Recently the rules regarding AfDs were changed to enforce the seven day rule more efficiently. Apparently this was also extended to Prods, per a discussion here, which didn't generate very many opinions. Since then the rules regarding prods have also been updated to enforce this seven day rule. While I'm not completely against the idea (I just see it as unnecessary), the discussion wasn't well known about, so I'm posting here to get more opinions. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree; there was no consensus for such a significant change. Also, I'm not entirely sure what the benefit is. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus, and I oppose the change. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest adding further comments at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion, to avoid having the same discussion in two places. Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This page is more widely-viewed, though, so I personally think it's beneficial to discuss it in a couple places. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

well, it can be notified in several places, but there should only be a single place for discussion. WT:PROD would seem to be the appropriate one, treating this as the notice. The basic rationale is the same: to permit people who come only occasionally to have a chance to improve articles. I am pretty puzzled why anyone should be opposed, when we still have Speedy. DGG (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The potential benefit would be the same as in the AfD proposal that passed with strong consensus: "it allows participation from all users, who may only edit at weekends/certain times of the week." Please note that "more participation" does apply to PROD as removal of the tag is the same as saying "no it shouldn't be deleted without discussion," which is a form of participation. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• The point of PROD is for uncontroversial drama-free deletion. If something becomes controversial by waiting two days, it was probably not a good candidate for PROD. I don't see a problem here, though I do wonder about some of the more acrimonious AfDs if left to run longer. Guy (Help!) 02:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I've seen a number of admins who submitted requests at WP:Editor review to review their administrative conduct, and I thought it might be worthwhile to separate it into a different venue as these reviews have a different focus. Perhaps it can also relieve some of the stress of RFC/RFAr if admins give people a place to no-hold-barred place to speak frankly... As always, comments invited. –xeno ^talk 03:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. Just begging for trolling and personal attacks. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Or it'll just be like peer review and editor review, where you have 20 times as many people asking for review as giving reviews and it just ends up being a waste of time for everyone involved. Peer review seems a little bit better than I remember it being, but editor review seems as backlogged as ever. Mr.Z-man 04:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

no-hold-barred? hmmm ... wez gits to pick on da adminz? ... In all seriousness though, I do kinda like the idea, but I suspect it could lead to a real knock-down, drag-out, drama-fest. Would it let folks blow off some steam and feel better in the end, or would it just raise the level of animosity in the community? ... that's what I'm just not sure of, but I'll be interested in seeing where this all goes! ;) — Ched :  ?  06:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to say that I agree with Mr.Z-man; editor review is already hopelessly backlogged and, from what I learned when I did my own ER some time ago, many of the comments you get are complaints that belong on your user talk page. Admin review ... seems like a specialized version thereof. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

An IP editor from Bishkek has been removing information about religious education at the Hope Academy of Bishkek. Looked like simple vandalism at first, but s/he finally left an edit summary stating that the content could cause problems with the authorities [1]. I imagine that is referring to regulations such as this one [2]. Anyway don't know if the edit summary is true or not; what's the best way to proceed? (My opinion would be to delete the whole bloody thing, but certain WikiProjects have already ruled out that course of action ...) Thanks, cab (talk) 09:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The law s/he is refering to is a Kyrgyzstan law, right? In that case, I don't think it applies to this Wikipedia. The policy that applies here is that Wikipedia is not censored. Laurent (talk) 09:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the application of the law to the school rather than to Wikipedia. To wit: We are asserting that this school is in violation of Kyrgyzstan's law. Our source for that assertion is a self-published newsletter, barely skirting the edge of WP:RS. Might want to err on the side of caution and remove the content. Also for example, their faculty page used to contain a comment about how one teacher would be teaching Bible classes [3]. In the current version that statement has been removed [4]. In other words it looks like there is a concerted effort by the school to remove any information relating to their religious activities, or maybe in fact they have ceased such activities.

Anyway this is the problem with writing articles about blatantly non-notable topics on the basis of "automatic notability" ... otherwise we might have some reliable secondary sources which would help to clarify what exactly is going on here. cab (talk) 09:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I have taken a stab at updating the information in regards to the new law in a NPOV way. (The law is pretty recent, so it is perfectly reasonable to assume the info we had was out of date). Let me know what you think. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to request that closure of the two merger proposals by an uninvolved administrator on The Ting Tings, as it has been a bit controversial and it needs to now be concluded. Thanks Thruxton (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Closed. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 20:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I attempted, on March 3, to propose a change to Template: Catholicism. I have never gotten a response.

The most important thing is to remove Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter from Particular Churches as they are not a Church, or even a religious order, but only a society. It's a huge error in the template.

The other things are things that I would like to discuss with people but it looks like there's no one to discuss them with. :C joye (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Aha, apparently the "requests for page protection/unprotection" page also includes requests for changes, which I was wasn't aware of from my brief scan of "Are you in the right place?". So... I'll take this over there. Whoops. joye (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Or... maybe not? Because it seems to say over there that edits will only be done in exceptional circumstances with lots of talk page discussion before hand, but there's no one on the talk page to talk with! I don't know I am confused. joye (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You might want to bring up the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity and try to generate a consensus there, given that it's the appropriate Wikiproject. – Toon^(talk) 22:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• I would just post the request at RFPP. Template talk pages are rarely monitored and you are unlikely to get a response without using the {{Editprotected}} template. That template adds the page to a queue where admins can scan all protected edit requests and attempt to execute them. I think you can make a case at RFPP for the particular change you want made. I would make the change myself, but I know next to nothing about particular churches w/in Catholicism, so I don't feel comfortable doing it. Protonk (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• 207.237.33.36‎ (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 207.237.33.117 (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 207.237.61.168 (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

As suggested by Jeremy, here, I've taken the discussion of the ban of this user and his small /24 range of socks here. As stated in the ANI thread, my conflict with this user began on the RFC of Collect, then moved to the 3RR noticeboard, where the IP stalked my edits and contributions and reported me for reverting vandalism and OR. The IP was soon blocked for disruptive editing, which, in the block message, read as pointless confrontations with multiple users. It didn't say in the block message he was harassing me, but another admin agreed with me that the IP user was harassing me.

Not long after the IP was blocked, he or she came back as another user, the second listed IP in this report. The IP of course denied socking, and even tried to act differently than the master account posting crude images and insults. This IP was soon blocked for blatant block evasion. Finally, several hours later, the third IP came in and reverted my notification of involved users about the master account's behavior.

During the time between the emergence of the third IP and the blocking of the second IP, I was contacted on youtube with the message of:

Oh No! Did an anon IP user from Wikipedia track you down? Why are your teeth so yellow? Is it to match your spine?

I of course took a screenshot of said message, and, if asked, I can provide a screen shot of said message. I responded to this message, telling the IP user it was a bad idea what he or she was doing. I got a message back saying that a year-long block on his IP address would be a minor setback and that they would continue to stalk and harass me. Since then, I have gotten several more message from the user on my youtube account, and I have since removed said messages and blocked the user from sending or posting more on my things.

Either way, the message is clear: They plan to continue to harass me on wikipedia. I'm not going to just stand by and let someone do this to me, so I'm asking you, since this IP, as stated in the SPI report, is on a very small range where very little damage would occur if the range was blocked, can we please ban this user from wikipedia, and block the IP indefintely. I've read WP:BLOCK. I realize that indef blocks on IPs are seldom, and only used in serious matters. Well, to me, this appears to be a serious matter, so please, get rid of this user.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think that's a compelling enough reason to block an IP indefinitely. It certainly won't stop them from commenting on youtube videos or whatever. I think a year or 2 years is reasonable. Remember, that's just the technical block. If the user shows up after 1 year, we will just reblock without issue. Protonk (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Remember, Protonk, bans apply to the person, not the handle, so this is a legitimate request, even if we cannot indef the IPs involved. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 23:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
    • ...I just said that. Protonk (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The user is now posting my full, real name on some blog. I'm going to report the IP to the ISP as suggested by Jeremy.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• What's the evidence for the person(s) on Youtube and elsewhere being the same person(s) as the IP here? Writegeist (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Do tell me how he found a blog if he didn't know my name.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I still don't understand how this off-wiki activity is necessarily a Wikipedia problem. I feel for you, Daedalus, having had one furious editor pop up on my off-wiki radar earlier this year. But unless there's clear evidence that it's this particular person (e.g., a blog post which shows the logged IP, server logs of a server you control, IRC logs that show the user's hostname), I don't think it's appropriate to go above and beyond issuing progressively longer blocks for disruptive behavior on that IP range, as Protonk seems to suggest. And I'm reasonably sure that without that sort of evidence, an ISP isn't going to pursue an abuse report, as ISPs get an absolute ton of abuse email every day (mostly DMCA-related, but that's another issue entirely). Of course, I'm not saying you should compromise your privacy by posting such evidence here- I think an Arbcom email is the right place for such a complaint, though someone more experienced with such matters would be the one to ask. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
      • For the record, I saw the edit made by 207.237.61.168 (talk · contribs) prior to it being oversighted. The question has nothing to do with whether or not the person behind the above IPs is the same person harassing Daedalus969 off-wiki. There is no doubt about it. The question is what response, if any, is required moving forward on-wiki. --auburnpilot talk 00:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, considering that, I still don't think there's much reason to enact a de jure community ban, and in fact per WP:DENY (especially considering the comments Daedalus is reporting) I would suggest we have reason to believe a simple rule of RBI would be in the best interests of both WP and Daedalus himself. I don't see an indef rangeblock as happening when indef blocks of individual IPs are already unusual, especially for IP addresses belonging to a major regional telecommunications network which very well could be reassigned in very short order. As to the harassment, Daedalus should be encouraged to correspond with RCN Corporation's abuse department and the WMF for the oversighted edits as evidence. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
          • I don't think it is simple enough for RBI to work in this situation. When admins are blocking the stalker IPs, and these actions are questioned, what will happen when they redirect their questions to this discussion, where nothing apparently happened. We need to formally ban this user. This isn't some troll seeking attention(as in regards to WP:DENY), this is a stalker, one who claims to be a long-time editor. This user needs to be banned.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Correction: Nothing happened the we can do something about.I actually believe that this falls perfectly into. WP:DENY I agree that this user is stalking and trolling, even if he's blocked on Wikipedia he will still continue harassment offsite. RBI is your best method, eventually he will grow bored and stop. Don't feed the trolls.--Skater (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I see your point Daedalus, but still disagree that a formal ban is the right solution. He can already be considered de facto banned for the block evasion anyway. All I see is encouragement to persist when it's already been shown this user is willing and able to evade regular blocks. Seriously, considering the messages, that he doesn't care about a year-long block, indicates that he's just doing this "for the lulz", so to speak. And, honestly, we don't need to strike while the iron is hot. There are lots of eyes on this case, and the /24 range is blocked for the next 2 weeks. If the troll doesn't die of starvation by then, this can be quickly and uncontroversially sped through. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • So then what am I going to do if another sock appears? Who do I report it to? And I still think we need to ban this user, so as a reason for a long block.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
    • If the IP starts blowing personal info around, oversight is your answer. As to blocking new IPs that show up outside the rangeblock, I believe what most other ppl do is report directly to one or two admins that were involved in the original investigations. In any case, a ban will do nothing extra on top of this. When a new IP shows up outside the rangeblock, it'll either be a WP:DUCK, where it'll get blocked rapidly (same as if it were banned), or it'll be less obvious, and even an involved admin would be careful in rapidly labeling a non-DUCK case as a return of a banned user. All the ban does is provide a quick way to prove that the user in question should be blocked as a matter of fact. But, IMO, the user's block log says the same thing, and any harassing edits would do the same. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Alright. Now, as noted below, that a rangeblock is out of the question, could an admin at least separately block the three offending IPs for a year per this discussion?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
        • I personally wouldn't be opposed to uniformly lengthening the blocks on the individuals, or even putting up a longer block on that /24 range until it's shown the user can evade it... Might want to ask lucasbfr why he identified the /24 if the /16 is the real range. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
          • @Protonk - would you be able to lenthen the blocks for the three IPs listed?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent/change of subject) FWIW, these 3 IPs come from a /16 (not a /24) that is assigned to RCN Corporation; traceroute pins it down to the New York area. Probable web page is [5] - blocking the /16 would cut off an entire cable TV network's worth of Wikipedia editors. (Whether there are any reasonable IP editors in that range is a completely different question.) --Alvestrand (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the network is a /16, but the user seemed to remain consistently in the /24 which was much less noisy and could be softblocked with much less collateral. That's why I reported the /24 and not the /16 :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have any idea what the deal is with this user, Sir Lestaty de Lioncourt (talk · contribs)? I know its not particularly recent but his edits seem to be simply making userpages and subpages for "bots", half of which aren't registered anyway, and the ones that are have no Bot approval or flag and zero edits--Jac16888^Talk 23:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should ask him on his talk page? - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, those edits are from October 2008. MBisanz ^talk 01:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

An Anne Rice fan. Durova^Charge! 01:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Should have made it clearer, I did pop a note on his talk page, but being inactive since October I don't expect a response. Basically, I've spent the last few weeks clearing Wikipedia:Database reports/Ownerless pages in the user space, and of the ones left, half are doppelganger accounts that weren't actually created. I've nudged all the owners and most are active enough that I should get a response before long, but not him--Jac16888^Talk 01:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems deletable, if that's what you're asking? Durova^Charge! 02:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much yeah :), just wondered if there was a purpose behind them--Jac16888^Talk 02:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

From the edit history it appeared the user may have misunderstood project scope. Most of the page creations are based upon character names from the Vampire Chronicles. If any vampire tries to pop up and intervene, just tell 'em the Wiki Witch of the West said it's OK. Durova^Charge! 02:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

haha, ok. Have deleted them all then, thanks--Jac16888^Talk 02:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Could an admin look at this weird instance? Did something get deleted / how did that MW message get into the editable text? It's a bit of a mystery and needs confirmation as to whether something happened not in the public logs. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved. The image was an apparent copyright infringement, so I deleted it. Jehochman ^Talk 10:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Though I'd still like to know how it appeared with only error-message text and zero edit history. I'll presume a deleted initiating edit I guess, though I didn't think that was possible. Franamax (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:GFDL-presumed - Template:GFDL-presumed is protected, so I left a notice on the talk page, I just don't want anyone crying foul. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll add a tag. Icestorm815 • Talk 18:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I recently received an email from User:CmdrClow, who was blocked after a sockpuppet investigation for two weeks. He said that he was on vacation when the investigation started, and when he returned he found that he was blocked. He has asked me to look into this further, so here I am.

It would appear that a number of things were out of process in this specific investigation. CmdrClow was never alerted that the sockpuppet investigation had been filed (although even if he had, he probably wouldn't have seen it since he was on vacation). Additionally, the blocking administrator (User:MBisanz) did not notify him of the block on his user talk page, so he was further unaware of it until he tried to edit.

CmdrClow gave some good reasons as to why he felt that the block was incorrect in the email, which he was simply unable to outline because he was unaware of the investigation and was also on vacation. The following section will be transcluded from his talk page so that he may make his comments again and defend his position; I don't want to directly copy what was in his email because he didn't give permission for me to do so. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll advise MBisanz of this thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If I understand CmdrClow's statement, he shares an IP connection with other employees who happen to support his edits via IPs and another account. Even if these other edits are not made by the person who controls the CmdrClow account, WP:MEAT still applies. The provenance of a fellow employee happening to show up at the same pages as CmdrClow to reinforce his would violate the policy that reads when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity.

Further, the reason his co-workers can no longer edit is because the checkuser blocked the IP range of the store due to the socking.

As to why I didn't leave a block notice for CmdrClow, there is a direct link on the block screen when he tries to edit linking to the SPI. As a checkuser confirmed the direct technical link, the abuse appeared clear enough to not warrant a detailed message. MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec, some edits made in light of MBisanz's comments)

First things first, yes, CmdrClow and I have had points of friction. But that tends to be on a few specific points.

And I'll take a mea culpa on not dropping a notice on his talk page. Case of not seeing it spelled out if/how/who is responsible for that on the SPI page.

Beyond that, I was mildly surprised that the IP and CP wer blocked, and very surprised that Clow was. My hope was, if there was a strong correlation, to go back to Clow and strongly suggest that:

1. Remember to long in when editing, and
2. Avoid editing from work (CP).

What has come out of this, including Clow's comment below, is that the edits from the IP range and the store have become suspect. It is unclear if the edits have or will come from:

• CmdrClow personally (sock)
• One of his friends (meatpuppet)
• Or an unrelated 3rd party

The bottom lines as I see are:

Is there a problem here? Yes. Based on the actions of CP and the IP range a degree of puppetry has been going on.

Should something have been done about it? Again, yes. Blocking the IP and CP seem reasonable, the duration though are on the "maybe" side of reasonable. Again, my preference with Clow would have been a warning, either the soft one I outlined above or a templated one.

Should something have hit Clow's talk page? Yes. At the very least, when the closing admin decided the blocks were warranted, then some sort of notice should have been dropped on the account pages. One was on CP's but none on Clows. MBisanz's comment makes sense, but is it in line with reasonable practice with SPI?

- J Greb (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I know that many times SPIs with dozens of socks make individual talk page notifications burdensome, particularly when checkuser indicates the person knew what they were doing when they were socking. The talk page notice is more for the benefit of people who weren't aware of their actions and for reviewing admins, since the block log shows up more prominently than a talk page message, see sample image. I also should add that many sockpuppeters, when caught, claim it was a friend, roommate, co-worker, etc, and the believability test is "why were these friends who weren't coordinating things with you editing the exact same articles to reinforce your edits?" It just simply isn't believable that two people on the same limited IP would independently edits several of the same pages to reinforce each other's edits without coordination. MBisanz ^talk 00:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for looking at this again; I know very little of the case and have had no other experience in the sockpuppetry/CheckUser area; I just wanted to give CmdrClow a chance to respond here because of the situations surrounding the block. I, personally, don't feel that I have enough experience with block- and sockpuppet-related matters to be able to form a logical opinion at this time. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been over the edit histories. There is clear alignment of edit interests among the IPs and two accounts. However, the specific edit patterns of CdrClow and the others don't look identical. There are different behaviors there. I agree that the IPs largely match the User:ComicsPlace edits. WP:SOCK does not require that there never be editing overlap in topic of interest between people who know each other in real life, or even true sock accounts of the same person. It prohibits uses which are, in Wikipedia's contexts, abusive - from Sockpuppets because one person appearing to be many can distort consensus and wider discussion, and from Meatpuppets because we cannot be sure if they really are separate people, and many times must assume they are the same person from a policy perspective. Reviewing from an abuse perspective, however, the only abusive behavior seems to be related to the (WP:USERNAME violating) ComicsPlace account, in the sense of it being used to promote the business. We don't allow group accounts or organizational accounts. The IPs edited serially rather than in parallel, as a rule. They and ComicsPlace reinforced each other a bit - but I don't see either the IPs or ComicsPlace acting in concert with CdrClow on pages, in the sense of specific behaviors we prohibit. My two cents on review:

• Even making the worst assumptions about behavior, CdrClow didn't abusively sockpuppet or meatpuppet in the sense of actual behaviors we prohibit. I recommend he be unblocked, and asked to be careful to not let his coworkers support him in a way that could be construed as a meatpuppetry violation.
• The ComicsPlace account is an organizational name and people there tried to use it to promote the business. We should just indef it for that, and ask the individual editors who used it to get real accounts.
• Due to the issues with the IP editing and the organizational name account, we should probably long term anon-only block the IP range once the individuals have accounts set up (or, assume they can create accounts elsewhere, and just block it now)
• It's reasonable to ask that the individuals involved all identify their affiliations on their user / user talk pages, to avoid questions about undisclosed conflicts of interest and to help remind them not to violate the cooperative action restrictions in the meatpuppetry policy.

I see why people reacted this way, but it's useful to recall that the sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry policy was intended to prevent abusive behavior, and that absent abusive behavior we don't necessarily need to block people who know each other and overlapped a bit. I'm actually curious why the category F checkuser went through here - the actual editing behavior was far tamer than a bunch of CU requests that I've made that got denied as unnecessary or fishing. I think that the connections were fairly obvious, and the responses fairly obvious, without resorting to CU. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Any other opinions on this? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to give him a second chance, but if providence brings other new accounts to reinforce him in the future, I suggest that we won't be as understanding. MBisanz ^talk 20:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

That seems fair; if there isn't any opposition to that, could someone unblock him? (I would, except that I don't want to get involved in actually blocking/unblocking users and I haven't looked over the details of this particular situation). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

(note from Drilnoth: The rest of this talk page has been blanked until the discussion is over so that this section can be transcluded. CmdrClow, please comment here on the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive273#Appeal for block reevaluation). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe the best thing to do is to restate my position as I did to Drilnoth: The evidence points out a correlation between the account User:ComicsPlace and myself. There is a connection. As outlined in the original investigation, the account was associated with a comic book store in the pacific northwest. Some IPs that match the ISP of the ComicsPlace account have been seen making edits on my talk page. The account has also been bolstering edits of mine, as outlined by the accuser J Greb.

The connection to the account follows thusly: I am employed there. I used the computer at the store to edit my own talk page as shown, but I have never logged into the account. It was used by my coworkers. I have logged into my own account from the store multiple times. Furthermore, the latest edits from User:ComicsPlace were made a day after I had left on my vacation.

When I returned from my vacation yesterday, and tried to make an edit, I saw that I was blocked for the sockpuppet investigation. The presiding administrator, User:MBisanz, did not leave any notification on my talk page (as the blocking policy instructs admins to do unless it is with good reason) and regardless of the fact that I was gone, I was never given an opportunity to defend myself.

J Greb and I haven't gotten along for two years. I can see that he would reach for evidence about this, and while I admit his evidence is substantial enough to be convincing, it is slightly misguided. My coworkers that used the ComicsPlace user name informed me they were no longer able to edit and didn't care enough to do anything about it. If there are anymore questions feel free to inform me and I will answer them honestly and thoroughly, but this is at best a misunderstanding. Thank you for reading, and thank you Drilnoth for your assistance. --CmdrClow (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand the personal recklessness of myself and my coworkers in this regard. The permanent blocking of the CP account is perfectly acceptable with policy, but I want to make it clear, abundantly clear, that I did not personally operate the account. I have been and continue to be well aware of sockpuppetry, and have never tried to lower the integrity of my edits by employing it. I can understand the suspicion, but in this case it is simply untrue. I understand part of the block is from "experience" by one editor or another, but to jump to the conclusion that I have sockpuppeted lacks the assumption of good faith.

My coworkers and I talk about everything (when you spend 10 hours in a comic book shop every day, it just happens) and sometimes I would mention some edit war on Wikipedia that I'd be having. I never asked for assistance from them, but coworkers of mine reacted of their own volition when "reinforcing" my edits. If I have any error, it is failing to dissuade them from doing so and never speaking openly on here about it. I maintain that that is all I am responsible for. --CmdrClow (talk) 04:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Are there anymore questions, or does anything else need to be said? --CmdrClow (talk) 03:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

There will be no other accounts that have even a slight connection to mine, as the users of the CP account don't wish to do anything else since they don't care enough about their own block. I have not created any accounts other than my own, nor will I. --CmdrClow (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I notice the discussion has beenr emoved from the noticeboard, but I have yet to be unblocked. It seemed as though there was a loose consensus leaning toward my unblocking, so may I ask why? --CmdrClow (talk) 23:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Done... I think it was a case of everyone waiting for someone else to un-do it.

- J Greb (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, round X of getting this BLP policy-compliant led to this discussion on the RSN board. If an admin could overview the discussion to ensure it measures up and please remove:
Despite continuing disapproval of her views from the transgender community and a vote of censure against her at the National Union of Students LGBT Campaign's 2008 Conference[13],

and

In 2009, her continued publication of controversial articles[18] led to a no-platform motion being passed against her by the NUS Women's Campaign.[19][20]

and the sources that were discussed from Julie Bindel#Reactions to Bindel's journalism I would appreciate it. -- Banjeboi 15:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Help please, I'm trying to get poorly sourced negative information off a BLP. -- Banjeboi 01:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Using {{editprotected}} on the talk page would be handy. Removing these 2 sentences leaves "The nomination attracted a protest against Stonewall outside..." hanging. How do you propose that should read? Kevin (talk) 04:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You may be misreading that Kevin, this would remove only the NUS content and sources. "The nomination attracted ..." sentence wouldn't be touched at this point. I didn't add the template as the talkpage devolves into accusations so no consensus is occuring and those who disagree with Bindel's views have vowwed to keep inserting the content and revert any changes I make to this section. They've asserted that an admin approved of the prior content and sourcing. Here CIreland confirms - The previous "consensus" of which I was originally a part of was not so much an agreement as me insisting that the article musn't misrepresent sources or attempt to attribute attitudes to the "LGBT community" by original research. This was primarily concerning the issue of the Stonewall award. It's my opinion that there has been an ongoing attempt to push a POV that might be crudely summarized as "Bindel is disliked by most LGBT people" without any serious sources to back that up. So these same editors - at least one has changed usernames - have refused to allow changes unless an admin makes them. I think they believe I'll simply tire and walk away. We still have other bad sources there but this is the first round through RSN. If RSN isn't a valid consensus then we likely should delete the article and start over. -- Banjeboi 14:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd ask admins to refrain from enacting Benjiboi's edits. I don't like either of the above sentences either and they need to be rewritten, but Benjiboi is attempting to use BLP issues as a cover for some fairly hardline POV pushing. This is something that needs to be worked out between the fairly diverse range of editors on the talk page - a number of whom share Benjiboi's perspective, but unlike him, have been helpful in trying to work out an agreeable compromise. Benjiboi, on the other hand, has been forum shopping all over the project in an attempt to do an end-run around that discussion and find an admin who will edit the protected article along the lines of his particular POV. Rebecca (talk) 05:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This was a unanimous decision at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and you participated in it. I'm sorry that past discussions have failed to follow policies and effectively inserted bad sourcing and POV writing effectively coatracking on a BLP but we are fixing those issues despite the enmity towards the subject and me personally. -- Banjeboi 14:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment {{edit protected}} is at Talk:Julie Bindel#Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately. -- Banjeboi 13:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed this Diff on a recent article - I'm not sure if it's a good faith edit or if it's vandalism... and I am not sure what the right answer is either. I looked at the user's talk page and they have possibly vandalised one page beforehand so I would probably go with vandalism, but I wanted to check with an admin so as not to accidentally revert a 'good' edit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_and_Jerry%3A_The_Movie&diff=286084076&oldid=285936619

Thanks! --86.26.160.235 (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Have you tried looking up the data elsewhere? Shouldn't be hard. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

According to IMDB it was 1992, thus it seems to be a good edit. Nja²⁴⁷ 20:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this, but it seems within the past few hours the quote box code formatting has been changed. Please see the current format of To Kill a Mockingbird in the Style section. I use quote boxes often, and some helpful anon IP fixed the problem in Mulholland Drive (film), and I was able to fix it in the Lesbian article, but I can't figure out how to fix the TKaM quote box.

I fixed the box - the problem was the lack of </div>s. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

In the future, if the quote box formats change, which the have within the past 4 months to create spacing problems, a bot should be employed to change all the quote boxes to adhere to the new changes. --Moni3 (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

TKaM uses {{quote box2}} which did have some changes done to it a few hours ago, but that does not seem to have caused the problem. The content of the box had opening <div> tags, but no closing tags. Those divs are not needed at all; I added parameters to align the content and source a long time ago. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

What happened between yesterday and today to mess up the quote boxes? What happened 4 months ago to create extra spaces around the layout of the quote boxes so in order for the article to appear seamless the quote box can no longer stand alone in code, but must be buried within surrounding paragraphs? Who makes changes to quote box formatting? Is there a consensus, or does someone just decide to tweak it? Why must I find anon IPs tweaking FAs to make them legible? It seems on the face of it to be a fairly insignificant issue, but as someone who maintains these articles, I had no idea the changes were made. I had no idea the articles looked awful and no one could read them. --Moni3 (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I created and maintain {{quote box2}}, but others have added features and fixes. The quote box2s in TKaM and Mulholland Drive should never have worked in the first place without a closing div. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I found another one in Marge Simpson, an article I have not previously edited. Regardless of the quote boxes needing the div tags before yesterday, the articles were readable, and then they weren't. How many articles use quote boxes? Since I don't know what happened between yesterday with the code formatting, which is preferable: changing the code so the quote boxes look all right, or hunting down every quote box in an article and adding the div tags? --Moni3 (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I just went through every article using {{quote box2}} and found no valid use of the <div> tag. This should now be fixed for quote box2. I did not directly check articles using {{quote box}}, but I did find a and fix a few with the same problem. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw and appreciate your efforts. Not to beat this to death or anything, but how can this be prevented in the future? --Moni3 (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Just as a precaution, would a good many admins mind watchlisting this? It will almost certainly be on our front page (In The News) for the next few days if not longer, and it's almost certainly getting a ton of views right now. Amazingly little vandalism so far, but it's only a matter of time, and with it's visibility and usefulness to the general public (we're going to be the #1 search hit in a little while with how it always goes) it would be bad if anyone started abusing tags, adding inappropriate images, etc. rootology (C)(T) 00:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Given the sensitive nature of the topic and it's massive public visibility, please weigh in there--not here--on this. rootology (C)(T) 00:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: Copied from Controlled Demo page: I wholeheartedly agree that this article should be retitled. The additon of the word "conspiracy" only serves to make the article anything but neutral. The title of this article is in clear violation of Wiki's policy of a neutral point of view. An adequate title to remedy the situation might be : "World Trade Center Controlled Demolition Theory" or something to that effect.(Peterbadgely (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)) peterbadgely

I have reviewed the messages below this, and since one of the editors referred to "controlled demolition proponents" rather than using the word conspiracy, I feel that "proponents" may be an adequate remedy to the above violation of neutrality rules. Note that the word proponent was promoted by a detractor of the banned editor. There must be a more adult manner to deal with these alternative theories. Note that Wikipedia will be read centuries from now, so much the better if we look upon all sound (or arguable) theories with a neutral and inquisitive mind in the present day (2009).(Peterbadgely (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)) peterbadgely —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterbadgely (talk • contribs)

This is almost impossible to understand, but clearly it doesn't belong on this noticeboard. If you have concerns about neutrality, the place to discuss them is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Looie496 (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been watching over Resident Evil 5 and the main antagonist Wesker was shot in the game and thought to be killed. The community came to a decision that it should be said that the article should say shot instead of killed. But User:Daymeeee has constantly reverted edits that change the word to shot. Also he has been trolling around the page because for a while now thats the only thing he's edited. I have warned him multiple times but he is such a "do what I want spirit" that he just ignores me and does it over and over.--(NGG) 22:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like he/she is engaged in an edit war and from the look of it has been warned so I suggest Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. From the look of it, Daymeeee is the same person as User:137.99.151.100 who has a chequered history and has been previously blocked for edit warring Nil Einne (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

After seeing how bad it was, I've filed a report myself Nil Einne (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

MedCab currently (23:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)) has fourteen unadopted requests. Volunteers would be greatly appreciated. There are no particulary requirement, but people looking to help should check out their suggestions for volunteers. Thanks! --Vassyana (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if WP has a definite policy on providing information on the sizes of lethal overdoses of pharmaceuticals. However, if there isn't one, I think there should be - and it should be that such information should be deleted on sight, no matter where it appears. To be clear, I don't mean that data readily available in an MSDS should be prohibited - rat LD50's (for example) are easily found online - but information like X tablets of Y will kill is inappropriate and unnecessary. I raise this because I came looking for information on the opiod dextropropoxyphene napsylate. A friend of mine asked me about a medication he is taking that includes this substance as one of its ingredients. He's only very recently out of hospital following a near-successful suicide attempt. Consequently, I was stunned that he would be prescribed something containing dextropropoxyphene napsylate as it is addictive, easy to overdose on, and very vulnerable to abuse.

The comments that bring me here are on the talk page, starting with the section on enzymes where User:DrMorelos talks about lethal dosages of paracetamol (aka acetaminophen) in the third indented paragraph. "15 grams of acetaminophen within 16 hours (guaranteed liver poisoning)". DrMorelos is discussing a wildly foolish self-experiment, and does include warnings not to try this - but to a person intent on suicide, this information is valuable and the warnings would be ignored. DrMorelos has neither a user page nor a talk page, and the posts appear old, so I can't just ask him or her to remove the comments... and in any case, there is a more general question here. The following section states (in bold) "It only requires 10-15 500mg tablets to kill you", according to User:PainMan, who I will notify of this post.

So, in short - is there a policy on providing quantity information relating to lethal overdoses of pharmaceuticals? If not, should there be? And, is there some way to search for and remove other instances of inappropriate information like this - assuming you collectively agree it is inappropriate. EdChem (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The applicable policies are WP:V (unverifiable content may be removed), WP:HOWTO (we do not carry instruction manuals, including for suicide by overdose), but also WP:NOTCENSORED (content is not removed solely for being morally objectionable). In other words, information in an article in the vein of "the LD 50 for this medicament is 100 mg" should be retained if accompanied by a reference to a reliable source, but removed otherwise. It may also be removed from talk pages if it is not related to discussion of the article's contents.

Also, WP:VPP would probably be a better place for this discussion.  Sandstein  20:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually I would suggest Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Medicine if you want people with expertise to see it. Looie496 (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Add WP:BEANS to the list. As with anything suicide-related, the potential for time-wasting and deliberate trolling here is enormous. WP:V and WP:HOWTO should eliminate most information of this type, or at least require rewording into a more encyclopedic form. Durova^Charge! 03:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, a statement that X amount of a given medicine is fatal can be a useful warning to people concerned about prescribed dosages. While Sandstein is correct about the information being verifiable -- especially as individual biochemistries vary so much that it may take 2 or 3 times the normally fatal amount to kill one person, while another could die from half the usual amount -- still, some kind of yardstick is better than none at all, & more people have access to Wikipedia than have immediate access to the Physicians' Desk Reference.

(Just to make sure that my thoughts were relevant in this instance, I had a look at the section EdChem wrote about. The Wikipedian in question wrote to warn people about the toxic levels of this drug, not to encourage people to abuse it in order to kill themselves.)

And the sad fact is that people who want to kill themselves will find a way. Put a warning label on anything, & a potential suicide will see if can be abused in this manner. They'll drink drain cleaner, paint thinner, or fill their pockets with rocks take a one-way walk into a deep body of water. (I know a woman who tried to commit suicide with an OD of antihistamines -- which didn't kill her. It did make her sick as a dog for a few days, & she had a week at a nearby psych ward for observation.) Almost any information in Wikipedia can be abused. -- llywrch (talk) 05:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

My issue with that kind of content is more that many people are not that aware of our disclaimers, if there's an error or vandalism, that have regrettable consequences regardless of what their intent might be. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#newenergytimes.com

This delisting request was posted 15:18, 11 April 2009; there has been extensive discussion, and discussion has stopped. I request a close from a neutral administrator. --Abd (talk) 03:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Closed as consensus supporting removal, blacklist entry removed. Viridae^Talk 03:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Abd (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's really possible to read "consensus" - there seemed to be a distinct lack of independent outside input in that thread. That said, it's probably time to let this die. I agree with the delisting; let's see how things go, and if the site is spammed abusively then it can be readdressed, hopefully by some fresh eyes. On to the next drama. MastCell ^Talk 03:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree with mastcell about the "consensus" here. It is a shame that we will now have to work harder to ensure that this site isn't abused again, as it was in the past. Verbal chat 08:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, MastCell and Verbal, though the debate over Cold fusion is a difficult one, with some entrenched positions, and isn't going to be resolved without work, yes, working "harder." The goal? Thorough coverage, NPOV, as shown in reliable sources, as determined by consensus. In other words, Wikipedia process. The decision wasn't made, I hope, on preponderance of votes, but on arguments, and the rough consensus simply showed that, and if Verbal or anyone else thinks it was warped in some way, there is WP:DR, which works. If there is anyone confused about how to proceed if they think a decision was improper or warped by some local participation bias, ask me, I do know how to proceed with minimal disruption. --Abd (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I propose a speedy reversion of this, at least until the arbcom case concerning Abd and JzG is over. Jtrainor (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I was also disappointed to discover this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV#Viridae. This does not seem to be what I initially thought it was, and I'm disappointed (again). For this reason it should probably be reverted and reviewed. Verbal chat 07:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Not to toss any political fireballs, but is this site being spammed across multiple articles? If not, it should not be blacklisted. If so, it should be blacklisted if it's not appropriate and consensus agrees on that. The RFAR status should have no relevance. The AC as a body has zero authority over what goes in or out of the blacklist(s) and never will, as that is a pure content matter. rootology (C)(T) 01:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It was blacklisted correctly. Verbal chat 07:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Reagardless of wether it was blacklisted correctly at the time - I really don't care, it was removed according to consensus supported by policy. Viridae^Talk 08:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Rootology: I do believe that there is cause for concern, and that the site was abused (in several ways, to several articles, and by several editors, and for quite some time), and I still have concerns that this may not be over. However, there absolutely is also proper use of this site.

For the record, I agree with User:MastCell and User:Verbal that I find it difficult to read consensus (but I recuse from deciding again as I have stated my opinions earlier and declined there), but I urge, with User:Abd, for independent review of this (and I am afraid that User:Viridae here is not an independent reviewer (per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV#Viridae), though they might be right in their conclusions). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Just as I was able to, later, request delisting after Beetstra had confirmed the original listing, Beetstra or anyone can request relisting; however, as Beetstra understands, a listing request should be accompanied by current evidence of linkspam, which isn't merely a placement of a link according to ordinary editorial efforts to improve an article, even if the placement is controversial. Beetstra and I still, apparently, have many disagreements over how blacklisting is conducted, but I'm confident that we can, nondisruptively, work these out, for the overall benefit of the project, unless some sledgehammer descends from on high. I want to be on record as supporting his monumental efforts to control linkspam, and my disagreements have only to do with edges and details, and I want to be sure that, whatever is done to fix the problems on the edge, it doesn't damage those efforts. --Abd (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha. Just a side note, Abd, about 'current abuse': the link could not be used for the last 3-4 months, let alone be abused, so there is no current abuse. According to that reasoning, one could after 1 month delete the most awful spam from the blacklist as there is no abuse anymore, and re-listing is not necessery as there is no abuse until the abuse starts again, which is what we just wanted to prohibit in the first place (well, the first abuse we see would be enough to relist it, actually). In the meantime, one would have to again revert the abuse. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, don't get the joke. WP:DEADHORSE? Tabula rasa, no current listing. To establish a listing requires establishing fear of continued linkspam, and not merely debatable usage of links in the past or even in the present. Note that now there is a link being used, at New Energy Times with a teeny bit of effective acceptance at Talk:Cold fusion by a "skeptical" editor. The argument presented is circular in the other direction. Suppose there *was* linkspam at some time (which was never shown in this case). So it's blacklisted, but, later, for whatever reason, it's delisted. Relisting requires establishing a fear of current linkspamming, on a significant level, requiring the blunt instrument of the blacklist to deal with it. I'd think this would be easy to understand, but apparently not.

So, please, someone close this discussion, it's attracting useless argument, and I think we are done here. --Abd (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The editor User:DoodleHammer, whose edits prior to me knowing him, have almost all been deleted as non-notable new articles. Then, he posted, in the article space, the rules of a Wiki treasure hunt he is organizing, allegedly with the help of three sponsors, who "conveniently" asked to remain anonymous. A note this user then left on my talk page and on that of the admin who performed the actual deletion of his rules convinced me that his edits should be systematically reverted as being part of the "contest," but I am wondering whether this user shouldn't be blocked altogether, given that the contest has not been called off yet. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 11:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I've warned DoodleHammer not to do this. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: He carried on making pages about this and I've blocked the account. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Why I can found plenty of untagged images where are missing licence, I have marked some of those with subst ndl and when I have checked history, some bot have made same before me but uploader has returned original state back.

How we can get amount of untagged image smaller.--Musamies (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Bots are doing the job mostly though newer images might not be tagged (yet). Editors who repeatedly revert to a state where there is no licence information or who enter false license information should be first contacted on their talk page, warned if you cannot talk some sense into them, and eventually reported to admins if they won't stop. Copyrighted images where fair use cannot be claimed should be marked for deletion, see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Files. Equendil Talk 20:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I've actually asked about this exact problem. Bots aren't going after image files generally (probably because the last bot operator who tried that got nothing but yelled at from the numerous users who don't really care). One issue is that most items at Special:UncategorizedFiles are files at Commons and it seems like there isn't anyone able to split them. Following this discussion, I've started work at User:Ricky81682/Empty files. Musamies, if you want to expand on this, talk with me about it but be aware that you're likely to get nothing but responses like this (where he took a magazine page and just listed it as public domain so that nobody could bother him about the image). Fun stuff. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Another one to try is Category:Images lacking a description intersect Category:Images lacking an author. I have a somewhat outdated dump of these at User:MER-C/Sandbox#Images with no source or description. MER-C 02:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently working on clearing up Special:UncategorizedFiles. Hopefully I can help quell the problem of many Commons images appearing there. Radiant chains (talk) 10:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

tools:~chris/uncatimages.php should list them without the commons images. --Chris 11:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:FurMe is a good tool to use to process images that are fair use. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Be careful with plenty of these: for some reason a bot went around and removed a type of PD-USGov templates from lots of images that were derived from the US Congressional website. I've already fixed two and restored another that was deleted for the same reason. Nyttend (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to do a run through of RockfangBot's contribs in the morning and restore some of the lost copyright tags --Chris 13:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability in Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm here to propose an article for creation. I track submissions at AfC and recently came across an intriguing suggestion. An author wanted to write something about the Wikipedia concept of "notability". My response was basically that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and that I didn't think there was enough material to create an article. I did offer to review any article the author might create, though. Well, lo and behold, the author came through. So why am I here for what is (basically) a content issue? Well, this particular article has been deleted 11 different times and has been SALTed to boot. Even with that history, I feel this is a well-written article which should be moved to the mainspace. I am curious to see what others think and get a feel for the general opinion. TNXMan 00:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

While the article is a little light on sources, I think it should be given a shot to pass an WP:AFD. Note that its previous AfD was speedy closed so we don't really have any idea where consensus might lie on this. Oren0 (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure; it can at least be given a go. There are articles like Inclusionism and deletionism in Wikipedia already; sources from there could probably be used. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment my impression was that previous AFDs (I haven't looked through them all) were deleting on the basis that it wasn't an encyclopedia article, being instead a dicdef or a redirect or something similar. I think there's an encyclopedia article to be written on the topic, especially if someone makes the effort to draw on some of the academic literature on WP. Rd232 ^talk 01:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability seems notable to me :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of the deletions are unrelated to the content. The one and only AFD was in 2006. We have come a long way since then, and there is a lot more critical analysis of Wikipedia. I think the article should be moved into the main namespace, and if someone wants to send it to AFD, it will be interesting to see how it turns out. As an aside, I think it would also be possible to write an article about "citation needed" [11][12][13][14][15][16] John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Moving into the mainspace seems fine since it's not a G4 candidate. Needs some more copyediting though. –xeno ^talk 02:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't merging both this and Inclusionism and deletionism in Wikipedia into an article called Deletion in Wikipedia make some sense? There's overlap between them. Chick Bowen 02:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There is overlap, but I think they are distinct enough concepts to warrant separate articles. For example, a section comparing our standard of notability with others' standards (research journals, Britannica, etc.) wouldn't really have a place in Deletion in Wikipedia. TNXMan 02:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm probably missing something here, so please bear with me. I truly like the article, but two things keep screaming out in my mind here. 1.) Why doesn't this have the {{essay}} tag on it? 2.) Isn't this bumping right up against the WP:SELFREF stuff? Yes, I'm aware that the "selfref" is a tool to explain why we can't reference our own articles in the way of citations; but it just seems so ... I don't know, .. kind of like a "do as we say, not as we do" type of thing. I know I'm not expressing myself very well here, and to be honest, maybe after I've thought it through a little more, the light-bulb above my head will click on. Frankly, I wondered the very same things about the Inclusionism and deletionism in Wikipedia article when I first saw it. Maybe we should create one about "verifiability" too, but we'll have to dab that one. Oh well, just my thoughts - feel free to discard at your pleasure. And on a closing note, I certainly would not want to see the article deleted, I think it is good stuff. — Ched :  ?  04:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It's an article, so obviously no essay tag. As for SELFREF, self-references are allowed on articles that are about Wikipedia. For example, you agree that the article Wikipedia should exist, correct? Oren0 (talk) 07:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Quick side note I'd like to interject, shouldn't the article be moved to Notability in Wikipedia? It doesn't cover anything else then that. Icestorm815 • Talk 05:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it should definitely have a title that reflects its Wikipedia focus. "Notability" has a perfectly fine definition in use outside this wiki. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved the article to Notability in Wikipedia. Radiant chains (talk) 10:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, since we already have a few "leader" words so to speak, such as:

• Wikipedia:something, something
• Help:something, something
• Template:something, something

how about just creating a new one:

• Wikispeak:something, something.

Just a thought. — Ched :  ?  05:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion in Wikipedia??? What the hell? What kind of attack by the inclusionists is that? Merge all of them to an article about 'article creation criteria on wikipedia' or something else with a less loaded title. srsly WTF? ThuranX (talk) 05:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There has been a long delay in dealing with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LOTRrules for unknown reasons, seeing as it is quite a clear case. If an administrator could close it and block SonGoku786 (talk · contribs) so User:Collectonian doesn't have to deal with him any longer. A request was already made at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents but action has yet to be taken.--Otterathome (talk) 11:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I have indef blocked the account, for socking, and noted same at the SPI page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This process page was suggested by User:Ron Ritzman at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Proposed wikiproject, Requests for undeletion (permlink) and several of us agreed a central page to request uncontroversial restorations and userfications was a good idea. I've taken the liberty of drafting the page and submit the process to the community for input and further review. Please discuss at WT:Requests for undeletion, not here. –xeno ^talk 13:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Guys, please watchlist 2009 swine flu outbreak. The level of activity, editing, and news has been astonishing, and tomorrow as the week begins anew in the west will be even more insane. Given that we're at the top of the searches for Swine flu, which correctly links back to the outbreak article, which is on our main page, it's only a countdown now till our outbreak article is the #1 hit in general for searches. We need all hands on board for this one.

Please click here to watchlist it. rootology (C)(T) 18:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That article has been renamed (with consensus) to 2009 swine flu outbreak, so watchers should now click here. Eubulides (talk) 05:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Reposting at the bottom. Our most-watched article at the moment by visitors for obvious reasons, we need as many admins patrolling it as possible. rootology (C)(T) 17:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I recently was brousing Wikipedia and requested "COUSCOUS". 5 lines down into the acticle I found the violation. Please fix it!

"Couscous or kuskus as it is known in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and Egypt (pronounced /ˈkuːskuːs/ in the United States, /ˈkʊskʊs/ in the United Kingdom; Berber Seksu - Arabic: كسكس‎, called maftoul in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories) is a Berber dish consisting of spherical granules made by rolling and shaping moistened semolina wheat and then coating them with finely ground wheat flour. The finished granules are about one millimetre in diameter before cooking. The [[Mother Fucker twice the diameter and... "

Plain old vanilla vandalism. It won't happen again, at least, not on my watch. Thanks for bringing it here, but in future, WP:AIV is the place to report this sort of thing, or you could just revert it yourself. Rodhullandemu 22:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yahoo! has announced it will be shutting its GeoCities website hosting service later this year [17]. I know a few of you will shed a tear for your first website you built back in the 90s (the one that was permanently "Under Construction"), but WP has a fair few references and links that will die (if they're not dead already) [18]. Is this something to be tackled as a project, or a bot, or should the links in articles be removed gradually over time? --Stephen 22:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

We reference geocities? Yuck. We links in articles should be removed generally; geocities is as much a WP:RS as the last bit of lint I picked out of my underwear. Ironholds (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If a Geocities site reproduces a public domain reliable source, there's no reason not to use it as a convenience link. --NE2 22:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't someone working on a WebCite bot/plan for our references, for exactly these kinds of future problems ? I believe someone had been talking to them, can't remember who. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/WebCiteBOT –xeno ^talk 22:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe User:WebCiteBOT? -DePiep (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No, its not useful as a convenience link. It appears a citation in that sense and is presumed to be reliable. We have no way of verifying whoever put that content on geocities didn't modify it. There shouldn't be a single fact cited to geocities unless the subject of the article runs the geocities site.--Crossmr (talk) 13:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm also almost positive I've seen a few railroad companies' official sites on Geocities or another free hosting service. [19] would certainly be a reliable source for North Dakota State Railroad Museum. --NE2 22:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you know the history of that "museum" which is "Just For Kids"? geocities is not a reliable source, period. --98.182.55.209 (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

There are currently 37,900 links to geocities on WP. MBisanz ^talk 23:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

WebCiteBOT is not yet approved for its first task (archiving new links). Once it is approved I will file a separate BRFA to archive all Geocities links used as references. (A BRFA is also planned for all Encarta pages, which are also dying later this year). --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Please feel free to use User_talk:WebCiteBOT to alert me of any future problems like this. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, CompuServe Ourworld will shut down on June 30, 2009. [20] Cardamon (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

There are also quite a few image files sourced to Geocities. Any plans how to handle this? Durova^Charge! 02:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Individually. GeoCities is not shutting down next week. We need to look at each link and evaluate it. If it is not reliable then delete it. If valid then find an alternative. I have already contacted one site: the user was not aware that GeoCities is shutting down, but is going to take steps to move. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Gadget, the specific question has to do with how to handle images which are sourced to GeoCities. A brief survey indicates a good number of these have fair use rationales, which would (theoretically) make them OK for most purposes--except that the source link itself will return a 404 error once Geocities does shut down. Seeking comments that specifically pertain to that issue. Durova^Charge! 03:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

If the copyright holder is independant of the link (say, album covers), then it doesn't matter if Geocities shuts down. --Carnildo (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I can try to have WebCiteBOT archive any Geocities page listed as a source for images as well. Thanks for the heads up about this additional need. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Thaddeus, that'd be helpful. :) Durova^Charge! 04:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Websites shut down all the time but the Wayback Machine should have them all in its snapshots. Yesterday, I replaced a dead link with a link to the most recent version there for an article I wrote. Surely a bot could be written to do this for dead links automatically? Colonel Warden (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• It's awfully hard to do automatically. It can be done semi-automatically with Checklinks, but that requires a reasonable amount of supervision. Protonk (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Relying on the Wayback machine is a problem, because if the owner of the geocities.com domain (or any domain) changes their robots.txt to noindex everything, then Wayback machine purges their old copies of that domain. See Internet Archive#Healthcare Advocates, Inc. for background/confirmation. (does anyone know if Yahoo intends to release/sell the domain name? It might be worth trying to contact them to ascertain this.) -- Quiddity (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yahoo will redirect geocities to their paid web hosting service. --Stephen 11:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There are also ~800 links to geocities.jp. Please add those to any rescue efforts. (any other geocities domains?) -- Quiddity (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

it seems that the change in title and move has now resulted in two mirror articles. Recently discovered in as per talk page I'm not clever enought to know what to do!! Earlypsychosis (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done history merge complete. –xeno ^talk 23:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if we have any policies - and if not, should we have them - on ethics of multiple users sharing one account? It was recently brought to my attention that such accounts - often with activity patterns showing near constant edits for 20 or even 24+ hours - exist. I was asked if they are "all right", and I couldn't easily answer. What do you think? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOSHARE. John Carter (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they are decidedly not alright. Care to point them out? —Travis^talk 18:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus, can you point out those accounts? We have to ask the account owner whether the account is shared or not. WP policy doesn't allow multiple users to share one account. AdjustShift (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I've notified the user who asked me the question of this thread, I don't have any specific evidence myself. Hopefully the interested editor(s) will post here with more info. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Out of interest, is it an issue with the licensing that makes the rule that way, or just a core fundamental of Wikipedia (trust, accountability)? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a licensing issue, although at the moment I cannot put my finger on the exact part of the GFDL that deals with it. – ukexpat (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's both. The licensing issue is a big one, because the GFDL (section 4i) specifically requires a list of authors, not a list of contributing usernames; if we allow shared accounts, we might run afoul of this - or some litigious type might claim we had as a way of being litigious. At the same time, the most common excuse vandals give for why they replaced the contents of 53 pages with "WANKERS!" is "oh, that was my brother". The best way to deal with both problems is have a preexisting policy we can point to that prohibits account sharing. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It makes the GFDL a headache, but that aside we simply disallow role accounts or shared accounts. The relationship of accounts to physical humans driving them is supposed to be 1:1, not 2:1 or 20:1. rootology (C)(T) 21:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

One such user is Russavia (talk · contribs). We debated this thing some time ago with Tiptoety here, but it caused an angry reaction by the user. I am not quite sure how one can edit 24 hours non-stop and repeat this day after day [21]... Biophys (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Biophys, as you were told before (quoted below in its entirety), all of Russavia's edits are coming from a single machine. This does not preclude someone else using the same machine, and yes it's suspicious, but as one farfetched possibility (and this is not an attack on Russavia), it's possible that he uses drugs and thus is frequently awake for long periods of time. It's also possible that he (like me) suffers from serious bouts of insomnia, or has the freedom to edit for long periods of time and is slightly wiki-addicted and doesn't notice how long he's been at the computer. Or could be any number of other things.

Per your request, I have run a check. I see absolutely no evidence of multiple users. There are various features that convince me that all the editing is done from one computer. I can't absolutely rule out the idea that there are two people in the same building using the same machine, but it is a rather fanciful suggestion. I am convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that the accusations are thoroughly without merit. Sam Korn (smoddy) 8:06 pm, 13 November 2008, Thursday (5 months, 11 days ago) (UTC−5)

The above is a Checkuser's comment on the issue. Biophys, I suggest in the strongest possible terms that you drop these accusations against Russavia. //roux   18:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I have never seen anyone with such editing patterns, including you. Other users noticed the same. I am not quite sure if Sam was talking about one computer or one IP address. Any way, I have no further comments unless specifically asked by someone. Sorry if my comment was out of line.Biophys (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You're not quite sure? That's a bit disingenuous. Quote from above: There are various features that convince me that all the editing is done from one computer.

//roux   19:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, would checkuser be able to detect multiple users using the one computer via a remote client? Martintg (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of a number of users who edit for periods that long. I have done it myself, both on Wikipedia and on Wikisource. Just yesterday I was wiki-ing for around 18 hours almost continually. If you dont believe me, I can find the logs to prove it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

But not 50 hours. If you look at a period between 16:09 April 8 and 22:09 April 10, there were only a few gaps around 1 hour: [22] if I am not mistaken. That is what I am talking about (I apparently own more explanations after message by Russavia below). Thanks.Biophys (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

SO *'ING WHAT. You have been told to stop. NOW STOP WITH THIS HARRASSMENT. --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• You're mistaken. Editing started at 02:39 on the 9th, after a 10+ hour break. It then continued sporadically until 22:32 on the 9th, before a 13 hour break. A long day, but it looks like dedicated editing to me, by someone who (like many of us) spends a lot of time on the computer. There's no problem here. - Bilby (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Let's be civil here. I see no harassment, other then some bad-faithed accusations directed at Biophys. He asked, in good faith, for an explanation of an usual editing pattern. Shooting the messenger is hardly nice. Speculation by various editors non-withstanding, I'd suggest you simply and politely explain yourself, and we can close this issue. PS. I looked over the provided evidence, but it is a bit confusing, can somebody clearly show (table, bullet point list...?) evidence that Russavia editing pattern is unusual? A few long edit stretches are indeed nothing serious, but if a "50h stretch" can be proved, this is indeed a bit above the usual dedication of us wiki-maniacs :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Russiavia has been false accused by Biophys. Regardless of warnings to him, Biophys can not drop it. Here are at least 4 editors who think Biophys' accusation as "harassment".--Caspian blue 20:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• At at least that many who disagree. Asking to review an edit pattern is not a harassment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• We can ask the community's opinion since you strongly disagree. I'm aware of you opinion given your comment for Biophys's 3RR violation--Caspian blue 22:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the authorship issues remain the same whether the multiple people are editing via a single computer or each using their own computer. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I checked this to be fair. Yes, he often edits 22 hours non-stop, then break, then 20 hours again, as for example here, but I did not find anything longer.Biophys (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as an editor in the Top 50 of most active Wikipedians, I do find those lenght to be rather extreme, but I don't think that a single 22-hours of editing - 2-hours of break - 20-hours of editng string conclusively proves account sharing (alternate explanations have been presented, although preferably one should come from Russavia himself). Still, this is finally an understandable piece of evidence that can be constructively discussed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Biophys, I have done two days continuous editing with less breaks than Russavia has in that period you point out, and that was not assisted by artificial stimulants. I wont be able to spend time finding you proof of that, but I throw out the challenge for anyone to disprove me. :-) While not usual practise, many of my friends and colleagues in the computer science/I.T. industry do this when required, either due to looming deadlines or just the shear idiocy of it, fueled on by beer and pizza usually. Also while reviewing the edits of contributors, I often come across periods of editing like this, and there are obvious signs of there being a single sentient human attached to that computer. You will find similar patterns in many editors in the top 500 of WP:MOSTEDITS.

This is not a reasonable basis to believe he is sharing his account with anyone. You are looking at this from a sample size of "1", because you are only closely inspecting Russavia. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

What am i missing here? Unless he is a vandal why on earth would anyone care when he edits? It's his life, stop pestering the guy. David D. (Talk) 20:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but if we have policies that require us to discuss editor's edits (WP:NOSHARE, WP:SOCK), either we are ok with discussing the, or we should change such policies. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

With the same reasoning we could argue that we need to do a check user on every person that edits wikipedia. We just need to be reasonable. If the editor is not being disruptive or vandalizing articles then why are we digging into these edit histories in the first place? David D. (Talk) 20:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong; a mistaken application of the slippery slope fallacy. Most importantly, not every editor displays significant anomalies such as this one. Wouldn't you want to figure out how a person can work for dozens on hours in a row with no decline in accuracy or efficiency? I certainly would. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 09:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

My limited experience with Russavia has indeed been positive, but that doesn't mean that I don't think editors have the right to review his behavior, provided it is not done on a regular basis, which could constitute harassment. I don't think that Russavia's editing pattern has been discussed here before, right? Hence the community has the right to review it, and if it concludes that this matter is closed in favor of Russavia, that's the end of the story, and the case should be reponed without further evidence. Only if it is reopened without substantive evidence can we speak of harassment and disruption. Bringing something for public attention and discussion for the first time is not harassment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This is NOT the first time though Piotrus, and this is entirely the problem. In response to User_talk:Tiptoety/Archive_19#Inappropriate_use_of_account.3F, I had to demand that a checkuser be done on myself in order to stop the accusations, which was done at User_talk:Russavia/Archive_6#Want_to_run_a_checkuser_on_me.3F_Well_read_on....... After that was done, Biophys continued to question this at the Checkuser's talk page, and it even continued on my talk page which other editors advised him it is harrassment, and hence he should stop. But it hasn't stopped. It has been continued at User_talk:Biophys#User:Russavia. And if one does not believe me that this harrassment has continued for SIX MONTHS, I will go thru all of Biophys' contributions because he has thrown around these accusations at many venues since, and that is a fact. And because of this fact, I am no longer assuming good faith in relation to any of these accusations, and am treating them as a continued campaign of outright harrassment. It is that simple. --Russavia ^Dialogue 22:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

What I meant is that this is the first time this is discussed in a forum more public then user talk pages. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems somebody has already gone through Biophys' edits: [23]. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In order to show that this is a continuation of an accusation, please refer to User_talk:Digwuren#AE, User_talk:Colchicum/Archive#Trollfest and User_talk:Colchicum/Archive#Civility. I can show more if needed but it would simply take time that I would rather spend on more enjoyable pursuits, such as creating content. --Russavia ^Dialogue 01:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I am getting sick and bloody tired of the continued paranoid accusations (harrassment) of User:Biophys in relation to myself. I have posted this on his talk page, warning him that if this harrassment continues, I will take it further. The complete text of what I wrote is as follows:

I am getting sick and tired of your repeated accusations that I am sharing my account, like you have continued at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Ethics_of_sharing_an_account. You have been told by numerous administrators that there is no truth to your accusations, and you continue and continue and continue with them. I have told you already that I owe you nor anyone else any explanation, and I am not going to give you one, and I frankly don't care what you or anyone else in the peanut gallery thinks. I demanded that a checkuser be done on myself in order to stop your paranoid accusations, and that has not made you stop...and by the way, checkuser requests on oneself are not granted very often when requested by an editor, so the fact that it was done in order to stop the harrassment speaks word. Consider yourself advised that I am taking this as continued harrassment by yourself, and if you so much as even insinuate that I am sharing my account in future, I will take it further. Consider yourself warned.

I have nothing more to say, but am posting this here so that it can be recorded that I am pissed off with this continual harrassment in relation to my account. Checkuser has been done (at my DEMAND!) and the paranoid accusations have been shown to be untrue. Enough is bloody enough!! --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I replied here. Please follow WP:DR.Biophys (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I will not follow dispute resolution when some paranoid editor can't get it thru his thick head that the continuation of unfounded allegations against myself is pissing me off and is a form of harrassment. Now go and complain about civility and other such crap, and you can even ask the peanut gallery to post here (Digwuren has already pointed Colchicum here), I don't care. So please, get it thru your skull, that if you or any other editor brings up my name for sharing my account, I will seek redress for this. --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think RfC/U is better for you guys.--Caspian blue 15:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a bit beyond DR, Biophys. You persist in accusing Russavia of account sharing/socking after being told unequivocally that his edits were all coming from a single machine. And yet above you claimed that you couldn't tell what Sam Korn meant, despite the crystal-clear and unambiguous language. Is it possible that more than one person uses that single computer? Yes. Is it likely? Not really. Should you immediately cease and desist with these accusations, forever, and issue an apology to Russavia for the continued harassment? Absofuckinglutely. After e/c: RFC/U is unnecessary here, as the behaviour by Biophys is cut and dried and has been shot down in flames before.

Frankly, I strongly suggest that this whole portion of this thread be considered the absolute final warning to Biophys on the matter, and should he make any further unsubstantiated accusations along these lines he is to be blocked indefinitely. Note: given the previous checkuser results, everything he has said so far counts as 'unsubstantiated'. So no gaming. //roux   15:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that the user who needs to apologize to others is you, Roux, for bad faith flaming of Biophys. Biophys has been civil and respectful here; Russavia can be excused for loosing a bit of his cool, but your comments are simply not excusable. Please mind AGF, CIV and such before accusing others of their violations, and please, mind your language. PS. This thread was not started by Biophys, nor was Biophys the editor who contacted me with the question that led me to start this thread in the first place, so the entire "stalking by Biophys" accusation is pure libel/slander/harassment in itself. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You must be joking. Do acquaint yourself with the history before commenting. Works better that way. //roux   02:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggested them to take the matter to ArbCom because I've seen their tit-for-tat 3RR reports more than 10 times, but doing it to DR is purely their job if they don't want to ruin their reputation further. So I recommended the less-time-consuming way. Others may think differently.--Caspian blue 15:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess you mean Offliner. I do not remember Russavia or me filing 3RR reports on each other more than ones. Any way, I have nothing against Russavia except him being a little bit disruptive and mobilizing other users (like Offliner) against me. Not a reason to start an arbitration case.Biophys (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Repeat the accusations, like you have done here, and I will file whatever the hell it takes to have you stop with the paranoid nuttery in relation to me and my account. I hope that I have made myself very, very clear. So much as an insinuation is all it is going to take, because I have had an absolute gutful of the bullshit. As for the other, like the rest of your accusations, none of it is grounded in a shred of fact. --The account sharing Russian government employed internet propaganda master ^Dialogue 17:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Russia, instead of getting angry, could you at least explain your editing pattern then? All you say is that "the paranoid accusations have been shown to be untrue". Then what is your story? I couldn't care less about your hate-on/hate-off relationship with users, I would just like a straight answer. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Straight answer about what? I had a look at the edit history and yes he edits for eight or ten hours stretches but so what? In the claimed 50 hrs period I can see at least one break of about 12 hours... --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A straight answer? I am under no obligation to entertain paranoid nuttery, and that goes to Biophys (especially to Biophys) and anyone else. Even less so when the nuttery is bandied about with no evidence - the same type of nuttery that has me being employed from every Russian government department from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs up to the FSB, and in the opinion of some nutcases, the KGB. And honestly, who gives a dig when I edit? Are all of your lives so f'ing boring that my editing is a problem? And I am yet to see a single instance of how this editing is problem as far as WP policies are concerned; the only thing that there is a problem with is another editors paranoid delusions. Do I use drugs? Am I an insomniac? Am I in a position whereby I am able to edit? What difference does it make, and who's f'ing business is it anyway? I will not entertain such crap, and I owe not a single one of you a single answer. When these nutty accusations continue and continue and continue, excuse me, I have every fucking right to be angry. End of story, with nothing more to say to anyone on this issue. --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

While I'd advise Russavia that being more open and friendly may be beneficial, I'd also like to stress that I fully support his right to privacy, and I'd advise other editors to avoid speculation about his habits/motivations, which may be seen as violation of WP:NPA. The issue here is whether Russavia's account is shared by more then one person, and if so, is this something we should be concerned over (per WP:NOSHARE), not whether this account is owned by mind-controlling aliens or such :) Further, considering a lot of positive contributions from Russavia's account, I'd like to stress that he is an editor that deserves our respect for improving this project (just like Biophys...) and on the off chance his account is shared, I'd oppose any ban, although I'd advise the editors who share it to create separate accounts and continue aiding the project as they've done in the past. Finally, unless some clear evidence for the claimed strange editing pattern is presented within the next 24h or so, I'd suggest that this thread be closed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Piotrus - there is no need for any further answer except the "no" that Russavia has already give. That is a straight answer. If anyone is interested in editing patters, go build some analytical tools and use the top 500 editors on WP:MOSTEDITS: i.e. do some real research which requires a sample size of more than one. Investigating only one persons editing pattern is bad research, and poor ethics. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Open and friendly about what? The question as posed here is simply "Have you stop beating your wife?" - nobody has present a shread of proof or difference about anything just vague noises that he edited a lot in a certain period. He's been asked if he's sharing the account, he's said no. Unless someone is going to provide a compelling difference, I consider the continuing questioning of this editor harassment and I advise him to make no further replies to baseless accusations. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I do think so and share with the concerns on Biophys' unfounded accusation which has been already raised by above editors. Basically, Biophys should bring evidences to SPI or stop the persistent false accusation and insinuation against Russavia.--Caspian blue 22:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, to raise an issue is one thing, to keep beat that dead horse once you _{meaning the person who raises a complaint not Caspian blue. Sorry if this was unclear.} who started this section fail to provide any solid details to work with. This section should be marked resolved and closed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to ask how someone can edit for 55 hours straight, and it's telling that the individual being asked would respond with imprecations, threats and bullying rather than a) provide some sort of explanation (no need to go in depth) or b) politely say "as confirmed before, I don't share an account and I'd rather not discuss this any further". But that would be asking too much, wouldn't it? Anyway, let's just close this chapter and agree to move on, without further targeting of Biophys, who seems to be a favourite piñata for some. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the evidence saying that Russavia edited for over 50 hours, as provided above, was false, and was disproven by the contribs that were referred to. - Bilby (talk) 06:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. I would ask that "this chapter" not be closed off until an uninvolved admin can review evidence that I have provided above that these accusations have been ongoing for SIX MONTHS - they are not a one off in the last couple of days. Biophys and other editors have thrown around for the last six+ months that I was blocked for 2 weeks for harrassing Biophys by placing a WP:COI template on his talk page, and that this was done under Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions. I have very clearly shown that these accusations have been thrown around willy-nilly, and it can be clearly seen that it has pissed me off to such an extent that I have flown off the handle (rightly or wrongly) and it is affected my editing (hell, I haven't touched my article underdevelopment for the last 24+ hours because of this bullshit). This is a clear-cut case of WP:HARRASS. As far as I am concerned, it is now time that Biophys has Template:Digwuren enforcement placed on his talk page as it makes it very clear that such behaviour is not on, and it is directly related to this area of editing. - i.e. he is placed on formal notice. Only then can I get back to editing without worry of these accusations being made every other day, and in the event that they are repeated (or even insinuated to), I can at least be safe in the knowledge that a warning has been made, and that I at least have some direct course of action, without having to get into this bullshit AGAIN as I have had to do here and elsewhere. I'm not asking for blockings or anything like that, I'm not a prick, but a firm warning is warranted in my opinion...then we can all hopefully just move on. --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Russavia, I respect your contributions, as I also many times stated. I did not start this ANI thread, and I did not ask anyone to start this thread. I only commented. You indeed edited by numerous 20-22 hour segments, which might be a reason for concern. That was the first time when this specific question was publicly debated at a noticeboard. It was debated in your favor. I will not rise this question again, unless this is needed for an arbitration started by someone else. Would that be enough?Biophys (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Based on Biophys comments here, I see no evidence that he seeks to harass Russsavia. I suggest this thread is closed, and Russavia's editing pattern should not be discussed without new, strong evidence. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You're indeed beating the dead horse. Consensus is against your side. Based on your defend for Biophys 3RR violation, and comments here, I suggest you to open your eyes. Moreover, Biophys' further attacks against Russavia on his talk page [24] (he knew the diff'd offend him, so removed it), and his reply to my comment suggest that he would not drop the accusation.[25]. His final comments may look fine to others, but diffs remain the same. The whole thread initiated by you is dead long ago.--Caspian blue 04:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

My side? And what is, do tell, "my side"? The only consensus I see here is to close this thread, as no evidence that Russavia is account-sharing has been provided, and the discussion is degenerating into flaming (although not due to any fault of Biophys, who has been polite and civil here). EOT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Biophys, but you have made such promises in the past, and they have been broken time and time again, and I can produce numerous amounts of evidence showing this to be the case (parts of that evidence have already been presented above). As I said, I am not assuming good faith with you on this, due to the length and the egregious nature of the harrassment, which often has other things thrown in. User_talk:Biophys#User:Russavia is a prime example, and I wrote there very clearly I will note that you have been reminded about such things if the need should arise. The need has now arisen. Nothing less than a formal warning under WP:DIGWUREN as mentioned above will satisfy me; I got a two week block for the placing a COI notice on your talk page; you at least deserve a formal warning for six months of harrassment, don't you think? And I can tell you quite honestly, that yesterday I was looking at an article I have been working on in my userspace (and which I haven't touched in 48 hours because of this thread), and I was an inch away from requesting speedy deletion of that article and walking away from the project altogether. Why? Because what I am trying to bring to this project isn't worth the continued harrassment and my blood boiling when I stumble across crap like this. Piotrus is merely trying to cover your butt, but one need only look at the wording of what you write, one can see it is a continuation of accusations and the fact that I had to stumble across this as a result of searching for a thread in relation to another matter speaks words; for 2 days I was being accused and bitched about (yet again), and without the right of reply; there was no notification on my talk page as to the existence of this thread, which I only found whilst on Colchicum's talk page whilst trying to find something related to something else. You. Martintg. Digwuren. Colchicum (who hasn't posted here). You all knew of the existence of this thread, but not a single one of you had any inkling to even advise me of its existence? What was the WP:GAME plan? There's too much underhanded goings on and too much bullshit for my liking in this area of WP; we are supposed to be collegial and all that, working together for the good of what should be a great project. But this is impossible when one is forced to face continued accusations of sockpuppetry, sharing accounts, and being in the employ of Russian government (those accusations can have real life consequences), and when an editor is met with shit like I stronly suggest you not collaborate with Ruavia. (from [26] and granted it wasn't you who wrote that) it really makes one begin to think "f' the lot of you, if this is what this project is really about, I want nothing to do with it". But you know what Biophys, I still think the project has some potential, and I am not going to put up with continued harrassment as I have for the last 6 months, because I was deemed to have harrassed you once some 8 months ago, and be made feel like you and others are trying to chase me away from WP, by following the definition of wikihounding to a tee. This is why you need to be formally warned, then and only then can I even begin to look forward. --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, Biophys, I would rather you don't patronise me by saying that you respect my contributions. You regularly accuse myself (and others going back a long time before I was even around) of destroying your "work", and at User_talk:Digwuren#AE you stated: You should look here (I especially like Patrushev and Budanov in the list) or Koni (dog). Passion? This is hard to swallow. These do not sound like the words (written only a month ago) of an editor who respects another editors contributions. (For others info the Hero article in my userspace which I had speedied after I saw it being posted there as a reminder that I am watching, was my work in turning this into List of Heroes of the Russian Federation. That contribution of mine was hard for you to swallow? There's many things I could say to that, one of them quite humourous but which could be seen as being uncivil, but I will say that I find your comment above totally patronising, when what I hope will be one of my major contributions in the future, is hard for you to swallow. --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a lot to tell, but this is simply not an appropriate forum to consider arguments by sides. Yes, I debated various issues related to editing by Russavia, just as I did with regard to many other users. However, I am not conducting a harassment campaign of Rusavia right now, and I never did. The diffs provided by Caspian Blue only show that I am working towards a reconciliation, just as my comment above. If someone has problems with me, please use RfU or arbitration, although I personally only want to live in peace. It is really amazing that my simple comment above (however wrong it might be) caused such a thunderstorm. Who has accelerated a conflict here - that everyone can judge himself.Biophys (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

In fact, it takes two to tango. I left a message to Russavia [27], in a hope to dispell his concerns.Biophys (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Above the question was asked of you, who the editor was who was being talked about in relation to this thread. Which editor was this thread which you started in relation to? Given the circumstance, I feel this question deserved to be answered. --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Just as I respect your right to privacy, I respect the right to privacy of others. I'll ask that editor to post here, as that editor has not clearly indicated to me whether I am at liberty to discuss his message in any detail. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand privacy, and it would be great if they would post here. And if they were to post here, it would also be a good idea to advise the editor/s who that editor is discussing of the existence of this thread. So that they too have a right to reply, and not just stumble on it some time later. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

In a WP:ANI thread here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive491#User:Sfan00_IMG

I agreed not to 'enforce' what was claimed at the time to be a 'fringe' version of the copyrights policy.

Since that thread there have been some developments: i) There was IIRC a ruling in the US which said that You Tube videos had to be shown not to be 'fair-use' to qualify as copyright violation (arguably some of the You Tube links from Wikipedia are 'fair-use'.)

ii) The ruling in the Pirate Bay case, (Consensus on how this affects Wikipedia isn't clear yet. EDIT: This doesn't apply in the US Anyway. So not an issue)

iii) The implementation on Commons of functionality which allows checks of images using an Image Search system called Tin Eye... (EDIT: This could at the very least resolve sourcing issues)

iv) A ruling in the US which changed what qualified as PD-US

In light of the fact that the current agreement expires in about a months time, I'd like to ask if it would be reasonable to
Continue:

• Adding more information to images where possible..
• Identifying images suitable for Commons and migrating such images

(inc. the use of {{AddinfoforCommonsMove}}

• Rationale additions for Fair-Use images.

Resume (under careful monitoring):

• Identification of unlicensed images
• Identification of unsourced images
• PUI refferal on 'suspect' images.

Possibly perform in addition:

• TinEye checks on 'suspect' images prior to PUI referal.

Consensus from the admins here would be much appreciated, prior to expiry of the current agreement at the End of May. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I'll say what I said last time I saw you around here. First, legal issues are for Mike to deal with; most of us aren't lawyers. Second, and you don't seem to be able to get this; the Pirate Bay case matters not a jot. We are not subject to the Swedish legal system, we are subject to the American legal system. If you are aware of such cases in the US, send them to Mike. I think I need to create a WP:YOUARENOTALAWYER essay for such occasions; you were warned last time for misunderstanding the law, misunderstanding legal terms and copyright paranoia at its worse. It would be nice if, in future, you tried to avoid falling into exactly the same trap in the first paragraph of your "here's why that last discussion about me being copyright paranoid no longer applies" posting. Ironholds (talk) 04:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, Point taken.

However, I am not claiming that the arguments made by others in previous disscusion don't still apply, hence my trying to seek consensus here. I would agree with your comments on a WP:YOUARENOTAJUDGE type guideline. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

(break)

As Ironholds already mentioned, The Pirate Bay trial took place in Sweden and was an application of Swedish law so it does not directly affect Wikipedia, which is based in the USA.

I've also previously mentioned multiple times the act of linking to a torrent metadata file itself is not a copyright violation. That said, external links to metadata files for material available via BitTorrent should probably still only be links for freely available content. Overall the number of links in use on Wikipedia that point to BitTorrent resources has been very small and the number copyright-infringing links that have been found and removed has been even smaller. In most cases, the BitTorrent links that exist on Wikipedia are to the release notes pages for the torrent metadata files. This is how they should be linked anyway because deep linking to torrent metadata files is often not allowed by the site owners and such links are blocked as a means to prevent URL rewriting abuse.

Quite a few links to public domain material available via BitTorrent have been removed by concerned editors who thought the links were to copyright-infringing material. Two quick examples are: Children of Hiroshima (1952) diff and Late Spring (1949) diff.

These two films are in the public domain, as are most all Japanese films created prior to 1954 (there are a few exceptions but those are few and far between). See: Japan copyright law#Length of protection and Template:PD-Japan-Film.

An English version of the updated (2004) Japanese Copyright Act can be found here (from [28]). The main difference for Article 54 being the length of protection for Cinematographic works was (non-retroactively) extended in 2004 from 50 years to 70 years.

Past discussion about BitTorrent links on Administrators' noticeboard here and the Abuse filter requests here.

--Tothwolf (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder to keep an eye on 2009 swine flu outbreak (watch). It's pretty wild out there... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The article or the flu? x42bn6 Talk Mess 16:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

He means the article, but I'd say both! hmwithτ 17:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If anyone was saying to themselves, "Hey, I'm bored and I'm looking for a hot mess of an article that desperately needs citations and pruning," well, you're in luck. List of emoticons is the perfect match. It was pruned down at some point, but keeps growing into a long list of dreck. Any extra eyes or edits would be much appreciated. (Posting here 'cause I guess we don't have an articles noticeboard?) Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but this really isn't an article improvement zone... there must be a WikiProject Web or something similar; but there's no administrative action required here. If I posted every article which needed attention (like every one in here), then the noticeboard would be full! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you no heart? How often does a Wikipedia article get to use the phrase "Pooping back and forth"? – iridescent 18:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll do some work. hmwithτ 20:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Son of Jacob Egyptian Historical correlation: Imhotep? - one editor has tagged it as not a real article, and I sympathise with that. But it's meant to be a real article, I presume. So, what to do about this piece of original research riddled with the editor's signature? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll check it out & do some cleaning up. hmwithτ 13:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning up won't help. It's just a personal rant by someone with an extreme fringe view. No amount of cleaning up will make that a real article. If it gets improved to the point where it looks more like an article then we'll go for AFD instead of a straight delete, as by then it'd just be a POV fork soapboax article. DreamGuy (talk) 13:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I think there is some stuff worth mentioning. Given, it's very POV and has a lot of OR, but, with those removed, this could be a valid article. We don't have to say it's true, but, if it's being discussed and is a notable academic discussion, it deserves mentioning. hmwithτ 14:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No, that's original research and synthesis. There is not one secondary source cited. If you have a reliable secondary source advancing this hypothesis you could note it in the appropriate articles but this article is pure original research. Remember Wikipedia articles must be based on secondary sources. No article can say "This is so." Articles must say, "According to so-and-so, this is so." Thatcher 16:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

A few minutes ago, I received a call on my home telephone from an anonymous Wikipedia editor who wanted to know why I had blocked him from editing. While he was not especially rude (well, other than telling me that I need to "grow up"), this unexpected intersection of my Wikipedia and "real" lives was rather ... startling. Presuming this has happened to other admins, what did you do? Did you change or start doing things differently on Wikipedia or in your personal life? Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest trimming off all those personally identifying details from your userpage. –xeno ^talk 13:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

While I had initially considered that back when I became an admin in 2007, I figured it was a moot point doing a Google search on my user name will quickly turn up the real me (while multiple people around the globe like and enjoy using the word "kralizec," few have been using it online since 1993). Likewise, for legal reasons my birth name is on every one of the photos I have uploaded both here and at Commons (largely because publishers and other individuals are occasionally interested in acquiring the rights to some of my photographs). — Kralizec! (talk) 13:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There's still no need to make it easy for them. –xeno ^talk 14:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you should consider the answers to the following questions first; how did you let him know who you are, how did you let him get your number, and whether you would mind if it happened again in the future. If the answer to the latter of these questions is yes, then no need to change anything. Otherwise, isn't the answer somewhat obvious? xeno has already suggested one step. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This happened to me once. Except the person calling was delivering death threats to my wife and I. I suggest you keep identifiable information off of Wikipedia. It is not like a room full of strangers in the real world you can introduce themselves to you with general safety. It is more like giving out your name in some lawless apocalyptic wasteland. Chillum 13:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Kralizec, I have just had a look at your user page and its links. Letting people know your real name is fine if that is what you want to do, but FGS, how can anyone be so stupid as to link photos of their children complete with their names and ages from a user page where people can identify you and more importantly, them - can you imagine this scenario: "Hi little X! Daddy asked me to pick you from school, here's some details about you so you know I am not a pervy kidnapper" - Any odd internet surfer can gain more information about your private life than he can about Barak Obama's. There's even "a copy of my schedule from my last semester at college" - 11 years ago! In short, there are some weird people out there, don't be surprised if some of them want to contact you - and possibly your family! Get real, if you don't value your own privacy and safety then at least respect theirs. Giano (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

For reasons I would rather not talk about (obviously the best security precautions are the ones that potential aggressors are not aware of), neither my wife nor I are unduly concerned about our children being kidnapped from their school. That said, I do however understand your point. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Good, I'm glad you are not unduly concerned! However, I am afraid I do not have your hapy and trusting nature. I truly hope you never have cause to think otherwise. Giano (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to file this under the "what did you think would happen" category, and echo Giano's points. Never assume good faith that internet crazies will respect your privacy. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

(What Giano and Hiberniantears said) Way, way TMI, in my opinion. —Travis^talk 14:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Most folks one runs into here are ok. However, it only takes one out of a thousand editors you've dealt with to track you down and try to upset you. My outlook on this is, think about what editors are saying in this thread and take that phone call as a "warning" call. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

For only a few buck a month you can rent a phone number for most cities that you can forward to anywhere. You can change the number at no cost so it makes for a good disposable phone number. I won't mention any companies, but they are not hard to find on Google. I pay $5 for a toll free 1-866 number and I can switch to a new one for $5 any time I want, it redirects to any phone without revealing that phone's number. Chillum 14:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Being a named person who has a business and therefore a phone number on the Internet, I occasionally get calls from blocked editors. If you are polite and inform them that Wikipedia is just a hobby and that you do all your "customer service" via the site or email, that is a generally polite way to end the call. Jehochman ^Talk 14:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You can certainly try removing your listings from web sites like Whitepages (instructions are here)] Also, remove mention of your location from your user page and web site. I am sure there is many people by your name, and that blocked users are not that crazy to call everyone up. If they have your location info, they will call you first! --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I had something similar happen to me (different account). There were tenious connections to my RL identity on my account (part of a real name, editing connections to my field of employ, and a couple of edits about the area I live in). When a blocked editor called me at work, I decided I was not comfortable with being that easily followed off-wiki, and began to abandon my account. I did day to the editor that wikipedia was my hobby, and my best advice to him was to lighten up a little - and that was the end of the contact. Nonetheless, I decided that an account with no connections to my real-life was best. Mr.commentor (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I had one of those, sorta; the blocked editor wrote a hate article about me and dropped off multiple copies of the 'zine (titled Haters) in which it appeared at one of my places of employment. Of course, I'm not exactly Mr. Shy Retiring Blossom; but it was annoying (and the zine was cruddy). --Orange Mike | Talk 00:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Kralizec!, if you ever feel it will help, if you ever want more anonimity, we can change your username. Kingturtle (talk) 02:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a backlog at WP:SPI, and there is continuing disruption because of this. For example, the editor Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr. Tariq Nayfeh is still making/abusing new socks. My understanding is that his IP could be blocked to stop this (unless it's revolving or something). His socks are tying up a lot of admin and editor time. If this is down to me making a mistake then I apologise in advance! Verbal chat 13:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems Blueboy96 (thanks!) is dealing with the specific issue I mention, but I'm still not sure if the users IP has been blocked from making new accounts. Verbal chat 13:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like his IP's been blocked a week by Lucasbfr. Blueboy96 13:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

An administrator recently changed the name of an article from "Nuclear program of North Korea," to "Nuclear power in North Korea." The move discussion is on the talk page. There have been additional discussions on that talk page, on my talk page, on the Admin's talk page, and, at the Admin's suggestion, on Wikipedia talk:Requested moves.

I feel that the move was made against consensus (at least as I understand the meaning of the word), that the new title does not comport with the contents of the article and that the discussion of splitting the article was a red herring. In my view, none of the responses to my complaint have addressed the core substance of my arguments, which has made me more and more frustrated. The whole episode makes me want to abandon Wikipedia for insisting on getting such an obvious thing wrong. I would like someone else to take a fresh look at this. NPguy (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a rather POV title at best. There's no nuclear power program in North Korea, as all of their nuclear development has been focused on a weapons program-- something they themselves have admitted. I note the article is also move-protected now. Jtrainor (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Closing admin I still I feel I made a reasonable close of the move discussion. However, I will bow to consensus here if other admins and editors consider my actions to be unreasonable. NPguy, in good faith, disagrees with the move to Nuclear power in North Korea and believes I evaluated the close incorrectly, and has been politely straightforward about saying so (politeness which I appreciate). Anyway, this is a summary of events:
  • 1) move request filed by 199.125.109.126 at Talk:Nuclear_program of_North_Korea, requesting a move to Nuclear power in North Korea, for reasons of consistency with other "Nuclear power in X" articles, and arguing that this article should be split into one article focusing on a nuclear weapons program and one on purely nuclear power.
  • 2) Discussion takes place, with two editors objecting to splitting the article.
  • 3) An editor points out that there is already an article about the nuclear weapons program: North Korea and weapons of mass destruction#Nuclear weapons, which renders the previous objections moot.
  • 4) I close the discussion, noting that the concerns of the editors opposing the move had largely been addressed.
  • 5) I move the article
  • 6) User:NPguy objects on my talk page, at User_talk:Aervanath#Nuclear_program_of_North_Korea
  • 7) User:NPguy reverts the move
  • 8) I revert the reversion, move-protect the page. and leave a note at User_talk:NPguy#Moves_against_consensus asking him not to unilaterally revert the result of a closed move discussion.
  • 9) Further discussion ensues at User_talk:Aervanath#Nuclear_program_of_North_Korea, Wikipedia_talk:RM#Dispute_over_recent_move and now this thread.
• All comments on my actions are welcome. Cheers,--Aervanath (talk) 04:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This chronology omits an important substantive question: whether the article logically can be and has been split. As to the latter, the answer is clearly no. Only the name has changed. As to the former, I have argued that there is no actual separation between North Korea's civil and military nuclear programs. Rather than using a misleading title that suggests such a separation, the article should use a neutral title that does not. Having said that, I acknowledge that the article in question is weak, and that the other article (North Korea and WMD) is stronger. I'm not sure what the right solution is, but simply giving one article a misleading title is not that solution. NPguy (talk) 05:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I also think that the other article is stronger, which leads to a possible compromise here: would you object to merging the content, and thus obviating the need for continuing the debate over the move? Right now, Nuclear program of North Korea is a redirect to Nuclear power in North Korea; why not simply redirect both of them to North Korea and weapons of mass destruction?--Aervanath (talk) 07:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that has the problem of bias in the opposite direction. It suggests that the nuclear program is entirely a weapons program. There are at least two facilities (one operating, one started but abandoned) that have ostensibly civil purposes. A better approach would be to keep the previous title but pare back the descriptions of facilities linked to military production and cross-link those to the WMD article.

I don't see that as the ideal solution. Ideally, I think it makes the most sense to have the "Country X and WMD" article to be a short survey of all forms of WMD that links to more detailed articles on nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs. That is, the nuclear article would have more detail than the general WMD article. That would probably be more work.

A third alternative would be to have "nuclear program of North Korea" be a disambiguation page. NPguy (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've turned Nuclear program of North Korea into a disambig page with links to the two other articles. Feel free to edit it as you see fit. I'll mark this thread as resolved; feel free to remove the resolved tag if you still feel there's something to address.--Aervanath (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Justification was "USDA wants public to STOP using swine flu naming." I am pretty sure this move is against consensus and at very least created dozens of double redirects --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

NM, it was just moved back. Perhaps it a full move protect wouldn't be a bad idea though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose so. I moved it back per WP:COMMONNAME and consensus on the talkpage. USDA aren't absolute coiners of a pandemic's name.  GARDEN  21:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is this here? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

To move-protect the article. I suppose it should be at WP:RFPP but it is a pretty high traffic article.  GARDEN  21:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Since these are such fast changing articles, and many users end up adding outdated information in good faith (like early reports of 2 deaths in US), which needs to be repeated reverted - many gatekeepers of the following articles are likely to technically violate 3RR (see comment here):

• Template:2009 swine flu outbreak table‎
• 2009 swine flu outbreak in the United States‎
• 2009 swine flu outbreak in the United States‎

I am guessing that no admin will be crazy enough to block such editors for 3RR; am I being presumptuous ? :) Abecedare (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The 3RR policy itself doesn't include an exception for reverts of good faith edits, and it'd be fair to presume that those edits adding outdated information are not acting to deliberately compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. WP:IAR in this case is reasonable, in my opinion... though I think this meets the criteria for semi protection (disruption due to media attention). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see, there is relatively little vandalism in these articles, and many IPs are adding useful information (e.g, 64.81.146.143 (talk · contribs)), so I don't think semi-protection is needed.

I think technically breaking the 3RR rule is justifiable in this case, under IAR, as long as the editors really know what they are doing. Hopefully admins will also apply good judgment (and not blindly follow the rulebook) before issuing any blocks. Abecedare (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It's probably useful to watch whether edits are outright reverts or whether there is convergence in the editing process, i.e. the respective edits are modified, so that they integrate (at least partially) the viewpoint of the other side. (Coming from the German Wikipedia, where such lengthy convergent "edit-wars" happen from time to time, I stumbled into the 3RR rule here with my first 3 edits.)  Cs32en  01:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

3RR is meant to stop edit warring, not article maintenance. Viridae^Talk 01:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't block anyone for a technical violation of 3RR when it is obvious that the purpose is not to revert. In high-edit-rate articles, information changes so quickly that you could even consider the different articles for all intents and purposes. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I was getting bombarded from so many sides, I want to make sure that the reason for deletion was because I requested the page to be deleted, because too many edits reverting back to false information were taking place. There is no need to publicize that a well known, much followed artist was deleted because he is "not notable". He certainly is. The page in question is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yves_Carbonne I would appreciate your clarification. My talk page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TLCbass Sadly, this turned into a big mess. Thanks for your help, TLCbass —Preceding unsigned comment added by TLCbass (talk • contribs) 22:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC) TruthBeTold (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I have asked the administrator who deleted the article, User:X! to comment here. I imagine the reason it was deleted was because there was near-unanimity among the editors who commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yves Carbonne that it should be deleted. Regards, Skomorokh 22:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio aside, Skomorokh was 100% correct. Xclamation point 23:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I will add the finding doesn't definitively say there can never be an article. However, you will have to prove notability via non-trivial references in multiple reliable sources (and also not violate any copyrights, obviously) for the article to stand any chance of survival. See also Wikipedia:Music#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, your request for "Author requests deletion" was declined by User:Someguy1221 because many contributors had edited the article, which invalidates a Author requests deletion CSD request. Sarah 04:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

An administrator recently changed the name of an article from "Nuclear program of North Korea," to "Nuclear power in North Korea." The move discussion is on the talk page. There have been additional discussions on that talk page, on my talk page, on the Admin's talk page, and, at the Admin's suggestion, on Wikipedia talk:Requested moves.

I feel that the move was made against consensus (at least as I understand the meaning of the word), that the new title does not comport with the contents of the article and that the discussion of splitting the article was a red herring. In my view, none of the responses to my complaint have addressed the core substance of my arguments, which has made me more and more frustrated. The whole episode makes me want to abandon Wikipedia for insisting on getting such an obvious thing wrong. I would like someone else to take a fresh look at this. NPguy (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a rather POV title at best. There's no nuclear power program in North Korea, as all of their nuclear development has been focused on a weapons program-- something they themselves have admitted. I note the article is also move-protected now. Jtrainor (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Closing admin I still I feel I made a reasonable close of the move discussion. However, I will bow to consensus here if other admins and editors consider my actions to be unreasonable. NPguy, in good faith, disagrees with the move to Nuclear power in North Korea and believes I evaluated the close incorrectly, and has been politely straightforward about saying so (politeness which I appreciate). Anyway, this is a summary of events:
  • 1) move request filed by 199.125.109.126 at Talk:Nuclear_program of_North_Korea, requesting a move to Nuclear power in North Korea, for reasons of consistency with other "Nuclear power in X" articles, and arguing that this article should be split into one article focusing on a nuclear weapons program and one on purely nuclear power.
  • 2) Discussion takes place, with two editors objecting to splitting the article.
  • 3) An editor points out that there is already an article about the nuclear weapons program: North Korea and weapons of mass destruction#Nuclear weapons, which renders the previous objections moot.
  • 4) I close the discussion, noting that the concerns of the editors opposing the move had largely been addressed.
  • 5) I move the article
  • 6) User:NPguy objects on my talk page, at User_talk:Aervanath#Nuclear_program_of_North_Korea
  • 7) User:NPguy reverts the move
  • 8) I revert the reversion, move-protect the page. and leave a note at User_talk:NPguy#Moves_against_consensus asking him not to unilaterally revert the result of a closed move discussion.
  • 9) Further discussion ensues at User_talk:Aervanath#Nuclear_program_of_North_Korea, Wikipedia_talk:RM#Dispute_over_recent_move and now this thread.
• All comments on my actions are welcome. Cheers,--Aervanath (talk) 04:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This chronology omits an important substantive question: whether the article logically can be and has been split. As to the latter, the answer is clearly no. Only the name has changed. As to the former, I have argued that there is no actual separation between North Korea's civil and military nuclear programs. Rather than using a misleading title that suggests such a separation, the article should use a neutral title that does not. Having said that, I acknowledge that the article in question is weak, and that the other article (North Korea and WMD) is stronger. I'm not sure what the right solution is, but simply giving one article a misleading title is not that solution. NPguy (talk) 05:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I also think that the other article is stronger, which leads to a possible compromise here: would you object to merging the content, and thus obviating the need for continuing the debate over the move? Right now, Nuclear program of North Korea is a redirect to Nuclear power in North Korea; why not simply redirect both of them to North Korea and weapons of mass destruction?--Aervanath (talk) 07:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that has the problem of bias in the opposite direction. It suggests that the nuclear program is entirely a weapons program. There are at least two facilities (one operating, one started but abandoned) that have ostensibly civil purposes. A better approach would be to keep the previous title but pare back the descriptions of facilities linked to military production and cross-link those to the WMD article.

I don't see that as the ideal solution. Ideally, I think it makes the most sense to have the "Country X and WMD" article to be a short survey of all forms of WMD that links to more detailed articles on nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs. That is, the nuclear article would have more detail than the general WMD article. That would probably be more work.

A third alternative would be to have "nuclear program of North Korea" be a disambiguation page. NPguy (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've turned Nuclear program of North Korea into a disambig page with links to the two other articles. Feel free to edit it as you see fit. I'll mark this thread as resolved; feel free to remove the resolved tag if you still feel there's something to address.--Aervanath (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Justification was "USDA wants public to STOP using swine flu naming." I am pretty sure this move is against consensus and at very least created dozens of double redirects --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

NM, it was just moved back. Perhaps it a full move protect wouldn't be a bad idea though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose so. I moved it back per WP:COMMONNAME and consensus on the talkpage. USDA aren't absolute coiners of a pandemic's name.  GARDEN  21:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is this here? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

To move-protect the article. I suppose it should be at WP:RFPP but it is a pretty high traffic article.  GARDEN  21:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Since these are such fast changing articles, and many users end up adding outdated information in good faith (like early reports of 2 deaths in US), which needs to be repeated reverted - many gatekeepers of the following articles are likely to technically violate 3RR (see comment here):

• Template:2009 swine flu outbreak table‎
• 2009 swine flu outbreak in the United States‎
• 2009 swine flu outbreak in the United States‎

I am guessing that no admin will be crazy enough to block such editors for 3RR; am I being presumptuous ? :) Abecedare (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The 3RR policy itself doesn't include an exception for reverts of good faith edits, and it'd be fair to presume that those edits adding outdated information are not acting to deliberately compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. WP:IAR in this case is reasonable, in my opinion... though I think this meets the criteria for semi protection (disruption due to media attention). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see, there is relatively little vandalism in these articles, and many IPs are adding useful information (e.g, 64.81.146.143 (talk · contribs)), so I don't think semi-protection is needed.

I think technically breaking the 3RR rule is justifiable in this case, under IAR, as long as the editors really know what they are doing. Hopefully admins will also apply good judgment (and not blindly follow the rulebook) before issuing any blocks. Abecedare (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It's probably useful to watch whether edits are outright reverts or whether there is convergence in the editing process, i.e. the respective edits are modified, so that they integrate (at least partially) the viewpoint of the other side. (Coming from the German Wikipedia, where such lengthy convergent "edit-wars" happen from time to time, I stumbled into the 3RR rule here with my first 3 edits.)  Cs32en  01:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

3RR is meant to stop edit warring, not article maintenance. Viridae^Talk 01:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't block anyone for a technical violation of 3RR when it is obvious that the purpose is not to revert. In high-edit-rate articles, information changes so quickly that you could even consider the different articles for all intents and purposes. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I was getting bombarded from so many sides, I want to make sure that the reason for deletion was because I requested the page to be deleted, because too many edits reverting back to false information were taking place. There is no need to publicize that a well known, much followed artist was deleted because he is "not notable". He certainly is. The page in question is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yves_Carbonne I would appreciate your clarification. My talk page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TLCbass Sadly, this turned into a big mess. Thanks for your help, TLCbass —Preceding unsigned comment added by TLCbass (talk • contribs) 22:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC) TruthBeTold (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I have asked the administrator who deleted the article, User:X! to comment here. I imagine the reason it was deleted was because there was near-unanimity among the editors who commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yves Carbonne that it should be deleted. Regards, Skomorokh 22:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio aside, Skomorokh was 100% correct. Xclamation point 23:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I will add the finding doesn't definitively say there can never be an article. However, you will have to prove notability via non-trivial references in multiple reliable sources (and also not violate any copyrights, obviously) for the article to stand any chance of survival. See also Wikipedia:Music#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, your request for "Author requests deletion" was declined by User:Someguy1221 because many contributors had edited the article, which invalidates a Author requests deletion CSD request. Sarah 04:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that a mass number of images are receiving aggressive tagging.

For example {{PD-ineligible}} images tagged with {{PD}} are being tagged for deletion for lacking sourcing. This is primarily because of people tagging by using scripts making them act like unauthorized bots. This is unhelpful to the project. In addition several people are making a pointless effort to search and destroy all unused images. This is pointless because we do not really delete images. They just become visible to administrators.

This process is disruptive because peoples talk pages are constantly flooded with copyright notices. This not only deters from contributing to the site at all but also compels people not to check their talk pages as they often end up getting multiple notices a day.

It wastes valuable time for people who end up checking their talk page to see yet another automated/templated notice. Also an admin will have to delete the image in question rather than spending time on something else.

-- Cat ^chi? 06:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you be willing to provide some diffs to specific examples? I'm having a bit of trouble finding examples of what you described. Thanks, Icestorm815 • Talk 07:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing White Cat is referring to File:May_be_Disturbing.gif and File:USS ALAMO - lsd33 3.jpg although I see no evidence from either of these there is any sort of mass effort nor do either involved PD-ineligible. Nil Einne (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

He may be right about File:May_be_Disturbing.gif, but File:USS ALAMO - lsd33 3.jpg was quite correctly tagged as "no source": PD-USGov would be a reasonable guess, but without a source, it's impossible to be sure. --Carnildo (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding May be Disturbing.gif, I don't see anything wrong with opening a discussion for an unused image which the nominator genuinely believes isn't suitable for transwiking to the commons. PhilKnight (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I also don't see anything wrong with tagging the image as lacking source. Perhaps this is what he/she meant about PD-ineligible but I think the image potentially has sufficient creativity that it could be copyrightable. In any case, given it's something so easy for someone to completely independently come up with, it's just plain silly to quabile over whether it's PD-ineligible or not. If you know the source, as in this case it was PD-self then tag it. If not, then delete it. If someone ever actually wants something like that they're welcome to come up with their own Nil Einne (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This thread does not concern a specific image but images in general. If an image is ineligible of copyright then there is no point of seeking a source for it. Instead of nominating such images for deletion, retagging them with {{PD-ineligible}} would be the logical course of action. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. -- Cat ^chi? 05:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a neutral topic heading that accurately reflects the scope and nature of the problem you hope to address. Protonk (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I've changed it to something a little more appropriate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Very well... I was hoping to catch peoples attention with it (in which I succeeded! :D) -- Cat ^chi? 05:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

1. File:May be Disturbing.gif was nominated for deletion over orphanage and unencyclopedic value.
2. I de-orphaned the image by seeking the undeletion of the template (Template:DisturbingImage) that used the image.
   • The template is only used in Wikipedia:WikiProject Graphical content problem which is a rejected idea.
   • Deletion of the image or template breaks the archived/rejected idea.
3. The image was nominated for speedy deletion for not containing a source.
4. I fixed the license even though I shouldn't have. The nominator should have used a little more common sense. It is clear to me so far that he doesn't have any.
5. Image was voted for deletion. After all it was advertised on this very page. Otherwise I heavily doubt anyone would know about it. Other nominations on the same page got little (if any) attention. In the end image was deleted after a vote count.
6. I am not forced to take the issue to deletion review.
7. I won't be surprised if this issue ends up in front of arbcom.

All this happened because multiple people refused to apply the slightest bit of common sense. There is a reason why pages tagged with {{historic}} are not deleted. I ask my self... Why do I have to put up a serious "fight" to keep an image ineligible of copyright on this site?

-- Cat ^chi? 15:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I would ask you the same question. Why are you putting up so much of a fight to keep such a useless image on the site? But don't worry, I'm sure all the involved users would be blocked for disruption before such a stupid, trivial issue goes to ArbCom. Mr.Z-man 17:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this something we should ask of admins who change their name for purely aesthetic reasons (i.e. not a change to avoid harassment, etc.)? It would make it more convenient for someone to review how long ago an admin was +sysop'd and on what grounds.

(Alternatively, does someone want to write an "RFA-finder" script? Perhaps roll it into that "$" button that shows user-rights.) –xeno ^talk 12:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I've been wishing these existed for quite some time, especially when it's a user who had a previous name I did not know, or a user who I had not even realized had changed names. If there were no harassment issues, I don't see why anyone would mind. hmwithτ 17:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

What admin intervention does this need? This is for the village pump, not here. Majorly talk 17:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

And this is the Administrators' noticeboard, not WP:ANI. This seems like the right place to discuss something that's of interest to all admins. --Conti|✉ 17:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why all admins would be interested in this. As I said, it's a village pump topic. Majorly talk 18:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Then clone it over there if you feel so strongly about it. I'm here bouncing the idea around, not making a formal proposal. –xeno ^talk 18:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Noting the thread topic, "Admins who change names...", it seems relevant to administrators, no? No harm in copying, pointing, or cloning elsewhere, though. As far as the proposal goes, I tend to agree that absent a compelling reason not to, all renamed accounts should probably be noted as such (something subtle would be fine, even just a note on their userpage); that would seem to be especially true for admin accounts. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not just move the old RFA to the new username? bd2412 T 01:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Would we need to retype all the instances of the old username also, then? -- Mentifisto 12:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Why should we? As long as there's a redirect from the old name to the new one, there's no problem. --Conti|✉ 13:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's better just to create a redirect rather than move it. Especially if there's more than one... –xeno ^talk 16:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Lauren Kucera, is this text in wrong place, what are the rules here--Musamies (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You already raised this and it was discussed here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive188#userpage. Seems fine where it is, but if it bothers you, you could nominate it at WP:MFD. –xeno ^talk 15:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:UP#NOT #7 aplies here. This is self-promotion and should be nominated for deletion at WP:MFD. — Edokter • Talk • 15:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

sorry I don't remember my old editing--Musamies (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/JPayneSmith

Check this user, especially his last two edits. I don't see how such behavior can be tolerated here, especially trying to pass claims of women's inherent inferiority as neutral. Zazaban (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I want to make sure that people are aware that this article is being created (page started at 17:41, 27 April 2009).VegKilla (talk) 08:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

See also List of California street gangsVegKilla (talk) 08:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:H1N1_map.svg image description has been vandalized and been given a NFD --204.78.0.199 (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The image is on Commons, not Wikipedia, but I reverted the vandalism. hmwithτ 13:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I was going to edit protect it there, but someone got to that first. Durova^Charge! 15:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Having expressed an opinion based on WP:RS and WP:V here, am I now precluded from taking Admin action to prevent slow edit-warring? I ask because in the present climate of fear in which I am operating, I feel reluctant to just get on with what I feel is in the best interests of the encyclopedia, albeit I would regard as well within my remit as an admin. Two hats, you know, but WP:IAR sometimes is in our best interests. Rodhullandemu 21:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: I've just blocked this editor for 55 hours for edit-warring: User_talk:98.20.213.58; within ten minutes of cogent advice to him, he replaced the contested edit. In the circumstances, and given my concerns above, could I have an independent review of this please? Rodhullandemu 21:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You're fine. You just voiced your opinion and informed them of policies/guidelines, then, you enforced edit warring rules. Doesn't look like you were very involved at all. hmwithτ 21:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Difficult to tell these days; when I go round articles on my watchlist, reverting unsourced additions, correcting spelling and grammar mistakes, adding citations, and general wiki-gnoming, and suddenly, for doing this, according to some, I'm "involved". Incredible. Rodhullandemu 21:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've just blocked another IP sockpuppet for 72 hours and protected this article for a week. If anyone thinks this is out of process, please let me know. I feel unable to operate fully independently at present, despite my admin record, so I'm afraid I may be taking up some time here with reviews of my actions. Chilling effect, you know. Rodhullandemu 21:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Do you think requesting another admin to mentor your sysop actions for a couple of weeks might be a consideration? I would act as such, except that perhaps we two have acted together in a couple of matters too recently for me to be considered truly neutral. If you think it worth a shot with another, you could make that request here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• I see no problem here. Let me rephrase: I very much hope there is no problem here. An admin should be able to post a helpful message on a Talk page saying e.g. "this position is verifiable but that one is not; please provide sources or let this go" without becoming involved in a content dispute^TM. Offering an informed opinion as to how policies should be applied to content disputes is a great low-key way in which admins can help defuse situations that might otherwise lead to drama, edit-wars, personal attacks etc. - and I see no benefit in policy then preventing them from helping out any further in their capacity as an admin. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That's what I try to do; but the editors have to want to receive my advice. If they don't, and carry on like bulls in china shops, what can I do but protect the integrity of the encyclopedia? That's my job here, isn't it? Rodhullandemu 20:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

New user DeluxeCorp (talk · contribs), who edited only Deluxe Corporation, in a PR-oriented fashion, was blocked yesterday for WP:SPAMNAME when I reported the incident here. He now requests an unblock on User talk:DeluxeCorp. He writes that he "wants to talk to editor Nagle directly about his concerns". We're probably dealing with someone paid to write a favorable article; the writing quality is professional and the account is single-purpose. Please take some appropriate action. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Unblock's already been denied. If he is interested in working through Wikipedia:Changing username, we can unblock him for that reason. We can deal with the COI problem at WP:COIN if needed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

As per my comments on Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2009_April_26#Second_account, a puzzling second account "Clarkd" appears to be associated with me. I was advised to bring it up here and request an indefinite block of that account. Could this please be done? Let me know if there's anything else I should do about it. Thx. Mooncow (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

PS, in case it is needed, this is me again logged in as "Clarkd", to show that I have control of the "Clarkd" account and confirm that I would like it indefinitely blocked as above. Thx. Mooncow (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't typically block on user request - if you have control over the account then there really isn't a compelling reason to block it. If you want to abandon the account, you can remove the email address from the preferences, set a long random password, and then log out. —Travis^talk 22:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, another admin blocked it as a hacked account, so never mind... —Travis^talk 22:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) We don't block on user request but we do block compromised accounts. There is enough of a worry here, that I have done. If you follow up by doing what TravisTX helpfully suggests, there will be almost no likelihood anyone will ever be bothered by that account again. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. My concern was that there was some sort of scam or trick here, although I cannot quite envisage what given that I had control of the account! Nevertheless the block is reassuring. Thanks. I've also cleared the e-mail and set a long password as advised, and logged out. Mooncow (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I added photos of my own to the page CBS Eblana which were then deleted despite me clearly indicating that the photos were mine and therefore had no copyright issues. Please reverse this, reinstate the photos and ensure they are not deleted again. Thanks. bibi999 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.3.146.73 (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you did, you didn't do properly, your talk page (User talk:Bibi999) is littered with messages from bots warning you about it. Equendil Talk 01:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a 'mandatory' notification to all interested parties that I have accepted a nomination to join the Bot Approvals Group - the above link should take you to the discussion. Best wishes, -- Tinu Cherian - 10:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I know I do not have an account at the moment but I wanted to report an immediate threat to the wiki and to its users and viewers, so for the moment you can call me Jake.

To make a long story short my computer was recently attacked by a virus, I deleted it and installed Zone Alarm to keep any other unwanted things off my computer, in the past few days a program called sprtcmd has been trying to access my internet to unknown IP addresses, under the guise of something called SupportSoft.

Wondering what it was and wanting to know if it was a legitimate program I checked its name on Wikipedia, the page looked legit at first but I wasn't completely convinced so checked its history and sure enough the page had been copied over for a users page by the name of Danglass, and the page as only been around for less then a week.

In short this page is an illegal hoax trying to make people believe that "SupportSoft" is a legitimate program so it can steal untold personal data and cause massive damage.

The page in question should immediately deleted, the user who created punished and any other legal action necessary taken as soon as possible.

I would also like that the responding admin not shrug this off as not being part of their duties and to forward this to whom ever is responsible for the security of the wiki.

Regards,

Jake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.246.119 (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, given that SupportSoft is a multi-million dollar company listed on the NASDAQ exchange, I could be wrong, but I'm doubtful they have some plot to pass along a giant virus that nobody knows about. It's more likely that you caught a virus that pretends to be from SupportSoft. Now, I've asked User:Danglass is he has anything to add but I'll leave the possibility of a legal threat or other issues to someone else. It looks like he created a mock version of the article before moving it there (and its up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SupportSoft). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a number of legit programs use this file. See [34]. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 02:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Virus programmers regularly make their programs simulate that they belong to a legitimate company, the technique is described at Trojan horse (computing). It's similar to the Phishing technique in that it also abuses the trust of the user in the company that they are imitating. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes - I used User:Danglass as a scratch area to work on the article before publishing it to the correct spot. I can't comment on Jakes problems - this is not the appropriate forum for Tech support. Danglass (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

After a delete decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FC de Rakt (2nd nomination), TharkunColl (talk · contribs) created Raktwhich when created [35] was simply the deleted article plus 3 lines on the village. Should I just ignore this or warn him, and if so, is there a template? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G4, no?  GARDEN  20:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking more of warning the editor who recreated it. With most of the bumph about the football club gone the article may be ok, althugh another Admin has just suggested redirecting it to Uden. I don't think that this sort of end run (sorry!) around an AfD decision should just be ignored. Dougweller (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A firm trouting, perhaps. –xeno ^talk 20:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

As I recall from the AfD, creating the article about the village was a suggestion during the AfD. I'm not sure a fish is needed here. Hobit (talk) 01:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I was just wanting confirmation as to whether talk page threads like this one is okay. I think it is a violation of WP:NOTFORUM. There was time where I kept removing the thread, but editors kept re-adding it. I can provide diffs if needed, as well as diffs of warnings. Can somebody please provide confirmation? Thanks. —Mythdon t/c 00:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Seems harmless. It is also in violation of NOTFORUM. My suggestion is give it a light touch if folks making that leaderboard are also substantively contributing to the article. Removing it and warning the author may not be the best course of action. Your mileage may vary and there will be other opinions, but that's my take. Protonk (talk) 04:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what's going on over at Special:Contributions/Grockl, but he/she's posting pages consisting of abuse reports for IP addresses, then removing the speedy warnings from User talk:Grockl. Further investigation may turn up what he's trying to do. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the user was intending to post these with a "User:" prefix, but left it off, and then got a bit miffed at the speedy deletion notices. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC).

Today is May 1st, on the opeing page, http://en.wikipedia.org for items that occurred on this date it lists May 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.66.79.172 (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The time is set to UTC. –xeno ^talk 00:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

(cross-posting here from Talk:Main page):

FAO anyone who can edit protected pages on commons, there's a spot of vandalism on the ARA General Belgrano underway.jpg image in "On this day" (in Portuguese under the license info)[36]. Cheers, EyeSerene^talk 10:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

In case none of the Commons admins are currently online here, a request has been made at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism removed by a Commons admin [37]. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Kaiwhakahaere Comment on User talk:EdGl Talk page> "Keep them coming Michael. This is another one for me to store away until the day your ego convinces you that a bunch of Huggle rvs makes you RfA material. Incidentally, do think you should attend a remedial course to brush up on your English usage? "I been on here for 3 months" and "You been on here since...." grate just a little". Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Seen here

I think we have a wiki-stalker on our hands. User:Kaiwhakahaere came to my talk page and ask me THIS and I reply THIS Then this user told me THIS I reply back saying THIS then this user been stoking me and posting stuff like THIS on other users pages. I just want this to stop.. He got to be a youngster..Can someone do something about this.--Michael (Talk) 04:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it, I just checked those edits. It seems he's butting into discussions he's not involved in.--Eaglestorm (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I did nothing to this user, I don’t understand why there doing this. I guess there board. The only thing I did, Is revert, this edit,.--Michael (Talk) 05:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Not really stalking yet, although not exactly pleasant behaviour. My bet is he'll not comment on your work again. David D. (Talk) 05:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes he will - when Michael goes RfA. Strangely enough, in a RfA I can go back through his history to get the bits that show why he doesn't cut the mustard. But pointing it out now results in ANI. Goodness gracious. Kaiwhakahaere (talk · contribs) 06:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Helpful mentoring never hurt anyone. David D. (Talk) 06:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell the user to leave me alone. Thanks--Michael (Talk) 05:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Kaiwhakahaere You think you had something so important to say, that you felt the urge to leave a comment on my talk page. Seen Here There are other ways to get people to listen to you than behaving like a little, dirty troll. You are an individual who enjoys creating conflict on the internet. You create and fuel arguments which upset other members of the online community. hopefully, you will get bored and leave.--Michael (Talk) 09:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Let this drop please. At this stage one of you has to be the mature person and step back who ever is in the wrong. David D. (Talk) 12:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree, Let's just drop this. Please. --Michael (Talk) 18:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Kaiwhakahere (talk · contribs) just vandalize my user pages. Seen Here and Seen Here

• Kaiwhakahaere (talk · contribs) looks very similar to the blocked editor Kaiwhakahere (talk · contribs)
• You need to check this out. Thanks--Michael (Talk) 04:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Refactored the header title. Stalking is a real world crime, and a small number of Wikipedians have actually filed police reports and provided evidence in criminal cases because of their volunteer work at this website. Please do not abuse that very serious term to overstate a minor online annoyance. Durova^Charge! 04:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the autoblock may get the other account if they are related. They do indeed look related. I'm not ruling out sockpuppetry. Hmm, If they become an issue, I will file a sockpuppetry case.--Michael (Talk) 07:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I would not jump to conclusions. Could be anyone who sees an opportunity to escalate a fight and waste both your time and that of Kaiwhakahaere. David D. (Talk) 15:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep them coming Michael. This is another one for me to store away for your fucking fagot ass. You’re the fucking little, dirty troll. Go fuck yourself. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaiwhkahaere (talk • contribs) 19:50, 30 April 2009

I just blocked Kaiwhakahaere indefinitely for that gem of a personal attack. I'm pretty confident that this was warranted, but invite comment here. Tan | 39 19:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note some odd font difference between Kaiwhakahaere and Kaiwhakahaere. That gem came from a brand new account.Synchronism (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, uh oh. What the hell...? Is this a sockpuppet of the original Kai? Tan | 39 19:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No it's someone trying to make it look like Kai. I have an idea of who it really is though.Synchronism (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

So I just indefblocked a valid editor. Great. Tan | 39 20:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I just unblocked Kai and indefblocked the troll. I'm sure the troll is celebrating somewhere; I need to be more careful. Tan | 39 20:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

What on earth is this about anyway? As far as I can tell, Michael93555 and Kaiwhakahaere have only a few edits to eachother's talk pages in common (excluding a few articles where they didn't actually come into contact). It seems this entire thing is based on a couple comments by Kaiwhakahaere that may have been inappropriate, then an overreaction by Michael93555, all stemming from one mistaken huggle revert.

@Kaiwhakahaere: making sarcastic comments about another user's English skills is entirely inappropriate.

@Michael93555: you were involved in a minor dispute, calling users "dirty trolls" is not the way to deal with it.

Both of you need to just let this go or both of you are going to end up blocked for disruption. Mr.Z-man 19:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I been telling everyone that, but they wont drop it. I want to be left alone. The harassment has moved to Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard--Michael (Talk) 23:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Requesting an uninvolved admin to close WT:Articles for deletion#Renaming this process Articles for Discussion. Consensus is very clear, but I have participated in a number of related discussions. Please leave the subsection open. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Closed the vote—I put the relevant section in an archive wrapper. That'll be $6.50; do you want a receipt? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That won't be necessary, I'll save the PayPal confirmation email. Flatscan (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Image and image name not safe for work is on Commons. Is this an appropriate image? It's being used solely on User Talk pages, seemingly for vandalism purposes. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

If there is widespread vandalism using the image, you need to visit MediaWiki talk:Bad image list. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done that. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• questionable source... would need to be taken up at commons, i believe... –xeno ^talk 23:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• We do not filter images for content on Commons, and "not safe for work" is never a reason for deletion. However, the sparse description page information suggests it may be a copyright violation, or taken without the permission of the subject. You can nominate it for deletion on Commons if you want. Dcoetzee 23:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't filter images, but I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what it could possibly be genuinely used for. Canterbury Tail talk 00:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Have to agree that while it's an issue for Commons and not for us here, I'm having a hard time seeing what use this image can be to any Wikimedia projects. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC).

Nowhere did I say "not safe for work" was the reason for deletion. Please re-read what I wrote. It was being used entirely for vandalism. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted at Commons. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking on an unrelated matter, i have found some usernames by accident that seem to be created by a certain well known vandal.

1. user:! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! HAAAAGGER?? (Created on 3 May 2008 at 11:01)
2. User:! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! HAGGEⓇ? (Created on 6 April 2009 at 10:44)
3. User:! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! HHAAGGGGEERR? (Created on 30 April 2008 at 02:47)
4. User:! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! НДԌԌЕЯ? (Created on 3 May 2008 at 10:38)
5. User:! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ⒽⒶⒼⒼⒺⓇ? (Created on 3 April 2009 at 08:15)
6. User:! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ⒽⒶⒼⒼⒺⓇ? (Created on 3 April 2009 at 08:20)
7. User:! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !-!AGGER? (Created on 7 April 2009 at 02:52)
8. User:! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ⒽⒶⒼⒼⒺⓇ? (Created on 3 April 2009 at 08:13)
9. User:! ! ! ! ! RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE ANAL RAPEAGE ⒽⒶⒼⒼⒺⓇ? (Created on 3 April 2009 at 08:42)
10. User:! ! ! ⒽⒶⒼⒼⒺⓇ? (Created on 3 April 2009 at 08:12)
11. User:! ! ⒽⒶⒼⒼⒺⓇ? (Created on 3 April 2009 at 08:10)

I was seriously not looking for these. Simply south (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

All of these users have either been blocked or do not exist. Erik9 (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

They do exist. I found them at Special:ListUsers. Simply south (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

All except number 6 are registered users, and have already been blocked. User 6 is not registered. Erik9 (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the link. Simply south (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to do here, all have been blocked - these vandals are always either on dynamic IPs or different users, so there's no real point in a Checkuser. – Toon^(talk) 20:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Special:ListUsers is full of crap like that, especially at the start. There isn't much to be done about it. However, it's not actually a problem unless those usernames are active, which they aren't.— Gavia immer (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Eh heh, User:! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Special:Listusers sucks. Keegan^talk 22:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

They could be sleeper accounts. However it looks as though using a special list if the name appears it's page cannot be created (and i assume it is blocked). Simply south (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Brion has explicitly ruled out deleting "attack name" accounts altogether, so there's nothing that can be done (although I'd support renaming them all to something else). It's just something one has to put up with. – iridescent 21:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that he is the appropriate person to decide enWP policy on this; what is his reason?DGG (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It is done for technical reasons; if the account is deleted, then it can be recreated, which would potentially play havoc with our edit histories and the GFDL issues. We can, however, rename accounts and transfer their edits (if any), and block both the old and new names. We also now have the technical ability to "hide" abusive usernames from public view, and quite a few that have attacked or provided private personal information about individuals have been hidden. Risker (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Image and image name not safe for work is on Commons. Is this an appropriate image? It's being used solely on User Talk pages, seemingly for vandalism purposes. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

If there is widespread vandalism using the image, you need to visit MediaWiki talk:Bad image list. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done that. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• questionable source... would need to be taken up at commons, i believe... –xeno ^talk 23:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• We do not filter images for content on Commons, and "not safe for work" is never a reason for deletion. However, the sparse description page information suggests it may be a copyright violation, or taken without the permission of the subject. You can nominate it for deletion on Commons if you want. Dcoetzee 23:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't filter images, but I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what it could possibly be genuinely used for. Canterbury Tail talk 00:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Have to agree that while it's an issue for Commons and not for us here, I'm having a hard time seeing what use this image can be to any Wikimedia projects. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC).

Nowhere did I say "not safe for work" was the reason for deletion. Please re-read what I wrote. It was being used entirely for vandalism. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted at Commons. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking on an unrelated matter, i have found some usernames by accident that seem to be created by a certain well known vandal.

1. user:! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! HAAAAGGER?? (Created on 3 May 2008 at 11:01)
2. User:! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! HAGGEⓇ? (Created on 6 April 2009 at 10:44)
3. User:! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! HHAAGGGGEERR? (Created on 30 April 2008 at 02:47)
4. User:! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! НДԌԌЕЯ? (Created on 3 May 2008 at 10:38)
5. User:! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ⒽⒶⒼⒼⒺⓇ? (Created on 3 April 2009 at 08:15)
6. User:! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ⒽⒶⒼⒼⒺⓇ? (Created on 3 April 2009 at 08:20)
7. User:! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !-!AGGER? (Created on 7 April 2009 at 02:52)
8. User:! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ⒽⒶⒼⒼⒺⓇ? (Created on 3 April 2009 at 08:13)
9. User:! ! ! ! ! RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE ANAL RAPEAGE ⒽⒶⒼⒼⒺⓇ? (Created on 3 April 2009 at 08:42)
10. User:! ! ! ⒽⒶⒼⒼⒺⓇ? (Created on 3 April 2009 at 08:12)
11. User:! ! ⒽⒶⒼⒼⒺⓇ? (Created on 3 April 2009 at 08:10)

I was seriously not looking for these. Simply south (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

All of these users have either been blocked or do not exist. Erik9 (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

They do exist. I found them at Special:ListUsers. Simply south (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

All except number 6 are registered users, and have already been blocked. User 6 is not registered. Erik9 (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the link. Simply south (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to do here, all have been blocked - these vandals are always either on dynamic IPs or different users, so there's no real point in a Checkuser. – Toon^(talk) 20:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Special:ListUsers is full of crap like that, especially at the start. There isn't much to be done about it. However, it's not actually a problem unless those usernames are active, which they aren't.— Gavia immer (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Eh heh, User:! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Special:Listusers sucks. Keegan^talk 22:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

They could be sleeper accounts. However it looks as though using a special list if the name appears it's page cannot be created (and i assume it is blocked). Simply south (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Brion has explicitly ruled out deleting "attack name" accounts altogether, so there's nothing that can be done (although I'd support renaming them all to something else). It's just something one has to put up with. – iridescent 21:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that he is the appropriate person to decide enWP policy on this; what is his reason?DGG (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It is done for technical reasons; if the account is deleted, then it can be recreated, which would potentially play havoc with our edit histories and the GFDL issues. We can, however, rename accounts and transfer their edits (if any), and block both the old and new names. We also now have the technical ability to "hide" abusive usernames from public view, and quite a few that have attacked or provided private personal information about individuals have been hidden. Risker (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Since they now show up in contributions lists, as a sort of an urgent action I've gone ahead and created a bunch of less-harsh/less-accusatory tag appearances for several of the tags listed over on Special:Tags that have gotten hits. No worries about permanence, since they're simply part of the interface (i.e., changing something will basically instantly become visible). Bringing it here for people to come up with better ones + populate the extended descriptions. Canvassed at WT:AF as well. --slakr^\ talk / 01:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I've just stumbled across this page and it appears to be somewhat out of control, with a lot of posturing, accusations and evidently some pretty major disagreements. I've left a civility reminder, but I suggest some people keep an eye on it. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I just uploaded the logo of the National Dental Association over logo of the National Dance Association, without checking first. Would an admin please revert to the previous version of the file, the National Dance Association logo. Apologies and thanks in advance. – ukexpat (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This is done. –xeno ^talk 15:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the speedy action. Much appreciated, I will be more careful next time.  – ukexpat (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Footage (talk · contribs)
• 59.93.201.74 (talk)
• Jown dutta (talk · contribs) Claimed previous account per this edit. Uncle G (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Those of you who've encountered me know that I hang out at WP:CP a lot these days. I don't do a lot with blocks. Hence, I wanted to invite some feedback on a situation. I came upon User:Footage on investigating the copyright problem with Bharigaan. I discovered that though the contributor had been advised about copyright policies and had been blocked for violating them before, he was persisting in placing text from previously published sources. I tagged several problem articles and blocked for two weeks. He requested unblock and was declined. I made an effort to further clarify our copyright policies to him.

Today I discovered that he was not only evading his block with the IP (as made obvious by his pattern of edits, viewable in deleted contributions particularly), but has used it to restore that problematic text to publication.

For the sake of comparison, the article on Assamese marriage:

This is just a sampling of material drawing from three of the pages. There was quite a bit more. I've placed this here for the benefit of non-admins who cannot view the now deleted article but would like to see the kinds of duplication under discussion.

I blocked the IP and reset the clock for the block on the user, for block evasion. But I am concerned that this restoration to publication indicates that the user may not understand or (if he does) intend to comply with our copyright policies. Wikipedia:Block#Evasion of blocks that extension of a block might be appropriate if the user continues disruptive behavior while evading a block. How would others handle this? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It's worse than you thought. I went through his image uploads. Telltale signs of a copyright violator there: claims to be the creator of various images of widely varying quality, most of which have missing or incomplete metadata. In two instances he didn't bother to take off the commercial watermark, and in a few others I found non-mirror sites that used the same images. Of the unattributed blog post images, all blogs predated the upload to Wikipedia. Details below. Durova^Charge! 18:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Commercial watermarks:

1. File:Bhatkerela.jpg BDShots.com watermark still on image
2. File:Jute plant.jpg GFICL watermark on image

Independent source located at Google Images:

1. File:Pointedgourd.jpg[38]
2. File:Graculaindica.jpg[blacklisted domain, available upon request]
3. File:Terpsiphoneparadisi.jpg[39]
4. File:Francolinusfrancolinus.jpg[40] (source attributes USDA, uploader claims it’s his own work)

Other files with missing or inadequate metadata:

1. File:Trphookan.jpg
2. File:Longbean.jpg
3. File:Bananaplant.jpg
4. File:Machal1.jpg
5. File:Machal2.jpg
6. File:Bhogalibihu.jpg
7. File:Posola04.jpg
8. File:Jorhatcollege.jpg
9. File:Physalisphiladelphica.jpg
10. File:Currybanana.jpg
11. File:Ipomoeabatatas.jpg
12. File:Luffaaegyptica.jpg
13. File:Cicerarietinum.jpg
14. File:Drumstick.jpg
15. File:Bambooshoot.jpg
16. File:Changghar.jpg

Yes, you're quite right. This is much worse than I'd thought. I had some suspicions about a few other articles, but I had no idea that there were image issues as well. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Think this qualifies for the Wikipedia:Copyright violations clause that says "In extreme cases administrators may impose special conditions before unblocking, such as requiring assistance with cleanup by disclosing which sources were used." ?? Durova^Charge! 20:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm on very tight time this evening, but I would say that if any of those turn out to be blatant infringement after the last block in January that this may be a bit worse than that. I'm not encouraged by the contributor's restoring text to publication after having been explicitly told why he could not. If he's also been blatantly ignoring copyright policies, then I don't know if we can afford his continued contributions. We don't have the manpower to monitor potentially problem editors, and I'm not sure how many chances we should give. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Pointedgourd.jpg, uploaded April 8, 2009 is an exact copy of an image used at a Blogspot blog the previous August. Even the pixel size and the file size are the same. Durova^Charge! 21:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Those bad uploads sealed it for me. I've extended the block to indef. He's been here a year, and he knows our policies. This is one editor we can do without. Blueboy96 22:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a good call. We have a contributor who restores copyright infringing text while blocked and who has uploaded blatantly copyrighted images even after having been blocked for image copyright violations. Not good. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Indef is absolutely right at this point. The only justification for unblocking this editor would be for them to acknowledge their copyright violations and commit to respecting copyright law in future. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• An indefinite block for the protection of the project is indubitably the correct course here.

  I bear further bad news, Moonriddengirl. I picked one page at random from the new pages listed in this editor's contributions. It was Snakes in Assamese Belief. It cites Jogesh Das' Folklore of Assam as its source. The book is more than the article's source. The article is word-for-word, sentence-for-sentence, identical to portions of the book. (You can easily confirm this for yourself by picking two or three phrases or sentences at random from the article and entering them into Google Books. This book is what comes up, usually complete with the rest of the sentence as in the article, and identical preceding/following text.) The bad news is that all of this editor's contributions are suspect as copyright violations. Tamol in Assamese Culture also turns out to be word-for-word, sentence-for-sentence, identical to portions of that same book. Fish in Assamese Culture, Bhekuli Biya, Assamese taboos, Assamese beliefs and superstitions, Sadhukotha, Musical instruments of Assam, and Assamese kinship: same problem, same book. (In some, Indian English spelling has been changed to U.S. English spelling, "neighbor" for "neighbour" in one case, for example, which might throw you off.) That's not even all of them.

  Worse yet: Despite the attention resulting from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhogali Bihu, portions of Bhogali Bihu are still as the article stands now, lifted from that book. Search for "Boys roam about in the dark stealing firewood and vegetables for fun", for example. So despite being rescued at AFD, the article is polluted by initial, and subsequent ("come back home carrying pieces of half burnt firewood for being thrown among fruit trees" exactly matches the book) copyright violations.

  It doesn't even end with just one book. Ali-Aye-Ligang is lifted en bloc from page 27 of The Mishings (Miris) of Assam: development of a new lifestyle by Jatin Mipun (Gian Pub. House, 1993). Uncle G (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Also Ambubachi Mela, Daranga Mela and Bhatheli. Everything on User:Footage/Articles needs to be checked. I marked those three as copyvios. MER-C 03:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Radha Govinda Baruah from [41]. He claims authorship of this one, but it was "written" by Amioxomiya (talk · contribs). MER-C 03:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I've spiked most of these per CSD G12, as Footage was the author of most of these and essentially the sole contributor. Blueboy96 10:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Check out the deleted revisions. Footage really did create this one, the day before Amioxomiya re-created it. It was deleted the same day for blatant copyright infringement. Uncle G (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Bihugeet, Nisukoni geet, Biyanam and Oja-Pali. MER-C 10:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Zapped as well per G12 ... as I mentioned earlier, that definitely applies since Footage is the sole contributor, and no one else has made substantive edits. Good grief ... I wasn't around (at least not actively) for the Sturm und Drang that resulted from Primetime, but is this what it was like to find all of his copyvios? Blueboy96 10:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Hmm. Proposed handling. I think what I'll do is open a section at WP:COPYCLEAN with a pointer to his contribution list. I'll also have a glance at his contribs to see if he's done extensive work in other articles that aren't listed. If so, I'll ask User:Dcoetzee to run a scan. (He does great stuff with that, like his list of remaining problems for GrahamBould at the Gastropod cleanup.) Although that project still has limited membership and we already have two massive infringement cleanups going (the one of which seems neverending), others may help evaluate those articles. It might be worth proactively blanking them with the CP template, the way we did GrahamBould's. With the images, should I pile the images that are on Wikipedia and not already deleted on WP:PUI for evaluation? I'll have to notify a Commons admin about the ones that aren't here, but there are a couple who are used to be harassed by me. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Durga Puja in Assam is sentence-for-sentence identical to the source cited as its reference. The sentences are sometimes in a different order, but that is all.

    Festivals in Assam is a compound copyright violation. Its summaries are taken from the several subordinate articles, all bar one of which (namely Bhatheli, Durga Puja in Assam, Daranga Mela, Ali-Aye-Ligang, Shivaratri in Assam, Doul Jatra, Asokastami, and Mohoho) are themselves copyright violations from various places (mostly the aforementioned book). The one exception is Bihu, where Footage added a copyright violation, taken word-for-word from the source cited, to an existing article. The non-summary sections are direct copyright violations, and aren't original writing by this person either. For examples: The "Jonbeel Mela" section is taken from this WWW page ("Copyright © 2002-07 Assam Tourism") and the "Dehing Patkai Festival" section is taken from this WWW page ("Copyright©2008 All About Assam.com All Rights Reserved.").

    Ironically, Redtigerxyz just replaced one of the articles listed by MER-C above with a redirect to Festivals in Assam. It's not that easy, Redtigerxyz. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

  • More of the same: Ainaam, Malita (ballad), and Zikir and Zari are all from the aforementioned book by Das. There were several exact text matches in each, with merely some subsitutions of nouns for pronouns and vice versa. Uncle G (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Bongeet is another one from the book by Das. Borgeet is slightly more complex, but turns out to be a word-for-word copyright violation of each of the sources cited, where cited, including several paragraphs lifted wholesale from this WWW page ("Copyright © 2007-2008 onlinesivasagar.com(Abhijit Borah)"). Uncle G (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Chitraban from [42] which itself is a copy of a newspaper article. Astaraag (Sunset) from [43]. Baramahi geet and Deh Bisaror Geet from the usual book. MER-C 12:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion regarding the images? Sometimes when an editor has an exceedingly poor track record of copyright compliance our sysops delete everything suspicious. There's no need to run through the PUI gauntlet since the odds of this person returning to editing and cooperating are very slim. The three lists I provided above are already prescreened for compliance: I haven't listed anything that had a valid fair use rationale or complete camera metadata. Let's just zap the ones here. Durova^Charge! 15:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. Listing them at PUI is only likely to delay handling, unless somebody should come forward with startling new evidence. In which case, they're easily restored anyway. I'm almost finished with today's batch at WP:CP, so I'll go ahead and compile a list for a Commons admin of those not hosted here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• File:Lofagreen.jpg
• File:Matikaduri.jpg
• File:Jilmil.jpg
• File:Posola.jpg
• File:Posola2.jpg
• File:Khutora.jpg

These all have consistent metadata and don't show up on Tineye. What should we do with these? MER-C 12:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm ... unless another admin knows something I don't, they should probably stay. It's just proof that Footage knew our copyright policies. Blueboy96 14:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep them. We've seen people before who mix copyvio uploads with genuine original work. The difference is obvious to my eye: in addition to the complete and consistent metadata, these are mundane local subjects for the uploader and they're shot with the same style and same level of proficiency. No reason to doubt that this is legit. Durova^Charge! 16:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Or they were just all taken from the same person. Mr.Z-man 18:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually the metadata would be incomplete in that case. It's the first thing we screen for. Durova^Charge! 18:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Holy ... effing ... crap. Uncle G's evidence spells out the worst case of plagiarism I've ever seen since Primetime. I move for a community ban. Blueboy96 19:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• He's been indeffed and I can't imagine an admin who would unblock him without a pretty astounding reason. Protonk (talk)
• Support. To formalize. In the remote, remote chance that someone is insanely optimistic enough to consider allowing him back, he'd better work to eliminate the entire mess he's created. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Yep. MER-C 10:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support, though, honestly, my "worst case of plagiarism/infringement ever seen" bar is really high. :/ (Can't compare that to Primetime, with which I'm unfamiliar. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• per protonk and WP:BAN this is redundant. Any user whom no admin is willing to unblock is already banned. We don't need to start a ban discussion on every indef user. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, then ... creating an entry at WP:LOBU. Blueboy96 14:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support - If not de facto banned already by default (although I think it should be de jure anyway). — neuro^(talk) 16:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support reviewing the above thread, I think it's appropriate. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support - as one of those pollyanna admins who almost always seems willing to unblock anyone, I have to say that not even I would touch this one. John Carter (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Everyone: No-one — no-one — is going to seriously consider unblocking this person without some exceptionally strong assurances that xe will start contributing original work. Looking at the account's deleted contributions, xe has been violating copyright since at least March 2008, when Nancy deleted Devicharan Baruah Girls' College as a blatant copyright violation, and has clearly ignored the warnings about copyright violation that xe was given at the time. From what I've reviewed so far, there's little evidence that this person has ever written original prose of any significant size of xyr own. (Several articles where content didn't come from an outside source are just copies and pastes of existing Wikipedia content from other articles written by other people. Elective Subject, for example.) You can help far more by, instead of adding to a vote that is in practice going to be totally pointless, looking through Special:Contributions/Footage, User:Footage/Articles, and User:Footage/Contributions and checking for copyright violations. Blueboy96 reports that xyr mouse finger is getting tired from hitting the delete button. And I've spent some hours doing nothing but copying and pasting sentences into search engines. Fewer votes and more people using their tools to assist in the cleanup would be most welcome. Uncle G (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, as the person who initially proposed the ban. I initially proposed it because the evidence uncovered by Uncle G indicated a user who, at least for now, should have had his editing privileges revoked. But with what's emerged now, this guy has put the project in so much legal danger that no admin who wants to keep his bit (or doesn't want to face being Checkusered as a Footage sock) will ever unblock him. Another step, I think, is to find out if he's contributed on other projects. No doubt given his wanton disregard for copyright that he's done the same thing on other wikis. Blueboy96 14:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Evidently, the formalities matter to some people. I'm all about cleaning up. We still haven't finished with the last guy. :/ I'll go see what's going on with it, now that I've caught up with the day's other copyright concerns. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

In cases like this, I'm in favor of removing every image the editor has added and article he has created, and reverting all edits where it is possible. Once people see that plagiarism will cause all their contribs to go up in smoke, they'll have less motivation to try it. Looie496 (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope, no edits on other projects but registered on commons, new and as [44]. MER-C 11:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Looie, see my post above. In addition to several legitimate original photographs this editor also wrote fair use rationales for others. The rate of copyvio is too high to permit him to continue editing, but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. He did do the project a little good. Durova^Charge! 16:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I saw that there was a request for a third opinion on Therapeutic hypothermia, so I went over to lend a hand. After editing parts of the article, I started to realize that it seemed a little too good to be true. After a little searching, I realized that pretty much the entire article is copied from http://www.cardiaccarecritique.com/programs/hypothermic/index.php. There may be sections that are different; I don't really have the time to go through each section and check it against the link. But enough of the article is the same that it's cause for concern. Since it seems like this article should exist in some form (previously it was at Induced hypothermia, from the looks of things) but I'm wondering how to proceed. Should I just toss on a copyvio tag and add it to the list at WP:CV? Should I just purge all the text and leave a stub article? What's the best course of action? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick follow-up: the article is listed in the Intensive care medicine template. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I looked into this and I'm not sure this is a copyright violation on Wikipedia's part. The article evolved beginning with one big edit almost a year ago (sorry for the lack of diffs) and evolved from there with many small edits, which actually brought it closer to the version hosted offsite, suggesting that ours might be the original. Further, the offsite version uses numbered citations contained within non-superscripted brackets, which is extremely unusual, and the numbering of the citations is as far as I can tell the same or very similar to that on our version of the article. What makes it even more unusual is that although their references are in the same order as Wikipedia's, but are not numbered. The whole thing smells like they copied Wikipedia's article, and made some formatting changes, removed all the citation requests, etc. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like ours came first: among other things, there are some errors in the handling of the "degree" symbol that would occur if you copy Wikipedia's UTF-8 article and paste it into an ISO 8859-1 webpage. Further, they don't show up in archive.org, which is a good indication that the webpage is new. --Carnildo (talk) 06:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone needs to contact that website then; copyright violations are never fun. Ironholds (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to note that this is not unusual. It's always good to verify (and I'm glad you followed up, HelloAnnyong), but we see these routinely at WP:CP. One that stands out to me was an infringement on a county government website. Whoever wants to contact the website might wish to use the procedure at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks, although of course DMCA take-down would require a substantial content contributor from that article. It looks like the sort of site to me that might actually respond well to first contact by linking to the Wikipedia article, but you never know. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh, alright then. Thanks for looking into this, guys. Didn't want to start tossing around copyvios without justification. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I have made an attempt to contact them using the form on their web page. I included the information that they would be able to use the article freely if they acknowledged the source and licensed the content under the GFDL. Looie496 (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's possible that the material may have been simultaneously written for both sources. The principal author write only on this topic, inserting sections of hypothermia into a number of reasonably appropriate article, but has also written an article on a hypothermia machine, Arctic Sun medical device, which may possibly be notable (there are references beyond those in Wikipedia article at http://www.medivance.com/html/contributions_references.htm, I think the most useful course might be to inquire about COI. DGG (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) DGG, I'm not sure how much that's going to help. The first contributor was Spencer233416, and by the time he did most of his editing, all the current text was in place. That user hasn't been active since August 2008, so I highly doubt we're going to get an answer about his being a COI. Then again, if we go way back, the bulk of the text was added by 67.176.57.53, and based on looking at the edits made, I think that that IP and Spencer may be one and the same. Also, that anon IP last edited in early April, so I'll leave a message on their talk page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Could I get an admin or two to take a look at the section of my talk page titled Help? Apparently some of the current and former members of the band Scarling. are in some kind of dispute over their Wikipedia articles and their various boyfriends/wives/etc are now jumping into the mix. I'm away from home this week, and simply don't have the time or ability to look into it. Thanks, - auburnpilot's sock 15:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• It's a veritable mini soap opera. For the benefit of any administrators trying to make head or tail of this sorry mess, here's what appears to be the cast of characters:
  • Godblessyrblackheart (talk · contribs) — has been self-identifying as Matthew Eilers in numerous edits (example) since 2008, and claims to be the boyfriend of Kyle Justin, but has also self-identified in copyright licence statements as Kyle Justin
  • KyleJustinD (talk · contribs) — self-identifies as Kyle Justin himself (example)
  • Xtian1313 (talk · contribs) — self-identifies as Christian Hejnal, husband of Jessicka (example)
  • A Mysterious Un-named Figure who edited for a few days in November 2008, and whose identity our principal charactes have had All Sorts of Fun, throughout the first few acts, guessing based upon who edited whose message board outside of Wikipedia
  • Chorus
• Our story so far is a bewildering tale of multiple massive conflicts of interests on everyone's part, legal threats (libel and breach of contract), vandalism accusations, sockpuppetry accusations, incomprehensible complaints, BLP content that doesn't check out against the sources cited for it, and talk page archive refactoring, spread across multiple administrators' and non-administrators' talk pages, their own talk pages, article talk pages, and articles themselves, for several acts. To add the spice of French farce to Italian opera, we also now have the characters arguing about "outing" (example), when they have all self-identified long since.

  I'm not sure what administrator action is appropriate here, or even what administrator action is even being asked for. The deus ex machina finale to this little production, of ringing down the curtain on the lot of them, is quite a tempting one at first thought, though. Uncle G (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe these parties could contact WP:OTRS if they really wanted to substantiate their claims that they are the people they say they are? I'm not sure what actual good that would do, but it at least would possibly get them off of the backs and talk pages of the people they're probably at least annonying now. John Carter (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

All I know is that I am now listening to a bit of Jack Off Jill, and will soon move onto Scarling. I wonder if they are trying to promote themselves, or if there is really some dispute that needs resolution - not necessarily by admins. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The "Promise" as published on Wikipedia is currently incorrect in that it contains no reference to God. Since 1910 the Promise was ' to love God and country etc' later changed to "love my God... to accommodate the wide range of beliefs which acknowledge a Supreme Being. The 'Promise you quote is not yet in use. It is intended to come into force on 1 September 2013 against wide opposition. Because it proposes to abandon all reference to 'my God' It is most controversial, being un86.160.144.253 (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)acceptable to large numbers of the Guide movement . It is therefore not yet an accurate description . Widespred Press reporting and Members of the Guide movement personally known to me.