Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive239

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Newbie redirects userpage to main page[edit]

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 ?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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:

Possible sockpuppets:

--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[edit]

Resolved: Try the Help Desk--VectorPotentialTalk 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--VectorPotentialTalk 13:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet--but of whom?[edit]

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--VectorPotentialTalk 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)
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[edit]

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. HighInBC(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 Can someone block user 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[edit]

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 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 TalkContribs 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 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[edit]

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 TalkContribs 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[edit]

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. 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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 10:27, May 6, 2007, 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: 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. 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[edit]


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 · edit filter log · block user · block log) for 48 hours for edit warring and baiting Certified.Gangsta. Thatcher131 16:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


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=">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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

Tfustudios (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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[edit]

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[edit]

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)[edit]

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. -- 21:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I have reported the user. An administrator will probably take care of it quickly, now. -- 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. -- 21:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

David Gerard just fucked up badly[edit]

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[edit]

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. -- 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[edit]


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. ViridaeTalk 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. --Kirbytime 02:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot being bad[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

An individual from IP address 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)

Limboot (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)[edit]

12-year-old user?[edit]

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. 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* 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[edit]

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 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--VectorPotentialTalk 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)


  • 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 · edit 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 and copyright: mirroring Encyclopedia Iranica, the plagiarism of the article as mentioned on, and the Babak image. In my opinion, that is enough to call into question the copyright of anything uploaded onto Wikipedia from 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. [1]

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