturally (but mistakenly) believe non-free images are always be illegal to use here. But there's an even bigger problem. US Fair Use is very subtle and complex. Fair use is inherently "wishy washy", to use your term. Even if foreign uses did realize that their servers are US based and therefore non-free images are sometimes permissible, foreign language communities will generally lack the expertise to make use of US Fair Use in a safe manner. Alsee (talk) 05:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The following major Wikipedias allow some images that are neither freely licensed nor known to be in the public domain, but are legally allowed under policies such as "fair use": Czech, German, Greek, French, Italian, Japanese, Russia, Thai, Chinese (among others). However, in some cases the exemptions allowed are much more narrow than allowed in English. For example, the German exemptions relate narrowly to very old images of unknown authorship that are probably in the public domain but can't be ascertained for sure due to unknown authorship / copyright ownership. For another example, Japanese exemptions deal with certain freedom of panorama issues that would be free under Japanese law but require a fair use justification under US law. Though English Wikipedia policy is more expansive than most, a few wikis, notably Greek, Italian, Thai, and Chinese, are quite similar to the English Wikipedia. Dragons flight (talk) 07:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Moving on

Unless someone has a better idea, I'm going to ask the WMF legal department for their opinion on Tuesday and then update the {{Photo of art}} template accordingly. In the meantime, I would suggest we all take a break from the issue and try to enjoy the holidays. Kaldari (talk) 01:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I, for one, would very much like to hear what the WMF has to say about File:Athletes monument.jpg and also about the allegedly "free" photo of Honus Wagner, File:Honuswagnerstatue.JPG, which to me looks like it should be labeled as non-free just as the Athletes monument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The issue is actually pretty simple if you lay it out right. A photograph of a copyrighted sculpture is a derivative work of that sculpture. This means that the photographer has copyright in the photo that is subject to the sculptor's copyright, but not defined by it or limited to it. If the photographer did not have a new copyright in the photograph, it would be just a copy and not a derivative (as it would be if the original work were just a 2D painting) and we wouldn't have to worry about the photographer at all. But because a photograph of a sculpture in situ necessarily involves creative expression on the part of the photographer (choice of angle, composition, lighting) just the same as a photo of any 3D object, it is a derivative with two layers of rights we must be concerned with.

What is confusing Fastily and others is that, for use within Wikipedia, we must treat the files as nonfree because of the unlicensed copyrighted elements of these derivatives (i.e., the sculpture depicted) and so usage must satisfy WP:NFCC. But that doesn't take care of all the issues.

We must ALSO demonstrate that the copyrightable elements created by the photographer are freely licensed, by displaying the photographer's chosen licensing terms. And this also advertises to reusers that, not only is the sculpture not freely licensed, but this particular depiction of it is FURTHER subject to the GFDL or CC license. So even if someone has a legal fair use claim to use an image of a Picasso sculpture, to use MY derivative photograph they also must comply with MY licensing terms. Otherwise, they must ALSO have a fair use claim regarding my particular photograph. Similarly, if we fail to demonstrate that a derivative author freely licensed his contributions, then we must satisfy NFCC TWICE--for the underlying nonfree work AND for the particular nonfree photograph of it.

Baseball Bugs' File:Honuswagnerstatue.JPG should illustrate these points well. The sculpture is presumably copyrighted, which makes this a derivative (no FOP for sculptures in the U.S.), and so yes, nonfree within Wikipedia. Crop or black out the sculpture, however, and you have just a photograph of the building behind it, no longer a derivative. There is clearly a contribution made by the photographer above and beyond the sculptor's work. And if the sculpture were to lapse into the public domain, the photograph would then be solely subject to the photographer's rights.

In sum, in the case of derivatives, we need to document both that NFCC is met for the underlying nonfree work and that the derivative author has chosen a particular free license for THEIR portion of the work. I personally think Template:Photo of art accurately reflects this at present and places an appropriate emphasis on the file as nonfree while also acknowledging the derivative author's rights, but I'd be happy to discuss any proposed changes on that template's talk page. postdlf (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

That seems to me to be an excellent summary as I understand the matter. But this "dual" copyright situation can easily cause us a more prosaic problem, which I think is what Fastily was trying to fix. Take a look at the bottom of File:Athletes monument.jpg: since the file is tagged with both {{cc-by-3.0}} (for the photograph) and {{Non-free 3D art}} (for the sculpture), the image is in both Category:All free media and Category:All non-free media. The former is, of course, incorrect because the image as a whole is not free. Anomie⚔ 17:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the category issue is also what caused User:Sfan00 IMG to create the photo of art template. I think the best solution would be to create derivative-specific categories, something like "non-free derivatives with GFDL elements", to the extent we need that much detail in the categories. My main concern is making sure everything is set forth properly on the image description page. The categories can just follow whatever scheme is best for whatever mainentance purpose the image categories are used, even if that means just categorizing them as nonfree without further distinction. postdlf (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Back in the day when I was an FS director, we made people have a copyright tag for all parts of a sound file. Could we do this with statues to show that dirivitve works are 100% free? If you think this statue thing is hell, you need to ignore sound files. In the worst cases, there could be up to 5 people's copyrights in play; underlying coposision, arrangment, perfomance, recording, audio engineering. --Guerillero | My Talk 19:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• This lengthy discussion (which amounts to nothing because no one above can be verified as a copyright lawyer) could have been avoided if one user just emailed Geoff Brigham and everyone else waited a couple days. Disputes over legal matters crack me up because it's usually a bunch of overexcited people without relevant credentials trying to be right and prove everyone else wrong. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

  You're assuming that the WMF will provide a useful answer. Historically, the WMF rarely gets involved in copyright issues until their is a complaint by an outside party. The reasons for this are pretty obvious. If they implicitly "authorize" something and they are wrong, then they can become liable for it, whereas if they simply let the community handle it, then the Foundation is mostly protected from liability. Perhaps Geoff provide a helpful response in this case, but anyone who has been on Wikipedia long enough realizes that most copyright issues are handled by volunteers. Many of those volunteers are self-educated on copyright (including some who routinely deal with copyright issues in their professional lives). A few volunteers also happen to be attorneys. Maybe the WMF will be helpful here, but historically a position of "wait for the WMF response" on copyright issues tends to be unhelpful more often than not. Dragons flight (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that the legal discussions on Wikipedia are often bizarre. However, it's more complicated than you (Fetchcomms) make it out to be. First, there may be lawyers involved in this discussion, but they just don't reveal they are lawyers. Second, they may or may not be copyright lawyers, which, of course, is a complicated specialty. Finally, a copyright lawyer may have credentials, but that doesn't mean they are right on any given legal point, which is, of course, why lawyers argue constantly. Sort of like Wikipedia itself. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, a comment like that just isn't constructive. It isn't like we have IP lawyers manning FFD, policing all image uploads, reviewing NFCC claims, etc. If you don't feel like you understand the concepts, then sit this one out rather than try to shut others down. I happen to be a lawyer, but I'm not going to jump through a hoop to prove that just to participate in a discussion here, and not when my explanations stand on their own regardless of my JD. And anyone can read a copyright textbook and school themselves. postdlf (talk) 04:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Dragons flight, I'm assuming the WMF's legal team will do its job, which is to provide legal counsel. We're not donating to pay them to sit around all day waiting for some complaints to occur. I am acutely aware that most on-wiki copyright discussions don't involve the WMF or legal professionals, and I'm not saying that's always a bad model. I'm saying that fighting over legal matters shouldn't take up a multi-section AN/I thread and result in personal attacks—instead, it should be resolved by simply asking someone who's being paid to give legal guidance. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 06:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

  The WMF legal team's job is to serve the best interests of the Foundation, which is not necessarily the same as the interests of the community. Sometimes the Foundation's interests will lead to counsel helping the community, but often it is in the Foundation's best interest not to get involved. At a basic level, it would be a poor use of legal counsel's time if they attempted to respond to every question raised by the community. Legal counsel have many things to do in order to ensure the success of the WMF, and most of those things have very little to do with copyright. At a more advanced level, it can be disadvantageous for the Foundation to become too involved in content matters. The WMF relies on the DMCA safe harbor provisions to protect the Foundation from most forms of copyright liability arising from user actions. Getting involved in specific content issues can sometimes risk exposing the WMF to liability claims that they would otherwise be immune to, and that risk needs to be carefully weighed before issuing legal advice to the community on content matters. However, the safe harbor provisions also require that the Foundation respond promptly to direct complaints from copyright holders. Thus it is not at all surprising that third-party complaints receive much more attention from the WMF than hypothetical concerns raised by the community. The WMF general counsel works for the Foundation, and not for you or I, and so for the most part they are under no obligation to answer our questions. There is no one at the Foundation whose job focus requires giving legal advice to community members. Dragons flight (talk) 07:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• I concur with Dragon flight's comments, which are only "unhelpful" to the extent that they pop the balloon of expectation that WMF's legal counsel will solve this problem: historically, that has never been the case. In fact, all the WMF has done in the past, presumably with the advice of its counsel, is to confuse and complicate the situation even more than necessary by promulgating a standard of "free" and "non-free" which is more restrictive than the accepted standard of American "fair use" practice. By adhering to an ideologically-based standard of what "free" means, rather than accepting standard fair-use practice, the Foundation has created an untenable situation where the encyclopedia is denied the use of images that there is no legal reason not to use, and editors -- including long-term admins who do a great deal of work in the area of images -- are confused about the conflicting requirements of the law and policy. It would be much better, and infinitely simpler, if the Foundation were to quit quivering in it boots about someday possibly being sued for copyright infringement (potentially exposing the untested legality of "copyleft", a concept that the entire encyclopedia is based on), and simply adapted standard fair-use practices as official policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• From what I've seen, I wouldn't reccomend holding one's breath, unless one happens to be a vampire. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

What I'm getting from this discussion[28] and elsewhere is that (1) commons is indeed concerned about copyright and freedom-of-panorama issues; (2) they are undermanned, so it can take awhile to uncover issues; and (3) the Wagner statue is assumed to not be copyrighted, based on the absence of copyright info in this artworks catalogue:[29] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether we ultimately get further Foundation guidance on this issue, we need to promptly revert the remainder of Fastily's removals of {{Photo of art}}, which have left hundreds of images without the stated license of the derivative author. This is unacceptable for a number of reasons, and even if the language is changed eventually we appear to have a clear consensus recognizing that some statement of the derivative license is required. postdlf (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Dragons flight (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I've emailed the WMF legal department as well as two outside lawyers to get their opinions. I'll let people know as soon as (or if) I hear anything back. I would also favor restoring the missing tags for now, although I don't have a strong opinion on it. Kaldari (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the status quo ante should be restored. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Where is the Christmas tree?

Santa asked me about this today. He has some presents for us, but because there is no Christmas tree here, he can't deliver them. Count Iblis (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

•  *Poof* Here it is. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
   *Poof* Here it is. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
• 
  Happy Holidays Alsee (talk) 06:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
• 
  Happy Hanukkah Alsee (talk) 06:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
• 
  I hope this is appropriate? Alsee (talk) 06:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Bishapod has notified Santa about this thread for you, Count Iblis. Please always notify the user who is the subject of a discussion! Bishonen | talk 01:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC).

Clearly, we wanted to avoid getting buried in coal. ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

This naughty or nice list of Wikipedians I've heard about seems like a clear case of WP:OUTING -- has anyone contacted Oversight? Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 02:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I attempted to clean up the NPOV violation over on the right :) Alsee (talk) 06:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

That's the wrong menorah! The Chanukah menorah has eight candles plus one in the centre. --NellieBly (talk) 07:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't count. Well, I can, but I'm too lazy. Fixed. Alsee (talk) 12:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I reformatted the images to avoid the long run of whitespace that was occurring here. Dragons flight (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the image on the right a derivative work of a copyrighted image? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I've now marked it {{Copyright by Wikimedia}}, like other Wikimedia logo derivatives. (I assume you are just referring to the logo portion, I'm unaware of any prior works that incorporate the other elements.) Dragons flight (talk) 07:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Arab attacks - some eyes please

Down with Arab occupiers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sean.goyland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Down with Arab occupiers appeared to be harassing User:Supreme Deliciousness by reverting perfectly good maintenance tags and posting attacks, which continued on the user Talk page after I blocked. User:Sean.goyland was then created to attack User:Sean.hoyland, who had reverted some of the original edits - see the edit summaries at Special:Contributions/Sean.goyland, and the now-deleted unblock request at User talk:Sean.hoyland. Both are now indef blocked, but I think a few more eyes on the situation would be a good idea as I'm off shortly - so if anyone could watch the articles these two accounts have been editing with a view to blocking further socks, that would be a great help -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Continuation of above. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

And we have a new one in DEATH TO GERMANS AND ARABS! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I'm going to semi-p all those articles -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

And DEATH TO GERMANS AND ARABS1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) if there is a Checkuser in the house, is there any chance of having a look to see if any IP rangeblock might help? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Not possible – it's all open proxies. --MuZemike 06:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah well, thanks anyway -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

One more sock: [30]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Zapped -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

One more sock: [31] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

And another sock, this time an IP: [32]. Armbrust ^{Talk to me about my edits}_review 07:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• Tagged them all with the oldest account (the first one mentioned here) as the putative sockmaster, although some of the named accounts from the previous ANI thread above are probably the same folk... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

We do not tag socks from this guy. --MuZemike 11:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's who this is. I recognise the style, but can't at the moment recall who the puppeteer is. But we've certainly seen this vandal before. RolandR (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Very typical of him, actually. Most of his recent activity is revdeleted, though.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, should have figured it was a long-termer. I'll remember that the next time the Whackamallet has to be pulled out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Socks are back: [33]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm Time to get the mallet back out I reckon... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

So wait. We can't checkuser the socks because they're using open proxies? We're at least blocking the proxies, right? causa sui (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Stallion

Some eyes at Talk:Stallion may be needed. An IP (presently 83.77.224.215 (talk · contribs))with a highly dynamic address has been conducting a verbose campaign to include a fringe topic on the keeping of stallions in a group, sourcing it to an advocacy website that until recently (i.e., until it was noted by other editors in the discussion) is or was primarily devoted to anti-(animal) castration activism, with some more dubious issues on the side (see the talkpage for discussion of the proposed source). I had protected the main article to divert discussion onto the talkpage. When the IP's proposed edits failed to gain traction, the IP started demanding personal information of the primary editor who had been engaging the IP, Pesky, who was until then very patiently discussing policy; she was not pleased by this and said so. The IP was warned by myself, Tom Morris and Dreadstar. Dreadstar deleted the diffs involving the improper inquiry (I'm not convinced it was necessary, but that's how it stands). The IP is a bit worked up and is convinced that censorship is involved. Given the highly dynamic IP and the time zones involved, it would be good if some European admins could monitor the talkpage and the IP. Acroterion (talk) 05:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Stallion_discussion. Yet another fringe-pusher convinced that our sceptical response is proof of a conspiracy... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I've lost patience with them, as has everyone else who's tried to engage. Pretty much the definition of a tendentious editor. Acroterion (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

My own view is that this is such a crying shame - if only we could get this editor to work with us, he/she has such passion and energy that, properly directed, focussed, and as part of a collaborative team, they could actually be a real "positive". However, at this point, it seems that they can see no way to work with us at all. :o( What a waste of so much energy. I have run entirely out of ideas as to how to get anything good from this editor. Just adding a bit: the site this editor keeps pushing has already been cited as to the existence of minority views (which is the only thing it is "reliable" for, in the view of other editors involved with the page); and for a bit of AN/I dramah entertainment for this morning, it's worth mentioning that the site previously (until very recently) had articles labelling horse-women as man-hating, oppressive animal-mutilating criminals, and advocated human intervention to give uncastrated animals the "relief" which they might need. Applied by hand. Which is not only so "fringey" a view as to be totally unsuitable for mention here, but without doubt promoting practices which are quite definitely criminal in the vast majority of countries! A two-word summary of this "treatment" would rhyme with "blanket". Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Also being discussed on WP:FTN. Mathsci (talk) 09:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Update: I've added another really good source into the article, and clarified for the IP why the source they were concerned about is ok (it has pics and video of perfectly-happy group-kept stallions - video is always RS for its own content). I'm hoping that this obviously-distressed editor (newbie thrown in at the deep end of dramah, who started with obviously good intentions and just became increasingly frustrated) will be able to see things more clearly now, and I'm actually still somewhat hopeful that we may be able to turn this around into a win/win situation. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 14:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be the pessimist to your eternal optimist but I have my doubts. I have my doubts about the editor's intentions too. While I don't want to assume bad faith, the impressive display of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT leads me to believe the IP has no interest in learning what Wikipedia about. Good intentions are coming to the project with an open mind to learning what's involved in contributing content. Everyone at that talk page has been remarkably patient with him/her, but the message isn't getting through. The IP is clearly not stupid so I take that to mean he/she doesn't want to understand. I have very little sympathy for them when everyone has patiently linked appropriate pages and explained themselves repeatedly. I can't see a good outcome. If the IP continues along in the same vein I think blocks are the only available option. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 15:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the bulk of the discussion probably needs to stay over at the Dispute resolution noticeboard, but just to say that Pesky is a well-respected editor and didn't need to be attacked by this VERY fringe IP who is not understanding how WP works. I was the one who noticed this fringe material and initially removed it, Pesky doesn't deserve these attacks. Montanabw^(talk) 07:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Near-legal threats

The IP is flinging accusations against all who've tried to engage, edging into legal threat territory.[34] Note that this is a highly dynamic IP. Acroterion (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment That isnt even close to a legal threat. Especially the part that says "the other admins of Wikipedia have all information and all means in your hands to right at least this wrong. Please do so as soon as possible. Other than that, I don't see anything else I could say or do. " A legal threat requires the threat of legal action. No such threat exists here. Using words like "libel" or "slander" do not automatically make it a legal threat. It seems to me, only by reading this diff, that this editor is trying to assume good faith and trying to set this issue aside. Maybe everyone should just calm down.--v/r - TP 16:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a legal threat, although I find the "criminal intent" portion a bit much. I, personally am calm, the only un-calm person is the IP, who answers calm and conciliatory engagement with diatribes. I'm fine with ignoring the whole business, although I note that protection expires on Stallion later today. Acroterion (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I, too, found the IP's comment "I feel this has been and continues to be done with ill or even criminal intent by several editors here, Acroterion, as seen above and Montanbw being two of them" to be very much over the top, but, as Acroterion said, everyone is calm apart from the IP here. The protection on Stallion definitely needs to be ongoing, though. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 17:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I see it expires in about 10 minutes. Can we just see if the IP has taken anything from this experience before we extend the protection? I'll do it myself if the behavior continues, but let's just watch first and see if the discussion and time has had an effect.--v/r - TP 18:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

That's what I thought was appropriate as well; let the protection expire and see if it all just settles down. I would, however, note that the IP edits primarily in the morning hours, European time, so I don't expect much to happen immediately, or when I'm awake. Acroterion (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this was not yet a legal threat, which is the reason that I only issued a warning at the DRN discussion. The relevant text from WP:LEGAL is:

It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended. ... Rather than blocking immediately, administrators should seek to clarify the user's meaning and make sure that a mere misunderstanding is not involved.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for Admin Review at talk:cold fusion

I am looking for admin(s) to have a look at the talk:cold fusion page, preferably those with some prior familiarity at the article. An IP editor was recently banned as a sock of VanishedUser314159, but before departing alleged there is at least one other active editor of the page is a sock of a banned user. Over the last couple of weeks the activity on the page has increased rapidly (by almost 150 kB from about 27 kB since 17 December), including debates about stating the MIT is teaching cold fusion and a suggestion that an endorsement of CF by Mitt Romney should be noted. I would like someone (or several someones) familiar with past cold fusion debates to have a look at what is going on and see if anything is worth doing before the area descends into much nastier debate, and also to see whether there is evidence of sock violations. I am not accusing any individual but would like someone with the familiarity to spot duck-evidence of socking to examine the page. I will post a notification at talk:cold fusion that I have asked for admin review of the page. Am I required to post to all current active editors, as if so I will. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 11:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I will gladly prove that I am not a SOCK user, what I have written on my user page is absolutely correct. I have/had another account which I currently do not use, but might use again when my interest for cold fusion goes away. My current account is a single purpose. I do my best to edit NPOV, but the article is a battlefield. And yes, I know my username is not wisely chosen. Please see what the banned user VanishedUser314159 "promised" me [35]. I can't tell how many other editors he has already "encouraged to oppose my efforts". --POVbrigand (talk) 13:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

POVbrigand, has your other account been disclosed at least to Arbcom? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

No, how should I do that ? --POVbrigand (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You can either send an email to a sitting arbitration or to arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I have disclosed my other account to Roger Davies. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

This is to confirm that I have now been notified of the two accounts and I've added the details to the committee's records.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of sock puppets, I would like to know which editor is using Special:Contributions/Appealcourt. Very, very strange editing behaviour. --POVbrigand (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

And your evidence that this is a sockpuppet is what exactly? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

That's ... very odd. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 19:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Unusual? Probably. I don't see how this can be seen as evidence for sockpuppetry though. Appealcourt started a large number of AfDs in a short period of time - some were closed as 'delete', some as 'keep'. There seems little to me to link the articles submitted to AfD other than a general problem with actually establishing notability, and with proper sourcing - which are legitimate concerns. I'd suggest that the AfD justifications were poorly argued, indicating maybe a lack of appropriate attention to detail, but I can't see how any of this would benefit anyone pushing some sort of covert POV. I'd have thought that the alleged 'puppet master', were one to exist, would be a little more subtle... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking at that very strange editing behaviour it appears to me that all the other AfDs were only made to lead up to and distract from the Patterson Power Cell AfD, which was his last activity. Admin investigation recommended. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Galassi breaking guidelines/rules on Slavic Neopaganism

Galassi persistently adds incorrectly referenced information (and non-English non-primary source references, which I am not sure is recommended) to Slavic Neopaganism, and once deleted my tags saying that the sources could be unreliable. He is pushing a non-NPOV that borders on gross incivility. I explained all this on the talk page. I request that something be done, such as the article at least be protected and given a NPOV.--Dchmelik (talk) 13:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Dchmelik has committed numerous infractions of WP:VERIFY, WP:RS and WP:OR. He has not sourced reliably or otherwise a single statement of his.--Galassi (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what is wrong with "non-English non-primary source references"? Sources don't have to be in English and they should preferrably not be primary.--v/r - TP 15:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

All his English sources are incorrectly referenced, and all in other languages that I checked with Google Translate seem to also be, and I explained why on the article's talk page. Galissi has a record of past violations and being blocked, and has no examples of his allegations. He continues to add incorrectly referenced information and delete my WP:RS tags after I had read and disputed sources.--Dchmelik (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• Galassi needs a thwap for misuse of sources - something I view quite seriously. He has used the term fakelore in the lede (and other places) and cited it to 10 sources, 8 of which are in Russian (or at least in Cryllic script). "Fakelore" is a term of 1950s US coinage, used to describe the deliberate misrepresentation of a manufactured tale as if it were genuine folklore. One of the two English sources he cites [36], contains no reference to fakelore. Rather it describes what in neopagan circles is called "reconstructionism", the attempt to recreate an ancient religion in a form that can be practiced today. I believe anthropologists who research folklore would call it folklorismus - a legitimate use of a tradition outside the culture in which it was created. I can only assume that Galassi is translating whatever it says in Russian as 'fakelore' - certainly that's what he's done with the online English source. This is WP:OR at the very least. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

THere is no term FAKELORE in Russian. THe common terms are MANUFACTURED TRADITION (or MYTHOLOGY). None of the sources I cited are misrepresented. These charges are groundless and frivolous. Slavic Neopaganism is more often than not seen as an extremist xenophofic movement in Russian scholarly sources. There is even a Neopagan psychology study produced for the Russian corrections officers, but it is way too technical for wikipedia.--Galassi (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Also there are many equivalents of FAKELORE that imply the same thing without using the word FAKE, such as INVENTED, MANUFACTURED, ARTIFICIAL, PSEUDO, QUASI etc. There is a plehora of sources (either academic of by human rights organizations) with such wordings.--Galassi (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

And I repeat - Dchmelik has committed numerous infractions of WP:VERIFY, WP:RS and WP:OR. He has not sourced (reliably or otherwise) a single statement of his.--Galassi (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Galassi, neither manufactured tradition nor mythology mean the same thing as fakelore. Manufactured tradition does not mean the same as mythology. Invented, artificial, pseudo and quasi do not mean fakelore either. The term fakelore needs to be removed from the article entirely until such time as you have a WP:RS which uses that word. Also, you seem to have a major misunderstanding as to what "reconstructionism" is. The article from religion-spirituality.org explains it rather well in English - you'll note that it is not a perjorative description. That article explains that the participants are usually well aware that what they have now is only an approximation to anything that existed in the past, and this awareness alone precludes it being "fakelore".

It is not appropriate to treat religious beliefs as if they need to be debunked like fringe science. It is also not the way human rights organisations approach these new religions, another indication that your translation is off. If you have sources that state that groups of followers are associated with extremist political movements, you should include that in the body of the article, being clear if possible whether the sources are saying that the groups are using the religious approach as a cover for their beliefs or a as a basis for them (both scenarios occur in other areas).Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

That is disputable, and partucularly to an ethnomusicologist like myself, who has to deal with a lot of FAKEloric material on the daily basis. It is in fact the same as pseudo-, quasi- etc. Moreover - Slavic Neopaganism is less of a religion than a political movement rooted in the idea of the so-called "deZionization" of Slavic cultures (which is a euphemism for good ole judophobia), and all academic sources agree on the MANUFACTURED quality of Slavic Neopaganism. If fact I'm not aware of a single reliable source that would attest to any authenticity thereof. I hope that my worthy opponent provides some.--Galassi (talk) 18:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a content dispute anyway, and belongs on the article talkpage. Galassi, if you want to use a particular and fairly obscure word with a specific and perjorative meaning, you are going to have to find a source that actually uses it. You are also going to need to separate out any feelings you may have about extremist political stances, and understand what "reconstructionism" means, as you appear not to understand what the term means. I know this because you are using this - source 11 as a source for 'fakelore', and not only does it not use the word fakelore, but it does not regard reconstructionism as some kind of invalid or deceptive activity. Now if you want to set out that the slavic neopagan movement has been hijacked by anti-semitic extremists churning out rubbish to deceive the masses, go for it with reliable sources, but please use the actual words in the sources. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

And that source shouldn't be used anyway. As is noted on the bottom of the page it 'uses material from the Wikipedia article “Neo-paganism.”'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind getting rid of that citation. However F-Lore is not pejorative per se, and it is commonly enogh used in ethnographic context to describe artifically manufactured "traditions". And I seriously doubt the opponent would settle for the alternative terms, as they mean the same thing. As to the NP movement: it hasn't been highjacked, the dodgy politics are the integral part of that gestalt, as it was started by the same people. A large number of NP publications are on the Rus.Fed. blacklist of extremist pupbications. THe most notable of which is "The Thrust of the Russian Gods" by Istarkhov, which openly calls for violence.--Galassi (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

If you move in a circle where fakelore is common and not pejorative, and it's acceptable to refer to all neopagansim by that term, I can only say it must be a small circle. In the rest of the world, neopaganism might well be seen as weird, but there's a distinction between 'fake religion" and "reconstructionism". Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know much about the non-Slavic varieties of NP, and I don't edit those articles.--Galassi (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

But then if such an attitude is restricted to Slavic varieties, then they won't use the word "fakelore" surely, as it's an English word? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

That's the problem. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

They use any number of equivalent terms, meaning the same thing. My understanding is that the "fakelor" attitude is not restricted to the Slavic variety, as most neopaganism relies on creativity, in absence ov reliable sources. The difference is that the Slavic variety is not just weird or excentric. It is highly politicized, and prone to extremism. One of citations I posted goes into that in great detail.--Galassi (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Galassi, the word implies a misrepresentation - pretending that something is a traditional song or story when you know it was made up last week, pretending that Paul Bunyan for Tinies is the original version of the stories. It is incredibly pejorative. Our own article on the subject points up the difference between fakelore - which is a deception or distortion - and folklorismus, which is not a pejorative term, but a general term for treating traditional material in a creative manner. Relying on creativity does not make it fakelore. You may not use that very specific, negative word unless you have a source that uses that very specific negative word. You may not substitute your "interpretation" of what the sources say. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine. I hope the opponent doesn't find the exact wording more offensive... I don't see fakelore as distorsion, it is fabrication. Which what the subject in question is, and this is how it is sourced, most of the time.--Galassi (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not know if this is really the place to discuss all this, but I actually think that if some adherents use fakelore, then the article needs to make people aware--maybe not right at the beginning, but possibly in a section detailing fakelore instances, like articles like Wicca or Neopaganism do. Now that you finally said Slavic paganism (Slavianstvo) is sourced with fakelore (i.e. manufactured, which the article now says instead, still with incorrectly referenced information) 'most of the time'--which is not all of the time--I hope you will agree that the article must distinguish between what Slavianstvo is when it is sourced with fakelore, and the rest of the time (reconstructionism,) because as I (and it seems Elen) have said, the terms are incompatible, and using them without quantification implies a contradiction to the reader, and that Slavianstvo may be fakelore all the time, which is confusing, and arguably an uninformed, biased, even pejorative view. I doubt a human rights organization would call any religion fakelore unless it is a joke religion or otherwise admitted to be invented. You suggested 'pseudo' and the similar 'quasi' as alternatives you claim human rights organizations use, but I am extremely skeptical: the pseudoreligion article states it is pejorative, and your others, except mythology, would probably be used to synonymize 'fakelore.' Most of the sources are archaeological or about ancient mythology, etc., and almost all religions are mythological, which does not make them fakelore, but by all means point out fakelore: just make clear the difference between it and folklore.--Dchmelik (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

1.I have no idea what slavyanstvo you refer to. This term in unklown, unless you mean Panslavism. 2.This is a content dispute inappropriate for ANI. Use talk pages.--Galassi (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you should use a talk page for most your comments here; my comment was just to reach a consensus with you and state to what extent I agree with you that the admins may need to know. When parentheses are used such as 'Slavic paganism (Slavianstvo,)' the term in parentheses is being used as an abbreviation for the one not in parentheses.--Dchmelik (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Galassi is still using pejoratives, such as with his still present incorrectly referenced information. I removed the use of 'quasireligion,' (like 'pseudoreligion'--pejorative,) IIRC not correctly referenced, but generalizing about neopaganism as a whole, but not Slavianstvo, and I said any usage needs definition, but he just says 'you CANNOT remove cited info.'--Dchmelik (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I should note that Galassi is wrong in that edit summary. Being cited is not a magic sheild which protects a nugget of information from every being removed. I have no opinion one way or the other on the specific nugget being disputed here, but being cited has no bearing one way or the other on the matter at hand. A reference is a necessary, but not sufficient, requirement; also needed is consensus to include it. --Jayron32 05:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent edit summaries by Galassi: "bs rm", "bs rm", "bs rm". --DonaldDuck (talk) 06:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Galissi removed my reliable secondary sources, and before completing his incomplete citations, changed the page back to a biased/fringe view with such citations (or none,) using pejoratives like cult, quasireligion (psuedoreligion,) and using sources in a fringe way to say Slavic mythology is completely fabricated. If it is considered appropriate yet, I request he be blocked because of this and his history of violations that resulted him in being blocked repeatedly in the past.--Dchmelik (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Galassi continues to make changes/reversions that destroy newer third-party citations and restore incomplete ones, biased/fringe/pejorative views described directly above. Perhaps this is grounds for banning.--Dchmelik (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Legal Threats and False Accusations of Bias from [redacted]

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

---

WP:BOOMERANG. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User User:FisherQueen posted legal threats and false accusations of bias on my page. [redacted] I am simply writing verifiable content and being attacked by mormon mobs is not what wikipedia is about. I wish to report fisher queen for posting legal threats to my talk page. Justamanhere (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Threats are a terrible way to induce an editor to contribute. Let me translate what she said: 1. The [redacted]. Esspecially not when we are in the middle of a fund drive and are not making the $$$. 2. We are certainly going to allow them to only post materials 'approved' by the Church and we will threaten anyone else. i.e. look at this edit summary. 02:20, 26 December 2011‎ Fat&Happy (talk | contribs)‎ (116,847 bytes) (again rv POV-pushing addition; undue weight for individual actions not sanctioned by subject of article) (undo) 3. I have not posted anything that is not verifiable and accurate. 4. If you and I were talking face to face, I doubt you would resort to threats, and I know you would not so so brave. I have read the sites policies and what you have posted here is a 'legal threat'. I don't think you are permitted to do that. 5. I think you should apologize. I have done nothing other than state my views -- although they are not your views or the views of the majority. 6. [redacted] 7. [redacted] Please refrain from any further admin actions regarding my account -- [redacted] Actually, I thought FisherQueen was on the money here. I particularly agreed with "It seems as though your opinions about the Mormon church are much too strong to allow you to edit about that subject in a neutral way. That's fine; many of us have subjects we avoid because it's hard for us to edit them neutrally." I have redacted your number #6 as hate speech, by the way. Also, what do you think is a legal threat? Because I can't see any. Thanks, - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 16:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC) How is that #6 hate speech -- its true and you even have an article about it. Please explain I think perhaps I am trying to get in your shoes and understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justamanhere (talk • contribs) 16:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Your assumptions about lesbianism and feminism are false. Also, where's the "legal threat"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC) [Your] #6 was blatant anti-Mormon hate speech, and a repetition will get you blocked -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC) I've redacted the personal attacks in the opening para and in 7 - if you keep making such attacks, you will end up being blocked from editing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC) More threats, and anything and everything except answer my question about #6. But its ok for an admin to erase userboxes and post the same types of content and personal attacks and then threaten me. Never mind, I can see the double standard (or rather triple standard) Can't wait for SOPA to get passed -- this eyesore on the internet will probably get shut down -- perhaps Wales will keep his promise and take the site offline -- before the Feds do. Later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justamanhere (talk • contribs) 16:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Aha, so it's YOU that's issuing the legal threat. Thanks for clearing that up. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

This person is still at it, using IP addresses. Earlier we has 69.171.160.187, now we have just had the same attacks made on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from 69.171.160.238, together with this on my Talk page - can anyone see if a range block might make sense? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

And because I reverted some of this user's edits, I am being harassed on my talk page. It seems he knows where I live... It's BS but I wanted it on the record. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I know where you live too - Canada! :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL , I wanted to answer on my talk page that exactly! That and "You live in Meridian Idaho. !" :-D But no feeding the trolls...CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

What, Canada has annexed Idaho now? Or is it the other way around? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Both IPs blocked. Should this guy be back, CanadianLinuxUser, I'll be happy to semi your talk page. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Salvio, please do so. Let's say a week or so... a nice Christmas vacation that I can ignore the page. :-D Grazie !!!CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

69.171.160.0/24 has been blocked for 2 weeks. --MuZemike 23:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks - I really should learn about range blocks one of these days -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

And I slept through all the fun! --NellieBly (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't hate men. I do hate cabbage, though. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, anti-Brassica hate speech! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I used to hate cabbage too, but since then I've turned over a new leaf. As regards the Mormons practicing human sacrifice, I don't know about that, but it does seem that the Romney campaign is leaving an ever-growing trail of bodies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

All I know is that the entire thing has left a bitter taste in my mouth. --NellieBly (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Or sauer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I find this whole conversation to be in violation of Cole's law. You're both under arrest. --Jayron32 06:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Mormons do not practise human sacrifice. This claim is completely false, and anyone who makes or spreads it is misinformed (or worse). I've been a Mormon for my entire adult life, and I'm sure there is no possible way such a thing could be going on without my being aware of it or hearing credible rumours about it. — Richwales (talk) 06:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Er, yes... I don't think anyone with the most tenuous grasp of 'reality' or even 'clue' is suggesting otherwise. It isn't actually necessary to deny the obvious... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Vandal attacks on unblock requests

There's a vandal using dynamic IPs to attack all the current unblock requests - see Category:Requests for unblock#Pages in category, apparently campaigning for the reinstatement of Rodhullandemu and claiming they're a real life friend. I'm not at all convinced I believe that and it seems more likely it's just trolling. I've semi-protected all the current user Talk pages with unblock requests (one is itself an IP, so I've only protected that for an hour - we don't want to stop the blocked IP but do need to stop the "Rodhullandemu" IP). I doubt a range block would be feasible, as it looks like BT dynamic addresses in the SE of England, but perhaps someone who understands them might be able to work out a small range? Either way, some eyes on the unblock requests would help -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

PS: Does it feel like it's full moon as well as Xmas/Saturnalia/etc, or is that just me? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, and see this -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Solved with abusefilter 448. Please stop protecting these pages. Prodego ^talk 02:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks - I'll unprotect the pages now -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• It's not Saturnalia, it's just User:Hamish Ross. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

As an editor who has recently been graced by Rodhullandemu via back channels I feel confident in saying that they are not ready for re-joining the main community. Some editors here and at annother project can verify these assertions. Hasteur (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit war across multiple pages

I was just recent change patrolling and I noticed that 99.224.54.167 and MonkeyKingBar were engaged in an edit war at General Electric GE90. I gave them each a template warning, and then they each showed up at my talk page. It turns out that they are also edit warring at Liza Frulla. At my talk page MonkeyKingBar accussed the IP of being a troll and the IP said MonkeyKingBar is a sockpuppet of a banned user. See User talk:Mark Arsten#Edit Warring for specifics. I'd appreciate it if an Admin could step in here and try to sort things out. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no sock puppetry, as I have not been concurrently using other accounts. MonkeyKingBar (talk) 04:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

That isn't the only dissallowed use of multiple accounts. Do you have a prior account which is blocked? --Jayron32 05:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Concurrency doesn't matter - please read WP:BE, and please disclose any prior accounts you may have edited from. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• IP has been blocked 24 hours by Nyttend. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't block Monkey for two combined reasons: s/he didn't violate 3RR, and despite the long lag between this thread and the IP's last revert, Monkey didn't re-revert the IP, so I suspect that Mark's warning template stopped the edit war. Nyttend (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

IP Hopping

Can someone who does range blocks (which isn't me) take a look at User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Very persistent IP-hopping vandal. I'm just off to bed and don't have the time. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

And now the section below. I haven't checked or notified the IP. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Both 89.148.0.0/18 and 84.255.128.0/18 have been blocked for 2 weeks. --MuZemike 08:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

May I revert the pages to what they were before IP's edits ?! Unflavoured (talk) 08:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

If they're disruptive, go right ahead. --MuZemike 08:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks MuZemike. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Darkness2005

Could someone review Special:Contributions/Darkness2005? The user aparrently has a history of refusing to use edit summaries and a search of their talk page shows repeated requests and warnings that they be provided, up until they were indefinitely blocked in November 2010 for this and other editing concerns. They were unblocked in April following discussion at User_talk:Darkness2005#I.27m_sorry_for_vandalizing.2Fcontributing_so_many_articles_without_using_the_edit_summary., where promising to use edit summaries was a significant factor. Despite this, there are still no edit summaries and at least five subsequent warnings (the last by me) on their talk page have had no effect. This is in addition to a history of edit warring, repeated placement of unreferenced material etc, and two subsequent 72 hour blocks. Thanks. RichardOSmith (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Should Wecantdoanythingaboutit (talk · contribs) not be tagged as a sock of Darkness2005? This seems to be some sort of an admission, unless I read it wrong. It "is" in "scare quotes", after all. Maybe we're not tagging as much as we used to... Doc talk 11:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I just indef'd the account. I don't know why he wasn't indeffed a long time ago. He has a very long history of abusing multiple accounts. He creates accounts to edit war and use personal attacks and gets his socks blocked but has managed to keep his main account unblocked for the most part. I think we need a community ban of this guy. I'm curious if another sock is Ruth-2013 (talk · contribs) per this edit even though Ruth-2013 has reported several of the socks to SPI.--v/r - TP 14:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I was going to either bring this up here or otherwise would've started an WP:RFC/U with loads of problematic diffs. Anyways, Darkness2005 was indefinitely blocked a little over a year ago (as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive647#Darkness2005 per the very same issues that have just led to the latest indef block. During that time, Darkness2005 evaded block and created several sockpuppets that impersonated (mostly YouTube) Internet personalities to evade his block, including BigAl2k6 (talk · contribs), Thespoonyexperiment (talk · contribs), GuardianEarth128 (talk · contribs), Adultnature1989 (talk · contribs), Darknessthecurse (talk · contribs), MasakoX (talk · contribs), and SpongePore (talk · contribs).

Another admin saw fit to unblock on 18 April 2011, but the recidivism is clearly evident after that point. I feel that this indefinite block is justified, as he clearly as not changed anything but has instead acted and edited disruptively to get his own way. This includes making unnecessary article splits, refusal to participate in any talk page or deletion discussion of any kind, making minor edits solely for the purpose of complaining via edit summaries, edit warring when he doesn't get his way (also led to at least one block on that), article ownership, threatening other editors, and dismissing others' edits on articles he watches as that he disagrees with as vandalism. --MuZemike 16:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Good block, and I'd support a WP:CBAN. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

FkpCascais

Concern has been raised by various people about the conduct of user FkpCascais (talk · contribs). For context: an edit involving the removal of reliably sourced information and alteration of information that was previously discussed was again pushed in by the same user, LAz17 (talk · contribs). This user put in his contested version [37] and then immediatley after sought protection to keep it in place. [38] FkpCascais wished to keep this protection going in the absence of LAz17, who was later indef blocked for breaching his topic ban with this article [39], by all means other than by properly discussing. He accused a participant, DIREKTOR (talk · contribs), of committing personal attacks and then insisted continuing the protection of the article on that basis. [40] After his report failed he went to the admin that originally protected the article and asked him to extend the protection, but this request also failed. [41] He then attempted to get AniMate (talk · contribs), an admin who commented in the incident report against DIREKTOR, blocked for what Fkp has called "blatant lying" via Jimmy Wales' talkpage. [42] Now he has attempted to get another participant, Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs), blocked on the basis that he is a sockpuppet. [43] It is evident that FkpCascais is gaming the system and wishes to reach the goal of keeping his preferred version intact not through proper discussion, but by getting users who disagree with him blocked by any means necessary. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 15:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't like "ganging up" on anyone, since I've been ganged-up on and I know how it feels, and I am hardly objective being involved in a long-lasting content dispute with FkpCascais. However, in the interest of helping along future discussion with the user, I have to say that I believe it would highly beneficial if the user were at the very least cautioned to abide by the sources. "POV pushing" is a term that gets thrown around a lot, but FkpCascais's behavior I believe fits the definition very well indeed. It is, in my personal opinion, very disruptive to have to face FkpCascais' impressive arsenal of source-evasion tactics every time a perceived negative piece of information is to be added on the Serbian Chetniks. All his efforts are centered on preserving the reputation of the Chetniks. The user is prone to trying to continuously raise the bar no matter how many sources are present, and demanding that his personal standards of sourcing (which change continuously) be accepted. If he's not trying to get rid of a source on the basis of a scholar's ethnicity, he's misquoting policy like WP:UNDUE or WP:REDFLAG.

At the very least, I think it really is necessary for the community to help impress upon the user the fact that Wikipedia policy defines WP:RELIABLE SOURCES, and not he himself. That WP:V needs to be satisfied, not his personal standards (which are always, by one tactic or another, set against the addition of negative facts on the WWII Serbian Chetnnik movement). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Just bringing evdence about the denial of check user I been confronted: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlasdairGreen27. So, all this users edit-war me and gang-me up on several articles, avoid discussion, and actually they try by all means to remove me for years now, and I am the one "wanting to get people blocked"? FkpCascais (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

You do nothing other than push POV, disrupt discussion by ignoring sources and policy, and post bogus offensive threads and SPI reports to bully people who's sources you cannot successfully disregard. Dozens of sources were quoted in this discussion, and I cannot recall when you ever contributed constructively by bringing a single one up in support of your numerous claims. Personally I think you have disrupted discussions so frequently and with such success you should be blocked for a goodly period, there are literally now tomes of text concerning themselves almost exclusively with your source evasion tactics. At least I hope you will be cautioned to abide by WP:V in future, the recent farce at Talk:Yugoslav Partisans is really too much. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Everyone can check and se what really happend there, and I will gladly explain each and every action of mine. If I ever made any minor mistake you would certainly get me ganged-up and blocked pretty rapidly. I am gathering evidence of everything happening here to me, as it is really incredible. FkpCascais (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I actually think a better venue for this discussion would be WP:AE. I think requesting a block or topic ban for FkpCascais per WP:ARBMAC would be a better solution, since this board isn't set up for looking at long term patterns of behavior and no one here really wants to get involved in a Balkans dispute. AniMate 23:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, right, so the users edit warring only 5 hours after protection lifted, avoiding discussion and consensus building, trolling, gang-banging me, avoiding being checked, removing sourced info and replacing it by nationalistically based edits, all this comming from an admin who´s intevention was to provide phalse information in order to save his pals who he atributed barnstars for sharing same POV and has often jumped into ANI reports in order to discredit abuse reports and DIREKTOR&co., sure. With regard to the subject, I have all the right to oppose the biased nationalistically based accusation of "ethnic cleansing" based with a few local sources, and same concerns were already expressed by other users at this discussion (see bottom of section) where the same sources are analised by another senior user. Seems to me I am being harassed by politically motivated reasons, so I am removed from the discussions so the users sharing same POV can unnopposedly add undiscussed controversial content into higly sensitive articles. This is crystal clear, but it is up to you gentleman to tolerate this. FkpCascais (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

False shared-IP cat...

User:184.44.129.253 is apparently a long-term disruptive IP editor, believed by others to self-identify as "Tailsman67" (not a registered username, but see User:Salvidrim/Tailsman67). I came across this user because he made a nonsense edit on a page I watch, so I can't speak to the truth of it, but there is some quacking.

Anyhow, the user either posted (or misled others into thinking should be posted) a false shared educational IP template on his talk page, thus only getting schoolblocked, etc. Well, it's now school vacation, and the IP is still editing. Somebody checked, and it's not a school IP at all. Interestingly enough, the user gave himself away a few weeks ago when he was blocked, and it was missed. Nevertheless, the IP is still in the "shared educational IP" cat, and it gets noted as such on AIV. I cannot find where the template resides on the talk page, and I'm wondering therefore if it is only viewable and removable by admins, and if somebody could get rid of it? MSJapan (talk) 15:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It's the "schoolblock" template, and the categorization is embedded within that template. I can read it, so it's not just admins. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that IP is from a school, as pretty much all schools in America are closed between Christmas Eve and New Years. --MuZemike 18:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I upped that single IP block to a 2-week rangeblock on 184.44.128.0/19. I am considering other rangeblocks, as well. --MuZemike 18:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Attack page as kept by User:El duderino on talk page

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

---

User:El duderino has been keeping, by definition, attack page content in his user space beginning with this diff on 12/16/11. He has since continued to add to the page culminating with this edit last night, 12/26/11. I approached him about this beginning yesterday with this entry on his talk page. He removed the entry shortly afterward and added more attack content. I then placed a template warning re: keeping attack pages here. He then responded by again removing what I had placed on his talk page here. I then placed the request for speedy delete here, he responded inappropriately and against the instructions clearly stated on the tag by removing it (as seen here). I don't know what can or should be done in this case, but it seems that no matter what I have done as far as bringing the attack content to his attention and asking him to remove it, he will continue to ignore policy on the matter when I present it. If he is in violation of policy regarding attack pages (which, from reading the policy it appears he is), I would appreciate something being done administratively. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 19:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Well first off, we don't delete talk pages so removing the {{db-attack}} was perfectly acceptable. Secondly, from by brief view, you havent tried to discuss this with the user. You templated them, that is not discussion. Go to their talk page and express, with appropriately linked policy, why you feel that content is inappropriate in a polite, collaborative, and respectful manner.--v/r - TP 19:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course talk pages aren't completely removed, but attack page content can and should be. Further, you are incorrect: I did try to discuss it with him (did you miss that I wrote exactly that in the above?) last night. He responded by deleting what I wrote and added more attack content, indicating to me that he had no intention of discussing anything. The template was placed today (at least 12 hours after I had first tried to discuss with him). (talk→ LesHB ←track) 20:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not an attack page -- and this report's title should be changed to a more neutral wording, as I attempted to do but was reverted twice. I believe I am allowed to gather evidence for a potential report against false allegations of harassment from User:Lhb1239 (aka LesHB) and possible issues of WP:hounding. He escalated an article talkpage content dispute by crying 'personal attack' wherever he could [44] [45] [46] etc -- he doesn't seem to be able to accept disagreement without taking it personally. We were both warned for edit warring at the 3RR report he filed. And we were advised to stay away from each other by at least one admin [47]. I have continued documenting this ongoing dispute at my talkpage because he followed me to the Occupy Wall Street article -- his first post at that article's talkpage was to mischaracterize a content dispute I was having with another editor and to disingenuously act like a neutral party. He then edit warred there with other editors. I was just about to file an ANI report on his own harassment of me now because he kept posting to my talkpage after I asked him several times not to. This may be a case of WP:boomerang. -El duderino (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

TParis has since removed the attack content I referenced in this report and suggested he keep such things on his own computer rather than on his talk page. After objecting to the removal, El duderino has ignored what the administrator suggested and returned to placing more of the same with this edit. In addition to ignoring what TParis told him to do, it now seems that what El duderino is compiling is a talk page list of what he perceives to be wrongs against him. This is pretty much the definition of keeping an attack page in userspace. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 20:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

El duderino has now restored what TParis saw as attack page content and removed with this edit. This user continues to thumb his nose at administrators and policy. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 21:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The link he gives is simply a link to this report. He has attempted to characterize my comments as personal attacks again and again without providing specific quotes. The diffs he links above contain no personal attacks. Please WP:NPA -- discussing another editor is not necessarily a personal attack. El duderino (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Please note: User:Lhb1239 has now started refactoring the posts above [48] and thereby disrupt the order of response -- ie, apparently to get in all of his comments before my first comment appears. And then hypocritically scold & revert me [49] when I restored the original order. El duderino (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The only refactoring going on is being done by the user I am reporting. Twice he has reordered my comments/responses, and I have now twice replaced them to where I wanted them originally. He has also refactored the header on this report - I have returned it to how it was originally worded. Again, he continues to thumb his nose at policy. Most recently, policy as stated at WP:TPG. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 21:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My apologies for changing the header while moving the post directly below - I'm having issues with pages not purging properly and I end up editing old revisions. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 21:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong again. I restored the order before his interjection. He can't be allowed to keep inserting his replies in order to crowd out my first response. El duderino (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Following El duderino's repeated refactoring and reordering of comments here, he's now filed a 3RR/Edit warring report against me (as seen here). (talk→ LesHB ←track) 22:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• - comment - One thing we should look to strengthen is the guideline to make it weighted stronger against any user keeping lists of diffs against a user in his user space, this is always disruptive and completely unnecessary - these lists of diffs, allegedly for a future RFC user, are always oppressive and upsetting to the user that they are in relation to and should always be kept on the users own computer and only posted in public to actually make a report. In this case the user adds to his talkpage - "Collecting diffs and other evidence in case this dispute continues and worsens" - so do it on your own computer. Amassing such diffs is on a public userpage as I have seen is always an escalation and does nothing but cause additional rancor and disruption. Youreallycan (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this the place for policy discussion? You seem to support a hypocritical stance: User:Lhb1239 is allowed to make false allegations of harassment and personal attack in multiple venues yet I am not allowed to document those and defend myself? The comment you quoted about the escalation was in response to his following me to a new article as it developed. El duderino (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the policy that causes a report can be mentioned , why not. I see you are now calling me a hypocrite, of course you are, bye. Youreallycan (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I described your response. Not the same thing. El duderino (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if this will help in this particular case or not, but the user Yworo has a sub-page called User:Yworo/IP incident record which documents problems he's had with a user. If an editor is sincere about documenting a problem for a possible RFC, and not just doing it to hassle someone, Yworo's approach might be a workable solution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest WP:MFD in order to find consensus on what to do in this particular situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Pope Joan suspected edit warring and violation of 3RR

The question is the contiued removal of a significant date from the lead. User:PatGallacher seems to want to own the article and shows a proclivity for OR. This shows an error on my part in the fact, but shows the ongoing warring[50], then here[51] and here[52]. Yet I ask that you consult this odd and confused message at the talk page[53], Gallacher's last post at the bottom which is followed by my reply. Though I requested RFC at the talk, I have already asked and been ignored by an admin for help. I'm trying to improve this article per Wikipedia standards and resent this editor's stone walling. Djathinkimacowboy 21:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

You will see that I have only made 4 edits in the past 4 days, and I attempted to discuss this on Talk:Pope Joan. I am puzzled at the allegation of original research. PatGallacher (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

"Gentlemen. You can't fight in here. This is the War Room." This really isn't the place for content disputes. I would be happy to mediate on the talk page if both of you will accept. Viriditas (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Essentially being left with no choice, I agreed to Viriditas' mediation. It was not satisfactory, for Viriditas to simply agree with the the other editor and attempt to close discussion. 2. PatGallacher is not being truthful. He attempted no discussion of the issue, that is clear from my diffs and the talk page, and Pat simultaneously kept reverting each modified edit I made. My apologies for this, but I see it as unacceptable behaviour on Pat's end. I am not happy with this obfuscation and double standard of Wikipedia rules. Djathinkimacowboy 00:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

User:FDR at the Ages of consent in North America article and in general

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

As I stated at Talk:Ages of consent in North America#Most common age, User:FDR keeps adding "17 and 18" or "18" as the most common ages for the age of consent in the United States. He has now been reverted four times,[54][55][56][57] and received an edit-warring warning.[58] I left this message on his talk page inviting him to discussion, which he ignored before making his most recent edits. I made clear on the talk page that there is nothing wrong with mentioning the most common age and that FDR clearly has a problem with 16 being the most common age...but that this should not be our problem. I also disagree with PassaMethod's seemingly compromise edit to remove any mention of the most common age altogether.[59]

Yes, this is an edit-warring issue, but I believe that it is also a bigger issue because this editor is problematic in general, as witnessed by his block. I don't understand why he was unblocked. He is even harassing User:RJR3333 (I doubt that they are the same person, logging in as one user to add the content and then another to remove it).[60][61] Flyer22 (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Backstory: He posted an unblock request on his talk page some months after being indef'd for apparent vandalism by Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) in February. He said he regretted the vandalism and wouldn't do it again. He also pointed to a sock he'd made to get around the block (apparently not realizing that this is block evasion and not allowed) that seemed to have been editing constructively. I decided to give him another shot since he seemed to be earnest in his desire to resume productive editing, despite being low on cluefulness. Since I unblocked him, he's made a series of weird and disruptive edits that bring up renewed competence concerns for me. He's edit warring to restore content that is transparently not in the citations and generally not responding to messages, either because he doesn't read them or doesn't understand them. I'd appreciate it if someone else could reach him since I'm not (yet) convinced that this is simple trolling, but I would not object to a reblock. causa sui (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Basically, at this stage I will give him one final chance. --John (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Ellybust2025

Resolved

• Ellybust2025 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A recently created account whose first article namespace edit was vandalism/hoax at John F. Kennedy International Airport (diff [62]). This was followed by a similar vandilism like edit (diff [63]). Also, the user page has a statement which kinda alludes to it being a vandalism only account. It says that the user is part of "the vandal busters team". Not only this, the page has other disturbing references to animal abuse ("He also supports inhumane treatment of animals and humans and favours beating living animals") and homicide ("enjoys killing civilians in Afghanistan."). When I came upon it, my first instinct was either vandal only account or some kind of sockpuppet. I have given the user a Level 2 vandalism warning. Cocoaguy ここがいい 23:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The account needs to be indeffed, and the user page needs to be speedily deleted. I've tagged it - not sure if I can remove the content myself in the meantime.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I speedied the userpage. Insufficient warnings for a vandalism block. WP:AIV can handle this stuff. causa sui (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've seen accounts like this one indeffed without the usual escalating warnings, but no matter. I would like to know, though, if I'm permitted to remove the content of the user page while waiting for a decision on the speedy delete.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Subtle date vandalism

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

This IP address over the past few months, and possibly longer, has been going around to articles and changing the dates on various people and events, often making them much older than they are. All unsourced, of course. It seems pretty clear that these are acts of subtle vandalism, considering how very unhelpful their edit summaries are when they use them ("GOOD MUSIC", seriously?). While it does appear that there are helpful IPs editing through this city of Memphis IP, the vandalism rather offsets any good the others are doing. Since this appears to be a long term ongoing thing, I wanted to report it here rather than to AIV. Not sure if this should have gone on AN instead though. Silverseren^C 00:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Did I type something in wrong, is my browser not updating or what? Because I can't see this section on the page. Silverseren^C 00:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

There we go. Weird. Silverseren^C 00:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

If dates are sourced, they should be set to whatever the source says. If the date isn't sourced, it should be removed altogether, whether it's this IP's edit, or the original contention. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)