Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive239

Newbie redirects userpage to main page

Lledd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a new user, has redirected his userpage to the main page. Can someone fix this?Blueboy96 03:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

We have a rule against that? News to me. Picaroon (Talk) 03:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if its a rule but I fixed it. I also posted a welcome to him. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 03:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Cross space redirect is a valid reason for deletion of a redirect, so I'd assume it's not allowed. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Cross namespace redirects from the mainspace to userspace is a ground for speedy deletion. Other cross namespace redirects should be nominated at WP:RFD. WjBscribe 04:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think deletion is the issue, as all that needs to be done is edit his userpage. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it seems an excellent idea, a way of removing the distraction that some people see their user page as. I may do it myself unless someone here can give a reason not to? Notinasnaid 10:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirects to the main page do not show the "Redirected" from text at the top of the page. Without that navigating to a page relevant to you by clicking the link in your signature would not be possible to all but experienced users. As such, that would disrupt effective communication with you. If you want to your userpage to be a redirect, target at your user talk.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats by User:NYScholar ?

Hi all. Another editor just asked me to comment on an Arbitration case involving the above user. I agreed to comment about 20 minutes ago and signed up. As a result, it would appear that the editor in question made a strong legal threat against WP on the RFAr here. Normally, had I seen something as blatant as that, I'd block the editor immediately for legal threats but as I'm involved, I'd rather not.

Can someone uninvolved in the Arbitration case review, please? Thanks - Alison ☺ 04:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• My response [1], and theirs [2] confirming their intent to do just that - Alison ☺ 04:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a blatant threat to me and I've blocked accordingly. John Reaves (talk) 04:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)bl

What is there to say? There is nothing that could be done in this situation but indefinitely block. It was a blatant legal threat.--Jersey Devil 04:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I thought I was seeing things - someone makes a strong legal threat in their own Arb case. Incredible! - Alison ☺ 05:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• I believe he now realises his error and has rescinded the legal threats and requests unblock. Can someone take a look here? - Alison ☺ 06:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I unblocked him. I suggested that he retract his comments on the RfAr page and keep a cooler head, especially now that he has been apprised of WP:LEGAL. -- Samir 06:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Great! Thanks for that - Alison ☺ 06:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I would have unblocked someone who looked directly one of the more important policies of Wikipedia in the face and said "I know, and I'm not going to follow it, and I'm going to do something indef-blockworthy anyway because I don't give a shit what the rules are." and persisted to threaten an editor even further. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 08:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked him because he claimed to be unfamiliar with WP:LEGAL and retracted his statements, and because he should be unblocked during the course of the RfAr against him. -- Samir 08:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Siân Rees-Cleland

Could someone take a look at this article? The page is practically empty, it doesn't look like an encyclopedia entry. AlexanderPar 09:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the tag you are looking for is {{db-nocontext}} ··coelacan 09:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. AlexanderPar 09:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

C&S Wholesale Grocers

Hello, I'd seriously appreciate some help in this. I originally came across this article while looking at "Recent Changes" for anything suspicious. I saw an anonymous edit that removed a large chunk of text. The text was totally disputed, and I added it back with a note that totally disputed sections should not be removed without discussion on the talk page. A little while later, the my changes were reverted saying that "all discussion in the talk page agrees it should be removed". I checked the talk page and found two comments. When I checked the contributions for those comments, I found them to have only edited this article. It seemed very sockpuppet-like. I went ahead and added citations to the article and also added some more information to balance out the article ([3]). However, now I am having a problem with an anonymous editor who insists on removing the "ongoing lawsuit" tag. I don't know if that tag is only supposed to be used for articles describing lawsuits. I thought of using "current", but I thought that "ongoing lawsuit" seemed more specific; I don't know if it is correct though. I am assuming it is (because the article does document one). This anonymous user has also threatened to keep deleting the tag (as can be seen on the talk page). Am I wrong in using the tag? Is there another tag? Any help would be appreciated! The edits are coming from the following IP's:

• 68.237.142.241
• 198.185.64.201
• 128.84.153.15

Possible sockpuppets:

• Intel836
• Expat73
• Moot28

--vi5in^[talk] 10:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the edit history and talk messages on this article, it would appear that at least two of the unregistered editors are in danger of running afoul of WP:OWN. As such, I went ahead and issued {{uw-own1}} warnings and will also keep an eye on the article. I also reiterated that it is appropriate for the {{ongoing lawsuit}} tag to be used, as the company is under legal action that is detailed in the article itself. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I also left a note at the talk., and will try to look in on the article for a few days, to see what happened. ThuranX 16:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Indian Valley High School

Resolved

 – Try the Help Desk--VectorPotential^Talk 13:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I am looking to have the Page for Indian Valley High School in Lewistown, PA re-established. Could you please help? "Bannerville 13:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)"

• Try the Help Desk, which is for questions about wikipedia--VectorPotential^Talk 13:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet--but of whom?

Resolved

 – now indefblocked as an RMS sock - Alison ☺ 18:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Seosaimh Mac Domhnaill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created the article Camillus McElhinney, which I nominated for speedy deletion. He requested that the speedy deletion be delayed in favor of a normal AfD discussion to give the rest of the community time to respond.

I was just about to open the debate when I noticed he was already using in-universe lingo here, despite having only been created at 10:35 am Eastern. Moreover, his user page contains a message that seems to be directed at User:Alison (it's in Gaelic) and the original version claimed that someone had accused him of being a sock. I don't know whether I'm being too overzealous here, but something about this stinks like a fish decaying in the moonlight--can someone check this out?Blueboy96 15:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no rule against creating more than one account, as long as they don't try and use their previous account to vote in their AfD, I don't really see what the problem is--VectorPotential^Talk 15:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, sounds fair enough. It just looked a bit fishy to me.Blueboy96 15:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• From the other edits [4] and [5], this looks like a sockpuppet of community-banned Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), attempting to harrass CPMcE (talk · contribs). I recommend speedy deletion and indef blocking. Demiurge 16:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Plus Rms was editing from 216.194.0.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) right before the account was created. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

So maybe I wasn't too jumpy after all, huh? I may not be an admin, but after seeing that message to Alison, I say nuke him.Blueboy96 17:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd help by tagging that IP's talk page with {{IPsock}}.Blueboy96 17:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• 10:30am. Get out of bed. Indefblock yet another blatant sock of RMS ("A mhúirnín dílis" - "darling sweetie" - awwww). Get dressed. Have brekkie - Alison ☺ 18:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Immediately returns here on my talk page. IP blocked 48 hours - Alison ☺ 18:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Strange comment on my talkpage

Hi. If someone would check out this diff, some anon placed a comment on my talkpage. He/she thanked me for supposedly placing a comment of their talkpage, when in fact that talkpage is empty. Just a few days earlier, another anon placed a comment on my talkpage, but another user recognised it as personal attack and trolling, and removed it. Also, this new anon called me a transsexual for no apparent reason, so would that be a personal attack? If so, my talkpage is repeatedly being attacked by anons, and if so, it should be semi-protected. What do you think? Should the comment be removed? It makes no sense anyway, just like the previous comment that was also removed. I am going to check these user's contributions, talkpage links, etc, to see if they have any connection. Thanks. – AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?)} 15:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless you really proclaimed yourself to be a transsexual, then I would say this is trolling. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I did NOT, so could you or someone else or myself please remove that comment, and possibly even semi-protect that page? Also, after searching the contribs, and WHOIS results, I would say that both anons are likely the same user (eg, both come from Los Angeles, according to the WHOIS results). I guess I will remove that comment, and should that user be warned against trolling? Please semi-protect my usertalkpage (both my userpage and my sigs page are already semi-protected), and I hardly ever recieve any helpful messages from anons anyway. Thanks. – AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?)} 15:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

User 129.29.227.4

User 129.29.227.4 Can someone block user 129.29.227.4? I understand that it is the IP address for the United States Military Academy, but they have had a history of vandalism.

Last edit today was a reversion of vandalism. Let us know if vandalism starts up again -- Samir 17:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ex-Admin Denying Users Placing Appropriate 'Sock Puppet' Tag on His Page

FYI, Chris Griswold and a "friend" (meat puppet?) Ned Scott have taken to deleting any comments/tags on his page that discuss his 'puppet master' past. I realize he did step down, but I am baffled why someone who claims to want to 'come clean' is making an effort to have any tags that acknowledge what he's done removed. Admins and others know of his past, but most casual users won't know or understand where to look. I believe a tag needs to be placed so most anyone else can see what's happened and why. Additionally, the user has claimed that he would 'come clean' about his past... But by denying the placement of an appropriate tag—and enlisting in the aid of 'meat puppets'—he's proving to not fully grasp the depth of what he has done. Please have the tag reverted and placed on his page. —SpyMagician 08:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I placed the template, Ned Scott removed it twice without giving any real justification. He was probabbly relying in the fact that most users are afraid to revert if he acts like he knows what he is doing (going against the policies in this case). Then Chris Griswold wisely told Ned not to defend him... aaand took the tamplate off for a third time. I think that's cynical and sad. I don't refuse to wear the tag he imposed on me, he shouldn't refuse to wear his. I was blocked regular user when I did certain meat and sockpuppetry... he was a admin who already blocked several users for doing the same when he created the accounts in question. CheckUser confirmed his identity. He should have known better and he has to face consequences just like I did. Even more as a former admin. Wikipedia trusted him!! that's how he pays?!! this is propostrous I'm ofended by his cynism and I demand justice!!! (or whatever the appropiate equivalent in wikipedia is)!!--T-man, the wise 08:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think 'justice' is very simple in this case. Chris Griswold has been proven to be the 'puppet master' of three editors: Truth in Comedy, Superburgh and 24.3.194.217. All of these sock puppets were created while—and only while—the user was a sysop on Wikipedia. Now, T-man, the wise engaged in sock puppetr himself as a plain old 'editor' and is forced to wear the tag of 'puppet master'. Why then should an admin who abused power and had multiple sock puppets allowed to exist on Wikipedia without a 'puppet master' tag? It's clearly a higher offense when a trusted admin/sysop does something like that? So why is he—and his 'friend'—deleting tags or comments like this? Someone else needs to step up and say something about this. Despite being stripped of 'admin' status, Chris Griswold is still showing all the signs of an abusive admin ego. And it needs to stop. —SpyMagician 08:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Generally users who aren't blocked don't have the {{SockpuppeteerProven}} template on their userpage. Especially not for experienced, long-term editors (20,000 edits) who are still in good standing. Your edit-warring is unacceptable, and I have protected the page from your edit warring regardless, until further input is gathered here. But don't be surprised if your behaviour is characterised as 'dickish' and possibly even harassment. Daniel Bryant 08:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and we wouldn't want to get too rich on the meat-puppetry allegations, now, would we? Daniel Bryant 08:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Leave SpyMagician alone! the punishment should be twice as hard with admins. Wikipedia trusted them, admins are more aware of the repercutions of sockpuppetry, therefore they should be harder on cases like Chris!

And now they protected his page!! Whitout the template!!!!!! Is this the image of corruption whe want for wikipedia?! --T-man, the wise 08:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Daniel. What will hounding the guy achieve? He's no longer a sysop and his reputation here is severely tarnished. He's chosen to walk away for a bit and lick his wounds. I think it would say much better things about those who were in dispute with him if they let him have some dignity and stopped pestering him. Chris' actions were wrong but the matter is closed. Please leave him alone. WjBscribe 08:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite amazing that you would say that my behavior is 'dickish'. What then is the behavior of an abusive admin who used sock puppets to destroy and harass hundreds of users who contributed to comedy articles? This is kind of amazing. The guy was an admin and abused power, people point it out and someone calls their behavior 'dickish'. So I assume sock puppetry is okay as long as your an admin? Quite amazing inequity here. 'Dickish' behavior to some on Wikipedia is considered 'fair' in the real world. What would be achieved is those of us who are not 'hard core' users would see this user's past for what he is. In the admin world his rep is tarnished, but in the regular world people barely know what happened. And his user page shows barely anything to indicate the sock puppetry. All anyone is asking is the tag be added so that regular people/editors know that he engaged in abusive sock puppetry. —SpyMagician 08:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no useful purpose to be served by that - we don't engage in tarring and feathering around here. The tag isn't needed and shouldn't be added. And how does someone manage to "destroy" hundreds of users? -- ChrisO 08:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Where did I ever say I thought your behaviour was 'dickish'? I merely suggested that some may consider it so. Daniel Bryant 08:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Random passer-by comments: I don't understand this. I saw something related to this come up in an RfA last month too and had the same reaction. The question posed in summary form was "What if a long-standing and well-liked Wikipedian were caught sock-handed?" The RfA candidate responded with a lot of reputation-protectiveness: Would talk with the problem admin first, try to convince them to stop, and so on. I say to hell with that. I may not be everyone's favorite editor around here - I know I can be abrasive - but come on. If I ever betrayed community trust to that extent I would expect to be strung up by the sensitive parts for it, and if I were an admin at the time, I'd expect to lose community trust damned near forever. "The tag isn't needed"? You must be kidding. It's desperately needed. This isn't the Wikipedia of 2005 any longer. It's fairly trivial for previously bad-acting people to "make friends" hither and yon and seek adminship again after the furor dies down. There are so many RfAs these days it's hard to keep track of them, and with an order of magnitude more editors in today's Wikipedia it's increasingly hard to remember transgressions. I guess that's it really. It just bowls me over that people are leaping to the defense of someone who torqued the system in a grossly treacherous manner and go caught. To me, this sends the message "It's okay to stuff the ballot box as long as you've at least once been enumerated among the poll workers", by way of analogy. PS: Please actually read WP:DICK. It is pretty clear that citation to WP:DICK is a WP:DICKish thing to do. Pretending that you were just referring to it for, well, interesting reading purposes or whatever is just WP:BALLS (while we're being metaphorically genital about everything). You were in fact being a WP:DICK yourself in citing that essay and were darned right to be called on it. And yes, I am both well aware and quite comfortable with fact that I am hereby being a WP:DICK myself in turn, because I think the point is worth making even at my own expense. PPS: There's a difference between tarring and feathering and presenting the facts. T&Fing is well thwarted by WP:NPA to my mind. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No, no justification. If I have to wear my template he has to wear his! I also want to report something else: --T-man, the wise 08:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, in the spirit of 'some may consider it so', I say that by allowing an ex-admin who has clearly abused power to NOT have a tag placed on their user page indicating their past, well... some may consider it to be 'nepotistic' or 'favoritism' that he can get away with doing that based on the number of edits he made, while others exist on Wiki with these tags and dare not ever remove them lest an admin will chastize them. Sorry, but if the user DID engage in 20,000+ edits then it makes even MORE sense to have the tag added to their user page. How does one begin to contact or add comments to the THOUSANDS of pages this user edited this way? Does it not make more sense to just have one tag placed on the user page so if anyone has been edited by them, they can then see this user's history and then make a judgement based on it? It all wreaks of double-standards. Plain and simple. And if this user wants to make ammends to others, IDing himself as a puppet master—which is what he is—is a good way of honestly coming clean. I truly don't understand why some would consider it 'dickish' for that to happen or be discussed. —SpyMagician 08:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Because it's been discussed and it's been resolved. End of story. -- ChrisO 08:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue has indeed been discussed in admin and other circles which average users will not seek out. The issue now at hand is how to communicate this to the average user/editor who comes across this user's page. Simply placing the puppet master tag on it will end the issue. People will see what he did and understand the scope of it. Why is it he is being defended against that tag being placed when there's overwhelming evidence that he deserves it. And beyond that he has only 'reappeared' on Wikipedia to delete ANYTHING negative specifically on his talk page and his talk page only. If what I'm saying is so wrong, then why isn't there a reversion of all comments? There is a very clear double-standard here and that is the root of the issues I'm having and others are commenting on. —SpyMagician 08:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty clear, SpyMagician, that you found out? The Arbcom already dealt with the situation. They were aware the tag was removed. If they were adamant about the tag staying, I don't think they're too stupid to say "The sock tags must be left alone." We don't use those as brands or scarlet letters, we use them to help us track unrepentant, banned or soon to be sockpuppeteers who are an ongoing problem. Chris Griswold is not blocked or banned, you've presented nothing to indicate his puppetry is continuing, and he is not required to display any "badge of shame". And this conversation, for some reason, seems awfully familiar to me. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with McCandlish. Anchoress 09:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Generally, {{sockpuppeteer}} is left for users who are

1. Indefinitely blocked
2. Banned
3. Someone who extensively abused said sockpuppets (say in the dozens)

Chris Griswold does not meet any of these "criteria"—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Ryulong and Seraphimblade on this. The tag is used to identify disruptive or banned sockpuppeteers and to identify their socks. It is not to be used as punishment. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 09:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I also agree. There is no need to identify him as a sockpuppet if he has stopped doing it and he has not been blocked or banned. Use of the tag should not be punitive, which is what it would be here. Will (aka Wimt) 09:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem I have with it is the circular reference. It's kind of like a case in my home town where the teachers' union defended the information about a teacher who had committed serious offences being kept secret because, in their words, 'he wasn't kicked out of the union, and we don't make the information public if the teacher isn't kicked out of the union.' Anchoress 09:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, then can someone explain then why discussion on this user's talk page that points out his behavior is continutally reverted? It's clear there's a double standard here. On the one hand he claims that he wants to make good. But on the other, he's avoiding ANY public mention of it outside of the 'deeper' circles of Wikipedia. And while I understand the tags are not 'badges of shame' let's face facts. They are not designed because people want them. Much in the same way people put cute tags on their homepage to explain who they are, such badges can also educate others. I'm sorry but I don't appreciate the level of defense being made to defend someone who grossly abused their position. And the most disturbing aspect of this is the admins whose way of engaging in discussion is to basically imply banning or blocking if the discussion still happens. There's clearly an air of protection surrounding this ex-admin and it's simply quite disturbing. And as I said before, it's impractical for ANYONE to go to the thousands of pages that have been edited and say "Hey, this guy abused power..." It's simply more practical for public acknowledgement on his page. If he was proud enough to place badges on his page delcaring his likes/interests and even links to articles about his own past, why deny this? And why the eagerness to delete ANY discussion on this users page? Wikipedia and Wikinepotism is baffling. —SpyMagician 09:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Because he is not punished for having done so any more than having had his sysop bit removed. There is no need to put a big red A on his page for one (or two) lapses of judgement.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Chris isn't denying anything, he's resigned his adminship and that should be the end of it, no-one is going to forget what he's done. Using the pupetteer tag is way out of line, as people have said, thats reserved for blocked or banned users. Continued addition of the tag, and constant abuse on his talk page ammounts to harrassment in my eyes, I suggest you let this drop. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

And there is a user, User:Giovanni33, who has been proven to have used sockpuppets in the past, but he doesn't have {{SockpuppeteerProven}} on his userpage. Why? Because he, for all intents and purposes, said that he was sorry, and we don't hound him over it. He's not an administrator. Not every user who is a proven sockpuppeteer needs that tag on their page, nor does it anywhere on Wikipedia that they do. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 09:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Ahem. In case it wasn't obvious, it is perfectly acceptable to have and use an alternate account. Several of us have them, for use when we just want a quiet afternoon's editing without being hounded about admin actions and when we don't wantr the little yellow bar lighting up every ten seconds. A sockpuppet account is not the same thing; sockpuppetry is use of alternate accounts to avoid a block or ban, or to give the apperaance of greater support than really exists in community debates. Is there any evidence that Chris used these accounts for proscribed purposes? Or was he just using an alternate account for purposes of a quiet life? Guy (Help!) 10:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • @Guy: If you read the links in the very first post, you'll see that he did. The most relevant section. Anchoress 10:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Additionally, here is the discussion on the request for arbitration page about this. There's no doubt there was a conscious effort to use multiple accounts to avoid responsibility and abuse power. But the fact you were confused about this, Guy is an example of what I have been arguing. A clear message should be placed on his page so anyone who comes across an edit knows what happened. —SpyMagician 10:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I absolutely agree. If an active admin doesn't know what happened, and without common knowledge of CG's self-serving sockpuppetry, his '20,000 good edits', as noted above, weigh too heavily in the direction of trustworthiness. Anchoress 10:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• No, all it means is that I miseed the discussions on that. I am not omniscient and I do have things to do in RL. It all looks a bit WP:POINTy to me, to be honest. Guy (Help!) 10:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Guy: That was my intention: To edit without the burden of adminship and to separate my watchlist into smaller segments for easier editing. Unfortunately, use of alternate accounts turned out to be a slippery slope. I didn't mean to stay logged in as Superburgh when I edited the Taylor Allderdice article; I intended to make those edits with my main account, which is why I set the account up. Unfortunately, those edits appeared to be in the interest of evading a mediation attempt I hadn't actually noticed because I was just kind of mechanically going through the Superburgh watchlist and hadn't checked the talk page. After I saw that I had edited as Superburgh, I didn't think much of it because I hadn't edited the article in months and so did not feel like I was influencing a consensus, and so I just moved on. With Truth in Comedy, the error was in misrepresenting the dependence of the accounts when speaking to SpyMagician, who was haranguing me and possibly even stalking that account. It was incredibly frustrating, and I questioned him about it as ChrisGriswold as if I weren't also the other account. When I first decided to start an additional account, I didn't want to advertise that they were me, but I had a rule that if anyone ever questioned it, I would confirm that that was my account; the ethical area was a little grey there, but regardless, it was still misrepresentation. None of these edits were ones I wouldn't necessarily makes with this account; with regard to the comedy articles, these have been problematic in terms of the inclusion of a great many vanity articles for a long time, and it even prompted me to create a notability guideline for them months ago. In fact, these were edits I began to make as ChrisGriswold but later continued with the Truth in Comedy account. I have worked mainly on articles about fiction, and more than anything, I felt guilty about making the edits I felt needed to be made to articles that people had put a lot of work into about things they really cared about. I knew that some of these articles needed a lot of work or deletion, but I related to the people who had written them, and I felt that in order to do these edits, I needed to distance myself a little personally so I could feel more comfortable in performing them. The road to where I am now was paved with good intentions; I thought WP:SOCK justified the creation of these accounts, but it was incredibly easy to get into the quandary I found myself in, partially because it's easy to suspect alternate accounts of being sockpuppets. You know, I actually thought I might be able to come out somewhat clean in the arbitration case if I explained my reasoning, but after considering giving up adminship, I felt a sense of relief that now I could walk away for a while and not feel burdened by the duty I feel to Wikipedia or as if I were shirking that responsibility. I still plan to go into this fall from grace in a little more detail, but I'd like to let things die down a little first. I'm looking forward to my break, but I am checking in in case I am needed for any of these further discussions. I have plans for when I return, projects I hope will prevent other well-meaning admins from finding reading conversations about themselves like this one. But that's for later, and now it's time for me to go away for a while. I appreciate everyone who has been working to prevent the dogpiling. T-Man and SpyMagician: Please understand that what these other editors are doing in terms of protecting me is the same thing they would do for you or any other editor. They are not in any way defending what I have done; rather, they are conscious of personal attacks and how constructive behavior is in a touchy situation like this. Thanks for your time. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"I have plans for when I return, projects I hope will prevent other well-meaning admins from finding reading conversations about themselves like this one." Here's a crazy idea. How about the project be focused on the concept of taking personal responsibility for one's action and coming clean when busted? While it's outrageous you did what you did to begin with, the continual denial of the gravity and weight of what you've done is even more outrageoous. That's the crux of the issue I—and others—are having. You're making gestures towards being sorry, but your actions and self-defense while ignoring the impact what you did has had is truly what outrages many. It wreaks of an ex-admin being given special-privilege. And it also wreaks of a Wiki-power structure that supports such silliness. "Please understand that what these other editors are doing in terms of protecting me is the same thing they would do for you or any other editor." Baloney on that. We all see editors and admins chastizing 'newbies' all the time. A whole slew of warning templates exist for that purpose. So I don't buy this conceit. You're basically making it seem that you did nothing wrong when compared to others when you know otherwise. So please, if I ever engaged in sock puppetry or abuse as an admin, hang me until I'm dead. Because never in a million years would I do that. And if I did, I would expect to be treated appropriately... But then again, the psychology behind someone who doesn't see the reason why this is wrong perhaps supercedes being able to digest that. Unbelievable on many levels. —SpyMagician 16:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You said I didn't want to advertise that they were me, but I had a rule that if anyone ever questioned it, I would confirm that that was my account if that is the case, why did you blatantly lie here when you stated Additionally, I edit with my own name, so I am upfront about any such conflicts of interest. and here when you pretend you don't know TIC by writing I have seen the way you follow Future Whatever around from article to article. Obviously, you weren't shooting for any level of transparency but in fact were willfully using two account to back each other up when edit warring. IrishGuy ^talk 18:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that contradicts what I said above. I have edited articles wherein I have a conflict of interest, but I have always been up front about them and have used my real name when editing them. And no, with SpyMagician I wasn't really trying to be transparent because I had become concerned with his stalking and harassment. I contacted him as ChrisGriswold because of this but never used the account for any edit warring on behalf of the other account. His stalking and harassment then extended to this account as well. I think that the content of the multiple threads SpyMagician has created or been part of that are devoted to this situation might give a taste of his behavior and attitude toward admins in general. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You said that if questioned, you would have come clean. Why would anyone question anything when you pretend to not know the name of one of your socks and further claims that you only edit under your own name (which was a blatant lie as you had two other socks)? If you felt that SpyMagician was stalking one of your socks, you definitely shouldn't have confronted him using your admin account. You were protecting yourself, not some poor abused editor. How you still don't seem to think you did anything wrong is beyond my comprehension. IrishGuy ^talk 20:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"I think that the content of the multiple threads SpyMagician has created or been part of that are devoted to this situation might give a taste of his behavior and attitude toward admins in general." That is a ridiculous claim and there's no evidence here—or in my logic—that shows a general pattern of behavior or attitude towards admins. Far from it. How is it that starting a thread about your reprehensible behavior an indication of anyting beyond my attitude towards you and yur behavior? Also the "attitude toward admins in general" is amazing. Am I posting here—or started this thread—because I have a general beef against admins? Or do I think that your behavior—and only your behavior—as ad admin is disruptive and destructive. What you're basically saying is anyone who has an issue with you clearly has an issue with all admins and is some loose cannon. Please, leave the good and valid admins out of this mess. They don't need to be brought into this because the have been—and continue to be—good admins who don't abuse your power. You Chris Griswold are far from a good admin and your behavior has destroyed others and discouraged others from contributing to Wiki articles you have 'territorially pissed' over. If Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, behavior be people like you that prevents true collaboration should be discouoraged. And as noted elsewhere, my real-world identity is not completely secret and I have been contacted my multiple people off of Wikipedia who feel that the atmosphere you have created in your style of editing created an atmosphere of domination and abuse that prevented them from adding to comedy/improv artcles. But enough of this. In the larger picture it seems you really have no clue how what you did is wrong. And frankly all the words in the world won't convince you. You're cutting off your nose to spite your face. If you simply would admit true guilt and make true efforts towards remedying the damage you've done, none of these threads or discussion would be happening. Because ultimately others would see that you are serious about reforming and truly apologetic. But sadly that hasn't happened. Amazing on many levels, Chris. —SpyMagician 16:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, I didn't say I edited only with this account. I said I edited any articles I might have a conflict of interest on with this account and was pretty open about it. That's the context of the discussion, not whether I was using other accounts. While I might have not been too forthcoming with the relation between with accounts with the abusive SpyMagician, as I said before, there are articles that have edits by Truth in Comedy followed by ones by ChrisGriswold but which took place weeks or months apart because I had stopped editing with this account and had been editing such articles instead with that one. No edit wars, but also no difference between the type of edits or edit summaries the two accounts were making. The interaction with SpyMagician was the only misrepresentation involved with these accounts. And you are right: I was protecting myself. I first came to WP:ANI, but nothing came of it, so I questioned the user myself. And that was wrong. Finally, I'm not sure how you can say I don't believe I've done anything. I've admitted my wrongdoing, I've stepped down as an admin to show that I am sorry for the impropriety; I'm not sure what more I can do to prove that I accept the situation for what it is. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This thread is pointless. We do not kick people while they are down; doing so is absurd, immoral, and useless. Nor do we beat dead horses. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently we do. SpyMagician has reinserted the puppet tags on Superburgh, Truth in Comedy, and 24.3.194.217 by revert warring [6] [7] [8] with two admins who are reluctant to revert war in turn (Newyorkbrad and myself). Kicking wins. :-( See Brad's talkpage and mine for discussion. Bishonen | talk 10:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

I've removed the tags and protected the user pages to put an end to the revert warring. The matter has been discussed at length and resolved. SpyMagician has received no support for his position - he should take the hint and move on. -- ChrisO 10:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Correction. Since my handle is a not-so-secret handle that connects me to the real world, I have been contacted outside of Wikipedia from about 2-3 others who have had worse conflicts with Chris Griswold in the past and the support exists there. The general attitude I'm seeing is that people are simply too afraid that Chris Griswold's will lash out at them on Wikipedia, and are thus 'laying low'. Ultimately you might want to look into the issues surrounding the fear admins are placing in 'normal' editors here. And how defending someone like Chris Griswold is alienating many valid/good intentioned editors from contributing positively to Wikipedia. Sure, anyone can come in and do what they wish. But when you allow someone so brash and abusive like Chris Griswold to roam free, you're doing so at the expense of others. And damaging the positive growth of the comedy/improv areas of the site by allowing on person to dominate edits. —SpyMagician 16:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that SMcCandlish supported him above. I have supported him in this thread as well. IrishGuy ^talk 19:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a different position from SpyMagician on this matter, though I've acknowledged on my talk that I can see his side as well. I do not, however, appreciate being told what my own motivations are for positions I take or comments I make on-wiki. The idea that I said the "sockpuppet" userpage tags at this point are overkill, only because I am "too afraid that Chris Griswold will lash out at me on Wikipedia," is, to say the least, nonsensical. Newyorkbrad 19:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

A quiet aside

Totally aside from the concern of this discussion (which seems a waste of space imho. I think User:Daniel.Bryant et al have things well in hand), and just thinking about Chris, for a moment. I wonder if, at this point, it wouldn't be better if he just allowed all three accounts to be indef blocked, the user pages deleted, (even perhaps have the ChrisGriswold account renamed to add obscurity) and he just started over from scratch with another username. I see he has concerns about being tied to his real name, and perhaps a bit of anonymity would be the answer? I think an email discussion with someone appropriate (bureaucrat? steward?) may be the order of the day. Just a suggestion, in the hopes it may help. - jc37 09:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he ever had any real concerns over the privacy of his username; he was likely saying that to attempt to get out of the arbitration case. If he was concerned for his privacy he could have got the account renamed a long time ago. The idea of him starting a new account is possibly a good one, however. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 09:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I'd be happy for that to occur. Daniel Bryant 09:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Why afford an ex-admin a way to wipe their past like this? Why would this even be considered? Is this done for other users as well? It's patently ridiculous that someone who abused power as a Wiki admin be 'rewarded' by wiping the slate clean? Also, why is the discussion of how an ex-admin is treated a waste of space? It's simply ridiculous that this much effort is being made to 'protect' a user/ex-admin who abused priledge/power and seems to avoid taking any public responsibilty to those he damaged. What about the thousands of edits he made to damage others? What efforts are made or thought of to revert the ill-will and headaches caused by them? Or is that discussion a 'waste of space'. Ultimately it seems that you can break/bend Wiki rules if you (1) have a disturbingly high amount of edits and (2) are an ex-admin. Quite disturbing that attitude exists. —SpyMagician 09:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is allowed to abandon their accounts and start afresh- see Wikipedia:Right to vanish. WjBscribe 10:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that a clean slate might be good idea, although the choice is up to him. However I would comment that someone (steward, 'crat) is advised of his new name in the small chance that he does decide to engage in disruptive activities. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 10:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Good to know there are ways one can duck their own personal responsibility and come back as a new 'handle' but with the same person behind the keyboard. How exactly is it 'good' for someone who ducked responsibility in the first place to be given the right to make the ultimate 'duck' by dumping their record? It's been proven that he can't control himself. And despite claims that he should have stepped aside a few months ago, he continued to edit. And he only stopped when he was busted by a user who had to fight hard to get the point made. Yes, there is a Wikipedia:Right to vanish, but it seems that it would just give him a new way to come back and engage in the same behavior again. Kzrulzuall's suggestion makes sense, and I would agree with it. But can't shake the fact that a lot of energy is being spent defending someone who abused the concept of good faith. —SpyMagician 10:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If somebody comes back under a new name and then engages in the same "bad behaviour" they generally get found out pretty quickly and indef blocked for their troubles. If somebody manages to come back and keep a clean slate (and I'm sure that happens often) how can that not be good for the encyclopedia? It looks to me, as a new pair of eyes on this case, that you want "blood". It might be time to let this go: the guy was caught, and it's been quite humiliating for him; the community has (it would seem) decided to leave it at that, so let's move on. If you continue to make a song and dance about what is essentially a spent issue you'll likely find your own conduct coming under more scrutiny. --kingboyk 11:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a squeaky-clean new account is a great idea. But his choice, of course. Anchoress 10:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

To recapitulate, I believe that the issue here is that Chris Griswold is this user's real name. He obviously behaved inappropriately, but at the same time does not want the fact that he used an alternative account on Wikipedia to be the most important fact about his life that appears on Internet searches, and he is concerned that these tags will make that happen. I am not sure that the tags are a material part of the problem, but I concur with those who have urged that there is no legitimate reason to make a further issue of the tags on the blocked accounts. Of course, if the fact that two accounts belonged to the same user is relevant in discussion on a particular article talkpage, that can be mentioned. Otherwise, there is no need for further publicity of the matter. Newyorkbrad 15:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have made the connection clear on one talk page and will continue to do so if advised; SpyMagician has been removing discussions between him and me (as Truth in Comedy) from talk pages. I would appreciate some guidance on this. Thanks, Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh please Chris, give me a break. Knowing your love of 'diffs' and excessive use of WIki policy as a way to pummel others into submission is no secret. It's the reason why you are busted. And the only discussion I ever blanked was one discussion on a page regarding my real-life identity. It's hillarious to see you scramble to cover your tracks when you are busted, but somehow get upset like a whiny theater drama-queen when someone else does something very minor to clear out an old discussion. For your benefit I will re-add the discussion. But will also make appropriate notes. Cheers! —SpyMagician 16:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thought from another random person passing by: I love jc37's idea. If the people who have been harmed want restitution, I understand that. Think of something that positive that Chris can do for you or the world, even if it's making a donation to a charity, and ask him to consider doing it. Kla'quot 17:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I was mostly focused on removing NN/vanity comedy-related material from Wikipedia with the Truth in Comedy account. One plan I have for my return is to expand and re-work some articles. For instance, I am re-reading the book Something Wonderful Right Away to later work on improvisational comedy. Perhaps this sort of thing will alleviate some editors' concerns. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

JB196 problems

For any admins not familiar with this situation by now, please see his long term abuse report. After systematically stripping the Nick Gulas article down to one sentence with a series of throwaway sockpuppets he succeeded in getting it speedy deleted while I was trying to fix the article, and was generously undeleted by the deleting admin. He's now harassing me on my talk page with a new sockpuppet, and also threatening further spamming on Tommy Dreamer which is currently fully protected due to his non-stop vanity spamming. Other articles which will also be targeted are Xtreme Pro Wrestling, Extreme Associates, Rob Zicari and Janet Romano. Any ideas on how this permanent problem can be dealt with? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit hard to effect a permanent solution on a long-term vandal who uses open proxies. The LTA report recommends blocking on site, which is what I've done for the harrassing account who posted to your userpage. (aeropagitica) 23:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If these are open proxies we should be going to CheckUser to get them blocked. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The checkusers seem to have left the building. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Put that one almost two weeks ago, and no response. Same happened with the last set of open proxies that JB was using (although that was a regular check user as well). Utterly frustrating that we're letting vandals get free reign for weeks at a time on proxies. (Yes, I know the Checkuser folks are very busy, but if they're THAT overwhelmed, get more folks to do it). SirFozzie 00:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ONIH for the correction on Coogan. Wikipedia is plain darn stupid. Firstly it's packed with hostile editors, who believe that they own some of the articles. Then it tolerates IP addresses to edit articles, and then it cries about vandals. Some editors spend a lot of their time counteracting vandalism, which is just a waste of resources. Many articles should get the perm status of "no IP edits". I have seen so many good editors go, really nice people, and admins too, WP will fail unless it changes. 86.42.159.119 03:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Replies to common objections. Sure, by allowing anon edits we are dooming the project to eternal mediocrity, langushging at the bottom of the top ten websites worldwide and we'll never knock Wikipedia off the no. 1 slot in the rankings of online reference sites. Oh, wait... Guy (Help!) 11:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of blocking on sight - Tootbillow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

When reverting what appeared to be simple trolling/etc, I came upon Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs) and his strange edits. I have already had to perform a deletion on an AfD of a redirect that he did a copy-page move for which I may have to move back to its original placement because I had to history merge. I do not know of the original reasons for his block/ban/whatever, but I have left a message that relates to what little actions I could find of his errors in editting on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive85#Jeff Merkey wishes to return to en:wp. --bainer (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever he did in the past, I hope he's careful in the future. He's recently deleted quite a lot from Cherokee; see my question (and I hope soon his answer) at or near the foot of Talk:Cherokee. -- Hoary 07:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

These edits are also problematic (odd stuff about the sex industry and stock fraud): ChurchOfTheOtherGods 08:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind my slight reformatting of your immediately preceding comment, COTOG.

Yes, they are indeed strange, not least the addition of one paragraph ending with "{{fact}}": If an editor thinks something needs evidence, I don't understand why he'd add that something. -- Hoary 08:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff's moved the disputed content to the talk page put up a bounty for this article. --Duk 17:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think all of these concerns have been addressed to the relevant parties now. If there are any other questions or concerns, please visit my talk page and we can certainly air them in the open. "Strange" does sound like me, BTW. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 09:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The Comments below are from a Banned user (user:Vigilant) banned from Wikipedia by Tony Sidaway under the direction of the ARBCOM. This user is a disruptive troll and should be blocked on site.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk • contribs) 16:26, May 6, 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, you know as well as I do that I was never BANNED. That is a personal attack and I take great exception to it. You WERE BANNED by Jimbo himself. That is a matter of public record.

Jeff, you cannot declare, on your own, that everyone is satisfied with your explanations and edits. The edits, particularly the Eric Schmidt article, are libelous, violate NPOV, NPA, NLT, no sources and problematics of the entire biologies of living persons problems. Your edits are exactly what is not wanted in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.139.4.129 (talk • contribs) 10:27, May 6, 2007

64.139.4.129, please find something constructive to do around here rather than following Jeff around and complaining. He's removed the disputed content and put up a bounty for the article. --Duk 17:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't said anything outside that article and it was libelous and unsourced. Please show me what you mean by harassment as that is a serious and unsubstantiated charge.

Note: 64.139.4.129 admits to being Vigilant. I'll start blocking if he keeps harassing Jeff. --Duk 17:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Please tell mw what rules I am violating and please give examples. I was not banned and as far as I can tell, I've done nothing even slightly outside the rules. Have you read the edits that Jeff made to a Living Person's Biography (Eric Schmidt)? What he wrote makes most other problem biographies pale in comparison.

see the post directly above your own, this link in particular. --Duk 21:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Mr Merkey seems to think everyone is trolling him. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey&oldid=128741022 I have been added to his list and being accused of a Troll from Yahoo SCOX. I do not have an account on that board and I have no idea why I have been singled out except because I dared criticise his editing. --Kebron 23:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

LionheartX poor behaviors

Resolved

I reported this user on the community noticeboard, receivng little feedbacks. So I need admins opinions on this. User:LionheartX, a ban-evading sockpuppet of User:RevolverOcelotX User:RaGnaRoK+SepHír0tH User:Guardian_Tiger User:Apocalyptic_Destroyer and User:ApocalypticDestroyer's was previously community banned (or indef. blocked)[9] per this thread on AN/I for being an abusive, disruptive sockpuppet. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive177#Guardian_Tiger_and_the_unblock_template Here's what arbitrator and admin User:Dmcdevit had to say about one of the socks. [[10]] After multiple attempts to wikilawyer and as well as abuse of the unblock template on User talk:RaGnaRoK+SepHír0tH User talk:Guardian_Tiger, his talkpages were protected by admins, [11] [12] [13] which resulted in more sockpuppetry and evasion. Admin User:Nlu was lenient and agreed to give LionheartX another chance despite all of these violations, disruption, and sockpuppetry (ban-evasion). [14] But also made it clear that LionheartX is on a very short leash and that other admins are not bound by his decision. User:BenAveling, the main advocate who campaigned for Lion's unblock also made it clear that Lion is on a very short leash [15] After more disruptions followed, admin User:Durova indef. blocked the sock account User:LionheartX per [16] [17] The block was overturned one week under cloudy and controversial circumstances. Nevertheless, Lion was advised to stay out of trouble [18]. I have always been a victim of Lion (and his previously socks) tendency to stalk, spam, and harass. Several harassment campaign has been launched by LionheartX to drive me out of wikipedia. The newest one started couple of weeks ago even though he was advised to stay away from me and to stop harssing me. [19] This didn't stop him to orchestrate an anti-Certified.Gangsta campaign by proxy. (spamming usertalkpages to campaign to ban me)[20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]. Spamming in my arbCom case with User:Ideogram [[31]] (there are way too many diffs so just glance through his contributions and you'll see it) and stalk my contributions and POV pushing . [[32]] [[33]] [[34]] [[35]], disrupt Wikipedia:Changing username [[36]] [[37]] [[38]], wikilawyering, and spamming/canvassing [[39]] [[40]] [[41]]. Now he's stalking, spamming to campaign to ban me, and POV pushing. Somebody please stop me. PLEASE--Certified.Gangsta 09:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram. Certified.Gangsta has violated his ArbCom restrictions. LionheartX 09:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Which has no impact whatsoever on the utter unacceptability of your own behaviour. --tjstrf talk 09:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong blocked LionheartX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 48 hours for edit warring and baiting Certified.Gangsta. Thatcher131 16:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Fluent

I am a recording artist name Fluent. I have been trying to add myself and label as a reference on the Fluent disambiguation page for sometime, but your bot keeps removing it. Please not I am only trying to add "Fluent, is a recording artist on <a href="http://www.VigilantPro.com>Vigilant Productions, Inc.</a href>" If 50 Cent can have a Wikipedia page, surely I can be listed under disambiguation.

Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.34.53 (talk • contribs) 11:06, May 6, 2007

Can you point us to some independent secondary sources about you? It looks like the bot is removing you because it is assuming the link that you insert is spam. Generally disambiguation pages only refer to other Wikipedia articles that have a similar name, for instance Fluent (musician). Also note that it is frowned upon to create an article about yourself for marketing purposes--take a look at WP:NOTE and WP:MUSIC for some more information. Don't hesitate to leave me a message if you want some more information!--Xnuala (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's not a bot. User:Tizio is reverting. Take a look at Talk:Fluent as tizio's edit summaries say to look there for discussion on the situation. ~Crazytales 20:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Help wanted

• TFU Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tfustudios (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has contacted OTRS asking what is the problem with the content of his article about his company, and what he should do to fix it. I have manfully restrained myself from reflexively hitting Delete as I normally would when I come across a blatant corporate autobiography. I have explained the problem to him; there is a claim to notability but it is )of course) completely unsourced. And as we know, "worked with" Mr Famous can mean passed him a coffee, though I guess it's probably slightly more in this case. Anyway, maybe someone a little less WP:ROUGE can look at this for me. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 18:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I looked at it (while not logged in) last night, and I'm responsible for proposing deletion and making our friend Jason so upset. His editing pattern shows a clear conflict of interest with no exceptions. I have not yet found any evidence that his company is notable independently. Placeholder account 23:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Moju123 posting personal details and accusations of paedophilia

Resolved

 – User Indefinately Blocked

Take a look at this diff. Going back though his edits, it seems that he's posted the full name and address of this person several times now without any action being taken. --Kurt Shaped Box 20:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I have blocked this user indefinitely as a vandalism-only account and for personal attacks. Please see WP:OVERSIGHT for information on how to get the edit you described removed from the history. Newyorkbrad 20:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Have done. Thanks a lot. --Kurt Shaped Box 20:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Pizza Big Liar Vandal

Resolved

 – User was blocked indefinately

[42] created an account for the specific purpose of vandalizing my user page. "Pizza Big Liar" = Pete's a Big Liar... LOL! Could somebody please delete this user's account or take appropriate action. This is obviously a sock of some other user. Thanks! Pete K 20:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Newyorkbrad 21:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Pete K 21:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

68.60.137.139

Resolved

 – User blocked. Sean William 00:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This user refuses to stop removing useful content on SpongeBob SquarePants (character). Evidence can be found on their contributions. This is really getting annoying, I've warnexd the user several time, but the user still refuses to cooporate. Plus, if I'm not mistaken, they have most likely already violated WP:3RR. Please do something about it. - Super48 20:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This would be better for WP:AIV methinks. --24.136.230.38 21:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reported the user. An administrator will probably take care of it quickly, now. --24.136.230.38 21:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Super48 is blocked as a sock of 98E. IrishGuy ^talk 21:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have also removed the AIV report. --24.136.230.38 21:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

David Gerard just fucked up badly

A username just created an edit sufficiently odious to be oversighted. I checkusered it and blanched. [deleted] appears to be the user's main account, and he's been creating a sockpuppet every few hours for quite a while. If he were to claim these were entirely different people I would note the remarkable commonality of interests. I'll post a list when I've finished blocking the socks. I've blocked J Greb for 48 hours in the meantime, to give users time to investigate and clean up the mess - David Gerard 22:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I am an idiot. I just blocked every username on a given proxy. Excuse me while I go back and unblock most of a small town - David Gerard 22:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't take it too hard. Everyone makes mistakes. bibliomaniac15 02:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Pavement moved against consensus by Parable1991

The page Pavement (material) was moved to Road surface by Parable1991 at 14:03, 5 May 2007. This appears to be a unilateral move without prior discussion. I believe it was done against established consensus, and by someone who has a history of engaging in such acts (see past warning and user edit history). I would like to request that the page be moved back. As the user has disregard the direct warning of an admin, and has also been doing things like adding dubious redirects (e.g., [43], [44]), I think it may also be time for a short block for disruptive behavior, but I'll leave that up to others to decide. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This page should be moved back, since it goes against WP:MOS. Pages should not be moved just to put the British Spelling first. Remember that other people use this encyclopedia, too. --24.136.230.38 00:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone could have moved the page back, thankfully, because he didn't edit the redirect, thus not requiring a delete-and-move. I've done so. FCYTravis 03:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

User Kirbytime: trolling behavior

Crux

I archived the above because it was degenerating into mudslinging from all sides. I have protected Kirbytime's userpage because he continually reinserted obvious trolling. The protection will be removed when am happy that this has been resolved. All other disputes that have been raised in the above should be taken through the usual WP:DR channels. Have a nice day. Viridae^Talk 01:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me. I don't understand who I'm trolling on my user page with an invisible comment, but if someone's feelings were hurt by it, I apologize, as I had absolutely no intention of such a thing. --Kirby♥time 02:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot being bad

User:AccReqBot keeps trying to do this. Could we block it until someone sorts it out? -Amarkov moo! 02:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked it indefinitely, pending the resolution of the issue. -- tariqabjotu 02:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot wars are always funny. -Amarkov moo! 02:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

In the same way cancer is. HalfShadow 03:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Bot wars are funny in many ways that cancer isn't. Unless you're a misanthropist. --Cyde Weys 03:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I suppose it depends on who it is who has the cancer. I concur. HalfShadow 03:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Massive issues at WP:NOR talk page

Centering over this non-consensus change [56] to the policy. There's a lot of bitching back and forth on the talk page, but they're arguing there is a "consensus" to modify a 5-pillars policy, with less than a handful of people discussing. It's getting entirely incivil, and it'd be nice to get some outside attention.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

For reference, part of the proposed change: "4. If doubt exists over whether something is original research, consider the overall necessity to the article. If there is a consensus that article suffers significantly without it, put it in (see WP:IAR.)" ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Continued Vandalism

An individual from IP address 67.72.98.82 has been vandalizing pages since his/her last block.

I don't see anything only one recent edit, you can feel free to warn them with warning templates, such as {{test1}} etc. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 06:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

12-year-old user?

While on vandal/username patrol, I spotted this on the talk page of new user Mooshka28 (talk · contribs):

She shouldn't be using this site; she's too young as of yet--can someone take a look? Blueboy96 15:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless there's user-conduct problems, users of all ages are welcome on Wikipedia. 75.62.7.22 15:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I can name quite a few users in good standing who are "underage" as you call it. All users are welcome to edit wikipedia, regardless of their age. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 15:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Users of all ages are welcome on Wikipedia as long as they can edit responsibly. That this particular user is not, by reason of age, automatically too young is reflected in the fact that I recently nominated an editor of the same age for administrator status. However, it is also clear that this particular young editor is revealing far too much personal identifying information online (see generally, WP:CHILD and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy). I have removed the information and counseled her accordingly. Newyorkbrad 16:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Young users should not be banned from Wikipedia. If they were, I wouldn't be typing this now. However, this user is disclosing personal information which is a violation of WP:CHILD, as Brad said. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 16:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Young users should not be banned from Wikipedia because sometimes they have a lot of knowledge to give out to Wikipedia and can edit responsibly. On the other case, if one person has created an account to impersonate an underage person solely to harass Wikipedians, then that one person should be immediately banned. Probably this user is nieve about Wikipedia (like many other newcomers) and we should assume good faith because who knows if she could learn from her mistakes or not?--PrestonH^{(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!)} 17:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

NO one seemed to be calling for a ban, but for attention, which NYB has taken care of. Nothing more to see here. ThuranX 17:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"She shouldn't be using this site; she's too young as of yet" would suggest more than attention. Also does someone want to remove the personal information above? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I blanked the quote. I think that should be sufficient unless anyone wants to oversight it. Wouldn't recommend anyone trying to delete and restore ANI without those revisions. Wikipedia might just stop. Will (aka Wimt) 17:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose bannage. According to my innacurate estimates, there are about 100 000 regular editors younger than she is that edit constructively and do not violate policy and do not vandalise wikipedia and therefore should not be banned. I also estimate, innacurately of course, that among those 100 000 editors, about 200 of those are administrators. (Cute 1 4 u was banned because she did not regularly make good edits, I am assuming, so she is not within the 100 000 I mentioned) I also estimate that, innacurately of course, that there are about 150 000 constructive editors 13 and under, 350 000 constructive editors 18 and under, 500 000 constructive editors 25 and under, 1 000 000 constructive editors 50 and under, and about 1 500 000 constructive editors total, out of about 5 000 000 users (including editless and anons). Also I estimate 75 000 constructive editors 10 and under, 20 000 constructive editors 7 and under, and 800 constructive editors 3 and under, innaccurate of course. Also, WP:CHILD did not reach consensus. Thanks. – AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?)} 17:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Chill mate - I don't think anyone here would be in favour of banning this user or any other minor on account of their age. What is sensible though is to remove excess personal details as has been done here. No point taking unnecessary risks in that regard. Will (aka Wimt) 18:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling Blueboy thought that COPPA applied on Wikipedia (if it did then we would probably have to disable anon editing and make new users give their birthdate and deny registration to those under 13). "Most of the terms of COPPA apply only to websites and organizations operated for commercial purposes and usually exempt recognized non-profit organizations." (taken from the article). But administrators do remove personal information made public. Funpika 18:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

@TekWiz/R: Just to clarify, WP:CHILD is an essay, not a guideline or policy. Anchoress 00:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The ArbCom ruling upon which the essay is based is an official ruling and must be followed. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 02:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that actually true? Anchoress 02:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The arbcom ruling, yes, but not WP:CHILD or any other formulation of the proposal yet written. The arbcom ruling says that issues are to be dealt with case-by-case (common practice being to tell them to take down the information) and that it would be nice if we actually could write a policy on the matter, but that is about it. --tjstrf talk 02:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That is absolutely true, but we should also bear in mind that the portion of the proposal suggesting deletion of personal identifying information posted by under-13 users has pretty widespread support, and was endorsed to an extent by the ArbCom decision I cited. Newyorkbrad 00:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Were you replying to me NYB? If so, I agree, but so what? Anchoress 02:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief, I am not an expert on 12-year-old girls, but I'd guess this is more likely a prank than autobiographical revelation. Whether it was intended at our expense or that of the named adolescent, who knows/cares... —freak(talk) 18:20, May. 5, 2007 (UTC)

BAN HER!! BAN HER!! *runs off giggling like a schoolgirl*--293.xx.xxx.xx 04:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It could be used as an excuse by vandals in the future. "My little brother was on my wikipedia account" blah. Bulldog123 11:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What is it with us and children? There was a vandalized article on here last week that people refused to link to because *ahem* the subject is underage. Does that make any sense? Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism in M113 Armored Personnel Carrier by anon user

The article M113 Armored Personnel Carrier oftens gets vandalized by an anon user whom I have reason to believe is the same person due to the nature of content that is added. Most recently, this user has used the IP address 24.214.146.99. Would it be possible to only allow edits on that page by registered users to make the process a little more difficult for the vandal? --Edward Sandstig 00:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

They haven't made any more edits for some time now. If they come back, you might want to request a block on the IP or a semi-protect on the page. bibliomaniac15 00:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This also looks a lot like a content dispute--VectorPotential^Talk 01:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a separate board to report vandals? AlexanderPar 08:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is, but the problem here is that one individual keeps editing multiple articles across Wikipedia to further his own agenda. His last changes were a few days ago, so I decided I'd ask here first. --Edward Sandstig 15:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I Agree with Vector Potential -- to an outsider, this looks more like a content dispute than vandalism. The three revert rule prohibits multiple back-and-forth changes, but that doesn't seem to have happened here either. Try asking the individual to supply sources for the statement. Best, --Shirahadasha 13:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Would it be considered a content dispute if I was openly campaigning to rename the M16 as the "Peashooter" for example, then decided to log onto Wikipedia and replace all instances of M16 in multiple articles with "M16 Peashooter"? Doing that, wouldn't I be using Wikipedia to push my own agenda and effectively making the term "M16 Peashooter" the de facto term through common usage? --Edward Sandstig 15:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Only if the population of M16 Peashooters triples. Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

User:ParthianShot

• Note - Many links have been commented in this discussion because a website has been blacklist at meta. Please view section in edit mode to see the links. - Aksi_great (talk) 10:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I came across ParthianShot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) when I had blocked him some time back. After going through his contributions I saw that he had uploaded many images from a website called . is the website of the "Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies" at "School of Oriental and African Studies" at the University of London. All the images were properly linked to the site and the site had the appropriated GFDL message at the bottom of the page. So far so good.

But digging a bit deeper, it looks like ParthianShot may have knowingly uploaded copyrighted images and inserted copyvios in wikipedia articles. The CAIS is nothing but a forum or group at the SOAS. By their own admission the website is no longer related to the school. . In fact, the website is run by a person called Shapour Suren-Pahlav.

This site has repeatedly been identified as hosting copyvio and plagiarised material, as well as some pseudo-scholarly fringe stuff written by its owner. Much of its content is articles mirrored from "Encyclopedia Iranica" (a respectable scholarly resource, but copyrighted). Others have apparently been plagiarised from other sources. Here's a complaint on the web: [58], [59], [60], [61]. Here's another fishy case, about an image that was first stolen by Wikipedia from a third-party site, then stolen from Wikipedia together with its article by CAIS, then borrowed back into Wikipedia as allegedly copyrighted and released by CAIS.

The way the images are uploaded is identical. ParthianShot claims to have corresponded with Shapour Suren-Pahlav. The webpage adds a note about the correspondence at the bottom of the page. See bottom of . ParthianShot claims to be Khodayar Bahrami and has vigorously denied being Shapour Suren Pahlav, the owner of the CAIS site. He has also vigorously defended its value as a source and external link.

But ParthianShot is not his original account name. He was earlier called Surena and got his name changed. Surena was an identified sockpuppeteer. See the case at RfCU here. There is more. One of his sock accounts, oddly, was named User:Shapour SP, i.e. obviously "Shapour Suren Pahlav". The website has been linked to as an EL or source, or a source of images, in a huge lot of Wikipedia articles: [62]. Most of these links have been inserted by User:ParthianShot/Surena. Both accounts also made many edits to the article "Suren-Pahlav Clan" [63]. Surena/ParthianShot has also on some occasions uploaded images described as authored by "Shapour Suren-Pahlav" and simultaneously as "pd-self" or "gfdl-self", and later "corrected" that license description. See for example Image:Suren-Pahlav.JPG Uploaded 25 December 2006 by User:Zoroastrian, one of the confirmed socks of Surena/ParthianShot. The licensing disclaimer notes User:Zoroastrian as author of the work.

In light of all this evidence I conclude that ParthianShot is none other than Shapour Suren-Pahlav who runs the website cais. The website has committed copyvios which are being subtely inserted into wikipedia through bogus emails exchanged being the "two" people. So I propose that we delete all the images uploaded by the user and possibly blacklist the external link to the website so that no more copyright violations are inserted into wikipedia. Action must also be taken against ParthianShot a.k.a. Shapour SP. Maybe a long block for trying to deceive wikipedia and violating out image upload rules is in order. - Aksi_great (talk) 07:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, it may be suspicious, and yet I see no conclusive evidence that connects the two. Bear in mind that Shapour is common name in Persian speaking countries, Suren Pahlav is the name of historic clan, and Shapour Suren Pahlav is a historic figure that walked on this earth about 2000 years ago. Many people pick their usernames based on their heroes' names. AlexanderPar 08:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

  Yes. I do understand that people do use usernames based on heroes, but in this case the evidence is too strong. A user who has used a sock called Shapour SP inserting links, using images and corresponding regularly with the owner of a website also called Shapour SP. Also consider that there are 507 (!) links to the CAIS website from wikipedia. Most of them added by PS. Surely the evidence is too strong. - Aksi_great (talk) 09:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

  Aksi is citing as evidence of wrong-doing by CAIS, and as we can see CAIS had corrected the error a long time ago . ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 13:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Regardless of the names involved, it looks like Aksi_great has uncovered enough evidence to call into question any copyright claimed by CAIS. The safest thing to do, in my opinion, would be to delete the lot of the CAIS images -- Samir 09:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• It is obvious that Aksi have taken this matter quite personally [64], [65], [66]! Aksi has banned me unfairly [67] for only "ONE RV" - then he went further and falsely accused me of sockpuppetry [68] – his accusation confirmed to be false [69] and the extension was overturned [70]. It is quite evident that Aksi is being influenced by his compatriots Fullstop as was observed by MediaLady [71], [72]. It is quite sad to experience an Admin has taken resolute to these kind of childish behaviours. However, I am not the SSP as he falsely claims, and as I have advised Aksi before if he has any concerns regarding CAIS he should take it to them directly [73]! Nonetheless, after studying Aksi’s contributions, apparently he is also in direct contact with Behnam! Behnam who is also perusing my presence here [74] had discussion with Aksi in past about me [75], [ ], has recently deleted my contributions, interestingly Aksi has also left a tag [76] on one the images in question that Behnam has already objected [77] – however there no record of any discussion about this between these two in any of the discussion pages – but all of sudden Aksi places a tag there similar to Behnam's concern! This demonstrates that Aksi and Behnam are also in direct contact with each other outside Wikipedia! In any case, in CAIS defence, it is a respectable website, and contrary to Aksi claim of they “stealing” articles from other sources, in this case Wikipedia is guilty as charged too! However, how do we know that they have published their “mirrored articles” as Aksi put it without permission from the poriginal source – and also at the bottom of their WebPages all the source is being mentioned, or by clicking on the name of the authors! Number of contributors here such as those Islamic Fundamentalists namely “Behnam” as well as well as Zoroastrian orthodox namely “Fullstop” are opposing CAIS because, it exposes the destruction of pre-Islamic sites by the Islamic Regime , , etc, and also advocates conversion to Zoroastrianism – and unfortunate Aksi blindly has fallen to their tarp, and his naivety got the worst in him! Nonetheless, I believe Aksi should be investigated for breaching the Wikipedia rules and regulations – he is obviously having private email exchanges with other users namely Fullstop, The Behnam and possibly more. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 09:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure whether you understand the issue, ParthianShot. Despite your claim that CAIS is a respectable website, Aksi has uncovered evidence that some of the material on this website is of questionable copyright. This really calls into question the copyright of CAIS images that are uploaded onto Wikipedia under GFDL, as one cannot trust CAIS's assertion that these images are licensed under GFDL. -- Samir 09:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I do appreciate your concerns, but how do we know that the images from CAIS are copyvio as being claimed by "Aksi, Fullstop and Behnam triangle"? ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 09:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Aksi identified 3 separate issues with cais-soas.com and copyright: mirroring Encyclopedia Iranica, the plagiarism of the article as mentioned on public.kubsu.ru, and the Babak image. In my opinion, that is enough to call into question the copyright of anything uploaded onto Wikipedia from cais-soas.com. We do not assume good faith on issues of image copyright; if there is a question that an image claimed to be GFDL licensed is not free use, it needs to be deleted -- Samir 10:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

        This is the problem with ParthianShot. Whenever I try to engage him in a discussion about the images he has uploaded he either tells me to write to he website or comes up with silly conspiracy theories. I have already said that I was reviewing the images uploaded by you. That is why I came across that image without a source. Now he is saying that just because the bottom of their website mentions source, they are not violating copyrights. Also, please do not call wikipedia editors Islamic Fundamentalists. Please see WP:NPA. You will be blocked the next time you say something like that. - Aksi_great (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

        • Please spare me playing innocent card here - You have never tried to engage in any discussion with me; only thing that you have done so far were false accusations and unfair block which was later overturned! ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 12:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

          I don't know what you call this then. - Aksi_great (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

PS. Aksi claims that after a painstaking investigation and studying my contributions, he concluded that me and SSP are the same people – interesting to recall the same claim by Aksi’s friend, Fullstop who accused of the same in past [78]. This is another evidence for private contact between these two, and Aksi receiving instruction form his compatriot friend! ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 10:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a final warning to you. Please do not bring my nationality into question. If you cannot reply to my accusations without bringing my nationality and others religions into question then please don't write anything. - Aksi_great (talk) 10:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Aksi: Please do not evade the observation regarding your breach of Admin rights by manoeuvring and redirecting the dispute to different matters and showing yourself as a victim here – however, your nationality is NOT under question, BUT your evidential-affiliation with FullStop outside Wikipedia as well as your personal attacks on me and false accusations! ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 12:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the real-life identity of ParthianShot, the web site is a proven host of both pictures and text in violation of others' copyrights, and deceptively posts a GFDL license statement. As such, I would not object to a de facto blacklisting of text and photos hosted on that web site. Thatcher131 15:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Thatcher - Two things - 1. as I asked you before [79] on what bases you are claiming that CAIS is in violation of others' copyrights? Please provide us with your evidence -- I hope you realize that accusation and assumption are easy to declare, providing proof is totally different matter, as you have experienced in recent case [80] with MedianLady. 2. Also I hope your judgment in this case is not being colluded with our previous dispute [81]. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 16:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

ParthianShot, you appear to have got it the wrong way round. Aski great has shown above that there is a significant reason to doubt the copyright information at CAIS. It is not up to Thatcher131 or anyone else to prove that these images are a violation of copyright, it is up to you as the uploader to prove that they are not in violation. Until that time it would seem sensible to me to remove the potentially offending material. Will (aka Wimt) 18:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Dear Will - First, thank you for your mature and civil behaviour. Second, with all due respect, I have not got it wrong at all - I do not wish to go through it again about Aksi’s irresponsible and reckless behaviour, as I'm sure you can observe the above entries. His problem is not the images, but it is with me - just please observe his latest action ([82]) as he deleted all my contributions! Do you still thing it is all about the images? ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 18:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Here's one more image which clearly shows that these images do not belong to CAIS - Image:Khomeini 78.jpg. I don't think they could have obtained such a nice image of Khomeini. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • How do you know that they don't have the permission for its distribution, or they may have copied from a journal which has no copyright? Can you prove otherwise? Anyhow in your case is too late - wait for Wiki management to decide about your faith! ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 18:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Read my comment above, ParthianShot. If it is copied from a journal that has no copyright, it is up to you as the uploader to prove this fact. It is not up to Aski great to prove otherwise. Will (aka Wimt) 18:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Dear Will - I have and replied to your comment. However, CAIS has not proven to be in the breach of any copyvios, asnd as far as academia concerns it is a reputable and scholarly source of info about pre-Islamic Iran. However, it is Aksi who alleges that it is copyvio - so my question is where is the proof for his allegations?← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 18:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Just a note that I have removed the images from the articles pending some more information from ParthianShot. But it looks like he isn't in any mood to add sources or address the real issue here about possible copyvios. I asked him to mention the source of some images uploaded by him and not attributed to the cais website. All those images also look like copyvios to me as they are strikingly similar to the cais images also uploaded by ParthianShot. But he won't give me a source till I show him the words in a policy that will compel him to give more information about the images. Can someone clarify our policy to him here. It may be too late for me now that he has complained to wiki management about me. :) - Aksi_great (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Aksi - you are not truthful again! I ahve left this message in your talkpage [83]: (Show me a Wikipedia policy that requires that the contributor of an image should come up with a ...short description of how and where you took the photographs.., and then I will provide you with. Don't make on your law! ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 17:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)) - so where is that Wikipedia policy? ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 18:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:HomaDarabi.jpg Example of hodood punishment in Islamic-Iran: This women was given 50 lashes for violating Islamic Sharia Law.

I think User:ParthianShot does upload images which are useless and frankly offensive to a large group of editors in wikipedia. One example is the folowing image. As you know there are thousands of propaganda unreliable websites around. This image is uploaded from one such unreliable propaganda website. The image can be very well a forgery. It claims the following story:"This picture was sent to Dr. Homa Darabi from a woman in Iran.This picture was taken 20 days after she was lashed fifty times for being present at a family gathering where men other than her father and brother were present. Her crime? She is a single woman. It is forbidden for women to be present under the same roof with men other than their close relatives (father, brother and son) without proper hijab."- This image is not useful in wikipedia as it comes from a non-reliable blog with certain motivations. Further, the copyright status of the image is not established."

Now, of course women do have problems in Iran(that's beyond dispute) but as someone who has lived in Iran, I can say safely that such a story feels completely unrealistic and ridiculous. First of all, Islamic Hudud prescribes punishment only for the five crimes of unlawful intercourse, false accusation of unlawful intercourse, drinking wine, theft, and highway robbery. It says nothing about "proper covering". The subtitle of the image: "Example of hodood punishment in Islamic-Iran" is written by somebody who doesn't know much about Islam hudud, but with a desire to spread false anti-Islam information. Secondly, this story is completely unrealistic: If somebody goes out with a very improper hijab in the public(right now the standards of proper hijab are very low as compared to the early years of revolution), then of course someone may arrest her. BUT here we have a woman who have been "present at a family gathering". This is something inside family and to have a family member lash her for 50 times is Sadism and lack of human dignity. This story is only proper for those propagandist websites. It is no "Example of hodood punishment in Islamic-Iran". Those users who upload these offensive pictures in wikipedia disrupt wikipedia. --Aminz 20:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Your point may be valid. Do note that the images license is under question. So I'm changing the display to a plain link. - Aksi_great (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Aksi personal attacks and abusing of his admin rights

I hereby wish to draw everyone's attention to Aksi's vandalism by removing all of my contributions [84] for no reason from Wikipedia pages! He has been in breach of his admin privileges in past, and he is continuing to do so as discussed above [85]. I already have submitted an official complain to Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia management for his act of vandalism and breach of his admin rights. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 17:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Umm... which admin rights would that be? For everyone else, please read this post above. It is clear to me that instead of adding sources to images uploaded to him, this user prefers to sidetrack the issue by throwing around accusations of bias. See his reply to Samir, me and Thatcher131 in the above post. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Please help Aksi clarify the copyright issues on these images as opposed to making unfounded allegations of vandalism based on his removal of spurious license tags -- Samir 17:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure Aksi needs all the help that he can get from his fellow Admins - but before doing so, ask yourselves is it right thing do? Are you willing to put a price on your conscious - by defending wrong? ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 17:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but are you saying it is immoral (or, as you put it, not the "right thing do") to follow image copyright laws? --Kralizec! (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Kralizec - I never said that! I said support Aksi, if he is right, and do not support him just because he is one of the Admins! ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 18:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

His morals look entirely in order to me. While I don't question the sincerity of yours, I do question the results. Images with inadequate source information, particularly that appear to be copyright violations, may be speedily deleted per WP:CSD - David Gerard 18:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear David - I do appreciate your comments, but the problem is not the images - it is the force behind Aksi's actions - Aksi is in direct contact outside Wikipedia with another contributor who is in dispute with me. Please read the above [86]. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 18:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• That gets an official "so what" from me, I'm afraid. Inadequate source info on images is an unambiguous speedy delete, we do it hundreds if nto thousands of times daily. Persistent offenders get the Wikitrout. This is perfectly normal, and a rational response to the fact that some people either don't understand or don't accept that copyright abuse can get us sued into oblivion. Guy (Help!) 18:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec.) Hm, from what I've gathered so far I'm not sure what the problem about the alleged back-channel communication is supposed to be. Even if it were true - in the present case, I think that might actually be quite wise, as it avoids dragging around publicly the name of a real-world person, Sh. S.-P., in the context of rather embarrassing copyvio and plagiarism accusations. Isn't that in everybody's best interest? - By the way, ParthianShot, I do wonder now, instead of questioning other people's motives, why don't you just explain to us (1) why you had a sockpuppet under the name of Sh. S.-P., (2) why you uploaded images that you first said were your own and then said were by Sh. S.-P., and (3) why you now claim you are not Sh. S.-P.? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

FutPerf - Admins are part of Wikipedia system and therefore Wikipedia has legal obligations to observe legality here! Therefore, thank you for giving me the idea of informing CAIS about Wikipedia’s slanders and accusations of plagiarism and theft. Thanks again - your assistance is greatly appreciated! :) ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 05:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note - ParthianShot has now been indef blocked by User:Alkivar for making legal threats against me. - Aksi_great (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

More evidence

• Hmm, I notice somebody has indef-blocked ParthianShot for making legal threats. Just for the record, here's a few more apparent copyright issues on CAIS that I found on a very casual browsing through the site:
  • CAIS: . Source: [87], ("All rights reserved")
  • CAIS: . Source: [88]. No assertion or evidence of permission.
  • CAIS: , creditecd to H. E. Wulff, Scientific American, April 1968, p.94 - 105. No assertion or evidence of permission.
  • CAIS: . Credited to: "FEZANA journal, Winter 1994". No assertion or evidence of permission.
  • CAIS: . No author or source attribution. From [89], a text credited to "Funk & Wagnalls® New Encyclopedia. © 2006 World Almanac Education Group. A WRC Media Company. All rights reserved. Except as otherwise permitted by written agreement, uses of the work inconsistent with U.S. and applicable foreign copyright and related laws are prohibited."
  • CAIS: . no credits to the translator of the ancient text. Same translation also in other places on the web, e.g. [90]. Source unknown.
  • CAIS: , from Wikipedia article Ancient_Azari_language (authored in this edit: [91]), no attribution.
  • CAIS: , from [92]. No assertion or evidence of permission. Used as source for Wikipedia article Bartangi_language by ParthianShot. Same source as the following:
  • CAIS: , from [93].
  • CAIS: , from [94].
  • CAIS: , from [95]
  • CAIS: . Same text as in [96] and elsewhere on the web. Ultimate source unknown.
  • CAIS: , apparently from [97], written by Karine Megerdoomian. Some parts have also been used in Wikipedia, e.g. paragraph on "word boundaries" in Persian_alphabet

Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The evidence is very strong. I have already deleted all images uploaded from the website. I think it is time to get the site blacklisted, or atleast not use it as a primary source anywhere. - Aksi_great (talk) 10:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like it. Maybe somebody should notify editors who work in that domain, over at the Wikipedia:Iranian Wikipedians' notice board perhaps, so that everybody will know what's going on when all those links are going to begin to vanish. In many cases, content sourced to CAIS might be salvagable by finding the original sources and using those. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, somebody has been transferring a number of CAIS images to commons. ([98]) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have already tagged those images and contacted a commons admin. There should not be any problem in the future as the site has been added to the meta blacklist. - Aksi_great (talk) 11:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Certified.Gangsta violating Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram

Resolved

User:Certified.Gangsta's Arbitration case has closed and the Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs) is now placed on revert parole. Certified.Gangsta is now forbidden to revert-war by arbitration case. See Certified.Gangsta's contributions, Certified.Gangsta's contributions since his ArbCom case ended were mass reverts and and personal attacks. Certified.Gangsta has now blatantly violated the ArbCom's final decision on many articles which, according to his ArbCom case "shall be enforced by blocks". Certified.Gangsta has violated his ArbCom restriction on over four articles. See here, here, here, and here. His latest ArbCom violation here. An administrator should enforce this flagrant violation of the Arbitration Committee's Final decision. Thanks. LionheartX 09:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I see that you are baiting him by blindly reverting his edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not baiting him. He is forbidden to revert-war by ArbCom. See his latest ArbCom violation here where a different editor reverted him. Anyways, the evidence is in the ArbCom case. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram. Thanks, LionheartX 09:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you both deserve to be blocked, certified.gangsta for revert warring and you for revert warring, disrupting the Wiki by spamming this report on every talk page you can find, and flagrant wikilawyering. Arbcom sanctions do not justify your actions in the slightest, since EVERYONE is forbidden to edit war by default. --tjstrf talk 09:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not "baiting him", Certified.Gangsta reverted my edits before I reverted them back. This is a blatant violation of ArbCom decisions and sets a dangerous precedent if not enforced. The fact is this: Certified.Gangsta is forbidden to revert war per his Arbitration case. I am not spamming this report, I am trying to find out the procedure for reporting a violation of ArbCom decisions. This is a flagrant violation of ArbCom Final decisions and should be enforced. All of the evidence of Certified.Gangsta's behavior is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram. Please enforce this ArbCom violation. Thanks. LionheartX 09:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[[99]] YOu recruited him. Sumple is also a Ideogram fanclub-guy in my arbCom case. His opinion is hardly neutral.--Certified.Gangsta 09:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Certified.Gangsta, your opinion, like many of your other opinions, is offensive, obnoxious, completely baseless, and defamatory. --Sumple (Talk) 04:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Certified.Gangsta is clearly misrepresenting the facts. This user reverted Certified.Gangsta's edit before that post was even made. In fact, the evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram speaks for itself. This is a flagrant violation of ArbCom decision. LionheartX 09:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Link to the actual diffs not the history, in the future. Regardless of who is under arbitration restrictions or not, you should not be inducing edit warring or edit warring yourself. Just because Certified.Gangsta is restricted by that ArbCom case does not give you free reign in reverting him because you two are in a dispute. You should be lucky that you are actually unblocked, as you had proclaimed that you were a sockpuppet, as Certified.Gangsta points out below. Right now, I agree with tjstrf that you should both be blocked; Certified.Gangsta for violating his arbitration restrictions, and yourself, LionheartX for generally being a dick to him and trying your best to drive him off of Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

LionheartX blocked for 48 hours for reasons stated above.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This is getting a bit ridiculous. LionheartX almost obsessive activity here has been, for months and under many usernames, to bait and edit war with Certified.Gangsta. He was previously blocked indefinitely by me after the umpteenth reincarnation, then allowed to use this account later after discussion on ANI (which I did not notice in time to comment). I would advise you to read this comment from the discussion [100] ("Any further disruptive behavior on his part (and massive spamming of admins' talk pages, which he did just now, is very close to being disruptive) will be the last straw."). His talk page discussion then, from [101] down, is also instructive. It's time to ban him for good. Dmcdevit·t 10:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the "last chance" message was from the one guy willing to let Lionheart back after his previous indef, and he's now engaged in the exact behaviour he was warned would lead to a re-ban, I would think that he's certainly hit the point of exhausting the community's patience. And his latest correspondence at User talk:LionheartX shows that he is either totally clueless as to why his behaviour is unacceptable (which I doubt is even humanly possible) or is simply refusing to acknowledge that he was wrong, hiding behind the wikilawyering "but arbcom!" diversionary tactic. So I agree with Dmcdevit that it's time we rectify the error of unbanning him. (In case anybody wishes to claim bias in this statement, I have no reason to support Certified.Gangsta whatsoever.) --tjstrf talk 10:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Provoking someone to violate ArbCom ruling, in order to get them blocked? That looks like plain disruption to me, and the fact that he doesn't eve know that what he's doing is wrong, just makes it worse. I'm leaning towards Dmcdevit's suggestion of a ban. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 10:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the ban. Full disclosure: I'm on friendly and somewhat mentoring terms with Certified.Gangsta, so I'm not entirely neutral here. On the other hand, I've had a good view of Lionheart's activities. I do think his last chances have all been spent. Bishonen | talk 11:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Would you prescribe a similar ban for Certified? Because I can't work out which of them started it, and I've been more involved with both of them than most people. They've both been blocked for 48 hours. I suggest leaving it at that for now. If either of them repeats the behaviour, a 96 hour block will be applied and so on. It only takes a little longer than us "assuming" they won't learn and skipping straight to banning them, and it gives them the chance to learn. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be useful here to invoke the "Tu Quoque" principle of the recently closed arbitration:

Wikipedia editors are expected to adhere to policy regardless of the behavior of those they are in disputes with; inappropriate behavior by others does not legitimize one's own.

Passed 7 to 0, 20:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This would tend to support the idea of an even-handed approach. --Tony Sidaway 11:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong blocked Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours for violating his revert parole and LionheartX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 48 hours for baiting Certified.Gangsta. Editors under ArbCom sanction are not caged animals you can poke sticks at. However. CG needs to bring his problems to dispute resolution first, rather than revert, if he is going to have any chance to reform himself. Thatcher131 16:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to propose banning LionheartX and Certified Gangsta (and all their alias') from the Culture of Taiwan page. They, and probably their socks, have been using the page as a location to spar, which is disruptive to my own work on the page and their participation on the page has resulted in little or no contribution to the quality of the material on the page. The only movement has been tit for tat reverts. I would really not like to get in the middle of this war for fear of becoming a target for their animosity. I would really like to be left working with good, NPOV contributors who are not pushing an agenda or looking for a fight. If you are working on a page where they are warring, they follow your edits and it spreads like a virus, making good people upset and interfereing in the community-wide goal of improving Wikipedia for the better.Maowang 13:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Using anonymity to evade the consequences of breaches of wp:civ?

On May 4th and May 5th I got two notices from User talk:72.75.73.158, that they had placed speedy delete tags on two articles I had recently started. [102], [103].

I left them a note, on their talk page today. In my note I urged them to start using a wiki-id. I didn't notice that they had already offered a couple of explanations for why they chose not to use a wiki-id. I think a fair paraphrase of thei explanation would be:

"I don't use a wiki-id because I am unwilling or unable to comply with the wikipedia's policy on civility.

I took a look at User:72.75.73.158's User page. I find their note disturbing. They seem to think they can absolve themselves of responsibility for the tagging of articles for speedy deletion. In their opinion the responsibility for the deletion lay with the administrator whom completed the speedy deletion process.

Surely the person who placed the tag should feel responsible for {{db}} tags they place?

User:72.75.73.158 acknowledges making dozens of speedy deletion nominations, per day, and obfuscating their responsibility behind using an anonymous IP.

Unlike other wikis the wikipedia allows contrbutions from anonymous IP addresses. I thought it was so posible contributors could contribute, even if they lived in a totalitarian country — not so they could evade the consequences of an unwillingness or inability to comply with the wikipedia's policies.

Cheers! Geo Swan 17:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a week - David Gerard 18:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding block? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

No ... just housekeeping. :-) —68.239.79.82 (talk · contribs) 20:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The obvious answer to the "avoiding block?" question is yes, however it appears that an admin "supporter" arranged for an un-block [104]. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You say that as if it were a Bad Thing. (Isn't blocking an IP kind of like herding cats? :-) —68.239.79.82 08:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

When I see an unnecessary block on Wikipedia, I will naturally object to it. That's what I did in this situation. Nishkid64 (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

SpyMagician

SpyMagician has harassed me for months, and now that he smells blood, he has continues again, unabated. I would appreciate other editors' taking a look at SpyMagician's edits and examining whether the way he is handling my situation is appropriate. It may be, for all I know, but, well, I'm a little too close to the situation to make judgment calls. SpyMagician's other edits might need to be looked at as well, particularly his restoration of unreferenced POV and OR to articles, including his restoration of his mainly unreferenced biography. He has tried to bully me on Wikipedia and off for a while now, and I would prefer not to see others to have to deal with the same from him. It is because of users like this that I created an alternate account, and while I have admitted my ethical wrongdoing and accepted my punishment, this editor is not satisfied and wants to make me suffer more. Currently, I simply would like to be irrelevant to discussion on Wikipedia so I won't feel like I should be available to discussion on the subject and can just go away for a while. I may just have to regardless, but I would prefer some sense of closure before I leave. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I would personally support a block for haressment, even it's just for the past few days editing, just look at his contribs. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I would also endorse a block. SpyMagician's conduct is extremely inappropriate (see Special:Contributions/SpyMagician). Sean William 19:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've just noted in a thread higher on the page a comment from this user that I found to be objectionable. Frankly, I would very much prefer that we not have to block, because the block would be misportrayed as "administrators banding together to shield one of their former colleagues from criticism." I would much prefer to see SpyMagician take a deep breath, accept that he's made his point, and continue editing in accordance with our standards. Here's hoping that can happen. Newyorkbrad 20:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

He said earlier on today, on ChrisO's talk page, that he'd give it a rest, but less than an hour ago he was still at it. He may need some help to give it a rest. By the way, what on earth is wrong with administrators banding together and protecting one of their former colleages from this kind of personal attack? --Tony Sidaway 20:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tony here, everyone disapointed by what Chris Griswold did, but he's received his punishment for it, the only person not willing to forget this is SpyMagician, he's been warned on his talk page, yet he continues the harassment, a block would hopefully put an end to this. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to AGF to the maximum benefit of the doubt, given the discussion on my talk, but having seen that SpyMagician has brought this issue to yet another page (the talkpage of the checkuser case), I am running a little lower on patience. Newyorkbrad 20:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Reading this comment on Bishonen's talk page and this comment elsewhere, I'm finding it hard to believe that this isn't just trolling. It certainly looks like that to me. -- ChrisO 20:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've just blocked for 48 hours, hopefully this will stop the trolling. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

User has posted a request for an unblock review. My comments are above and on his talk. Newyorkbrad 20:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, I've unblocked per concerns that my block may have been punitive, maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but spy's behaviour should stop immediately. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it was punitive, maybe a little premature, but as I said above hopefully the bad behavior will stop, and that's what we need. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope SpyWizard's behavior does stop immediately, but experience suggests to me that this will probably not end soon. --Tony Sidaway 21:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Schadenfraude isn't ever sexy. I've had problems with ChrisG for a long time, but I think that kicking him while down is definitely incivil and childish, and given the extent of his commentary, and his persistence, Should Spymagician be blocked for inciv violations? ThuranX 21:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I could swear that of the little interaction we've had over the past few months or so, it's been cordial, and I vaguely rememebr supporting you in something. I'd like to discuss this with you because any criticism I had before with the way you carried yourself here faded away as your edits, as well as your understanding and maintenance of Wikipedia, improved greatly long ago. Any disagreements I was involved in prior to that were mainly due to my work in maintaining the Comics WikiProject, and as such I was usually drawn to such conflicts after they had started by the comics notice board. Anyway, I will be e-mailing you if you have that feature activated; if not, please do e-mail me so that we can put all that behind us and work together as we have more recently. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for a block, having had to bear the brunt of Spy's trolling further up the page (the comment NYB quoted was directed at me and Thebainer, I believe). Daniel Bryant 01:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I want to thank the admins for unblocking me. That said, if what I did was considered trolling, my apologies. I feel I would deserve a block or even a banning. But was not even given a notice in any way and only found out about this ANI after the ban was in place. I'm not too sure how I feel about this, but in the efforts of moving forward I accept responsibility for whatever ills I might have caused in the methods I used, and I apologize. But I would like to say one thing in my defense regarding the initial post of this ANI. He has tried to bully me on Wikipedia and off for a while now, and I would prefer not to see others to have to deal with the same from him. The claim that I have bullied him off if Wikipedia is a bold-faced lie. I will say that today I did contact him via MySpace once prior to the ANI, and then once after the ANI. But that is it. The image he portrays of me stalking him in the real world for months on end is simply false. It is because of users like this that I created an alternate account I don't know what to say about this, but somehow Wikipedia—and even this specific discussion—is filled with editors who do not choose to create shadow accounts to deal with others. To blame me—or anyone—for individual behavior is really sad. And that's all I will say about this. And as this ANI discussion as my witness, let this be the last thing I ever have to say about this matter. Unless the ex-admin in question does something heinously egregious, I will not comment on day-to-day transactions with regard to this user. And if we do cross paths, I will stick to the topic at hand and not expand beyond that. 'Nuff said, Excelsior! —SpyMagician 02:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I turned message notification off on Myspace, so I wasn't aware of these messages until reading this. If anyone is interested in seeing the type of messages I get from this editor off-Wikipedia, contact me and I will send you the text. I'd like to think otherwise, but I'm pretty certain this will continue. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Chris, at first you said He has tried to bully me on Wikipedia and off for a while now, and I would prefer not to see others to have to deal with the same from him. which is an outright lie. You know very well I never contacted you off of Wikipedia before today. Now you say I turned message notification off on Myspace, so I wasn't aware of these messages until reading this. So that really seals the deal. Please do me a favor and realize that I welcome you to share these messages with anyone you see fit. But please do not use these messages as evidence of me stalking you for months. You know that's a lie and exaggeration yet you stand by it despite your own words contradicting yourself. This issue will end when you too Chris end it. And at least I have been honest about my communicatons; so much so you have chosen to use my words against you. Your facts speak otherwise. Is there a way this ANI can be locked so the issue can truly be put to rest? —SpyMagician 07:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The article HD DVD Code

Resolved

I believe that this is illegal material and should get deleted immediately. Darkspots 23:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

No. See the massive amount of discussion at WP:AN and elsewhere. Grandmasterka 23:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

He wasn't talking about deleting the article AACS encryption key controversy ; he was talking about the redirect itself, HD DVD Code, which I deleted and Asterion recreated as such. See the deleted history. Picaroon (Talk) 23:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. In any case, it seems to have been resolved. Grandmasterka 23:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to make it clear that Picaroon is correct and that I wanted the short, new article that's now a redirect to have the illegal content deleted out of its history, which he and Asterion have taken care of. I think that AACS encryption key controversy is a fine article, and I relied on its statement that the number was "illegal" in making this request. Thanks. Darkspots 17:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring over unsourced images

At Image:DerSturmer stand.jpg and Image:OctopusNAS1.jpg. Sent to WP:PUI as a compromise, please keep it there.

It helps to remember two things:

• Stuff from That Era is important but unfortunately still under copyright
• When uploading historical photographs a website isn't a source. A link to the archive or institution that has the negatives is.

Dr Zak 05:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Stuff from That Era is most often not under copyright. Take the Octopus image: the latest date it could have been published is 1948. It doesn't appear to have a copyright notice on it, so it probably was not copyrighted. But if we nevertheless assume that it was, it would have been for 28 years. That would take us to 1976. For there to be a copyright on the cartoon today, there would have had to have been a renewal in 1976. Does anyone seriously believe that Seppla renewed his (postulated) copyright in 1976??? - Nunh-huh 05:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a centralized database where it can be determined if a copyright from that era was renewed, and, if so, is that database available online, or would a check have to be done in person? Crotalus horridus 06:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused? I thought that things were copyright by default and no notice is necessary. In Europe anyway. You don't have to register something as copyrighted, it just is. Also, where is the 28 years coming from for copyright length?-Localzuk^(talk) 11:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. In Europe the copyright term is the standard 70 years after the death of the author. (By the way, the tag went away again, could someone keep an eye on it) Dr Zak 12:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If we don't know the originator of a picture and cannot determine its copyright status, then unless there is an overpowering justification for its use we should delete it. --Tony Sidaway 11:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what the copyright status is, there is no reason why images should be exempt from the verifiability policy. About the only picture that really really everyone knows is the Mona Lisa; everything else needs an attribution line. Nothing but good form. Dr Zak 12:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The banned user NisarKand

Resolved

User blocked and where possible, contributions were reverted back to the last version prior to RavinBill editing.-- Nick ^t 08:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The banned User:NisarKand is back as RavinBill (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) as confirmed by user-check. [105] Would an admin please block the sock-puppet and revert his contributions? --Mardavich 08:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Fake secure server?

I have been asked to sign in to Wikipedia via a secure server but I then get a message warning me that the secure server may be a fake. Can you explain please? 86.21.225.104 08:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Wikimedia's https servers use a certificate whose root authority is not trusted by default in IE. You can trust the root (cacert.org) and the issue will probably go away. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Verdict

Resolved

 – Blocked by Riana. – Riana_ऋ 11:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The banned user User:Verdict has recently been using sockpuppets to ask for the Brock Lesnar article to be unprotected. [106][107][108] Just hours after I placed an editprotected request on the article's talk page, the guy made a new account I ll Nino0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and started editing the temporary page. I have no doubts that the user is Verdict, especially after making his own version on his user talk page (with images from his Commons socks, which I have sorted out now over there). Could somebody please sort this out? Thanks in advance. -- Oakster  Talk   10:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. – Riana_ऋ 10:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou. -- Oakster  Talk   11:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Request to block sockpuppet of banned editor

Resolved

 – Blocked by Phaedriel. – Riana_ऋ 11:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

LadyHawHaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as can be seen by the recent edits going over articles that I've reverted to due previous sockpuppets. Please block, thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Just in case anyone's not sure, the account was already tagged as a sockpuppet. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Another hacked admin account and site-wide vandalism

Hello, I was going to make an edit on Talk:Roman-Persian_Wars when I was confronted with a horrendously obscene image bearing the inscription Encyclopedia? My *ss. What is going on?! Iblardi 13:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

We had a compromised admin account that was used to put Tubgirl in the sitenotice, so it displayed on all pages on Wikipedia. I deleted the image, but who knows how many thousands of people saw it first ... Cyde Weys 13:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, which account was this? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The compromised account was Jiang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), by the way. It's been desysopped and indef-blocked. --Cyde Weys 13:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, coupling this with the AndyZ thing above, it seems like someone might be brute-force cracking passwords. It strains credibility that the two would independently lose it like that so close to each other. Anyway, thanks for the quick action. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would you need to brute-force crack it when the admin is using "password" as a password - he could be just trying that at random on admin accounts. --Fredrick day 13:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Could be; I was just assuming a dictionary crack (since we don't know what the password for Jiang's account was yet). Is there a logfile of login attempts somewhere? That'd tell us one way or the other. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Somebody needs to get a captcha up as soon as possible. Sean William 13:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is reaping what it sowed by not having any sensible anti-hacker policies. You should get five login attempts per every five minutes or something. --Cyde Weys 14:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Jiang (or the account hijacker) also deleted the main page, of course. Obviously, the sitenotice vandalism was far worse. —David Levy 14:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Support Cyde's suggestion. I mistype my username or password as much as the next mouse, but there needs to be a limit; after 5 or so failures, there should be a pleasant notice to go have a cup of tea for a while before trying again. Where is the place to go to gently suggest this as a priority to the developers? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

bugzilla:9816 —Cryptic 14:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Cyde's right. We need some limitations on the amount of times you can attempt to log in. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, with the caveat that it should not boot any logged in cookies (per not kicking out other users while actually cracking a different one). -- nae'blis 16:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• I should post that photo to every editor who drags out the tired old saw about adminship not being a big deal. I wonder how many hundreds (or even thousands) of readers that lost us. Kafziel ^Talk 14:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think this is still about adminship not being a big deal - but keeping your password secure is a seriously big deal. – Riana_ऋ 14:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk:My password is password!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! try it! just blanked Talk:Main Page - informative username and contributions...Moreschi ^Talk 14:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it.JordanZed 14:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser, anyone? Sean William 14:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

passwords

• Frederick has me thinking now. In the spirit of WP:IAR, I'm going to go through Wikipedia:List of administrators and turn the doorknobs on everybody there, just to make sure we don't get any more unpleasant surprises today. Apologies in advance; here's hoping I come up zeroes... -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, if you do, for god's sake don't announce the results here :) Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 14:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    • No offense, Bull, but realize unless you're a steward yourself, you're taking a risk without immediate benefit; I can see a steward or developer running a tool to see who's trying to log in to many admin accounts and finding - you. You might "muddy the waters" for the real vandal. Meanwhile, as Moreschi wrote, say you do find a weak admin account, what are you going to do about it? You can't block it, a compromised admin account can unblock themselves. You can't desysop it without being a steward. I guess you could make a list and send it an email to a developer or steward, but that would not solve the problem much faster than a developer or steward writing such a tool themselves... --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
      • If I found one, I was planning on changing the password to something less guess-able, and making THAT info accessible to a steward through e-mail. That said, your point about throwing up FUD is a good one, so I'll stop for now. It might be easier to run a bot to check this, anyway. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

A Long password is your friend! And they say paranoia is for the weak? ;) Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should start mailing SecurIDs to every new admin. :) Kafziel ^Talk 14:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears that both this case and the one with AndyZ are the results of weak passwords. Jiang has revealed that his cracked password was 'fuckyou' (probably a common choice for the lazy) and AndyZ password allegedly was 'password' (although we only have the word of the hijacker for that). So please all admins strengthen your passwords! Then we can start discussing elaborate technical solutions to this problem... --Bjarki 14:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

A simple immediate step we could take that does not involve going into people's accounts would be to drop a note about passwords onto every admin's talk page. 80% of the admins are active enough that they are likely to use WP within the next 48 hours. We could reduce the list of possibly vunerable accounts to just the semiactive, inactive and currently wikibreaking admins in short order. We should remember that not all admins watch these noticeboards. NoSeptember 15:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why immediate security has to be sacrificed for courtesy. Go 'into their accounts' (even though no one is actually looking at what their password is) now, clean up the supposed mess later. --Golbez 15:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh I have no problem going into accounts, I'm just saying that we can do both and in many cases let the admins fix their own accounts and limit the work that needs to be done by the rest of us to only those accounts that are not active right now. It will take some amount of time for the developers or anyone else to start running these checks anyway. NoSeptember 15:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that if any inactive admin accounts are weak, the password should be changed to prevent more of this mess. Two in 24 hours is nuts! (Even if only one is definitely compromised). Another option is to temporarily desysop any weak accounts until their passwords are changed. Radical? Yes. But we don't need anymore of this b.s. -- Flyguy649^talk_contribs 15:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

unblocks?

IN the light of this latest hijacking, what are peoles thoughts on BuickCenturyDriver's blocked status? I am inclined to unblock him - but I have been all along. Viridae^Talk 14:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Definitely not yet. Yes, it's established there is a vandal running around cracking weak admin passwords. It's not established that vandal is not BCD, and several checkusers believe it is. Let's let the checkusers slook at the evidence again. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The IP that hit Jiang's was not BuickCenturyDriver's nor the one that deleted the Main Page last night.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 14:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This one was clearly a copycat (compare the severity), and we should expect more. There are probably a hundred script kiddies trying right now. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 14:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicted)We definitely need to wait before anyone is unblocked. We have to sort everything out, first. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Jiang has been unblocked on the basis of his registered email address (which could easily have been changed). This is a fundamental mistake. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 14:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we should unblock BCD, at least it will offer a chance for an explanation and he can do little damage with his account. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, at a minimum, the checkuser evidence shows that all of Buick's recent edits and AndyZ's block of Ryulong came from the same IP within one minute of each other. The least incriminating explanation would be that Buick saw the main page go down, recreated it, then logged in to AndyZ's account (using the password given in the deletion log) and decided to play a prank on Ryulong. It would be nice if he would acknowledge this. He claims to be on wireless, however if another Wikipedia was using the same wireless connection then there would be multiple edits and users showing up in the checkuser. At a minimum I think a more forthcoming explanation is required. Thatcher131 14:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Errm Thatcher, you might want to double check I seem to recall him saying he was on a wired connection. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 16:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Claims wireless on his user talk page (fourth unblock request). So, conflicting stories too? He would not be the first proud vandal fighter caught creating his own vandalism. Thatcher131 16:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I would be inclined to leave him blocked for now. The potential harm to him from another day of block is even lower than the potential harm to us if he has bad intentions. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I say leave him blocked. He can still explain on his talk page if necessary. Kafziel ^Talk 14:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, what do people make of this? (It's in relation to a comment I made on IRC a few minutes ago...) Userpage has been deleted. – Riana_ऋ 14:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Obvious trolling.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 15:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. Would have done so myself, but the account is old-ish. – Riana_ऋ 15:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sri Lanka Tamils (native)

The sites should not be removed on the false claims that they are lies by the users. Admin. should be more vigiliance over this issues.Ramkupta 15:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an issue to be discussed at the article's talk page with the other editors rather than an incident requiring administrator attention. It seems you've made one edit (adding some external links), and then posted this message here. Give Wikipedia:Consensus a chance to develop. Sancho 15:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Complex vandalism by 83.206.63.250 (talk · contribs · logs)

83.206.63.250 (talk · contribs · logs) has repeatedly changed MDS America against consensus. (See the first history page of MDS America for 11 edits by this IP). See his Talk page for warnings for his past activities. We believe that this editor is Jean-Claude Ducasse, who is an official of the MDS International company. For general background on this case see the entry for MDS International at the conflict of interest noticeboard. At one time we were planning to cite him for making legal threats, but this was postponed in the interests of diplomacy. (The problem was entered at AN/I, and all the legal threat pointers are included in the nominator's statement in the successful AfD for MDS International). Since repeated attempts to engage him in reasonable discussion have failed, and he has continued to make nonsensical edits, I'm requesting at least a one-week block of his IP account. For now, this would leave him free to continue editing as User:Jeanclauduc if he wishes to do so. EdJohnston 16:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Ksy92003

Hi, I don't know if this is the right place to report this, but this user has continually gotten in trouble with multiple people for undoing other people's formatting and template problems. In fact, if you look at his talk page, I have counted no less than 7 different people have left a nastygram on this author's talk page for his issues, all in separate matters. And that doesn't even count the two admins who warned him for incivility. What can be done about this user? Clearly, no one telling him how to act is helping. The Evil Spartan 17:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If he doesn't respond to communication well, how about a user conduct WP:RFC? It's hard for admins to take summary action in a case like this, because the issues are too complex. If RFC doesn't seem right, check out Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for some other ideas. Mangojuice^talk 17:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Banned for leetspeak?

What the fuck. Since when do we ban people for using "leetspeak" in their names? [109] I find it hard to believe that this is acceptable. RFerreira 06:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:USERNAME#Random. {{usernameblock}} gives instructions on how to change the username. They're not banned; account creation was not disabled so they can just make a new account if they'd rather not bother to change the name. ··coelacan 06:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked. There's nothing in the policy against leetspeak. --Carnildo 06:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No, using numbers in place of letters is not "random". In fact, it is rather commonplace, especially when you are competing for a unique username and over 1,000,000 of them are already taken. Thanks Carnildo for your assistance with this -- hopefully we haven't lost a valuable contributor as a result of this mix up. RFerreira 06:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Just "over 1,000,000"? Try "over 4,000,000": Wikipedia has 47,442,197 usernames defined. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 08:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

:I would guess that the block was based not on leet but on the apparent reference to religious figures, not just "God" but "1llah" (why the final h?).Proabivouac 09:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[sardonically] It's probably because the final "h" changes the vowel sound preceding it, changing the leet translation from "Godzillu" to "Godzilluh," a homophone for "Godzilla." Good morning, Wikipedia. =)--Dynaflow 09:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I thought so. I don't think this is religious reference, more like one to a monster trashing Tokyo...Moreschi ^Talk 09:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hell, I'd worship something like that. Raptor Jesus and the Flying Spaghetti Monster haven't been returning my calls lately anyway. --Dynaflow 09:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Raptor Jesus is displeased. Where is your god now????⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 10:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I stand immensely corrected, and ashamed of my unfamiliarity with the conventions of leet.Proabivouac 17:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The Smithsonian, I presume. The FSM might still be in the back of my fridge, though in what condition, I could not tell you. --Dynaflow 10:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Username policy states that using characters that look like the intended character but aren't is discouraged, given its abuse in the past. Another page disputes this. However, I could be wrong, as I read both a long time ago. – AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?)} 18:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the first paragraph under Inappropriate usernames.

"Wikipedia does not allow usernames that are misleading, harassing, or offensive - both in English and in other languages, as well as misspellings and substitutions thereof such as through Leetspeak. In borderline cases, you will be asked to choose a new username; in egregious cases, your account will simply be permanently blocked" Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 19:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but this wasn't offensive even when translated out of Leetspeak. Unless you dislike bad monster films. Moreschi ^Talk 19:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Could be misleading. There is a user with the name Godzilla spelled normal Godzilla. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 19:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that's stretching it a bit. They haven't exactly titled themselves M0reschi or something. Moreschi ^Talk 19:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's wrong, just that it could be misleading and or confusing if you were to address one or the other. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 19:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Since when did we start spelling Godzilla with zeros and ones??--293.xx.xxx.xx 04:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess I should be glad that my own username has been grandfathered in. I doubt there's any special pleading that I chose it so that one could type it into Google & see all of my postings in the websites I frequent. -- llywrch 22:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Such usernames should be handled on a case by case basis. See for instance User:Jimbo WaIes.--Kirby♥time 05:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Patsy Moore

Recently the article, Patsy Moore, suffered libel from two editors. Boofbaby (blocked indefinitely, account creation blocked). However, another contributor, 71.123.18.83, participated, also. The victim, Patsy Moore, has created an account at PatsyMoore, and has sent "cease and desist" messages to both parties. A request for oversight assistance has been sent, so the revisions may or may not currently appear to all users at the time. The reason why a report is being filed here is because 71.123.18.83 still hasn't been punished for libel. Boofbaby has, but 71.123.18.83 hasn't. This is more than just simple vandalism, this is libel, in which we were lucky that Patsy Moore's friend caught it and told her, or this could have ended less quieter. For some reason, 71.123.18.83 hasn't been blocked. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 11:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Libel #1
• Libel #2
• Libel #3

Other users and I have taken action because PatsyMoore got involved in the incident. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 11:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The anon's only contribution seems to be describing Patsy Moore's company Patchouli Grove Publishers as "self-pay for publishing book releases", which I take to mean that they are being described as vanity press. You've labeled that as libel 2. A quick google search doesn't seem to turn up anything they've done, other than her book(s). Am I correct on all those points? Are you saying that they aren't a vanity press, or something else? Regards, Ben Aveling 12:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, she seemed upset with that user too, so I'd try to get a hold of User:PatsyMoore. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 13:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, how do you know PatsyMoore (talk · contribs) is actually Patsy Moore?--VectorPotential^Talk 14:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I was the user who caught and reverted the libel, and requested semi-protection. I don't think blocking that IP will do much good--it's a DSL IP from Verizon. There's too much risk of collateral damage, I think. I have, however, emailed Verizon to let them know what happened--their AUP forbids damaging the reputation of third parties, so I don't think it'll be too much trouble to nuke the responsible party.Blueboy96 14:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well that seems extremely inappropriate, their actions aren't even blockable, let alone enough for their ISP to terminate service--VectorPotential^Talk 14:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I think it's enough for Verizon to nuke the person who was using that IP at the time. Verizon's AUP forbids using its service for any action that "might be legally actionable for any reason" or, more importantly, would "damage the name or reputation of Verizon, its parent, affiliates and subsidiaries, or any third parties." I've already sent an email to Verizon's abuse department--if this isn't a nukable offense, what is?Blueboy96 14:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The changes marked Libel #1, 2 and 3 appear to be silly vandalism, of the kind that we try to quickly revert all the time. This is the kind of thing that gets sent to WP:AIV, though because of the apparent defamation, it might seem to justify an indefinite block of User:Boofbaby, that would remain in place until some appropriate explanation or apology is received. Since the statements inserted by Boofbaby don't look very credible on their face, and are unlikely to seem plausible to Wikipedia readers, I don't see the need to start major countermeasures in motion. EdJohnston 17:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good--should someone tell Boofbaby? Like I mentioned below, I think we ought to make this a community ban until and if he publicly apologizes to Ms. Moore.Blueboy96 17:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Community ban proposal on User:Boofbaby

Whether User:PatsyMoore is really Patsy Moore or not is irrelevant. The fact is, some pretty egregious libel took place. This sort of behavior can't be tolerated on Wikipedia, even from a newbie. I therefore propose a community ban on Boofbaby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), at least until and if he publicly apologizes to Ms. Moore for his behavior. If you guys feel he should be banned even after that, I won't mind.Blueboy96 14:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems that User:Steel359 indefinitely blocked User:Boofbaby on 5 May as a vandal-only account. He also semi-protected the Patsy Moore article. Since this admin seems to have the situation well in hand, I see no need for a community ban proposal. You should keep the article watch-listed to be alert for any new vandalism, which you could report to Steel359. EdJohnston 17:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, makes sense--someone should tell him that he'll stay blocked until he apologizes to Ms. Moore. I'd do it myself, but not sure if I have that authority.Blueboy96 18:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't be necessary. Boofbaby was a run-of-the-mill vandal account and it's been two weeks. – Steel 21:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

He's blocked indefinitely and his account creation is blocked. Since he's a vandal-only account, and he's blocked indefinitely, we can't really bribe him with a block-lift, although an apology would be nice. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 22:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

SummerThunder going apeshit (be on the lookout)

SummerThunder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/SummerThunder), the venerable sock puppet edit warrior, has been stepping up his blitzkrieg-like rampages. In the last few days, he has attacked his favorite pages and favorite editors with the following known sock puppets:

• Worthaddlction (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Surenuts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Crowdalert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Plainnuts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lawsnun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Crazyruns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

If any user is seen matching his MO, they should be reported to AIV at once or simply indef-blocked as quickly as possible without a further word. If you are watching AIV, please be alert for reports of SummerThunder socks. The puppetmaster tries to do as much damage in as short a time as possible, so time is of the essence whenever he deigns to shower his blessings upon Wikipedia. --Dynaflow 19:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I should add, though, that SummerThunder also has a habit of reporting his "enemies" to AIV as sock puppets of either each other or of himself, and has shown himself willing to "alter" the AIV reports of others. Block quickly, but not blindly. --Dynaflow 19:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This guy has an easy-to-identify modus operandi, shouldn't be too hard. I find this edit not to be ironic at all. Grandmasterka 01:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Built0CD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)} The latest, active as of now. AIV hasn't yet banned. --Dynaflow 01:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Issue0CD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) And another. Could someone take it upon him- or herself to checkuser all of these and see if they can figure out who/where this guy is and contact his ISP? This is just nuts. --Dynaflow 02:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Five users vandalising eachother

The following accounts appear to be meant for the sole purpose of vandalizing eachother:

• The Last Saxon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Quintinathan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Joefish253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Chad Sharman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hamish007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As you can tell from contribs, they've primairly made edits to each other's pages. Either it's a single person doing self-masochism or a group of children playing "Wikipedia Forum". At the very least, I'd recommend protecting their main user pages to cut down on their activity, but feel free to take other action. --Sigma 7 08:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all the user and user talk pages since these folks are only utilizing them as chat forums. Placeholder account 14:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't recommend deleting their talk pages, as some editors have left other comments (i.e. Talk page vandalism warning). However, I could recommend semi-protecting them. --Sigma 7 22:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Complex report from WP:AIV

Moving this here:

• Antiscian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been warned about adding unsourced potentially libelous content to Tucker Max but continues to (and blanks his talk page) Bill.matthews 12:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

When I looked into this, I saw that Antiscian has definitely been involved in some problematic edits, but I don't know about blocking. Other opinions? Mangojuice^talk 12:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Given final warning. Appears to be every expectation he will continue though. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Password cracker to be run over admin accounts shortly

With Jiang's account being compromised and abused, an admin check is considered a good idea. Brion will be running a password cracker over the en:wp admin accounts after checking his morning mail. If you want to keep your admin bit and know, deep in your heart, that your password is a bit rubbish, I strongly suggest changing it. Hint: if it shows up in Google, it's a rubbish password - David Gerard 14:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't misread that as "go type your password into the friendly textbox at www.google.com right now and make sure". —Cryptic 14:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, type it into the search box at http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/ instead. I've set up a, uh, phishing detector there. Yes, that's right. You can trust me - David Gerard 15:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Gee I guess using one of the months that are not September is not good enough? I mean 1 out of 11 seemed like good enough odds at the time ;-). NoSeptember 15:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You've got an interesting point, actually. I can see some users setting a 'weak' password (I have about three strengths) for when they sign up for the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and forgetting to change it when they become an admin with the extra tools. That certainly seems to be Jiang's story... -- nae'blis 15:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Maybe it should become standard to ask not only for edit summaries or email enabled, but also for strong passwords in RfAs. -- ReyBrujo 15:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

How exactly is it going to be possible to prove that?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 15:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"Oppose, I just pwn3d your account". Now that's a pretty overwhelming reason not to promote! --Tony Sidaway 15:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, not prove, but it's worthwhile asking: "Have you remembered to ensure that your password is strong"? It's amazing, the things people forget. Moreschi ^Talk 15:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you do manage to own someone's account, you can always have "them" go put something like "Oppose myself, I cannot pick a decent password." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Security for the proposed site security policy. See the talk page for a link to background events. --Tony Sidaway 15:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

For the cryptographically-challenged of us, what constitutes a strong password? Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The tougher the better. At minimum you should have a combination of letters that don't form a dictionary word and a number that's not easily associated with you (not your birthday, etc.), and it should be 8 characters or longer. Punctuation and use of capital letters don't hurt a bit either. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Letter strings that are not words, some numerals and punctuation thrown in. One password I use elsewhere is the first letter of the names of all of my cousins in birth order - random looking and yet I can always figure it out. NoSeptember 15:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • After your announcement, your family members and family genealogists know your password. So can anyone who checks the public record of births. Time for a new password. (SEWilco 16:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC))

We have a pretty good article on it: password strength. The worst passwords, other than the ones already mentioned above, are names of one's pets or children, which, I read once somewhere, an appalling 60% of people use. Antandrus (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If you watch the movies its always a name and a birthday that the hero guesses correctly on the third try ;-). NoSeptember 16:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Every password is susceptible to a brute force attack. The matter is, to make it last enough so that the attack is worthless. My Operative System professor used to say "Just use a phrase as your password, like "drink whiskey" or "I like smoking". If you are unsure whether your password is weak, but don't want to make it too hard, just duplicate it. Instead of 1234567, use 12345671234567, separated with a space if you want. A password with over 10 characters that is not a dictionary word should not be worth, especially when you are cracking through internet. -- ReyBrujo 15:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Brion ought to run checkuser over all the admin accounts at the same time ;) --Duk 16:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I used to have a password on my old school account that contained 2 letters and was 16 characters long. 1337-sp33k makes for awesome passwords. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That only lengthens the alphabet by 10-20 characters (depending upon the use of the numbers). Replacing every "E" in a dictionary with "3" is not very difficult. (SEWilco 16:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC))

It's probably worth noting here that most computer systems don't store your actual password. Rather, they store a hash of your password and the hash is probably somewhere between 32 and 64 bits in length. Many password strings will hash down to the same value and with a 32-bit hash, it's not unheard of that your "InCrEdiBlY#secure0password" hashes down to the same thing as, say, "password". (I don't know what hashing scheme MediaWiki uses, BTW.) So if it turns out that the password strength test flunks you, you don't necessarilly need to feel bad about it, you just need to make things better by trying another password.

Atlant 16:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If we're using a hash that's known to suffer collisions, we've got much bigger problems than any individual admin's password... Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediawiki uses an MD5 hash salted by user-id. The chance of a (non-deliberate) collision is negligible. —Cryptic 16:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That worries me. MD5 is way beyond broken. Can we change it to a more secure standard like RIPEMD-160, SHA-512, or WHIRLPOOL? Jesse Viviano 19:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

For our purposes, MD5 is still nicely secure. All the attacks so far are collision attacks, which are useful for subverting digital signatures, but are useless for cracking passwords. There are no known preimage attacks on MD5, which is what you'd need to attack hashed passwords. --Carnildo 22:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Recommended reading on this general subject: The Los Alamos chapter of Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman by Richard Feynman. Newyorkbrad 16:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

To sum up the chapter (for those who don't have a copy of the book): often, knowing the person can provide a far better method of password guessing than any sort of brute force attack. It's best to assume that the would-be cracker knows everything about you that a close friend or family member would. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope that nobody reading this thread will consider the advice given in the above thread to be useful in deciding what constitutes a good password. They're formulae and formulae are easily cracked by anyone with a little psychology. A good password generator, particularly one that can generate mnemonic passwords containing randomly mixed case and digits, is much better than these formulae. --Tony Sidaway 16:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, try to use as many key sets as possible. A few letters, (both cases) numbers, puncutation, and symbols make for stronger and more difficult passes to break (as long as they are not used for alternitives of phonoic words). —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 17:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

A final note for those wondering about easy to remember but difficult to crack passwords: don't tell anyone your method - don't even give clever little clues. Possibly NoSeptember's "method" above was a double bluff, but even that is dodgy. Just remember, don't brag about how 'clever' your method is - once you tell someone what it is, or even hinted at it, you've potentially weakened your password system. I have a system for changing my password without forgetting it, it goes something like <crackling static noise drowns out all sounds>, so there, now everyone knows and I have to go and change my method. It's not worth it. We should all be clever enough to come up with our own individual methods on top of the guidance given above. Carcharoth 21:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Aw shucks, I was just going to share how I mamipulate the "seed" text with transformaitons basewd on roman cursive. (First step, buy some books with examples of the script; unfortunately, I don't think any are still in print.) -- llywrch 23:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• BTW, is there a limit to how long the password can be? I noted above that long passwords are intrinsically strong. Is this really true? If a password is a single character repeated 100 times, is that (a) secure and (b) can it be entered into the current Wikipedia password system? Of course, unless you like typing something 100 times, you'd have to copy and paste the password from somewhere else. This is the silliest idea I've ever come up with! :-) Carcharoth 21:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Whoops. The cookie would store it for you. No need to type it out 100 times each time. Still, I wonder how long the password crackers go in their attempts? I suppose you have to assume however long you make a password, they will attempt passwords that long. So some random aspect has to be inserted somewhere in the string. Eeeek. I'm coming up with a system and advertising to everyone... <sob> Another system bites the dust. Carcharoth 21:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    • If you're going the so-secure-I-can't-remember-it route, just type a bunch of random junk. Save it on a TrueCrypt volume or use Password Safe, and either use the cookie to log in or copy/paste it each time (being sure to copy something else into the clipboard after logging in). I think that might be getting into paranoia territory, though. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

A trick that I often use for strong password is to come up with a phrase, and then build the password from the first letter of each word in the phrase, sometimes using leet speak to replace some words. For example: "Four score and twenty years ago" could be "4s&20ya" By adding emphasis to certain words, you can signal upper case, like "Four SCORE and 20 years AGO" would be "4S&20yA". As long as you can remember the phrase, you are fine. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 22:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Isabella Blow

Resolved

died this morning according to an IP address. No source given. Worrying. - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverted by Kafziel. When in doubt, revert it: if she's really dead, someone will put it back. Placeholder account 17:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's been sourced. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hijacking of all links on article page

An anonymous IP (registered to Moscow State University hijacked All-terrain vehicle with this edit[110], such that clicking anything on the page leads it to the site that he/she was spamming. I have forgotten -- what is the proper way to request the developers to look into software ways to block this kind of hijacking entirely? --Nlu (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that sort of scripting is already disabled on wikipedia, I just checked, it had no effect on my browser at all--VectorPotential^Talk 16:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Correction, I just tested the script here, and it seems to be doing something, but it doesn't look what it was designed to do, maybe firefox is protecting me from whatever its intended effect is?--VectorPotential^Talk 16:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The script works in Safari. Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It crashed Firefox for me. Anyway, I believe what needs to be done is to get a developer with the proper access to modify the internal anti-spam regexp to catch this latest variant. (Might want to ask on #wikimedia-tech in IRC.) Of course, that will only help until the spammers come up with yet another version, but short of banning CSS absolute positioning (and a bunch of other features) entirely, I don't think there's much else that can be done. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The Disruptive Element

background behaviour

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Essjay_controversy&diff=next&oldid=119159618 Quack... what the **** is wrong with you?
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=next&oldid=117614259 what a ****ing joke

background of the Wikipedia community article

• Article history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&curid=9902773&action=history
• Current article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_community
• Old discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikipedia_community#Trivia
• Current discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikipedia_community#Added_trivia_section

Editor shows no sign of stopping

Edit warring has not stopped.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=next&oldid=121865421
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=next&oldid=123601932
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=next&oldid=126220209
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=next&oldid=126313643
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=next&oldid=126646308
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=next&oldid=126917924
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=next&oldid=127019374
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=next&oldid=127019506
9. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=next&oldid=127177044
10. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=next&oldid=128753813

Editor was warned that users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ned_Scott&curid=3708061&diff=126741715&oldid=126740144
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ned_Scott&diff=next&oldid=126741715

Ned Scott is edit warring against consensus and was warned to stop.

He won't listen to other Wikipedians. This is blockworthy. Please help. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü 16:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Why does your signature have an umlaut? --Tony Sidaway 16:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Like many Wikipedians, I like to have a unique sig. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yours and Crohnie's trivial additions to the article were made against guidelines and without consensus. I can agree Ned Scott was uncivil throughout the discussions, but he has already been warned for it. If anyone here needs to be severely reprimanded right now, then it's you. Michaelas¹⁰ 17:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Furthermore, I don't see a point in creating such a lengthy discussion regarding this obvious issue. Michaelas¹⁰ 17:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• So what exactly are you expecting to happen here QuackGuru (talk · contribs)? You've listed a series of links that have already been reported and discussed here as background, then a series of links where you are adding content that is pretty clearly against Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles, and Ned Scott (talk · contribs) keeps removing it. The solution is to stop adding trivia to the article.--Isotope23 17:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Multiple editors have reverted Ned Scott. There is consensus among editors to include the fully referenced material. Guidelines about trivia are to include and not blank the section. I have integrated the trivai section into the body of the article per policy and style. If Ned Scott continues to remove the information against consensus, what is the next step? Any thoughts. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Update

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=prev&oldid=128986616

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=next&oldid=128986616

I have integrated the trivia section into the body of the article and I was reverted by Michaelas10. Need some advise. Should the trivia section remain or should it be incorporated into the article? :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I was following the advise of Isotope23 who wrote in part on the discussion page: "Please work this into the main article text."[111] After I integrated it into the article I was reverted without explanation. I do not understand. Please help. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 18:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You've retrieved it in the exact same form with exception of the title — that changes absolutely nothing. If you're interested in properly integrating it, please add it within the relevant paragraph, or create a new section devoted to community issues. Personally I strongly object to such additions, which feel trivial and self-referential; not to mention all the vandalism-related issues are discussed on the main Wikipedia article. I'm willing to mediate the matter on the talk page if any disputes arise. Michaelas¹⁰ 18:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Where do you believe is the place to add it within the relevant paragraph. You did not attempt to add it to any place. You simply reverted. Your edit was not helpful. Further, you are not informing me where to add it. Please, if you will, suggest a title and where to put it. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 19:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted it because it was against consensus. I believe a good compromise for now would be papering the text in the talk page for review of other editors. Michaelas¹⁰ 20:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

How was it against consensus? I integrated the content. Multiple editors already reviewed the trivia section and they want it in the article. Multiple editors have reverted Ned Scott to include the section. The content was reviewed and consensus was reached. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 23:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Update

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=next&oldid=129037176

• Ned Scott blanked the Community activities section against consensus. What is the appropriate step to take about this? Is Ned Scott allowed to blank the section repeatedly? Is Ned Scott's behaviour correct? Or is Ned Scott's behaviour wrong? Any suggestions. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 00:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Quack, I have done nothing wrong in these events. About the worst thing that I've done was when I snapped at you on the Essjay article, but we've been over that already, it was even discussed on this page. Just because you attempt to present an editor as disruptive doesn't make them disruptive. Making little summaries that say "this user is disruptive" or "this user is reverting against consensus" is misleading and false, and a really cheap way to try to get a leg up on such a painfully lame dispute. -- Ned Scott 03:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and for those who haven't seen it, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru. -- Ned Scott 03:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

User:M.V.E.i. and User:62.90.101.55

Resolved

Would it be possible to check if these are the same? I gave a WP:3RR warning to one regarding Ashkenazic Jews and the other one seems to have popped up. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, handled this. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit review, Daniel Brandt

I'd like some people to review this edit, made for the reasons I specified in the edit summary. Maybe there's some politics being played here that I don't know about, but I found it hard to believe that had lasted for very long in the article. Moreschi ^Talk 18:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There is politics being played here that you don't know about. I don't completely know about them myself, frankly, but here is at least one link Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive85#Jeff_Merkey_wishes_to_return_to_en:wp. I personally worry about the section, but there is, at least, a good faith effort being made to source it. I improved the refs technically, but don't have a strong opinion about the section. If it does manage to get peace, it's not so horrible a blotch on the article. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, also read this: Jeff V. Merkey, and Talk:Jeff V. Merkey, especially the Jimbo Wales edits. See, he is apparently another of the somewhat notable people that had issues with his own bio here, so may have a unique point of view, that we should use constructively, if possible. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we should try to improve the section rather than deleting it wholesale as long as there are no specific BLP concerns (which I dont believe there are). I think not giving it a chance would eb unhelpful givent he fruaght politics re this case. I would also say that HiveMind2 is now a 404, which I imagine is good news to admins, and appears to be directly connected to this case, SqueakBox 20:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Not only was there BLP Concerns with that section (just not with Daniel Brandt), the whole section of "Positive Influences on Wikipedia" is the worst kind of OR, hopelessly PoV, Navelgazing and the section had been subtly turned into what I considered an attack on an editor who (even though I think he's way off base on this one), is editing in good faith. I've been bold and removed the whole thing. SirFozzie 20:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please bring BLP concerns to the talk page. I am not sure to which editor you refer being attacked, can you let me (by email or on my talk page if necessary), SqueakBox 20:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that we need a section on Brandt's influence on Wikipedia; it seems like it'd run afoul of WP:ASR. I'd be OK with including that first sentence from the graf in some other section of his article, since it's more about Brandt than about us. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Geoffrey Mitchell (talk · contribs)

Can someone do something about this guy? He's been repeatedly trolling me and Matthew ever since Sixty Six got blocked and it's just getting beyond a joke now. Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 19:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Diffs, please? ··coelacan 19:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[112] [113] [114] [115]

I don't see why they're needed except as a formality in this case - anyone can see based on his recent contributions. Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 19:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Because your expected to do the leg-work if you want someone banned. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If the trolling had been taking place at random points in the contributions, yes. If recent contribution after recent contribution is trolling, no real legwork should be done. Anyway, I have provided the diffs. Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 19:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he's right. All 7 of his contributions over the past 1.5 months has been this annoying pestering about this issue. Though you could have made this clear, Will. The Evil Spartan 19:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I don't have insight into the background of this, but what exactly do you want admins to do? ··coelacan 20:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Taking a bit of time to look at this it appears there is some history here between a few editors. I've not completely sorted it out, but it appears there are several editors who don't work well together. It would probably be a good idea if all parties left each other alone.--Isotope23 20:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please resolve the speedy on Deco lighting

Resolved

 – Article was deleted a couple of minutes after this was posted here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Article was created and tagged for speedy (spam), now creator seems to keep trying to delete it (blank the page) but the blanking keeps getting reverted. Could someone please speedily delete this speedy-delete candidate either as per its original db tag or per db-author (he seems to acknowlege the inappropriateness of the article)? DMacks 19:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Harassment

I have had recent friction with User:Alansohn, and feeling that the conversation was pointless, offtopic and increasingly uncivil, ceased it. He subsequently posted repeatedly on my talk page, trying to keep the conversation going. I requested that he cease to post on my talk page. He continued thereafter, and I reverted his comments and left it at that. Only moments later, he reverted the comments back with further haranguing. I left a warning on his talk page to cease and desist, and he once again kept it up on my talk page. As per policy, I attempted more than once to walk away, and he refuses to do the same. What measures can I take to keep this fellow from harassing me?  RGTraynor  20:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Harrassment? This is a pathetic joke. User:RGTraynor has been on a campaign to deny the validity of the Blue Ribbon Schools Program, the nation's highest award for K-12 schools. While I have provided all the necessary sources to consider -- or reject -- the validity of the award, RGTraynor has made repeated claims that the sources are false based on his supposition that it just can't be true. Repeatedly, RGTraynor has asserted that claims made that schools have received the award are false or manufactured, despite the fact that every article where I have indicated that the award has been received has had an appropriate source added. Despite repeated pleas to RGTraynor to verify the sources provided, he has persistently refused, harassing me directly and making additional and more egregious knowingly false claims in violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, as can be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timberview Middle School. In point of fact, RGTraynor raised the Blue Ribbon Award issue on this AfD, when it had never been mentioned in the article. His refusal to address his threats on this AfD led me to continue the discussion on his talk page, where it should have been discussed in the first place. In a rather patent abuse of the Wikipedia warning process, RGTraynor claimed that the followup was vandalism. RGTraynor has repeatedly been abusive, and has violated Wikipedia policies multiple times during this process. His harassment must be put to an end. Alansohn 22:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Request community action: Scndlbrkrttmc

See: Talk:Thing (especially history), User talk:Scndlbrkrttmc, and User talk:SnowFire.

User:Scndlbrkrttmc has been continuously posting a fairly long essay of his to Talk:Thing in what I believe to be in violation of the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines (not to mention that Thing is a disambiguation page!). This would normally merit a shrug, but he's added links to Talk:Thing in other articles, leading me to suspect spam and possibly even external links to the page. I've reverted his additions and explained why due to the many policies that this essay breaks, as well as inviting him to seek review of my actions. He persists in re-adding it, however, and while he has threatened me with dismissal from Wikipedia (????), he has not actually sought out said other opinions himself yet. So, here we are. While he is likely acting in good faith, I believe that the quality of Scndlbrkrttmc's contributions speaks for itself.

I have several times politely requested to move his essay somewhere else on the Internet- in fact, it already is on a Geocities page which he links to in his essay. He hasn't taken the hint. He has made a very few edits on other topics, but they have generally been of... equal quality to his main obsession. I had hoped this wouldn't require administrator's intervention, but I don't see a reason to spend any more time on this. SnowFire 21:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm blanking it all and giving a final warning. More will result in blocking. ··coelacan 21:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Good. DES ^(talk) 21:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Bakakkaa

ResolvedHopefully. ··coelacan 22:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Bakakkaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have a thorn in his ass concerning Oromo Liberation Front, even going so far as to make a legal threat (against a bot, but still...). Also, I think HABTEGIORGIS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Oromiatimes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may be socks (they were created within the day and seem to be fixated on the one article), but I can't prove it unconditionally. HalfShadow 22:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

  Blocked Bakakkaa for legal threats. If the other accounts are socks, they should be hit by the autoblocker. Semi-protected the article, to expire in 10 days. ··coelacan 22:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Death Threat

Per here, 64.5.146.13, has made a death threat against user RHaworth. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 22:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh no. He's gonna TYPE MEAN THINGS AT HIM JUST LIKE THIS!. The horror... HalfShadow 22:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment That was in July of 2006, and the IP has since been blocked--VectorPotential^Talk 22:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry... I didn't realize that. No. He was blocked for 31 hours once, per here. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 22:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and that block is still active--VectorPotential^Talk 23:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh... sorry. But that's not really the point. The point is that he made a death threat. He was blocked for vandalism. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 23:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Should we just close this, considering it was made in 2006? Cool Blue^{talk to me} 23:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

correct. Thats a block. An indef is a ban, and are never, ever taken out on IP addresses, nor should they be. -M^ask? 23:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Er, well, not quite. A block set for an indefinite length simply doesn't have an expiration. There are times in which that setting is used while disputes are being resolved, because we don't know when the resolution will come. That's just one example. But yes, pro forma we don't indefinitely block IPs that are not open proxies in the since that the block is set and will never be revisited and such is "banned". Just for clarity for the casual passerby. Teke 00:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how relevant this is, but the IP (according to WHOIS) is registered to WHRO-TV. As the article says nothing about being an ISP, its either someone there or its being exploited as an open proxy. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably wouldn't hurt to run it by Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies and have them do a proxy check. In either case, I think it's safe to say that it's probably not the same person who was editing in July--VectorPotential^Talk 23:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk:BuickCenturyDriver

Could someone take a look at the above page for BCD's responses, I'm really inclined to assume good faith with this one and unblock, I haven't got enough bandwidth tonight to get into a discussion with BCD about this, so I would appreciate others taking a look. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. Unless a mistake was made during the checkuser, I see no reason to unblock the user. The series of events – cracker deletes Main Page, BCD creates Main Page; both have same IP address – cannot be explained away easily. Highly improbable that the two users are different. At this point four admins, including you, have declined his unblock request. -- tariqabjotu 23:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If blocks are not punitive, what is being prevented from blocking the account? hombre de haha 23:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what's hitting me hard - the CU evidence, but there's no evidence to suggest that BCD compromised the account, see my response on his talk page for what I believe happened. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what I noted may be a possibility as well (up in the first AndyZ thread). It makes sense. If it did happen I really don't think it's in his favour though, and he hasn't so much as fessed up to it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If he did, it may be something we could forgive but with a severe warning as to future conduct, I'm thinking that ArbCom may be the best people to rule on this one, as they would say - this is out of our remit. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If he admits to hijacking AndyZ's account, who is going to forgive him? I know I'm wouldn't, and don't see any reason why anyone should. John Reaves (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh, if he gets unblocked he'll definitely never make admin, so I don't think we need to worry about anything. John Reaves (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge he did not admit anything, but checkuser evidence suggests that he blocked an administrator with AndyZ's account. If this account were unblocked right now, what would happen? If he goes on a vandalism spree, he gets blocked again. BCD's account doesn't have admin tools, does it?hombre de haha 00:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Logs are our friends. Anywho, the point of the block being preventative rather than punitive is the point El hombre de haha is raising, at it does have merit in policy as I read it. Ostracism in the form of our community noticeboard is a different story. Should all these puzzle pieces fit, certainly the user is voted off the island. Teke 00:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Err, in re-reading I should add that the things about the CN was sarcasm. I like the concept. Teke 00:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If he did do it (don't make me think of OJ Simpson please), we can still take this seasoned piece of wisdom from meatball wiki. More generally, is this user's indefinite block going to benefit Wikipedia overall, especially our content? Gracenotes^T § 00:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan's postulated assessment, see the user talk page. It is my opinion that BCD got curious, saw the password, toyed for a moment, and got off figuring it'd blend in with the other misuses. He got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. A very bad decision, by the definition of those four words. We'll see what happens. Teke 00:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that BCD apparently said on IRC that he wasn't using wireless, but claimed on his talk page that he was. As I suggested above, the most charitable explanation is that he saw AndyZ's password exposed in the deletion log and decided to play a prank. If he admits to this, should he be unblocked? Probably. Could he still be the vandal behind the whole spree? Possibly, but as all the other edits were by open proxy, impossible to determine with certainty. If he continues to claim total ignorance as to how Ryluong got blocked from his IP? No slack. Thatcher131 00:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree, if he admits it, possible a different story. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Fourthed. A great mark of maturity is willingness to admit mistakes and accept consequences. David Gerard just fucked up badly, right? Curiosity doesn't have to kill the cat. Teke 01:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Not that I doubt the evidence or anything, but what happens if the entire event was just some crazy coincidence/problem by the MediaWiki software or something? I understand that there is sufficient evidence linking BCD with the block, but if he hadn't done it and evidence later miraciously surfaces that he wasn't behind it, we aren't quite giving him a chance right now (we're essentially disregarding all comments except a forced apology - like Salem Witch Trials or something?) ... APR _t 01:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think BCD has to admit to anything he didn't do. He is saying he didn't do it. He's shown he has a dynamic IP, so theoretically he could be editing under a new account already, I assume. Why block the account, other than for the reason of punishing the person that is assumed guilty? On charitable explanations, I think the most charitable would be a MediaWiki bug. ehdh 01:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this all day, BCD edits the main page (that has just been deleted by AndyZ), then all of a sudden, Ryulong is blocked by AndyZ using BCD's IP - that seams clear enough to me that BCD was involved, he found out AndyZ's password from the main page deletion summary and thought he'd see what an admin account was like - and blocked Ryulong to see how you block someone, no way it's a 1-in-a-million freak dynamic IP switch. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

With a dynamic IP, you don't make a hundred edits from x.x.x.15, then it switches to somone else who vandalizes, then back to you for more constructive editing. Thatcher131 02:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly so, even as I know with my limited experience with IPs and how they work. Certainly the most charitable thing is to assume good faith, but that only goes to a point. Innocent until proven guilty, but the evidence is clear that this singular event happened a minute after the main page incident, from BCD's IP, and all the rest was through open proxies and there are no other quirks to the pattern. So that really is not a questioning of good faith anymore since 2+2=4 here with much experience talking from the other editors. Teke 03:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, an indef block is too much. Block him for a year if you want, but banishment for a single disruption sounds too much, especially considering his (apparently, haven't checked it all) clear background. He may never be trusted with admin tools, but kicking him out of Wikipedia, personally, is out of question. -- ReyBrujo 03:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

A year? Isn't that a bit punitive? I'm trying to think of the greatest amount of time such that the block is still preventative, but I'm narrowing it down to zero hours. This is a one-time thing, I certainly hope, whatever it is. Gracenotes^T § 05:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)