Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Marelstrom (talk | contribs) at 01:25, 21 May 2011 (I imagine it will get deleted in the next hour). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion


    Ganas article and talk page

    Please see Ganas article and Ganas talk page. Marelstrom (talk) continues to substitute properly referenced material with unverified and trivial statements, and attempts to out Eroberer (talk). Please consider protecting the 429492686 revision of the article. Eroberer (talk) 02:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ganas is communitarian group in Staten Island, New York that has an interesting history to say the least. My concern is that over the past 6-7 months we have been having a string of SPA accounts most vocal being (Eroberer (talk · contribs)) who has strong dislike of Ganas. Eroberer's dislike of Ganas has resulted in alot of POV-Pushing, behavior is relatively civil with established editors but down right aggressive with any one they disagree with. The most recent incident was an outing that was just oversighted this morning (Well my time at least) where a new editor said made an accusation about Eroberer which amplifies my concerns. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I encourage action on Eroberer aggressive behavior torward new editors

    The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I am willing to look for references to any of my contributions as needed. --Marelstrom (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like ResidentAnthropologist to stop harassing and defaming me. I think I have good reason to be offended by Marelstrom's reckless accusations. I have several times asked Marelstrom to investigate WP policies but they have ignored me. I am only trying to prevent users who refuse to familiarize themselves and/or comply with long-standing policies from vandalizing and edit-warring. No one else seems willing to do that, though ResidentAnthropologist clearly has more power here than I, his actions are only to oppose me. Eroberer (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have attempted to address content concerns extensively with you. Your battle ground mentality and disrespect for the very policies unless they advance your agenda. Your over aggressive attitude with new editors is counter productive to collaborative editing. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would very much like for there to be additional contributors. The summary as I have it now (though could be reverted at any instant) is mostly my point of view, and I don't mind it being adapted to hold other views, but I think Eroberer's POV is too heavily weighted in this article. What the article needs is Eroberer off, and a dozen other editors on. --Marelstrom (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism by User:Δ

    User:Δ has a troubled history for his habit of content policing (see WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Δ). He has been trying to get images deleted from Indonesian rupiah and Banknotes of the Indonesian rupiah on the basis of putative 'non-free content overuse', although in fact it appears that all images may in fact be free, and in any case the older ones most certainly are free.

    I tagged images such as this one: [1] as public domain since it was published in 1952 in Indonesia, and according to Indonesian copyright law, the maximum copyright term is 50 years from publication. He has just reverted this with the intent that the files be deleted tomorrow: [2].

    I notified him on his talk page that he is vandalising the encylopedia by tagging clear public domain images for deletion, see contributions: [3], and he responded by immediately deleting/archiving my notice and taking no action. He has been reported several times in recent days for breaching 3RR over his content policing actions, and I have no intention in getting into a revert war with him over this, so I am reporting here. Indocopy (talk) 09:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    When you refuse to listen, remove image sourcing and are disruptive you will be reverted. You replaced all of the information on the image description pages with a generic template. I could have gone through and tagged them all as no-source. I have not breached 3RR as you have been told multiple times before. Enforcing NFC is exempt from that. Calling me a vandal is a personal attack which Im brushing off. ΔT The only constant 09:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I came very close to handing out some blocks here - Edit Warring is a bright line Δ, you should know that! However - both pages are protected (one from a few days ago), please resolve the dispute on talk pages as to whether any of these images are out of copyright yet, or come up with a compromise non-free usage. --Errant (chat!) 09:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ive tried, but been ignored. ΔT The only constant 09:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please show where you have tried and have been ignored, I do not believe this is the case. Indocopy (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    @ErrantX, if non-free images are used without a proper rationale, then such a rationale should be provided before the images are (re-)included. Reverting edits without providing that proper rationale first is a form of disruption, and as such exempt from 3RR. The WP:BURDEN is on the editor wanting to include the images. I am sure that Δ is aware of the bright line, as is Indocopy about the regulations of NFC. You are right, the dispute has to be resolved on talkpages, or a proper selection has to be made - not by changing licensing information or reverting images back in without having proper rationales. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I refuse to listen??? I'm not the one who just deleted comments from his talk page without action/discussion.
    The template is not generic, it is one I personally created for these images. The content is more than 50 years old and is therefore public domain, and were correctly tagged as such 6 days ago, now you are reverting them in what appears to be an attempt to get free content deleted based on an 'unused non-free image' tag. This is vandalism, nothing more.
    Your behaviour is highly disruptive, if you had a problem with my image tagging you could have notified me and explained any issues you had, but nope you just revert (after six days!) and don't say anything, and edit war over and over and over again.Indocopy (talk) 09:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    There has recently been some discussion over Commons about this subject.[4][5] I feel it would be best to take it there. —BETTIA— talk 09:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I rather disagree. I have a simple complaint here. I tagged numerous images as public domain, which they are unquestionably are, being older than the 50-year term, and this was reverted by Delta who refused to discuss the matter. It is not a copyright matter, it is a complaint about Delta's obstructive behaviour in (a) edit warring and (b) not discussing. Indocopy (talk) 09:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll need to cite where "older than the 50-year term" makes them public domain. In the USA, at least, that's no longer the case. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well yeah I did that, that's why this is vandalism. I created Template:PD-Indonesia, in accordance with numerous (Category:Public_domain_copyright_templates_by_country) similar templates on Wikipedia, and then tagged the image accordingly, as I explained in my original post (above). The copyright law in Indonesia is clearly hyperlinked from the template and hence from the image that Delta disrupted reverted without cause and refusing to discuss it. Indocopy (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is not vandalism. You definitely need to stop using that word, which has a very specific meaning here, in this context. On a side note - the bank note in the photo was issued in the 90s... but the design is from 1960? Does that affect things? This whole bank notes issue is largely unresolved. --Errant (chat!) 14:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no photos, only scans, there is an important difference in copyright terms, scans of an object enjoy no secondary copyright whereas photos do.
    As for 'the banknote in the photo being issued in the 90s... but the design is from 1960?', nope I've no idea where you get that idea from, although equally I'm not sure what image you are referring to? The banknotes issue might be 'largely [or partly] unresolved', but when you take 50+-year-old images that are clearly in the public domain and you edit them such that they will be auto-deleted within 24 hours, and then refuse to discuss the matter, well I think it's legitimate to regard that as 'vandalism'. Indocopy (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "...scans of an object enjoy no secondary copyright whereas photos do..."
    Wait, what? Where do you get the assertion that a scan of a work enjoys different copyright status to a photograph of a work? Book publishers might want to have a word about that... — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Indocopy; asserting a violation of 3RR because you believe you're right and Δ is wrong when there's been no consensus that you are right, in a situation regarding copyright is improper. As Dirk noted, the burden is on you. Fail that burden, and those policing your edits are not in violation of 3RR. Attempting to force your way by rampant reversions is not the way forward. If you can't convince a body towards consensus that a given set of images are free license/public domain, edit warring won't work either. Be patient, wait for consensus to develop, and stop edit warring. We've had enough blasts about this pattern of edits that are entirely avoidable if you simply choose to wait it out. We take copyright seriously here, and no amount of edit warring is going to change that. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • FWIW, no, I disagree. This is not a case that unquestionably violates the free-content policy. The only thing that can be enforced in this case is common consensus (which seems to be slowly emerging). So both parties here are in violation of WP:EW and 3RR still applies. --Errant (chat!) 13:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-admin comment) NFCC states that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created. A valid rationale was provided, fulfilling the burden of proof. Even if the user wishing to remove it has a valid counter-argument, it no longer unquestionably violates the free-content policy, thus 3RR applies, so far as I can tell. - SudoGhost™ 14:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    SudoGhost is correct. I agree with these images removals FWIW, but there is nothing there that is valid as an exclusion under 3RR. Edit warring is a bright line with few exceptions. --Errant (chat!) 14:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No ErrantX and SudoGhost, there is not a rationale for using so many of these images. That qualifies as overuse, which we, per our m:Mission should try to minimise, as we are trying to write a free encyclopedia here. Someone has questioned the use of so many of them, so the burden of proof is on the person who is re-inserting them. Be it 1, or be it all. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Expanding, if someone questions the rationale, then the rationale is not unquestioned anymore, and hence it can not be a valid rationale until those questions are answered - the burden of proof is on the one wishing to (re-)insert them. Its painful, but if there is a vandal making some silly removal of an image one would even have to answer that rationale - 'I think it does' is not good enough. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    All true. However it still does not count as an exception. The proper response is not to edit war but to report the user rv-ing or to request protection of the article until matters are resolved. --Errant (chat!) 14:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the other option is to edit war against them.... no, no it certainly is not. Where on earth did you get that from :) I'm not trying to be awkward - just pointing out that a less laid back admin might well have handed out blocks here. --Errant (chat!) 14:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Logical rationale has been given on the article's talk page that the images are PD (among other things), which means it no longer unquestionably violates the free-content policy. I'm not aware that a questioned rationale is not a valid one, nor of any policy that states that. Show me a rationale that is never questioned, because that seems unlikely. The talk page itself shows that it no longer unquestionably violates the free-content policy, and there is an ongoing discussion as to that very question, with valid rationales being given by those who wish for the images to be used.
    If you ask ten editors if it violates NFCC, and six say yes, but four say no, and give very good, logical reasons why it doesn't, that seems to be the very reason the policy says unquestionably violates the free-content policy instead of the other way around, images can be removed unless those images unquestionably do not violate the free-content policy. - SudoGhost™ 14:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, so much for WP:BURDEN. It's been officially vacated. Facepalm. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Huh? Totally unrelated. It is definitely not appropriate to use WP:BURDEN as a rationale to edit war, it is not an exclusion. That the edits failed WP:BURDEN is a matter for the talk page & other dispute resolution (i.e. here, RFPP, etc.) --Errant (chat!) 15:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec) Well, that PD is not that unquestionable I am afraid. That some thing is not under a copyright anymore does not make them PD. But well. Yes, bingo, SudoGhost: images get removed unless they unquestionably do not violate the non-free-content policy. I am sorry, there is no negotiation there, if they violate the non-free-content policy, or in other words, if they they violate copyright, then they have to go until the opposite is proven. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Uh, you might want to check out the Wikipedia page on public domain. 'Works are in the public domain if they are not covered by intellectual property rights at all, if the intellectual property rights have expired' Indocopy (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that's not accurate. We suspend all tenants of WP:NFCC policy as soon as anyone disagrees with them. WP:BURDEN is also suspended. Didn't you know that? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't be glib. I am trying to helpfully explain a better process than edit warring, because all that will happen is eventually someone will be blocked for NFCC reasons (which in this case IMO are being reasonably questioned, though it looks like the removal will prove valid) and there will be a massive fucking fall out etc etc. Just use the right process. That is all :)

    --Errant (chat!) 15:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you misunderstood, I was saying the opposite. The 3RR exemption is not Removal of content that might violate the non-free content policy., but says Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy. I did not add the emphasis to unquestionably, it's presented that way in WP:3RR. Seems to me the policy-writer thought that part important, for reasons such as this, I can't think of a reason to bold that word unless it was important. As per the policy as written, and the spirit of the policy, Δ violated 3RR. If he didn't, then who possibly could? That unquestionably certainly isn't there for giggles. - SudoGhost™ 15:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Missing the point

    In response to Hammersoft et al above, I did not come here to assert a violation of 3RR, I came here to point out that Delta has vandalised public domain images (being older than 50 years, in accordance with Indonesian law), and then removed my attempt at discussion, and given his past history was liable to edit war to revert them, so I had no alternative but to flag it here having exhausted other angles to resolve this. There is no one 'set of images' here, there are many different scans of banknotes dating in publication date from 1945 up to 2010, and after earlier Delta-initiated dramas, he eventually conceded that those images published in the name of 'Republik Indonesia', 'Republik Indonesia Serikat' and 'Indonesia' are free content in accordance with Indonesian law, and these were tagged accordingly. Subsequently I also tagged scans of those banknotes published prior to 1 January 1961 as PD-Indonesia, since they are unquivocally public domain according to Indonesian law. The status of those more recent banknotes is not the subject of this AN/I report, and I would suggest that be discussed at a different venue - I posted here ONLY because Delta vandalised the >50 year-old, public domain images and refused to discuss the fact that he had done so or to revert the same; accordingly the comments about NFCC/WP:BURDEN while germane to Delta's wider pattern of putative misbehaviour overcomplicate what is in fact a simple problem of him reverting valid PD tags on old images.Indocopy (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    And you've been told that vandalism is a very very specific thing here, and thats not what Delta did. When you stop using that term, maybe we can advance the discussion. Syrthiss (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The only way to resolve this is to have someone with media copyright knowledge r.e. bank notes take a look. There are a number of issues which concern me that they may not be free images. But that is an issue for the talk pages - is there any admin action still needed? --Errant (chat!) 15:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh yes, the 50+ year-old images, which have been tagged for deletion by Delta tomorrow, which apparently I'm not allowed to call vandalism, should be reverted en-masse - I'm not sure how to do this, and would like it to be made clear that Delta should not revert these when his block expires Indocopy (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Indocopy I think I understand what the disconect is. You keep claiming the 50 year old images are PD, but you are not using 50 year old images. The bank note is more than 50 years old but what you are adding are the less than 20 year old scans. Bank notes are 3 dimensional peices of art work ( they must be scanned from at least 2 angles to show them in 2 dimensions) therefore the scans that you are useing are copywrited to the maker of the scans at the time he made them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeadImmortal (talk • contribs)
    Uhm, no, not really. The banknote is 2D, and a mere scan of each side of it doesn't create a new copyright, per Bridgeman vs Corel. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Beat me to it FutPerf. — BQZip01 — talk 16:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Indocopy - to reply to your message further up the thread. The original image uploader noted that the scanned note (thanks for pointing out that) was issued between 1995 and 2008 (check the history). --Errant (chat!) 15:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you provide a permanent link to the relevant version, I'm not quite sure what we are looking at here. Indocopy (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just a simple copy/paste issue caused by doing many uploads with the same text: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20080701000000&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Sumbuddi Indocopy (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh. Look at the original revision for one of the images. Note the uploaders comment: Indonesian currency issued 1998-2005. --Errant (chat!) 15:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In reference to that specific image, the original uploader marked it wrong -- that note was not issued between 1998 and 2005 -- it was issued in 1953. See here : [6], looking for better examples. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. I don't think for a moment that Δ is attempting to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. I suggest you read WP:NOTVAND. Wikipedia is pretty strict on what is considered vandalism, and accusing someone of vandalism when they haven't vandalized anything isn't the nicest thing, and tends to only cause problems. - SudoGhost™ 15:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No that's true, it's a shame therefore that Delta, whose behaviour wih me from the beginning has been aggressive and obnoxious started off by inappropriately calling my Good Faith edits, made prior to registering, vandalism. [7] Incivility tends to breed the same, he uses abusive language [8] threatens people with blocks, destroys people's hard work and refuses to discuss the matter, has made only minimal contribution to the copyright discussion except saying 'no', and then wonders why he gets blocked and people accuse him of 'vandalism'.Indocopy (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't you get that one memo? "Vandalism" is any edit in which you disagree with, period. –MuZemike 13:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Not to worry everyone, Indocopy has remained very civil throughout all of this. This isn't spillage of multiple debates in multiple venues. Can we just trout slap the hell out of this and close this thread? Nothing productive is coming from it. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    How does troutslapping resolve the copyright concerns? 216.93.212.245 (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that 50+-year-old images are public domain in Indonesia is something that Delta refused to discuss, having previously reverted the correctly applied PD-Indonesia template. So er, no, no discussion elsewhere. Again, 'missing the point'. Indocopy (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Discussion is happening elsewhere regarding the images and their tags, and further your assertion of the inviolability of the 50+ year old images being PD has been contested. I'm sorry you've found people disagreeing with you, but that's part of the reality of a community developed resource. Regardless, WP:AN/I isn't the place to be determining the copyright status of an image. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I tagged the >50-year images as PD, and Delta reverted this without discussion, and then refused to revert and/or justify when asked to do so. That is not (or should not be at any rate) part of developing a community-developed resource. Hence AN/I was and remains the appropriate venue for signposting destructive behaviour.
    Further, the fact is these 50+-year old images ARE PD in Indonesia, that fact is inviolable, and if you believe otherwise, well I suggest you, or indeed anyone else that might agree with you, cites something to contradict the copyright law of Indonesia, which was prior to Delta's destruction, helpfully linked from the images. Because there has been zero, just sweet FA, posted to say otherwise, so what this amounts to is disruption, it's disruptive to say 'x is not public domain' or even 'there is an ongoing debate about whether x is public domain', without providing anything to contradict the evidence that it is, but instead, disingenuously, claim that this should be discussed elsewhere, when there is in fact nothing to discuss.
    Now, in view of the disruption caused, which has not been and cannot be justified, I have requested, and continue to request, that the reverts to these PD images be rolled back and we can move on. Of course you seem to be enjoying this pointless battle over a collection of half-century-old demonetised banknotes, far exceeding the attention paid to 99.99% of other images on Wikipedia, including many of much more obviously dubious status, so I daresay you will have a ready riposte???Indocopy (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, Indocopy .. I, for one, dispute that those images are PD, and that the copyright is actually gone (the copyright document you linked to is unclear whether currency falls under the group that looses copyright .. or under a group which never looses copyright. And then still .. loosing copyright (or IP, as you noted elsewhere) does not automatically make things public domain). If it is disputed, then the original one may be more accurate. Maybe time to find a specialist to really solve it? And tagging such images wrongly is certainly not the way to go. Things are non-free until proven otherwise. And WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, indeed. Time to do something about it, Indocopy? --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As the items are out of copyright, being 50+ years old, they are by definition public domain. This is really not rocket science, and I do apologise but I've had quite enough of being asked to prove that the Pope is Catholic - I am done here. Delete the images, trash the article, I care not, I will mirror it myself - not a problem, I should have bailed on this nonsense rather earlier, but never mind - it's never too late to say goodbye.
    You have a nice day now. Indocopy (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Repeatedly asseting something which others disagree with doesn't mean the they will suddenly sit up and say, "Wow, you're right." You need to find further evidence to prove your claim. 216.93.212.245 (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh .. no. First of all, I doubt if currency is in the category of material that loses its copyright after 50 years .. ánd there are other legal laws than only the copyright that protect images and make them non-free (see e.g. logos .. the copyright may be gone, or they may be too simple for copyright, but they are still trademarked and non-free). So I dispute the PD status .. but maybe a copyright expert should look at it.
    You are of course free to host the page yourself .. you are not bound to minimal non-free use, as Wikipedia is. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahem. Without checking Indonesian copyright law, if an item falls out of copyright protection, it is public domain (at that time — in some rare cases, copyright protection is later restored.) Whether an item which is no longer protected under Indonesian copyright law is no longer protected under US copyright law is another questions, which the lawyers can debate, but if "Indocopy" is correct as to Indonesian copyright law, the images can properly be uploaded to commons:, and be linked here with little question. Personally, I think Δ is probably correct, but his actions are not exempt from 3RR, and he should be blocked if he's violated 3RR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, there is enough material that is not copyrighted, but still is non-free. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Explain? Trademark, trade secret, and (potentially) patents, although possibly not free, are not covered by NFCC? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A trademarked picture is covered by NFCC. And others are covered by WP:COPYRIGHT .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Beetstra, no they are not. Copyrights expire, but trademarks, if protected properly, never do. While there are some restrictions, they are in the Public Domain like patents. Trade secrets are not copyrightable as they have not been published. — BQZip01 — talk 14:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You also can't trademark a picture. An object contained in a picture, such as a logo or design, may have a trademark associated with it, but the picture itself is only subject to copyright. And copyrights, as has been already pointed out, do expire. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Pictures with trademarks in them may have trademark restrictions and they may have copyrights as well, but you have to take into account the concept of de minimus (if a Major League Baseball logo is in the distant background of a family photo at a ballpark, Major League Baseball doesn't suddenly own the copyright on the photo). — BQZip01 — talk 14:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just how many years has this user Delta been problematic? BarkingMoon (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The key question is not "Are these images more than 50 years old?", it's "were they in the public domain in Indonesia in 1996?", to which the answer appears to be an unambiguous "no". Because of this, they are copyrighted in the United States for another 40 years or so (see http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm, section "Works first published outside the US", footnote 20, and List of parties to international copyright agreements). Since Wikipedia needs to follow US copyright law, the fact that the images may be in the public domain in Indonesia is irrelevant. --Carnildo (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, no it isn't. If it is PD in Indonesia where it was published, it is PD in the US (that's one of the reasons we signed the treaty in the first place...to make PD in one country PD in all; copyrighted in one=copyrighted in all). — BQZip01 — talk 15:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. As I understand the Berne Convention (disclaimer: I'm a photographer, not an attorney), if examining a copyright in one country when it was granted in another, the copyright is deemed to expire at the earlier limit between countries. If Indonesia says 50 years but the US says "death of creator plus 70 years", the copyright is deemed ended at the 50-year mark, even in the US. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Indocopy I think I understand what the disconect is. You keep claiming the 50 year old images are PD, but you are not using 50 year old images. The bank note is more than 50 years old but what you are adding are the less than 20 year old scans. Bank notes are 3 dimensional peices of art work ( they must be scanned from at least 2 angles to show them in 2 dimensions) therefore the scans that you are useing are copywrited to the maker of the scans at the time he made them. Copyed from above to a current conversation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeadImmortal (talk • contribs) 16:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Bank notes are 2 dimensional (that they have a front & back is irrelevant). As mentioned above, a scanned in version does not attain a new copyright. — BQZip01 — talk 16:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, derivatives of copyrighted (or previously copyrighted) works do not attain a new copyright. Otherwise, anyone could just take a picture of the Mona Lisa and claim copyright. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually Wikipedia got in some trouble about doing just that (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/13/wikimedia_npg/). The issue is fairly simple - is there any creative work in making the image of an object. If you paint a car, then your painting has creative work in the use of style, perspective, colour, and so on, even though the car itself also a work of creativity. Equally, if I photograph the Mona Lisa, it's probably not going to look as good as a professional photo, even if we both use the same equipment - again there is creativity in lighting, choice of angle and so on (although I believe under US law there is no secondary copyright - this is a UK Law). That said, sticking a banknote or even something '3d' like a coin under a scanner has no creative force whatsoever, anywhere, and such images are public domain if the item being scanned is likewise public domain. 86.173.175.206 (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The Berne Convention isn't the relevant legislation here -- in fact, it has absolutely no legal force in the United States (see the first paragraph of Rule of the shorter term#Situation in the United States). The law is the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 (and subsequent modifications), and when Congress passed that legislation, they did not include rule of the shorter term provisions. Because of this, PD in one country does not equal PD in all. --Carnildo (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but I think a couple of the notes date back to 1945 so were PD in Indonesia in 1996. Also, there's a possibility all the notes were PD right from the start, see Commons:Licencing#Indonesia. I certainly think the date of any photography or scanning is irrelevant. But are these issues being discussed in a copyright forum? Certainly, for this forum, no one should have been edit warring. Commons is a less vulnerable host for these sort of images, I think. Thincat (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So why are there all those 'public domain in [country]' templates in use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia, taking advantage of the shorter terms? 86.173.175.206 (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Corner benchmark disrupting WT:Norway (2)

    So, this thread went into the archives without any action. The user continues to post irrelevant lists at WT:NORWAY, and restores them each time I've tried to delete them. Would an administrator please take an appropriate action here? Many thanks in advance, Eisfbnore talk 20:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If you think they are a sock (as stated in the archived thread), open an WP:SPI. If they continue to repost the lists after you and others have removed them, report them to WP:AN3 (BUT you might want to start putting {{uw-3rr}} warnings on their talk page before reporting). This user seems to have a misunderstand of the connection between the en- and no-wikis. One more observation, their talk page does not seem to be utilized too much; since your 1st thread was archived w/o input, that might be a hint to try to talk directly to the user first (which I know can be a waste of time, but will then at least justify further action by an admin). Best. --64.85.221.213 (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And here we go again. Do I really have to start a discussion over at AN3 for this? --Eisfbnore talk 14:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted User:Corner benchmark. Since no admins seem to think this warrants any attention (???????), add it to WP:SPI or WP:AN3, or go directly to an admin's talk page. (I'm the same person as before, dynamic IP.) --64.85.221.7 (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Damiens.rf Conduct

    Request a block for Damiens.rf (talk · contribs) for tendentious editing, violation of consensus, violation of WP:3RR, and WP:CIVIL:

    Calling one user an "arrogant bastard" in the edit summary

    Calling another user a "psychologically afflicted individual" and suffering from dementia in the edit summary followed by "Guy, you're sick as hell. Find someone to help you."

    False accusations of vandalism

    Edit warring + violation of 3RR despite two lengthy discussions to keep the image IAW WP:NFCC: [9][10][11][12]

    Frivolous image deletion nominations (unanimous decisions to keep; just recent ones): [13][14][15]

    Snide/rude remarks: [16][17][18][19][20][21]

    Cutting off any/all discussion and WP policies don't apply due to his greatness: "[Grow] up and stop posting...on my talk [page]. I'm essential to the project's image deletion process." [22]

    Given that his last block for incivility was 1 week, I suggest increasing the block to longer (2-3 weeks? 1 month?). — BQZip01 — talk 05:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Its a dubious claim indeed that the arrogant bastard edit summary was directed at a specific person as an insult. OAKED Arrogant Bastard Ale - is the name of a delicious beer from the brewing company that article is about. Also Damian and Dreadstar have some kind of issue with each other and the dispute appears as a two way street. I also notice that User:BQZip01's image uploads have been given a good going over by Damian - perhaps they should all just keep out of each others talkpages/way and take each other off their watchlists. No one will make any friends here by nominating users favorite non free/not used uploads for deletion, but I don't see need for a block at least not just yet - more than a week? - next step is a month. If I was him I would get a new less contentious project to work on instead of file deletion nominations or my crystal ball sees more editng restrictions in the near future for Damian. If Damian is being disruptive in the file deletion nominations and nominating multiple files without basis then perhaps a editing restriction to stop him nominating files for deletion is in order? Off2riorob (talk) 06:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not really as much of a 'two-way street' as it appears. I've never been uncivil to Damiens. Where we've had conflicts is on articles like Simón Díaz, Yoani Sánchez, Footvolley, Slocum (westerns), Duck universe and many others - check out the editing history on those, Damiens deletes huge swaths of content, then edit wars to keep it out while it's being sourced and copy edited - very frustrating. This was my first encounter with Damiens, completely inappropriate; and to top it off, he edit warred with me 'during the exact moments I was in process of improving the article', he couldn't seem to stand that I was adding content and sources. He does this same thing all the time.
    I took Damien's talk page off my watchlist over a month ago and completely disengaged with him, but he couldn't leave it alone and kept poking the hornets’ nest, harassing me, sticking his nose into discussions that didn't concern him [23], edit warring on my talk page to put his comment back - even editing one of my clearly marked no-edit archives (which I've since deleted), then nominated for a fourth time an image he knew I was involved with, then nominated two more of my image uploads.
    Even though he has said on occasion that between the two of us, we can clean up Wikipedia (him tagging and deleting, me following, re-adding and sourcing) I'm sure I've annoyed him by going around cleaning up after him. And frankly, it's not something I've wanted to continue doing, I had hoped he'd learn something and maybe start finding sources instead of tagging and deleting - to no avail. This added to his persistent assumptions of bad faith, uncivil remarks, and personal attacks counters any good work he may do in the image area, at least imho. Dreadstar ☥ 23:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Question, what good reason is there, exactly, to put "arrogant bastard" in that edit summary? He's made comments before about 'self-aggrandizing' content added by others when he removes it - generally when it's about awards or prizes with selfpub sources. I'll have to try and find those diffs. IMHO he was either calling the editor who added the content that or possibly even referring to the subject of the article, since it was self-sourced. I think it was a clever way of making an inflammatory edit summary and getting away with it. Either way, it's poor behavior...and to encourage it with his history is a mistake. Dreadstar ☥ 23:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not going to really even look at the civility thing, although I do find that he has an assumption of bad faith issue (he places preemptive harshly worded rebukes on FfDs). What I wanted to jump in and say though is that while Damiens isn't the most pleasant person to work with at FfD, his batting average is very, very high. The three "Frivolous image deletion nominations" were not frivolous, and even if they were, represented three in dozens and dozens of FfDs. Few people are willing to sort though the massive quantity of images we have and weed out the crap. If he really made the quote about being essential then someone needs to trout him a bit, but at the same time, he has a point; he does a lot more good than harm at FfD. The proposer here is going for pile on, and in this issue, he's missed the mark completely. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    One more thing. Damiens' last block for civility was in 2009. Again, this is pile one, and it's not very convincing. I recommend that the admins take this thread with a heavy pinch of salt. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Addressing each point brought up:

    Arrogant bastard is the name of the ale It sure is, but it isn't even remotely necessary in the edit summary and, given his snide remarks in other edit summaries, appears to be directed at an editor
    My images have been given a once over Yep. Sure have. If you'll note though, I supported all but one of these deletions
    An FFD editing restriction is in order I'll happily roll with community consensus on this one if another alternative is brought up.
    Not going to look at the whole civility thing...he has an assumption of bad faith. He isn't the most pleasant to work with ??? That's the problem I'm trying to address. It really confuses me when you say you aren't even going to look at the diffs. If you aren't even going to look at the "evidence", then why bother responding?
    3 out of dozens of FFDs The problem is that he doesn't bother to make distinctions and just nominates everything that he believes doesn't meet policy; in reality, the images met policy from the beginning and he is trying to impose his beliefs as if they are policy. Please note that I just picked 3 out of the last few week of closures where no one thought deletion was in order. I can certainly find more.
    Last block was in 2009 It was the last day of 2009 and there have been blocks since then for other offenses that a veteran editor should know to avoid. He is also currently under a topic ban...which he violated...

    In any case, thanks for the inputs. We'll see if others respond. — BQZip01 — talk 12:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: I have only recently crossed paths with Damiens. He's clearly quite intelligent and knows exactly how to ruffle feathers for entertainment when he wants, so I'd like to hear what he has to say. Saying that an editor suffers from dementia is never called for.--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • My limited experience of Damiens.rf has been uniformly negative. I'm frankly glad it was me, rather than a new editor, who was on the target of this profanity-laced, xenophobic edit summary; we likely would have lost a new editor of such a display of pique. In the discussion that accompanied it, he actually tried to tell me that NOR requires him to remove any and all material that is not already supported by an inline citation—even if he personally knows that a reliable source is available to support the material, despite that policy directly and repeatedly saying that it requires only the existence of a reliable source, not the naming of a reliable source. This is such an obviously counter-factual reading of the content policies that his ability to present it persistently as The Truth™, in the face of very frequent opposition and many efforts to clarify and explain the policies, still astounds me. He appears to be utterly incapable of hearing that the actual policies do not say what he believes they say. To be candid, I have actually wondered whether Wikipedia would be improved by completely removing this editor, as it appears that most of what he does is unhelpful or directly harmful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've come across Damiens a couple of times over the last couple of years, and I have to agree with the view that his personality is... "prickly". The "I'm essential to the project's image deletion process." attitude is also problematic. That being said, I don't see what a block would achieve here. Is a block going to change his personality, or something? Is what's really being sought here a ban? Why isn't an RFC/U being pursued?
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've given what I consider a final warning for incivility. Ohms law's suggestion of an RfC/U is a good one. Fences&Windows 23:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Do other admins agree with this "final warning" the above admin gave me?

    Have you independently verified the accusations BQzip made above, Fences? Or just take them as truth in the spirit of good faith? For instance, do you understand it's not truth that I have done "false accusations of vandalism?" Do you understand I have called anyone a "bastard", as implied by the accusation? Did you read the thread in which I called Dreadstar an afflicted individual to understand the situation? Do you understand it's not truth that I did "frivolous image deletion nominations?" Did you checked the timestamps of all these diffs? Do you also think I'm a DICK?

    I know I'm not popular at a ANI but I'm sick of being treated as I second class editor. I would have been blocked if I did what BQZIp did. I would have been blocked if I did what Dreadstar did. But much easier than investigating the situation is to check the size of everyone's block log and declare guilty the one with most blocks. --Damiens.rf 00:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)\[reply]

    You know what dude? You aren't popular at ANI. The reason is that you nominate everything without considering [[WP:DEL]. There are plenty of options other than deletion and you consistently choose the one that provides the least work for you, not the option that's best. The overwhelming support of "Damiens isn't doing a lot of good for WP" is amazing. You consistently piss people off because you only care about following your own interpretation of policy (which is WRONG). You don't like what I've done? I don't care. Nominate me for a sanction of your own choosing. The fact is: it won't fly. And even if it did, it doesn't matter, because your behavior is over the line. I do things as I see that they fall into policy. Policy may change and I'll adapt accordingly, but I don't ask anyone to follow the rules that don 't apply to me (somehow). If I violate a rule, call me to the mat. The fact is, your actions are more of a problem than a benefit to WP. — BQZip01 — talk 08:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Uninvolved editor here. I'm not familiar with either of you. Clearly Damiens needs to work on his civility and to be more careful regarding his topic ban. But I can't say you're looking squeaky-clean yourself. Editing the glossary and then quoting your change against Damiens, and deleting an ANI comment by an IP defending Damiens on an ungrounded sockpuppet accusation, is not a good look. Transparently attempting to stack the deck against your adversary is not the way to get things done. Reyk YO! 10:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, but I don't claim to be squeaky clean. Yes, I made a change to it, but it was only to correct an oversight with information (in retrospect, probably not the best move, but it's still accurate). I have since shown him four additional links (and I could do more too). As for the IP, I have been dealing with a stalking user for over 2 years now. He always brings up ThreeE and CumulusClouds. This person has made libelous accusations of me (to include an accusation of murder...literally) and has been rightly banned from WP. WP:BEBOLD applies in this case. If you feel I have done anything wrong, you are welcome to discuss it on my talk page, your talk page, file an ANI complaint, or any other appropriate action you feel is necessary. Thanks for your opinions and I look forward to discussing any other matters with you in the future. — BQZip01 — talk 15:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    With BQZip01, the whole thing is just a bit of silliness caused by trying to apply the letter of something that's not even binding. Firstly, I don't think you could really dispute that a file is indeed a page; the person who created that glossary entry made an oversight. But this is not important. Whenever you nominate something for deletion or basically do anything that someone else is likely to object to, it is good courtesy to explore alternatives to the proposed action and try to find a mutual solution. You don't have to do that before nominating any page for deletion, whether article or file, but it's just a good idea. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not IAW WP:DEL. — BQZip01 — talk 14:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Just what was that? --Damiens.rf 08:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    That is what is done with comments from banned users per WP:BAN. — BQZip01 — talk 14:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is simply wrong. I'm damm sure I would be blocked for doing anything similar. --Damiens.rf 14:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps it might, but I'd support your actions for doing so. I'm not waiting 6 weeks for someone to get around to an inconclusive checkuser ("sorry, it's stale") when the behavior is so blatantly obvious and they are disrupting discussion now. Meanwhile, the person gets to steer discussion into whereever they want and bring up old/settled issues in order to poison the well. This person is a blatant sockpuppet of someone (even you have to agree on that point). Sockpuppets are not permitted, period and I'm removing their contributions. If you wish to take me up to WP:ANI, I can accept that...but this thread is about your actions, not mine. — BQZip01 — talk 15:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So you assume you removed edits by an ip based on an non-confirmed accusation of sockpupetry by a banned user?
    I don't buy your talk of defending Wiki from socks/banned users. You removed the edit because it was pointing out wrongdoings by you. If you're so righteous, why didn't care to remove the other edit on the ip contribution log? --Damiens.rf 15:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I know he is a sockpuppet (if someone brings up something from 4 years ago as his first edit, he's clearly not a noob IP and IS a veteran). I am not trying to defend "Wiki from socks/banned users", I am trying to keep discussion between people who are allowed to be on WP. If you feel that the points made were warranted, you are certainly welcome to add them as your own, but banned users are not entitled to an opinion on WP. And even if I am wrong about him being said banned user, you cannot post under an IP address to hide your true identity (this is ALSO sockpuppetry).
    I missed that edit in the contribution log, and responded to it. — BQZip01 — talk 15:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a non-admin comment from someone who has crossed paths with Damiens several times, I agree with the comments above by WhatamIdoing, Ohm's Law, and Fences&Windows, and I agree with the warning on Damiens' talk, as well as with the suggestion of an RfC/U. The repeatedly raised concerns remind me of the discussion that comes up, from time to time, about incivility and so-called "vested contributors": the supposed cost-benefit analysis of putting up with obnoxiousness in order to continue to benefit from a user's positive contributions. Here, however, we do not have someone who is noted for content creation so much as for, in effect, content deletion. I'm not convinced that a good batting average at deletion decisions is that much of a net benefit to the project. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've only been around a few weeks, but this is the second long ANI thread I've seen on Damiens already. The issues obviously go back a long time. So my question is, Why are we still putting up with such behavior??? His basic response to all seems to be "everyone else is the problem, not me". I'd hope we're here to produce good articles, not put up users who can't work in a group environment for years on end. BarkingMoon (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally agree. What is more, why do we put up with editors who appear out of nowhere with a full knowledge of wikimarkup and find their way to the drama boards within days to rekindle old beefs? I'm speaking in general terms, of course, not about any specific editor. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nautilyus

    I and another editor have asked Nautilyus (talk · contribs) not to add raw urls to Google books but to use the citation method used in the article he is editing. My last post to his talk page repeated my request, pointed out that he needed to be willing to communicate with other editors which he has so far failed to do except on one article talk page [24] and that if he continued not to communicate and to add raw urls I'd start a discussion here. He's had a block for sock puppetry Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nautilyus/Archive but seems to still be editing through 85.166.142.229 (talk · contribs). Notifying. Dougweller (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I saw this discussion because I had this editor's talk page watchlisted after previously crossing swords, but, in his or her defence, would like to point out that not formatting references shouldn't be considered a hanging offence - the whole idea of a wiki is that it's a collaborative environment where people do what they can or want to do, so those who want references to be formatted better should simply format them themselves. It's much better to provide a raw URL than no reference at all. Refusal to communicate is the only real problem here. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    I agree that the main problem is the editor's refusal to communicate, but the two issues are intertwined. And just giving raw urls makes it much harder to check which are reliable and which not, especially when as in this case the editor doesn't seem to understand our criteria - and they aren't adding urls to someone else's text, but to their own. If no one else has a better idea I'll struggle on for a while and if I get no response give the editor an indefinite block - relatively harmless as all they will have to do to get unblocked is start communicating. Dougweller (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Easternshorebuff

    Resolved
     – Blocked for long-term edit warring.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Not really sure if this board should be used for garden variety problem editors but here goes.

    Easternshorebuff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an SPA who's only interest appears to be removing any trace of political controversy from the Richard F. Colburn article. They've been at this for at least three years (maybe more as an IP) now despite multiple warnings and a reworking of the section they take offence to to make it more neutral. The section is typically deleted as 'not neccessary' [25] or 'irrelevant' [26] and the user has made no effort to discuss their problems with the section or understand why it's been re-added. They've made at least one attempt to protect the page [27], have made use of at least one sock/meatpuppet FactsOnlyCount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in this diff [28] and have reverted at least one re-addition of content as 'vandalism' [29]. They don't violate 3RR at any point and tend to appear for a few days then disappear for a while, so whilst it's not really a problem reverting them all day long, this obviously isn't productive and it would be nice to find a more permanant solution y'know.

    Example diffs:[30],[31],[32],[33],[34],[35],[36],[37],[38],[39].

    N.B. The controversies section isn't perfect and a legitimate argument could be made regarding finding better sourcing and avoiding WP:UNDUE however WP:BRD is the way to deal with this not section blanking. Bob House 884 (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If the user is working only to "whitewash" or "sanitize" a politician's article, they're not attempting to improve the project as a whole. I'd say this is the correct venue, although WP:COIN might be a good alternative based on their editing history. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a point but whilst I can't strictly prove COI (although it's extremely likely), I can prove long-term disruption, whitewashing/censorship, tendentious editing, edit warring, SPA etc. and the relevant warnings on talk. Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I just took a look at the page, and removed one of the "controversies", because it was sourced to a press release from the subject of the insult. I'm not sure about the other one either, because there doesn't seem to have been much commentary on it beyond the Baltimore Sun article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I see that this posting has prompted a flurry of edits which have greatly improved the article, which is obviously a good thing, however the issue I'm raising hasn't really been addressed. Easternshorebuff's pattern of editing seems to suggest that he is not happy with any mention of controversies at all not for reasons of sourcing etc. but simply because doing so portrays Mr Colburn in a negative light. Could someone who can actually follow up on a warning perhaps explain this to him? Bob House 884 (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    We'll see how he reacts to the cleanup.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I'm not hopeful though. The last one lasted two weeks so keep it watchlisted I suppose. Bob House 884 (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverted again with no discussion, so I blocked indefinitely. If they actually want to discuss their changes, they can request unblock. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds fair enough, long term vandal blocked and major article improvements to boot - looks like one for the good guys. Thanks, Bob House 884 (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh could you block his obvious sock for good measure? Bob House 884 (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That account has been inactive for over two years. Usual practice is to let those kinds of sleeping dogs lie. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued Personal Attacks by Pfistermeister

    Despite their recent brush with ANI, User:Pfistermeister continues with the personal attacks in their edit summaries. Ample evidence here. Thanks for the help. Doniago (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    May I ask why no warnings have been given for what seem like blatant civility and NPA violations? I suspect that's the first step that should have happened. On that note though, this is not the first time. There's also 2 months ago[40], Feb 2008[41], and two instances of edit warring that have also been brought here - so, perhaps the warnings are a moot point anyway, as things have been made clear in the past about such behavior. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 18:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Given awkward sentences like "This was very much seen as blatant censorship by Griffith in the light of there being nothing factually inaccurate in the film", it might be better to focus on improving your writing skills rather than harping on perceived insults. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, regardless of anyone's awkward sentences, personal attacks and civility issues should be dealt with. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 18:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, content is what actually matters. If I wrote a sentence like that and was called "stupid", I would be hard pressed to argue against that characterization, and instead of whining about it I would work on improving my writing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not totally sure what this has to do with the topic? (confused) Doniago (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Content is what matters more than behind-the-scenes bickering. Meanwhile, I'm trying to figure out where he took a verbal shot at either of you specifically. Diff's, please? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I think widespread incivility to editors is at least as serious a problem as content. I don't care how accurate an editor's contributions are if they're consistently incivil when communicating with their fellow editors. Also, I didn't realize that an editor needed to specifically attack me in order for me to report them for personal attacks. Doniago (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    They don't necessarily. I just wondered what stake you had in this relatively minor set of verbal shots (regardless of the subsequent block)? If you get it right, then you won't get insulted, and the readers won't get mis-led by false information nor repelled by amateurish writing. That seems simple enough. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    When someone calls me an idiot, the first question I ask myself is not, "How dare they call me an idiot?" It's "Was I being an idiot?" If the answer is "Yes", then I work on fixing the problem. If the answer is "No", then I've got a counter-argument. Ya folla? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No personal stakes aside from I don't believe it's appropriate to leave edit summaries that are insulting, and we have a policy about that sort of thing. I think the only reason I got involved in this at all was because they reverted an edit to a page I was watching with a needlessly insulting summary way back when, and I've kept some tabs on them since. AFAIK aside from me leaving warnings on their Talk page we've not directly interacted...but then, they don't seem interested in having a dialog with anyone either.
    I don't see how insulting your fellow editors should be considered minor. It's obviously a direct violation of WP:NPA and while it may encourage editors to avoid being "stupid" in the future, it's just as likely to drive away editors who might be interested in constructive contributions, especially if we present the appearance of being perfectly willing to condone such behavior. There's such a thing as constructive criticism and helping editors to improve in their contributions rather than blasting them because they screwed up. WP:AGF and such. And if the editors Pfistermeister insulted are determined vandals, then insulting them is pointless in any case, aside from possibly encouraging them to continue being vandals because Trolling is more fun when you get a reaction.
    I understand your reasoning, I just feel that where it would lead would cause far more harm than good to the project. IMO, there are better ways. Doniago (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think part of the problem here is that Pfistermeister's abusive edit summaries are way out of proportion with the actual material he's complaining about - people get excoriated for what looks to me like errors which take a real expert to identify (and Pfistermeister certainly seems like a music expert), or relatively minor errors - anyone who doesn't know as much as he does and dares to make a mistake is open to his abuse. The recent "idiot" comment is relatively mild and wouldn't deserve a block on its own, but when you look back and see he has a tendency to lapse into much worse abuse - "clueless gobshite", "nut-jobs", "clueless amateur", "illiterate, illogical arse", "cretin", (and if you include Talk page comments, "ridiculous runt" and "arse-wipe"), I really think this latest block is completely justified - he must be prevented from reverting to form. (It's a real shame, because he is very knowledgeable, but we need to balance that against the harm his abuse is likely to do in driving away other editors) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Hopefully they'll take the hint this time. Doniago (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The stuff that Damiens is calling other editors (as noted a section or two above) is far worse than anything pointed to in this section. Yet he remains unblocked. Explanation, please? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems a bit unsporting to take issue with a discussion that hasn't actually been resolved yet... Doniago (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't follow. Calling an editor "stupid" is a tad rude but is a potentially verifiable fact. Calling them "a mentally-ill, out-of-wedlock child" is nothing but a personal attack, no wiggle room there. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Bugs I'm frankly puzzled by your aggressive defence of this editors edit summaries. They are obviously bloody rude and probably bitey. Anyway, "mentally ill out of wedlock child" is just as potentially verifiable as "stupid", if not more so.Fainites barleyscribs 22:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not aggressively defending the editor. I just want to know why he was blocked so fast over content-related comments, whereas Damiens' far-worse comments are still being "discussed". A big, fat double-standard of some kind, right before our eyes. It does not speak well of the admin corps. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with Bugs...such commentary does NOT belong in an edit summary. For that matter, such commentary doesn't belong on Wikipedia as a project. My take is that such behavior doesn't just cross the WP:NPA line; it jumps right into the middle of WP:NPA and flings it around like mud pies. (Smelly ones.) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, which bit are you agreeing with there? Damien or this chap? Fainites barleyscribs 20:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Indef block review

    As his response to the block was "Idiots", I've extended it to an indef block. He may be able to persuade an admin to reduce the block, or consensus may view this is too severe. Fences&Windows 23:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe the block is right but could we give him one more chance to communicate on his talk page for a possible unblock request? If he abuses it, then immediately re-block per ROPE.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps maintain an indef block on WP as a whole with a 48-hour (or whatever others think is appropriate) block on their Talk page, making it clear what the situation is? I honestly wouldn't have expected otherwise from PM given their pattern of responses thus far, but maybe (just maybe) they'll get the message if we make it clear that until they actually communicate with their fellow editors they're not going anywhere... Doniago (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Expect sock puppets. –MuZemike 05:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Really? An indef block for calling someone an "idiot". That's comical at worst.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think I'd have gone for an indef just yet, probably just suspension of Talk page access for the duration of the block - "Idiots" is positively endearing compared to the "ridiculous runt" and "arse-wipe" that he offered last time he was blocked ;-) Seriously, though, he has toned it down a lot since last time, and I'd hope that once his initial anger has subsided he might tone it down a bit further - I think it's worth one more chance -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    FWIW, I think indef is appropriate. The pattern of very aggressive editing and vicious engagement with other editors is longstanding and unchanging; no amount of engagement has yet been able to persuade the editor to desist. As a result, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the editor should find something else to do with his time as his net presence to the project is clearly detrimental. Eusebeus (talk) 10:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think an indef is appropriate until PM shows some willingness to engage with their fellow editors in a civil manner. Thus far I've seen little evidence of that. As I said above though, I'm amenable to them being able to edit their Talk page as a channel for communication, though I don't have high hopes. Doniago (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with the indefinite block, not because of the "idiots", but in view of merely the last few edit summaries in his contributions log.  Sandstein  20:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppets of banned User:DiehardNFFLbarnone

    Resolved
     – Users blocked as sock/meatpuppets by User:ErrantX ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 23:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    WarriorsRock (talk · contribs) and BigChrisPaulFan (talk · contribs) registered within 12 minutes of each other and are randomly undoing legitimate edits with bogus reasons, especially on Terrence Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which is in line with DiehardNFFLbarnone (talk · contribs)'s modus operandi. Previous ANI reports: 1, 2. —LOL T/C 17:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor is vandalizing pages (inserting incorrect information, as noted here[42], which contradicts the official NBA page here[43], and hiding it behind inappropriate edit summaries that in no way indicate what the editor is really doing. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 18:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like a WP:DUCK set of socks to me, probably of DiehardNFFLbarnone based on edit history. So indeffed. --Errant (chat!) 18:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Alleged hoaxes at St John's Jerusalem

    Resolved
     – Users blocked for adding hoax material to article. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This article has been the target of multiple edits by User:Stellas4lunch, User:Bobadillaman, and IPs, adding largely nonsensical text and hoax information. It is done in a non-obvious way, by mixing information that may be true with edits that are patently untrue, and supposedly "sourced" from obscure offline sources. The most obvious sign of the hoax is the repetition of the names "Brown" and "Giles" in the text, the replacement of "naturalist" by "naturist", etc. etc. At this stage I've not been able to fully look into this, but am alerting admins to the problem at this early stage. It is likely that other articles may be involved, such as R v Brownhouse. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I am reposting a comment I made in response to this allegation on the talk page:

    "As one of the editors whose good faith you are impugning, I take strong offence at the notion that any edit I have made is in any way part of a hoax and I would ask you to withdraw that remark. It is highly unlikely that many history sources, particularly those covering material pre-twentieth century history, will be on-line and the notion that they should be is consequently of little relevance. I suppose the frequency of the names Brown and Giles might be considered unusual, but it is, as I'm sure the briefest research would tell you, a highly unusual building. Stellas4lunch (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)" I contest these allegations in their entirety and believe that there may be an issue of sock puppetry between Ghmyrtle (talk) and User:Snowded. Stellas4lunch (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Stellas4lunch and Bobadillaman look suspiciously like the same person to me. Look at the same concentration of articles, then in particular look at the activity of both accounts in late April and early May. Both accounts disappeared in mid-late April, then both reappeared on 4 May, one account returning 3 minutes after the other finished editing. There are similar suspicious patterns throughout their editing histories. O Fenian (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it quite odd that Stellas4lunch, an editor with less than three hundred total edits and active for less than three months, would attempt to name two five-plus-year Wikipedia veterans as sockpuppets. Methinks I hear the unmistakable sound of a WP:BOOMERANG in flight... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding R v Brownhouse, the article names a "Giles Brownhouse" as a party in the case. The article is the only Google result for that name, no hits on Scholar, Books or News either. Please someone block the accounts immediately for this blatant hoax. O Fenian (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Definitely a hoax. No such case as R v Brownhouse (I'm a lawyer I checked) which this editor created. All the Brown and Giles stuff in St John's Jerusalem is nonsense. eg Greek Philosopher Brontinus has been piped as Browntinus. DeCausa (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect the problem arises either from arguments at English Defence League, or it's User:Irvine22 having fun at Snowded's expense again. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How about checking Westlaw with the given citation? Stellas4lunch (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Whats the citation then? I'll have a look for kicks. I checked the Slapper reference (the latest version is on my desk) and it was completely bogus. Bob House 884 (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The nonsense started at the St Johns article a month ago when both editors started up within a few days of each other. It spread to EDL today so I don't think its Irvine22. We could do with a check user on both accounts although they may just be fellow EDL supports seeing what they can get away with the SAS link was a little obvious. Maybe just block the pair of them as disruptive. --Snowded TALK 21:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Both already indef blocked. DeCausa (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. DeCausa (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Look here too. And the Hastings Star-Gazette is a paper in Minnisota.Fainites barleyscribs 22:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Also  Confirmed as Stellas4lunch:

    –MuZemike 23:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    artnet.com linkspam

    It appears that a series of accounts associated with artnet.com have been systematically spamming articles with links over the last few years and also deleting links to competing sites. I found three related accounts so far (User:69.167.111.2; User:216.119.245.2; and User:Astyaj) and deleted the inserted links, but I suspect there are more. The edits are too many to list individually, but you can find typical samples at [44], [45], [46], [47], and [48]; they also gave themselves a heck of a plug in art museum [49]. For more, click on any edit to an art-related article by one of these three accounts.

    Are there any tools you'd suggest to find further overlapping accounts here, or any further action I should take? Or is it just not worth bothering? Or am I perhaps acting wrongly by deleting these links? Artnet.com doesn't seem to be a terrible site for a reference, but the deletions of competitors bug me, as well as the evident commercial interest in upping their web traffic. Khazar (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I personally don't see any particular harm in mentioning being listed at artnet.com, other than the potential WP:LINKSPAM problem. I do, however, see huge problems arising from deleting competing sites' links. To me, that brings Wikipedia into a marketing WP:BATTLEGROUND. That's something to be avoided. Depending on how many IPs are involved and how pervasive the additions are, adding artnet.com to the blacklist might be an option, albeit a "nuclear" option. Just my 2p worth. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the blacklist is a good idea, the magazine is a source used for articles. Fences&Windows 23:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I also think there are probably legitimate uses for their site; I started searching just for ArtNet and many references to the site were added by users who appeared at first glance legitimate (many edits, barnstars, DYK & GAs, etc.). What I've done for now is to remove all ArtNet references added by the suspected COI accounts on hopes that neutral editors will add them back in if they make a genuine contribution to the article. Khazar (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    More than two months of tag warring

    Could uninvolved admins please take a look at Kingdom of Germany? For more than two months there has been reverts over the inclusion of dispute tags, accompanied with bad faith assumptions and incivility. The content of this article has been continuously challenged since its creation in January 2007, more than four years ago! Several editors have defended this article since then. Aren't people allowed to dispute the articles content when they challenge it on the talk page? What else are dispute tags for? Sometimes these editors remove the tags when they aren't even responding on the talk page. One of the editors has admin status with whom I had disputes before which showed the exact same pattern so I hope admins not close to him can take a look. I'm not requesting for anyone to get blocked, just admins to decide if it's legitimate to remove tags like that. Grey Fox (talk) 23:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    A couple of ideologically motivated users with no interest in adding content to the article, nor much knowledge of the period they are discussing, dumping tags onto the articles, then demanding free history lessons in order to stop, and playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT afterwards. I guess everyone else will be expected to go on until those two users get bored, but frankly I'm inclined to leave them to do what they like. One page like this doesn't justify the wasted energy. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you feel too good to even discuss the issues which have existed for more than four years why don't you withdraw from the article? Grey Fox (talk) 00:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk page debates do not make real controversies. The challenging users have not provided any evidence of misused sources. Nor have they quoted any sources in opposition to the article. Srnec (talk) 03:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Disputing the available sources does. Grey Fox (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Would the two sides in this dispute be willing to sit down to formal mediation? Because I've reviewed the talk page and article history, and it is now a total charlie foxtrot situation. It is basically two entrenched sides screaming at each other and no one is backing down. I, as an admin, have no interest in picking a "winner" here, and indeed no admin should under what admins do, which is decidedly NOT deciding who "wins" in debates like this. Instead, my recommendation is that admins here do nothing, and instead the two sides agree to formal mediation in an attempt to reach a civil conclusion. Talking around in circles over the same exact points, with no changes, for two months isn't getting you anywhere. --Jayron32 05:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be willing to do that but I get the feeling the "other side" completely disregards us as editors. For example when I approached Deacon at his talk page he immediately reverted my message[50]. This was a related to a similar dispute on another article, but I don't think much of this attitude has changed. Grey Fox (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Casual Admin (User:Courcelles) involved in reckless and unjustified use of tools

    Result: Courcelles did the right thing, there is no misuse of tools. Take the rest of this content dispute to WP:DR. Dreadstar ☥ 05:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I'm involved in a quiet little slow motion dispute with User:Tonyinman at Neil Diamond, I've added references from the singer's biography and from Courtney Hazlett an NBC reporter on the Today Show and from The NY Post Page Six column including direct quotations from the singer on the subject of the edit. My edit is reverted on sight, it has twice now been labeled Vandalism and the article is now locked with me being accused of intentional IP hopping (Socking?) and editing in violation of BLP. Not one word questioning or debating these ref's has been entered on the Talk page. Nothing at all. You want participation? How about a little common courtesy - these are Reliable Sources, multiple even, using direct quotes. And I'm the IP sock vandalizing the article in violation of BLP? Seriously? 99.40.189.143 (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I was unable to edit User:Courcelles Talk page to notify him of this discussion.99.40.189.143 (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I notified him for you. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP sources do not back up claim of involvement in street gangs. First ref is an unauthorized biography and the writer does not have a direct quote, nor is it clear if there is any material in this book to validate the material claim. This is insufficient for WP:BLP. Second and third refs are second hand and refer to an article in "Blender" (which is not sourced) where Diamond in fact states he was not part of street gangs and makes light of an inference in the interviewer's question that he was. This undermines the IPs assertion. On google searches it is not possible to find any other sources to corroborate the claims of gang membership. The unrealiabiltiy of the sources and BLP issues have been pointed out to the IP by more than one user, who has simply reintroduced the same material. The IP has also been asked on his talk page and in numerous RV comments to discuss the material on the article talk page and reach consensus but has failed to do so. isfutile:P (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to those involving themselves in this. NYP link does not state he was in a gang. It describes one instance that was his "first and last gang fight". One can get into a "gang fight" (fight with a gang) without needing to be in one. For a BLP, I suggest a clearer statement would be needed to consider NYP a valid source. On the first link (Google Books link), it is a biography (not autobiographical), which would seem to indicate this[51] applies. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 00:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Outside view; the sources are faulty in my eyes. We generally disregard Page Six completely as a source because of it's gossipy nature, the Today cite is basically citing a Blender article about the rumors and Diamond quickly brushing it off with a non-answer, and the book links screams unauthorized biography. The reversions were correct. Nate • (chatter) 00:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A; I did not accuse you of socking, I said you were IP hopping, which was entirely correct, as you have used at least 6 different IP's in two different /8 ranges in this incident. B; as above, the sources are rather poor, and you were drawing a major conclusion the sources themselves did not make. If someone else wants to unprotect, feel free, but nothing you've said makes me reconsider protecting the Diamond article for a second. Courcelles 00:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    IP Hopping? Please explain what my Internet provider has done to upset you. I've done nothing. Nor have I violated any rule or guideline, even in spirit - it's not even a grey area. Oh, and NBC News is never a "poor source". It's near the top of any Reliable Source list - except maybe for those who love to do original Research and find Truth. I guess Verifiability has no place here anymore. 99.40.189.143 (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    IP hopping is at minimum annoying (like somebody changing their name every five minutes) and at worst looks evasive. It's not hard to get an account. Rd232 talk 01:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with that....and what exactly is a "casual admin"? Is that opposed to a formal one?
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Casual, as in do what you want without much thought - justify it later. Easy to do - just look here. Does anyone even think for a second that an IP could have reverted a Wiki member on sight and disregarded RS references without once ever using the Talk page? Seriously? 99.40.189.143 (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Courcelles' action here. IP user, you must go to talk and generate a consensus to include the material you wish to add. Pending that, your edit-warring to reinstate questionable material on a living person is inappropriate and you should desist. --John (talk) 01:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What is questionable about the Reliable Sources who quote the article subject? No One has questioned one thing yet - on the TALK PAGE. Why? My guess is because the Wiki Game is more important than Multiple Reliable Sources quoting the article's subject. Talk is the place to question - not reverting my edits as VANDALISM - which is exactly the edit comment used more than once. VANDALISM. The Wiki Way, Game them into submission, the rules can be always bent to justify anything. As here. 99.40.189.143 (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)The MSNBC link provided pretty much says the exact same thing as the NYP article. The lead is simply rewritten in their own words. It's a sentence and a quote out of context. Regardless, it does NOT say that he is or was a gang member. I believe I covered that above in my discussion on the NYP article. Sorry, but I think you are a little hazy on how BLP rules, guidelines and policies work.
    • I submit no action (against Courcelles) needs to be taken (except, "thanks for doing a good job"), and IP anon should be directed to WP:BLP for further reading. If anon has questions, I would be glad to answer, if an uninvolved editor is wanted to discuss the matter. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 01:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What a waste of time. I guess Talk Pages are for loser IP's. Wiki Made Members get to just do what they like - and AN/I is suddenly the place to resolve content disagreements. If someone ever evenly applied standards around here I think it would merit it's own article - it would be that notable. 99.40.189.143 (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am confused. You came here asking something to be done about Courcelles, when he did nothing wrong. You specified what the claims were - which consisted of content "disagreements", and then do not expect people to discuss it? It matters not that you are an IP. The rules (and much of them, unless changed via Village Pump or elsewhere, are pretty much rules) on BLP are pretty specific. We have done nothing more than try to point that out to you. The reality of the situation is, if you DID have an account, by now, it is a good bet that you would be blocked for the BLP issues you inserted into the article, or for edit warring on top of that. So, all in all, your anon status has actually helped you.

    Now, I will once again suggest you read up on WP:BLP and feel free to ask myself, anyone else involved in this thread, or any other experienced editor, any questions you may have. Resolving your incomplete understanding of BLPs will resolve all of this. Trust me long enough to thoroughly read through WP:BLP and you will hopefully realize that. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 01:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've read BLP a number of times. Using Biography's, Daily Newspapers, NBC News and Reliable Source magazines are all considered suitable references for adding content - especially when the subject is himself quoted on the subject. BTW, I did not write the prose - nor did I initially insert the content. All I added were proper ref's as the initial editor's were easily improved upon. I'm quite well versed in proper editing. I've 10's of thousands of edits as an IP, mostly from 99.X, dating back to before 9/11/01 - and it is longstanding practice to bring any debate about cited content to the Article Talk page. It's also a gross violation of civility to wantonly label exceedingly good faith and well ref'd edits as VANDALISM. It's also never acceptable to lock pages without cause, andf if cause were to be found, as here where the edit warring member refuses to use Talk and labels my edits as VANDALISM while using Twinkle - the page should have locked him out. The casual lack of respect for the community rules here today is astounding and is noted.99.40.189.143 (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll agree that in edit-warring to restore contentious material, you weren't consciously vandalizing, and nobody should have said that you were. However you are still way in the wrong; see WP:ONUS, WP:BRD and WP:COMPETENCE. --John (talk) 02:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Hi, I didn't ask you how long you've been editing, nor how many edits you have. Sorry if I seem to have implied I did. Now, on to your understanding of BLPs. You are still incorrect. You confuse autobiography with self-pub'd biography that shows no cites/sources for the statements in question. Anyway, as the content is a BLP violation, after the first couple times, especially since you've been advised they are in violation, it then becomes vandalism. A quick count from memory, of the vandalism categories, shows as many as 5 that would apply (there may be more, but that's from memory). Above, I provided a direct link[52] to the BLP section in question. Here's a semi-direct link[53] to the overall section. There are other sections that apply as well. On that note, this topic has come up before from other editors who also are not knowledgeable about the BLP rules and guidelines - and the end result has been as you see above. So, even if you were looking for discussion/consensus, as you hinted above, you have now found out that your understanding of the matter is vastly divergent from everyone else's. Can we put this to bed, with you now understanding that the references you used do not support keeping that content in place - especially in lieu of contradictory statements on the matter elsewhere? ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 02:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    John, no one said he was vandalizing for edit warring - I said he would have probably been blocked for it, had he not been an IP hopping anon. Now, as for the BLP violations, well explained numerous times, that he hasn't heard, that, in my book is vandalism. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 02:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's where it was called vandalism. --John (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also called VANDALISM Here. Long before any objection to content was presented here at AN/I, on the article Talk Page (Last updated in January) or even in edit comments. My good faith Reliable Source references were removed as VANDALISM from the get go....99.40.189.143 (talk) 02:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please be careful not to unintentionally misrepresent the events. You were warned (with explanation) here[54]. And again, they are NOT reliable sources for the content you think should be there. It really doesn't matter how many times you claim they are. They still aren't. Just wanted to clarify that. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 03:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Warned? Warned regarding what? My good faith edits referenced from Reliable Sources that he EARLIER dismissed on sight and reverted as VANDALISM? What's your point? 99.40.189.143 (talk) 03:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    As to the dismissal above here of the biography as "Self-published". Bullshit. ECW Press is supported by the Government of Canada through the Canada Book Fund, the Canada Council for the Arts, the Ontario Arts Council, and the Ontario Media Development Corporation. ECW Press is the publishing off shoot of the Canadian journal of literary criticism published originally under the name "Essays on Canadian Writing" (ECW) beginning in 1974. Self-fucking-published? I don't think so. But then I'm just a Vandal right? And reputable publishers, NBC news and the rest are just liars in vio of "BLP". Right. 99.40.189.143 (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    My apologies, as perhaps I have not explained this in sufficient detail. Perhaps that's where your lack of understanding of BLP policies comes from. Let me try to rectify that.
    • I administer numerous websites. I post a lot of content on behalf of others, such as Kevin Hines, who is a suicide prevention speaker. His writing is considered self published, even though I technically "publish" it on his behalf. In the same fashion, because this book was not authorized, nor authored by Neil Diamond, nor are there citations or references to cover the parts in question, the work can be considered "self-published" regardless of a printing company actually printing and distributing the book.
    • Another editor pointed out that the part in question IS disputed by Diamond. Since the book is not autobiographical, that means the section you tried citing cannot be included in the fashion it is written.
    • The NBC link does not report any news other than that ANOTHER company claimed something in an article of theirs (not NBC's) and thus is not suited as a source.
    • The other refs have been covered above.
    Hope that clarifies. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 03:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You do realize that amongst other things - you've just stated that, "because this book was not authorized, nor authored by Neil Diamond, nor are there citations or references to cover the parts in question, the work can be considered "self-published" regardless of a printing company actually printing and distributing the book." That is absurd. Nowhere do we have any such proscriptions regarding the reliability of a source. And no where do we have any ref at all showing Diamond disputing the story - AT ALL. None. The statement that he disputes it is false and made up. Your next point regarding the UN suitability of secondary references is also flat wrong. We rely heavily on secondary sources, and NBC News is a Reliable Source for reporting on BLender's interview. Blender Magazine is itself a widely respected Music industry magazine, and itself a RS. 99.40.189.143 (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I unprotected Courcelles' talk page - its been protected a month and there is little or no vandalism in the history to justify an extended protection. You should be able to contact him there now if you'd like. Prodego talk 03:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    Why didnt you use Blender as a source then? Or did you forget the requirements for secondary sourcing in BLP's? Either everyone else is wrong and you are correct... or? I'm finished here. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 03:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You are the King of "I didn't hear that".99.40.189.143 (talk) 04:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How about backing away for a little while? Reading through this topic is starting to sound less like a discussion and more like a shouting match. And you're headed in the wrong direction. I'd suggest everyone cool off overnight and look things over with clearer heads tomorrow. Otherwise, someone's likely to get sent to time-out...maybe more than one someone. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 05:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WP:AIV

    Hey, can someone grab their mop and mosey on over to AIV? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Backlog appears to be cleared as of 03:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC). In the future, backlog notices for WP:AIV, WP:UAA and the like have traditionally been noted at WP:AN. Cheers. elektrikSHOOS 03:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    A small scattering of WP:MADEUP

    Does anybody remember Link Starbureiy / Egglepple?
    The problem may have returned, in a slightly different guise; today I noticed that some accounts have been adding this person's hoaxes to other articles:

    At the moment, four items are at AfD: United Under Economy, Ronald Ellis (American businessman), File:Clopen symbol.png, and Joey Koala. There were quite a few other tweaks to existing articles, for instance [55] [56]. Unfortunately, all contribs of the older accounts Onstardriver (talk · contribs) and Wikidowd (talk · contribs) have been deleted so I can't see them. The latter is blocked. Would it be possible for somebody to have a look, and confirm whether they are related to current activity/accounts, or whether other articles need to be checked? (If one dubious edit gets deleted, another account might have come back a few months later to reinsert the hoax). bobrayner (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Has any other account contributed to any of the previous incarnations of the Link Starbureiy / Egglepple articles? I noticed that Rajpaj (talk · contribs) had some talkpage warnings about the article (which were swiftly removed) but the article isn't visible in their contribution history, of course. Would it be appropriate to block Egglepple (the user, not the eponymous article) or Rajpaj as active hoaxers and/or socks of the indef-blocked Wikidowd, or is that too harsh? bobrayner (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for the delay in replying. Onstardirve and Wikidowd did nothing but edit the deleted articles Egglepple and Link Starbureiy. There is also a repeatedly recreated article at The Egglepple Company; the main contributor was Rajpaj. The only article of the collection that is create-protected at present is Link Starbureiy. These three articles have no other contributors other than IPs and various people who added maintenance tags and the like. The Rajpaj account dates back to 2006 so it's not a sock of Wikidowd, which first edited Sept 2010. This is a difficult problem as there is nothing stopping them from creating still further accounts or editing from IPs and the material they are adding looks plausible enough that recent changes patrollers will likely let at least some of it pass. And of course there's nothing stopping the IP range from adding stuff since this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit and we don't indef-block IPs. I am going to post a message on Rajpaj's talk page and I will help you watch. --Diannaa (Talk) 14:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your help! Agreed that some of the changes (both the new articles, and the tweaks to existing articles) often look superficially plausible so they get past our "first line of defense". I've watchlisted The Egglepple Company and some other (unsalted) terms that are common in this hoax-system. However, I'd disagree with you on the sock thing, as WP:SOCK doesn't really distinguish between account creation dates - using an older account to evade restrictions/scrutiny of a newer account is still covered by WP:ILLEGIT...
    Anyway; if nobody finds any other accounts or problematic articles, then there's not much else I can do. bobrayner (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not hugely relevant to the above, but Link Starbureiy must have been added to List of astronomers, probably here either on English-language Wiki, sometime before September 2007, as User:Space Project pasted a copy of that article to her userpage then which included the name. (Note: Of course, User;Space Project is clearly unconnected to the Starbueiy articles and I hope her class project went well:)) I removed a redlink to Starbueiy last night from the Albanian Wikipedia version of the article last night. :) I must admit to being strangely impressed by his dedication; he's being doing this on and off-wiki for a decade now.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 17:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    First added to List of astronomers in March 2005. In wikipedia terms, that's almost archaeology. Removed by others and reinserted by various patient IPs over the years; looking at their contribs they all tweaked other articles but no addition has survived to this day. bobrayner (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Supression of edits from the edit history

    Once I had a report here (this one) in which I was confonted with a situation I wasn´t sure how to explain back then. Now I see it is named "supression of edits from the edit history". Could I ask please if someone could help me check if that was what happend in the incident of the report I made back then? Basically, I complained about an edit of another editor that an hour later was modified in content but without edit history record, only explained by the mentioned supression. I beleave the edit was "fixed" by supression and my report sabotaged that way. As I am no admin, I don´t have the tools to check it, so by now all I can do is ask for help here. FkpCascais (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't see any revision deletion that's occurred, and you'll probably have to ask and oversighter if any suppression was involved, but I don't think there was. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can't see that an item looks like it has been suppressed, i.e. it looks like a RevDel but admin status means you still can't see the diff (and you get a message that it is restricted to those with Oversight access) then it is either oversighted - removed completely from the records - or there is a question of whether the correct diff is being looked for. From my review I cannot see an oversighted diff either. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed ban of User:Kaufman1111

    This editor has continued to create sockpuppet accounts and edit disruptively at Oxyhydrogen and previously at Ruggero Santilli, and the associated talk pages. The opinion at Talk:Oxyhydrogen#Reussi appears to be that the talk page would be better off if edits from these sock puppets were removed on sight. I am bringing the proposal for a ban of User:Kaufman1111 here for discussion. Given that all known socks are blocked I am not sure how notification is expected to work; I notified the main account here. VQuakr (talk) 03:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    [redacted speculation about user identity]

    I would ask that an admin remove the above outing violation. --Blackmane (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yikes! My profound apologies - I was unaware of that policy - much less that it applied to WP:COI discussions. SteveBaker (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Do not out an editor's real life identity in order to prove a conflict of interest. Wikipedia's policy against harassment prohibits this." -- Atama頭 18:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have a suspicion that a user is a particular person it is generally wise not to raise it on ANI which has very heavy traffic. There's a noticeboard for reporting editors who you suspect as having a conflict of interest in their editing, but you still can't speculate on their possible real life identity there either. --Blackmane (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:White nationalism

    An edit war appears to have broken out at Template:White nationalism between 72.148.105.57 (talk · contribs), who is deleting the majority of the entries on the grounds that "Much of the people and organizations placed on this was grossly innacurate and intended to slander this viewpoint." and a new editor Gay Guy in a Yal (talk · contribs), who insists that the British Nationalist Party is not truly White Nationalist, and that 72.148.105.57 is practicing "censorship" because he is a "zionist neocon pseudo-White Nationalist". As both sides appear to be behaving quite poorly, and are equally objectionable, I've brought the issue here. Jayjg (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd say block the both of them and/or fully protect the template. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 05:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Reverted and fully protected. Maybe IAR a bit but also WP:COMMONSENSE. Dougweller (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    IP hopper abusing 220.255.1.x and 220.255.2.x addresses for vandalism

    This person has been vandalising many articles and violating multiple Wikipedia policies and guidelines at once in the last couple of months, knowingly, repeatedly, incorrigibly, despite being warned countless times by Wikipedia administrators and editors. This person completely refuses to communicate in any way, despite being asked numerous times by Wikipedia administrators and editors to provide any explanation anywhere (e.g. "please provide an edit summary" on Backhand#1 or "please provide an edit summary" on Backhand #2), to communicate and cooperate (e.g. "discuss it on the talk page instead of reverting it", Backhand again, or "Talk it to the talk page", Backhand, once again). This person has already been blocked several times ([57], [58]), the whole IP address range abused by him was blocked ([59]), the Backhand article he has been vandalising the most was locked twice just because of him ("IP hopper edit warring against apparent consensus", "IP hopper has returned"), the person has received countless "last warnings" already (e.g. [60], [61], [62] etc.), and yet, the person still keeps doing it again every time the block or page protection expires. In other words, there is no hope their behaviour would ever change.

    Please read all three parts of the archived case in the SPI to read about one of the issues, their chronic vandalism and sock puppetry in the Backhand article ([63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78]). Some of the administrators involved in the investigation suggested that the issue could be reported here at ANI instead of SPI. I won't copy the SPI report here, but I urge you to read it to understand the problem (in short: it is not a content dispute). However, the IP hopper's vandalism is not isoloated to the Backhand article. It is just the most prominent issue.

    Wikipedia policies violated by the IP hopper:

    1. Vandalism. I will separate the two types, as it may or may not be the same person (but I would say it is, addresses from the whole range often edit the same article or the same type of articles, in exactly the same fashion):
      1. Outside the Backhand article—although there appear to legitimate edits, too (but many of them seem to be questionable), the IP range is very often abused for vandalism (e.g. [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97] etc. etc.—these are just some of the recent examples of vandalism from the addresses used for vandalising the Backhand article, too, which strongly suggests it is the same person), the number of warnings received by this IP range is quite huge, too (see all their talk pages), and the user has already been blocked for vandalism before.
      2. In the Backhand article. Again, please read the SPI page to understand why it is vandalism and not some honest, good-faith mistake (in short: the user knows very well that what he is constantly re-adding is nonsense, and intentional addition of nonsense qualifies as vandalism as described in the Vandalism policy). The chronic nature of this vandalism, combined with the fact that the user has been blocked before, and asked countless times to stop, by itself would be sufficient for an indefinite block.
    2. Sock puppetry. There is no doubt that all IP addressess used for re-adding the "single-handed backhand is currently used by Sampras to Federer" nonsense (e.g. [98]) into the Backhand article are used by the same person—it has been confirmed by three Wikipedia administrators already (HelloAnnyong, Elockid, Ged UK). It could be argued that the IP addresses are assigned dynamically, and therefore, even though it is undoubtledly the same person, the IP hopping is not intentional, but I don't think that's the case here. First, when you look into the edit history used by these addresses, you can find some "test edits" (a single vandalising edit immediately followed by a revert or another vandalising edit just a couple of seconds later from a new address from the same range—like for example [99] & [100], [101] & [102], [103] & [104], [105] & [106], or the [107], [108], and [109] series) which seem to be used by the IP hopper just to see whether the IP address is different from the last one or just to make the vandalism more difficult to revert and warn/block the user. Second, when you look in the Backhand article history, you can see that the reverts are sometimes made in such a short succession (e.g. [110] & [111]), that unintentional IP address change is unlikely. The IP hopper is intentionally changing their addresses for working around the Wikipedia rules such as 3RR, but mostly, and that's the most difficult issue here, just for making it very problematic to warn them, block them from editing etc. You could also argue that the vandalism outside the Backhand article is made by a different person or different people, but the edits follow the same pattern as the vandalism in the Backhand article—no edit summary (except for the default "Undid revision..." text in reverts, which is basically no edit summary, too), no reactions to requests for discussion and warnings. The chronic nature of this IP hopping, combined with the fact that the person (or their IP address range) has already been blocked for IP hopping in the Backhand article before and received innumerable "last warnings", "last warnings after last warnings" and "last warnings after last warnings after last warnings" for their sock puppetry, is by itself much more than enough for an indefinite block, which is explained in the Sock puppetry policy.
    3. Consensus. The user has been adding nonsense into the Backhand article in the last two months despite the clear consensus established by all involved Wikipedia editors and administrators. Again, see the SPI case for more details, or the article history. I would just like to point out that this is not a content dispute or a two-sided edit warring. The consensus has been clearly established ([112], [113], [114], [115]), confirmed by administrators, too, and the IP hopper is acting against the Wikipedia rules.
    4. Edit warring. It has already been indentified as edit warring by a Wikipedia administrator ("IP hopper edit warring against apparent consensus"). The IP hopper even broke the three-revert rule a couple of days ago ([116], [117], [118], [119]). He is also acting against the will of everyone else involved. This also explains why other people who revert their edit are not involved in edit warring—firstly, the reverts by the IP hopper, after so many weeks, clearly qualify as vandalism, which is something none of the involved Wikipedia admins has denied, and undoing obvious vandalism (and vandalism repeatedly confirmed by Wikipedia admins is obvious) does not count as a revert when it comes to the 3RR or edit warring (it is explicitly mentioned as a legitimate exception in the policies), secondly, again, the consensus to keep the original version is clear.
    5. Verifiability. This is a core Wikipedia policy. The IP hopper was asked to provide a source for their nonsense in a revert explanation by MarnetteD (a legitimate request, since claiming that Pete Sampras, retired in 2002, is a current active player, really needs a source—as the policy says, "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources"). Instead of providing the source, the IP hopper, as always, ignored the request, and, as always, simply reverted the edit without any explanation.

    Possible solutions:

    1. Block the IP range. This would be the most appropriate solution. The above mentioned Wikipedia policies say that such a chronic long-term behaviour with incorrigible recidivism deserves an indefinite block. However, as the SPI administrators said, blocking the whole range could also block legitimate users from this range. An indefinite block may not be sensible for such a dynamic IP range. Still, I would suggest a long block (shorter ones did not work, see above), like one year. Another question is which range should be blocked. The original range blocked by HelloAnnyong was 220.255.1.0/26. Then the IP hopper started using the 220.255.2.x addresses, and the combined range suggested by Elockid was 220.255.1.0/22. But you could be more conservative and block only the recent 220.255.2.x addresses.
    2. Protect the Backhand article. This would be the easiest option. It would not prevent the massive vandalism in other articles, but it could at least protect the most critical one. But the duration should be much longer this time. The article has already been protected twice in the last couple of weeks, for one week and then for two weeks. And the vandalism by the IP hopper always resumes after that. I would therefore suggest six or twelve months.
    3. Other measures mentioned by the SPI administrator. I don't know about filters and other tools mentioned by Elockid, so I am unable to comment on that. Could the range be blocked from editing specific articles (like Backhand) perhaps?—J. M. (talk) 04:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a significant number of edits coming from 220.255.1.x and 220.255.2.x, most of which appear to be good faith [120], [121]. I think a range block over these 512 addresses, though relatively small, would still do more harm than good. VQuakr (talk) 05:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to comment on two things. The sockpuppetry claim doesn't strike me as particularly true. SingNet is so notoriously dynamic it even has its own template: Template:SingNet. Users don't get much choice when they're using the SingNet proxies (and these seem to be caching proxies). This is a popular ISP with a lot of constructive editors in a small country, hence the variety of edits, and a range block should generally be avoided if possible.
    I also see talk of edit-warring against 'clear consensus'. I can only see one comment about this at Talk:Backhand. From reading that comment, and reading that article, perhaps it would be appropriate to adjust the context of that list? It can often be said that when someone repeatedly changes an article, even if the changes are not the right ones, it indicates a need for the article to be changed. In terms of admin tools, semi-protection would be the one to use here. For consistency I'd recommend having a word with one of the admins who did it before. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For the sock puppetry: there is absolutely no doubt that all of the listed "Pete Sampras" additions in the Backhand article come from a single person. None of the admins in the sock puppet investigation has denied it, on the contrary, the admins confirmed it, blocked the user (their IP range) for the sock puppetry etc., plus all of the reverts are identical: always the same edit (adding Pete Sampras), always the same style (undid revision by..., no explanation in the edit summary), no reactions to any requests for discussion and warnings. This clearly passes the duck test. Furthermore, like I said, the IP address changing is intentional. Sure, there are innocent people using the IP range, too. I am definitely not trying to suggest that the IP hopper is the only person using this range. But this particular vandal I am talking about is changing the addresses intentionally, knowingly. Please see the provided examples. Is it extremely unlikely that the series of vandalising edits during several seconds from the same IP range in exactly the same fashion (no edit summary, editing the same sententce in the same article) would come from different people. And these are just examples, not a complete list. So yes, I agree that blocking the whole IP range would also block legitimate users. That's why I also suggested other options, and there may also be other tools (filters?) that I'm not familiar with. But something must be done.
    For the consensus: again, the consensus is clear. The comment on the Backhand talk page you mentioned is way too old and now irrelevant (it was two months ago, just to explain my revert when it all started, because that's the way Wikipedia works—bold, revert, discuss, that is, when someone's addition gets reverted, it should be discussed, not reverted back). It is just one of many requests for discussion that the IP hopper ignored. Like I already explained in my report, the consensus has been established by four different people (see the provided diffs). Secondly, like I explained on the SPI page (and I asked anyone interested in commenting on this issue to read the SPI report), the IP hopper is the only one preferring his version. Noone else wants that version. His version has been repeatedly reverted by several different people, and noone except the IP hopper has ever restored it. Furthermore, everyone else is trying to discuss the matter, all people involved in the Backhand article always explain their actions, while the IP hopper completely refuses to say a single word anywhere, despite being asked countless times to do so. And finally, like I explained, too, the IP hopper's version does not make sense. It is broken factually (it is verifiably wrong, the fact that Pete Sampras, retired in 2002, is not an active player, simply cannot be disputed, it is a fact), it is broken grammatically (the sentence "is used by Sampras to Federer" does not make sense), and most importantly, the IP hopper knows it, as he (or she) has ben reminded of it at least a dozen times. Which means the IP hopper is aware of the fact that it is wrong. He does not keep re-adding it because he thinks it is correct. This also does not indicate that the article needs a change, all it indicates is that the vandal likes Pete Sampras and is having fun wasting our time dealing with his behaviour. The IP hopper does not keep readding the nonsense because he thinks it would be a good addition, but, after so many weeks, after being blocked for re-adding it, after the article was protected twice because of him constantly re-adding it, after being asked by an administrator to stop re-adding it, simply because of the fun of it and because he knows that as he is changing the IP addresses, he will never get caught and blocked from editing. He knows he can keep doing it forever, because the flaws in the way Wikipedia operates currently guarantee that nothing happens.—J. M. (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And one more thing. What's perhaps even more important is that this serves as a general guideline, a manual for anyone interested in vandalising Wikipedia: just keep changing your addresses (the dynamically assigned addresses from your range will do, this is easy to do with many ISPs), and you can keep vandalising, spamming and disrupting forever, despite the fact that the Wikipedia policies say that anyone doing it must be blocked from editing. That's even more serious than this particular IP hopper. Unless there are filters or other tools that could be used in cases like this (again, please does anybody know about the filter mentioned by Elockid and whether it could be expanded and how?), it is currently a fundamental crack in the way Wikipedia works and a simple and reliable way for anyone to circumvent all official Wikipedia rules without any consequences. Which could serve as a basis for a discussion about possible new tools for preventing this in the future, and generally about changes in the way Wikipedia should work in the future. As a person who spent the last five years fighting spam and vandalism on Wikipedia, seeing all the tricks used by the huge number of spammers, IP hoppers and other people disrupting Wikipedia, I would definitely welcome a discussion like that (not here, of course, I know).—J. M. (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    "Future wrestling"

    See [122] [123] [124]

    See also e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slammiversary IX and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Best in the World

    And older, closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Capitol Punishment and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Over the Limit (2011).

    So, specifically: The user Supermhj8616 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly created articles about future events, which are not yet notable, as can be seen on eir talk. After approx 70 warnings for such, I would think some action appropriate.  Chzz  ►  05:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This is one of those users who has never made a talk page edit or an article talk page edit, and keeps on adding their material with no apparent regard for the material that has been posted on their talk page. I will put a more personalised note and a Welcome template on their talk, and then watch and see. --Diannaa (Talk) 20:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's possible they don't care about the AFDs as by then they have taken advantage of Wikipedia for free promotion of their event. --Diannaa (Talk) 22:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Suspected trolling

    I would like to report a suspected case of trolling by User:Tarannon103.

    This user first came to my attention as the author of Greaves' Rules, a long-backlogged new page I opted to patrol. How I handled that article is relevant to this report, so I include here a description of my actions in tackling that article.

    I should point out that that article's talk page reveals a pre-existing history on the part of Tarannon103 of attacking other editors, for which he was warned here and, apparently, here. I should mention, too, that the user's own talk page is even more revealing about the his attitude to the Wikipedia project and community, as shown here, here, here, here, here, here, and here (in which he attacks a third editor).

    Keeping all this in mind, I made an effort to be especially polite towards this user, as evidenced here. Nonetheless, although I made a mistake in how I handled Greaves' Rules, I took responsibility for it when it was pointed out (evidenced here) and even stepped away from the article to avoid any further developments (as evidenced here).

    In no way, therefore, do I believe I deserve to be treated like this!

    I won't waste too much space refuting that diatribe. Any editor can check and see why I removed so many of the references from Greaves' Rules; that the primary burden for providing references lies with the author (WP:BURDEN); that at no point have I insulted him; that I simply re-added an existing notice incorrectly removed; that an article creator is often the least qualified to judge whether an article is up to Wikipedia's standards; that consistently improving my knowledge of WP's policies and procedures does not make such knowledge "alf [sic] baked"; that someone who's been "doing" Wikipedia "for years" should have a far better knowledge of WP guidelines and should at least know that references are supposed to support the sentences to which they're appended; that my user history and talk page still reveals a clear link between my username and my real name; that the only way in which I have shown off is in my userspace which is both my prerogative and my sole reward as a volunteer; and that, moreover, a non-existent storybook character cannot, logically, be more amusing than an existent being such as myself.

    But, back to the main topic, I was relucatant to report this without first finding sufficient supporting evidence. Accordingly, in conjuction with the above evidence, if the community takes note of the user's real name and email address, we can not only see that this user operates his own blog, which he has attempted to use as a source, but also that he has already been banned from at least one forum (check his status here).

    Considered all together, I suspect User:Tarannon103 is, at best, someone whose attitude to Wikipedia and the community needs a drastic rethink. People may think my comments have been rather strong but the fact of the matter is that I tolerated enough harassment when I was younger and I refuse to do so again.

    LordVetinari (talk) 06:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I have commented at the editors talkpage regarding the necessity of their changing their manner of interaction - certainly in regard to you. I would wait to see what response they make, if any. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Observation For what it is worth, I have noticed User:Tarannon103 over-reacting to situations, in particular, the talk page for Greaves' Rules. Some of the comments aren't tilde'ed, but it is pretty obvious. The individual seems very defensive about articles he "owns". I don't have an opinion about what actions should be taken, but I have noticed it is appears to be an ongoing issue, not just a "bad day". Dennis Brown (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I received legal threats (User_talk:Ihcoyc#Speedy_Deletion_Appeal) from User:Lassiew concerning the closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Global Townhall. He apparently claims that the original nominator's mention that the page was a "possible hoax" is libellous. Someone uninvolved probably ought to decide whether a block is called for (he has one more warning for disruptive editing) or whether that article should be refunded. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 11:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lassiew appears to be trying some very heavy-handed tactics to get their pet article restored from a well-called speedy deletion. One thing that jumps out at me is that they don't know the difference between slander and libel, which calls their motivation into question up front. Then there are several arguments attempting to equate notable people with making a company notable. If a local weekly newspaper manages to get an interview with a state Governor and a Fortune 500 CEO, does that make the newspaper notable? I'd argue not; they're still a local weekly newspaper no matter who they land an interview with. If it were me, I'd warn Lassiew regarding WP:NLT and let the speedy delete stand. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've given the editor some friendly advice regarding reliable, independent sources on their talk page. I've also recommended that they withdraw all legal threats. Cullen328 (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I just looked at their Contribution history...apparently this "Global Townhall" has been getting interviews with fairly A-list people since at least 2009. Funny how no one seems to know anything about that publication. I blame their Marketing department. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Massive violations of song articles

    Since April 2010, users Tbhotch, Kww, Andrzejbanas & Chasewc91 have accounted for massive editing violations of song articles regarding artists such as Lady Gaga, Rihanna, Madonna, etc. As I no longer have a main user account, I have campaigned endlessly to have these users banned from Wikipedia indefinitely. The violations range from changing the genres of a particular song to refusing to come to a general consensus that all songwriters MUST be attributed to the album bookelt credits, not bogus websites such as BMI/ASCAP. I would therefore be grateful if you could ban them immediately please. 16:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.100.4 (talk • contribs)

    So, let me get this straight. You didn't get your personal way in a content dispute, and because of that, you know want the people who disagreed with you banned, on the grounds that they disagree with you. Am I reading that correct? I'm gonna go with "No" as an appropriate response to your request. --Jayron32 15:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether the IP likes it or not, BMI and ASCAP are considered definitive sources for production credits. I know there's a very heated backlash against both BMI and ASCAP because of licensing fees on such things as satellite radio and Internet music providers, and in some countries those fees extend to such things as blank CDRs. But that backlash doesn't automagically eliminate their credibility, whether or not anyone wants to think otherwise. Meanwhile, there's the statement As I no longer have a main user account that the IP made above, which indicates to me they may be attempting to evade a block. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    When you call BMI and ASCAP "bogus', you weaken your case considerably. Cullen328 (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments like this don't help much either. Nobody's notified the above editors of this discussion; I'll do so. They may be able to share some background. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    While the IP's complaint is poorly worded, at least one of those editors is guilty of long-term edit-warring. I edit in a lot of different topic spaces and the current popular songs topic-space is one of the strangest I've encountered. It's this weird sub-culture where edit-warring, canvassing, false accusations of vandalism, threatening newbies, tag-teaming, gaming the system, etc. are common place. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say that your description is fairly accurate for pretty much all of the pop-culture topic areas (television, movies, and video games, for the most part). I think that it's a side effect of the fact that those topics tend to draw in a ton of new editors, for what should be obvious reasons. The problem is that they largely are dealing with newer editors... I can imagine that it leads to a bit of a siege mentality. Not that I'm making excuses, but it's an explanation at least. I'd guess that the vast majority of problems that we have with new editor retention are caused by the regulars who participate in these areas. Everyone pings on the New Page Patrollers and the Recent Changes Patrollers, but the issues are deeper than that in my experience. I, for one, gave up on participating in pop-culture topic areas a long time ago, with the exception of occasional participation with current events articles.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is just CharlieJS13, an indefinitely blocked editor. "As I no longer have a main user account" is certainly not something that happened to him by choice.—Kww(talk) 18:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Kww is right. Also  Confirmed as him (whom I blocked earlier today):
    –MuZemike 18:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    See also User:86.142.217.3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), currently blocked LeadSongDog come howl! 20:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been asked by Tbhotch to help do something about this editor because of the repeated attacks on his talk page. I'm kind of at a loss as to what to do. The IP range is too wide and active to block, so the only option I can see is to begin my usual semiprotection cycle of protecting target articles, but I'm uncomfortable because the range of targets is so wide. RBI seems to be asking Tbhotch to put up with a lot.—Kww(talk) 18:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Some sort of throttling filter, perhaps? With the IP range involved, as well as the variety of articles, Whac-a-Mole™ will be tedious at best... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think tht the filter would be enough for now. Time ago I requested Prodego to create a new filter to avoid new users and IPs from blaking others's userpages due that he, always after I detected him, left death threats and xenophobic messages. He expanded the filter 34 and as now it is working with me, so if someone could create a filter which blocks IPs from IP Pools that change genres in infoboxes without sources, and that attempts to make attacks on userpages/talkpages would be ebough (for now). Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 20:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I note there's no SSP page for CharlieJS13. Is this normal for IP hoppers? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User Flying Fische vandalizing templates despite three warnings and two previous blocks

    Despite multiple warnings from three different editors to Flying Fische about vandalizing templates [125] [126] [127], and despite two previous blocks for this offense, he vandalized yet another maintenance template today [128]. Since he has ignored all warnings and learned nothing from his blocks, I believe a permanent block may be in order. Qworty (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    He didn't "vandalize a template", he removed it. No way that deserves an indef block. Seems like you're both accusing each other erroneously of vandalism. Calling him "old boy" and "old chap" is condescending. How about you try discussing this with him reasonably and not stalking his article creations? Fences&Windows 18:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally, he seems to be editing in good faith, but has run up against overzealous speedy deleters who don't have the ability or patience to improve articles or talk to new editors, so instead he's faced a series of rather robotic speedy deletion nominations and harsh template messages. Fences&Windows 18:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur. His frustration seems warrented. -Atmoz (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Both sides seem overly zealous, particularly given the insults and vindictive defence of various biographies. Mephtalk 19:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This is neither a content dispute nor a personal one, but strictly a policy issue. He has been warned several times about removing templates he disagrees with and he has been blocked twice, with increasing duration, for those offenses [129] [130]. If his behavior was sufficient to merit two blocks from two different admins, and since his behavior is continuing despite every warning and every block, then he certainly merits a more serious block at this time. Qworty (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Qworty seems to be forum shopping/canvassing just a little - [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136] -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As one of the canvassed admins, I note that the edit at issue is not vandalism, and the cleanup tag Flying Fische removed had little merit to begin with. I see nothing patently objectionable in Flying Fische's recent edits and suggest that this request be dismissed. Fences and windows has given Flying Fische useful advice about notability and such.  Sandstein  20:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Further note. He's deleted another template since I opened this AN/I [137] and is contentiously bragging about it [138]. I wish somebody would help with this problem. Qworty (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Rathika Sitsabaiesan

    I have explained enough to the User:Intoronto1125, "Community" is different from "Ethnicity", but he or she is constantly adding Tamil Canadian as the subject's Ethnicity, but that is merely a Community with 30 years of history in Canada. We need Admins involvement on this issue.Rajk2011 (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Jesucristo, exactly how many times have you two reverted in the last 24 hours? --Golbez (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So now that you've brought yourself here to be hanged, the question is, do I block you both for 48 hours, or do I block you both for 48 hours and protect the article on the wrong version for a week? Decisions! So exciting. --Golbez (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it was a false choice, since I just protected it. --Golbez (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, 3RR violation, but a person's Ethnicity matters a lot. Great Civilization wiped out not by War, but by racial and ethnic disintegration.Rajk2011 (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please check the 3RR board. I have reviewed the point with people on the administrator chat and they said it was fine to go put it back. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 19:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked both parties for 24h for egregious edit warring and xRR violations. At this volume, and without blatant vandalism, there was no justification for either party to continue. That said, now that things have quieted down, perhaps my protection was premature? --Golbez (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Golbez, their antagonism dates back to 3 May 2011. Both users engaged in edit warring on 19 May and again today. FPP doesn't seem premature. Mephtalk 19:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Gang, while under your current situation, I'd perhaps suggest coming up with rational arguments to present to others for each of your feelings on this matter. Then, file an RFC asking other editors to come in and help out. Work out a consensus between them. Currently, this seems to be a content dispute over the appropriate choice of words. The easiest way to resolve this is to introduce other parties to the discussion, otherwise, it will still remain party 1 against party 2. And of course, if the article or articles in question have a number of editors, the article's talk page is also a great way to start. Please keep one thing in mind though; once a consensus is reached (and give it time for such to happen), one of you will be "wrong" and one of you will be "right" - at that point, please remember that this is a community effort. The articles, rules, guidelines and policies are supposed to reflect the views of the community. I am hoping whoever's opinion on this matter becomes consensus can graciously abide by that consensus. Keep in mind, you haven't really "lost" or "won" - the community simply picked the choice they felt best suited to it's desires. Who knows? Maybe some sort of compromise that adequately uses each phrase in an acceptable explanatory way can be reached with the help of others? Best of luck to you both on getting this resolved. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 19:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dfotev, formerly User:Jordanson

    He received a final warning on 14 May and still continues to add unsourced content. This time unreferenced city of birth in Archieford Gutu. In the past he added a huge number of fictious citis of birth and other content to the articles about footballers. Some background there--Oleola (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Redirected from WP:AIV
    Hi. It would be easier for me or others to help you if you could provide more useful information, context, links and/or diffs about your request. Please see the guide to requesting assistance for advice how you could improve your request to increase the likelihood that it is answered to your satisfaction.  Sandstein  20:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Avenugopalarao2011

    Resolved
     – Blocked indef for lack of competence

    Would someone take a look at Avenugopalarao2011 (talk · contribs)'s most recent edits (the last 3 articles) - I'm going out and can't decide if there is a competence problem there or something else (or if I'm just misunderstanding the editor). Thanks. Notifying Dougweller (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This was archived but I'm bring it up again. Virtually every one of this editor's edits are in English so badly fractured (and typed) that it is almost impossible to be sure what they are trying to say. None of them are sourced. Here [141] for instance " but had a positive valuation: it was a place or position of religious or psychological interest with a special value of function of its own. " becomes " but had a positive valuationd also evaluation. an: it was a place or position of religious or psychological interest with a special value of function of its own." which is bad enough but even worse as it's a quotation. Others are worse. I raised this with User:OlEnglish as he had reverted an edit and his comment (on his talk page) was "Yes I agree. Definitely a WP:COMPETENCE issue. I went back and reviewed all of his contributions and almost everyone they ALL had to be undone. Here's a fine example: [142] " (I'll tell him I posted this here). Dougweller (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I checked their last edits and they were all problematic - mostly unintelligible or seemingly nonsensical changes to articles. Blocked indefinitely for lack of competence.  Sandstein  21:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User Terra Novus - topic ban may need revision to include other controversial areas

    After [143] and then [144] Terra Novus (talk · contribs) was topic banned "from all articles and discussions relation to the topics of Creationism or Pseudoscience broadly construed". During the discussion at the first link he was asked by an editor " can you stick around and limit yourself to non-controversial articles (nothing remotely related to politics, religion, climate change and environment, etc.) and adhere to the suggestions others have made above re use of talk pages, etc.? ". His reply was " I totally agree to editing non-controversial subjects, and will do my best to stick to that area.".

    Now that editor has posted to my talk page saying that this promise has been breeched. See [145] for his discussion with Terra Novus. It's clear although he may not have broken his topic ban he is still editing problematically (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical liberalism (political parties) which is and article he created which is related to politics (obviously) and he is also editing articles on religion, eg Sabellianism. Ohiostandard, the editor who asked him to stick around but avoid certain subjects, has brought this up on my talk page - he is also concerned with the sources used, saying "looked at the Sabellianism edits in some detail, and saw some problematic cites. One was to this guy's blog forthis post/blog-article. Another was to this"article" on its author's own site. The site-owner has evidently started his own church. I see that the user extensively edited the Trinityarticle a while back also. I haven't investigated that one but I'd guess that the tendency would be to move it in a direction friendlier to Seventh Day Adventist doctrine, and that it might be a worthwhile project for someone to check the cites used to support the changes." I've reviewed Ohiostandard's comments and agree that there is a continuing problem. I'd like to see the topic ban formally revised to include those subjects he was asked to stay away from (including Economics, see his contribution list). Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Unless there is an actual violation of Wikipedia policy that you can cite for me I don't see how my editing these subjects falls under my current topic ban. I will support extending my current ban if I get more of an indication that this is not just related to Wikipedia:Activist clashes on the articles involved. I am happy to cooperatively edit with others on these articles, (I haven't disputed the consensus delete decision on Classical liberalism (political parties)). I remain committed to editing non-controversial subjects, and would be interested in knowing how my current editing behaviour is failing to be in compliance with that agreement--  Novus  Orator  01:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Article at war

    Page: Atomic Coffee Machine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Users being reported:

    A pitched battle is being fought over this article. The edit history is all these users reverting each other over an over. Both versions being fought over have poor content. Better, though not great content, predates both sides versions: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Atomic_Coffee_Machine&oldid=415554716 --108.54.17.250 (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggest this get posted (soon!) at WP:ANEW. All the IPs are from the same ISP and geolocate to the same city, so that may be one IP-hopping user. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at the history again and Rasmustannebek may not be actually part of the war.--108.54.17.250 (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So it's going back and forth between Flipper98 and what looks like a single IP-hopping user, does that look accurate? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    None of these users were notified. I've notified them now, but would ask the nominator to remember in future to put {{subst:ANI-notice}} --~~~~ at the talk page of every user reported to AN/I. --NellieBly (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Era style edit warring

    There's been some edit warring at Temple Mount over era styles for a few days which has heated way up today. This article has been stable for years with the BC/BCE era style until a few days ago when an IP 71.245.92.36 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) changed it to BC/AD and began edit-warring his changes into the article. That edit war was subsequently picked up by 71firebird (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). I dropped a notice on his talk page about this and he was blocked by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs). After this he created what are to me two rather obvious sockpuppets, Cwinsal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Buzzyleaonard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). I also opened a talk page discussion to which this editor has not responded. He just continues to revert. At this point I think the best course of action would be to semiprotect the article and indef the main account and the socks.

    Note:If the reviewing admin looks at the edit history of the article, he will see a number of reverts by Hertz1888 (talk · contribs). These may have violated the letter of 3RR, but since he was battling a determined tendentious sockpuppet and edit-warrior I believe this should be overlooked. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Shouldn't this be at WP:EWN? ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 22:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I brought it here because there's more than one policy involved and more than one action I'm requesting. Also, I now see that all the offending accounts are blocked, so that part is already done. I still think the page should be semi'ed for a bit to prevent further disruption. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I should apologize for even bringing this here, Malik has already blocked the socks. Looks like he might have done it while I was typing up my original notice. Anyway, I just completed notifying all the editors I mentioned, but as far as I'm concerned this thread can be closed, although I still think the article should get a semi for a while. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to apologize. I think, as you wrote, we were both doing our things at the same time. I'll semi-protect the article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=430127614"