Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive624

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Meetsandye keeps recreating deleted article[edit]

Above new user keeps on recreating this article (promotional/advert), even after it failed Article for Creation and being speedily deleted several times and being warned not to create it again. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

And now we have Vishnu sree institute of technology(Hyd) as well as Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Vishnu sree Institute of technology(Hyd). Dougweller (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
In these cases, you should ask on WP:RFPP for WP:SALTing of those pages. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 18:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Speedy tagged. N419BH 18:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
And a similar article created by Kunnakudisubb (talk · contribs) - an article. now deleted, and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vishnu sree institute of technology(VSIT)Nalgonda. All on the 3rd. Looks like a sock to me. Dougweller (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The new one had the wrong tag but it was both copyvio and clearly advertising. Salted also. Dougweller (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about the wrong tag. I'm not too familiar with the various categories with the exception of A7. N419BH 18:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Both accounts blocked, and I've G11ed the remainder of their contribs. Taken independently I don't think the articles are quite as spammy as WP:CSD#G11 usually suggests, but the persistent creation and use of sockpuppets certainly reveals that the motive is unambiguously promotional. ~ mazca talk 18:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

User:76.172.80.36 making legal threats[edit]

Please block again — see Talk:Laurie Wallace. This is a clear violation of WP:NLT — and the IP user was informed on her talk page to e-mail OTRS using the address shown at WP:NLT. PleaseStand (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I have explained the situation to the IP regarding either retracting the threat and working with us to exercise WP:BLP or contacting the appropriate emails. I have also revdeleted the personal telephone number. S.G.(GH) ping! 21:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Any US Soap Opera fans?[edit]

Resolved: Agreed - nothing left to see here.  7  22:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who knows these US soaps - please check out these contribs. I stumbled upon it because the author had tagged one of his own (pretty well created) articles as db-a1. However, looking at the editors other contribs there is an unfortunate trend of them creating articles, which someone else touches after about 10 edits, and then that author adds more content, which gets rolled back to the mid-point edit. I know less than nothing about these shows but it seems strange for them to be reverted only to the mid-point by the same author. They are either both complete hoaxes, or they should both have the authors recent edits restored after rollback. Thanks.  7  12:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I know about as much as you do on that topic, but you might be able to get enough information here to prove or disprove your theory. In the mean time, I'll see what I can come up with. —DoRD (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, per this cast list and this list of actor biographies, neither of the characters currently exist. —DoRD (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Wasn't there a sock-puppeteer who was abusively editing those entries? This sounds like a familiar MO. TNXMan 14:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
There was TVFAN24 (talk · contribs). Fences&Windows 15:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I speedied Casey Reed as there was no context, but it was pointed out that it had been blanked so I've restored it and added a couple of sources. This looks like WP:BITE to me. The initial speedy tag of {{db-people}} made no sense, and the blanking was aggressive and poor practice. It made little sense as the creator had provided a source in the form of Soapcentral recaps. Fences&Windows 16:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
As I comment on my talk page, I blew it. I reverted what appeared to be a BLP issue, as the edit refered to someone as "psychotic"... so thinking I'd be a nice guy and not give out a talkpage warning, I reverted as "dubious unsourced" in the edit summary. That wiped out a number of edits but left a speedy tag. The speedy tag was incorrect, as noted. Confused, I waited to see what would happen instead of doing what I should have done, which was undo my edit. Unfortunately, I was then distracted. I pride myself on careful work in the the field of anti-vandalism, but this time I got it wrong. The fact that the new user was not using edit summaries contributed to the confusion, but it was my responsibility to dig deeper. Jusdafax 17:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I think this is now a case of "nothing to see here, move along", right? I don't think this editor is doing anything in need of admin attention and the response to the articles, while not ideal, doesn't either. Fences&Windows 20:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone is still reading this section, but I remembered who I was thinking about - User:Gabi Hernandez. TNXMan 02:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm reading, and a check of Soapfun10's contributions and the IP below shows no overlap. I think we might have a sock here. It also hasn't edited since the IP was blocked and confirmed to be Gabi. Dunno where to go with it from here. Might just ask her on the main account's talk page. N419BH 04:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
She has stated here that it's not her, and she's stated here that she doesn't have any undiscovered socks. N419BH 05:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Gabi Hernandez editing anonymously to avoid indef block[edit]

Resolved: IP sock blocked N419BH 23:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Gabi Hernandez (talk · contribs · block log)

User:24.34.144.92 is clearly the indefinitely blocked User:Gabi Hernandez (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gabi Hernandez/Archive and this discussion at my talkpage). Despite what she might think, I do have a heart and am sorry that Wikipedia hasn't worked out for her. Unfortunately though, she persisted in actions that led to her being blocked (repeatedly abusing multiple accounts to game deletion discussions and GA nominations). Now she continues to edit anonymously and claims that she is allowed to under the terms of her "ban". The ip address was never blocked as a result of the SPI, and has been listed at AIV for over an hour now with no result. Am I missing some get out clause of being indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet? I realise that it would only be a temporary block, but it would stop further disruption. (I am not familiar with the Days of Our lives articles, and really have no intention of being, but it would appear that many of her edits are contrary to what has been agreed on by other editors in that area. I could be wrong.)--BelovedFreak 23:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No, she shouldn't be doing that. (An admin or two might want to check AIV...bet there are a few other stale requests) N419BH 23:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The only reason the Days of our Lives articles are in better shape, is because of me. I personally went around and fixed all the problems pertaining to them. I have been a fan of the show for years, and if you look and compare each and everyone of them you can tell how much work I put into them. Ask User:Rm994, I already told you before I would leave if you would agree to leave Maggie, and Kimberly's articles alone. The point is, I have done MUCH more good than bad here. And you can check on that if you don't believe me. I know how to edit here, and I think it's ridiculous to be blocked for trying to help. I never doubted you had a heart, nor will I ever. You have actually been very nice to me, and I appreciate that. 24.34.144.92 (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
She's been given a 2 week vacation. If the IP proves to be static and she resumes editing, she can take a longer vacation. AniMate 23:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I left a note on her talk page on the standard offer in the hopes of giving her some light at the end of the tunnel. We'll see if she sees it as the actual end of the tunnel or the headlamp of an oncoming train. Marking as resolved. N419BH 23:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping the autoblock would have nabbed the IP per the previous SPI; I suppose it didn't. That being said, she believes that users own articles (i.e. if you would agree to leave Maggie, and Kimberly's articles alone), and I'm not comfortable letting her back in if she still believes that. –MuZemike 00:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

We'll see if she still does in 6 months. I directed her to read the policy pages while she's not editing. N419BH 00:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not hopeful in regards to this user. She states that she is allowed to edit anonymously per her ban, when her last unblock request specifically said anonymous editing would result in her never being unblocked. We're five sockpuppets in now, here's hoping she doesn't go further. I'd like to note that she has a long history of adding decorative fair use images to articles against policy. I could use some help going through all of her socks edits to see how many images need to be removed. I found three on Maggie Horton. AniMate 01:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I think you got them all. Not sure if she added anything to the "minor characters" page. Also not sure on the one with two images. (If you haven't already guessed, I have never watched a soap or gone to any of the articles...until now). I officially turn in my mancard. N419BH 01:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Gun Powder Ma repeated NPA[edit]

Last week I blocked Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs) for a slow motion edit war on Nanjing University after an ANI discussion. S/he requested an unblock which was denied by Jpgordon (talk · contribs) with a warning about personal attacks in the unblock request. GPM removed the declined unblock request with an uncivil edit summary, so I revoked talk page privs for the duration.

Now, GPM has continued his personal attacksin this edit referring to Dick Cheney in my list of quotations on my user page and has repeated his wish several more times in these edit summaries. It took me a bit to put the pieces together, but I am asking for an uninvolved admin to block GPM for continued WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA issues. Toddst1 (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The admin holds a grudge against me, and this is part of a personal vendetta against me, trying to keep me down, so I don't know what this is all about. Where do I attack Toddst1 personally? It seems that he has been attacking me instead. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Question: what does the acronym "gfyT1" mean? Is the "Richard" you refer to Dick Cheney? And if this is an attack on you, surely the preceding edit is an attack by you? TFOWR 22:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
People aren't stupid here, you were the one who went to Todd's talk page in order to make sure he got your "coded" message and edit summaries. Dave Dial (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, it's pretty obvious. GPM, you were blocked and the block was upheld. Please don't come straight back and go after the admin who blocked you. I'd suggest you just go about your own way in a hurry, and leave other editors alone. Dayewalker (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Neither is an attack on anybody, it is all construed by Toddst1. The first question I have is againnst whom is Dick Cheney's quote on Todd's page directed? I am no specialist in American history and did not know that Dick Cheney is actually also called Richard. gfyT1 is a personal code by which I am ordering my work, now I am at gfyT2, and there will be probably much more till I am finished with the draft. And that exactly what I am doing, going after my work, by putting up another page for WP. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I moved the page I am working, hope that suffices. I am certainly willing to get back to work. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Just for the purposes of showing good faith, why don't you change your edit summaries to something that couldn't be considered as a shot at an admin? That might help. Dayewalker (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I can move it to whatever page you like (have already done so). No problem at all. The final title will be List of early modern universities, but I have planned to let an admin delete the page anyway, so that the final article will appear so to say with a virgin history in the main space. That's how I have always worked. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(OD) I corrected myself above, it wasn't your page title that's an obvious dig at an admin. Stop with the "gfyT"-anything for your edit summaries. Dayewalker (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

User Todd has been notifying Jpgordon. Nothing wrong with that but Jpgordon is certainly not anymore the "uninvolved admin" which he wants to block me. I hope admins don't start playing balls to each other, because the very first question is to whom actually refers the "Go fuck yourself" quote of Dick Cheney and the "krooks" quote on Todd's page? Don't tell me this is directed against noone, when immediately to the right Todd displays his blocking statistics with pride. Could you tell us that, Todd? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
PS:I'll let an admin seedy delete the page, if that helps, and set up a new one. Just give me time for the tag, I am not that quick at searching them. :-) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Of course I'm uninvolved. I'd never heard of you before the unblock request, and the only thing I know about you is that you made a remarkably rude unblock request. I didn't even indicate that I want to block you; I indicated that we generally don't unblock people who are being nasty. --jpgordon::==( o ) 00:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's an absurd explanation. All of a sudden you are going to make a comment referring to "Richard" on Todd's talk page, and then use the same letters in the quote directed at Toddst1(gfyT1) = Go Fuck Yourself Toddst1. Obvious. I would block you just for trying to play everyone off as stupid with these lame excuses. Just stop it, apologize and move on. Dave Dial (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(EC) GPM, none of what you just brought up is relevant to this conversation. If you have complaints about an editor, take it to RFC or ANI, but don't pretend you're not trying to get his goat with your less-than-tricky edit summaries. I'm trying to help you keep from getting blocked again here, since you came back from your last block still angry. Knock it off. Dayewalker (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I have put a speedy delete on the page and created a new one. I apologize to Todd for any inconvenience, and I would like to point out my willingness to move on, and put the dispute permanently behind us. This is a new week and I am looking forward to more contributions to Wikipedia. Regards to all Gun Powder Ma Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

A sudden volte face, are you two going to be able to find spaces on Wikipedia where the other one does not frequent? Are you going to be able to take considering possible interpretations of your actions to the extreme in order to calculate what may and what may not be constituted as an attack or what-have-you on the other? If so, that will be worth a try. S.G.(GH) ping! 23:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
What is a volte face? Anyway, Todd and me, we seem to work in completely different fields. I've never encountered him before and it is very likely that our different trajectories won't make us meet again. And if so, I would not have any problems at all working with him as with anybody else here. :-) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
A volte face is me trying to remember the French phrase for a sudden change. Not that it is not unwelcome. If the users are happy to let things go and move on amicably I don't think anything else is needed here? S.G.(GH) ping! 11:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment-Thank you. I don't know if that ends things(it would/does for me), but I hope it does. Dave Dial (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Several spam accounts from Mumbai spamming for companies in Melbourne[edit]

Resolved: rangeblock and site blacklisting N419BH 13:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Strangely enough, 122.169.33.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 122.169.54.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 122.169.32.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), all from Mumbai, have been spending the last several days spamming for companies in Melbourne, Australia. Pretty obviously all the same person, or the same company, but they keep account hopping and article hopping. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Put the site on the spam blacklist. Reyk YO! 06:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Did you read the contributions? It's more than one company, and they aren't just adding links, they're writing entire screeds on the companies. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The first couple I checked were all to the same payroll company. If there's other sites involved, request a blacklisting for them too. Reyk YO! 06:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • How does that address the long paragraphs describing the companies? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Because AFAIK you can't save your edits if you've included a blacklisted link. I suppose the spammer could try again with the promotional screed sans spam link, but that would make the whole advertising much less effective and hopefully they'll think it's not worth the effort. Reyk YO! 06:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I've also done a temporary anon-only rangeblock on 122.169.0.0/16, which should deal with the inevitable attempts to get around the individual IP blocks. -- The Anome (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Added some of the sites to the blacklist. EyeSerenetalk 08:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

User whose Talk page is repeatedly being deleted[edit]

Resolved

-- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Chantessy (talk · contribs) has been here for four years. Looking at the logs of their Talk page, their Talk page is repeatedly being deleted. Why would a Talk page for an active User be repeatedly deleted? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it just their way of archiving ? Sean.hoyland - talk 07:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Then there should be links from the Talk page to the archive pages. How else is one to know that there are archives? And where is Archive 1? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
And what happened to the information between December 2008 and June 2010? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
See WP:OWNTALK. Users aren't obliged to archive their talk pages. Have you lost something you sent him ? Other than looking down the back of the sofa you could just ask him. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Still, his talk page shouldn't be deleted. The edits from December 2008-June 2010 are all deleted on that page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

<- I guess it was deleted by the sysop under U1-right to vanish as there is a gap in the editor's contribs after the deletion

  • 03:11, 30 June 2009 (diff | hist) m Paper Man ‎ (Quick-adding category Independent films (using HotCat))
  • 19:41, 18 December 2008 (diff | hist) User talk:Chantessy/Archive 5 ‎ (top) [rollback]

Sean.hoyland - talk 07:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Right to vanish doesn't apply if they haven't vanished. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 08:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

History of main talk page restored, U1 doesn't apply to talk pages. I will check if any other pages need restoring as well. Fram (talk) 08:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

And as far as I can see, nothing else needs restoring, all 5 archives are visible. Fram (talk) 08:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry[edit]

Resolved: WP:SOCK#LEGIT. Ignoring laundry issues, socks are only bad when they're used for evil. TFOWR's left sock 13:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • While I was Surfing in Wikipedia, I came across User:Afran2's page.On the page and also in history it is written that "You can search (( user:Afran )) for meeting me".So, This user also owns User:Afran account.Thus, It's quite clear that this user owns multiple account.I think it is sock puppetry.Actions should be taken.Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 09:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Would this be good at WP:SPI? Shadowjams (talk) 10:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Nothing urgent about this, the user (Afran1, Afran3 and Afran4 exist as well) has made different accounts, but hasn't edited with any of them since June 2009, and then only their own talk page and user page. Multiple accounts are allowed, but I don't think these are a good use of them. However, nothing bad has been done with them either, and the user (apparently User:Sebastian Goll) doesn't seem to be a problematic editor at first glance. It's only sock puppetry when you edit the same article or discussion with multiple accounts, which hasn't happened here. Have you discussed this with the editor, or even posted a note on their talk page, as is required when you discuss them here? Fram (talk) 10:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)x2 Max: This is usually not an issue, if it is made clear. Such clear naming is obvious enough that it wouldn't be a very smart way to sock; WP:SOCK#LEGIT does say that socks are allowed. None of the five accounts seems to be doing anything much, so no action really required methinks. Maybe just a note about what alts are for. sonia♫♪ 10:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Handicapper continues to mark significant edits as minor[edit]

As per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Handicapper#Summary it was required the user stop this practice. However looking at his Contribs this has not happened. Particularly talk page marked as minor, article creation marked as minor , added significant information and this . I would like to request that User:Handicapper no longer marks any edit as minor Gnevin (talk) 11:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried talking to them? Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 13:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Yes, you have; stupid me... Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 13:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned user. –xenotalk 13:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal of references from Stephanie Peay[edit]

Resolved: No admin attention is required at this time; user has been advised to discuss the content dispute on the talk page. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies if I'm in the wrong place (?). I have been contibuting to the entry 'Stephanie Peay' but another user seems to persistently alter/remove content inappropriately, and has recently remove references (again). If they agree the references are valid could an administrator please revert the recent removals? If you also agree this is ongoing vandalism can this user be warned/blocked from altering this entry?--Paulbryden (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you discussed your issues with the edits with the user responsible? I assume you are referring to Idunnowhy (talk · contribs)? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
No I haven't - I've been relying in the impartiality of admin persons to revert changes and hoping they would get the message that their 'contributions' are futile. I was hoping not to make this personal between me and them by using admin as intermediaries, in effect. Can we revert the last changes and I'll try talking to them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulbryden (talkcontribs) 12:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Please refrain from reverting edits and discuss the issue on the article's talk page, as suggested by Off2riorob. Please establish consensus to make changes rather than edir warring. No admin attention is required at this time. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Legal threats made over article BBC blast[edit]

Resolved: per withdrawal of legal threats, I've unblocked Rodhullandemu 15:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Resolved: Blocked indef for general disruptive editing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

User:789123man claims to be an employee of the BBC and threatened to sue wikipedia over copyright on my talkpage User talk:Yoenit, after I reverted his soapboxing in the BBC Blast article. I can hardly take him seriously, but WP:THREAT says I should post it here, so could somebody please look at it? Yoenit (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right to bring it here, but he's talking nonsense. "BBC Blast" is not copyrightable, it is far too short. --Tango (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
IANAL, but I know this. You can't copyright a title or a name. You can trademark it, but that doesn't prevent others from mentioning the trademarked name, only from stealing it. I.e., Ford Motor Company is a trademarked company name, but I can discuss it all I want to (see there? I just did). --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • User has retracted their legal threat. - NeutralHomerTalk • 20:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
    Doesn't look like much of a retraction to me. The rationale for WP:NLT is quite clear, retracting to "I'm not, but my employer might/will" has the same effect, an attempt to force a point of view backed by a threat. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
    I think we should go "benefit of the doubt" on this one. We can't assume the person works for the Beeb and we can't assume that if the user does, their supervisor will do anything. That would fall into WP:CRYSTAL territory. - NeutralHomerTalk • 20:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
    The point in the policy is not to stop people using legal recourse if necessary. It's to stop people using the threat to stifle other editors. If there is truth in the BBC being the employer and if the BBC go ahead or not is unimportant, the threat is still there and is still designed to try and force a point of view. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
    We can't bind people by what other people will do. If person A says a legal threat, retracts it, and is unblocked but person B does the legal action person A was talking about, we don't block both person A and B, just person B. One person's actions can't affect another, we don't assume, per WP:AGF. - NeutralHomerTalk • 21:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
    That is in no way a retraction, it is merely saying he will report to his superiours who will then take legal action. It is still a legal threat with a chilling effect and the user should be blocked until a full retraction is made. WP:NLT is pretty clear. Verbal chat 21:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec)No, but we can bind people to adhere to our policies. This is exactly the sort of thing that NLT is meant to inhibit, an editor claiming that unless an article reads and looks the way he wants, someone will be sued or arrested. Also, look at the editor's contributions and you'll see that we lose nothing by keeping him banned until he posts an unreserved retraction of the threat. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll give the user instructions on how to get unblocked. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Reading his posts I find it very hard to believe that this guy works for the BBC or is representing them here in any capacity. (The BBC is a Television company??) That makes this an even more clear abuse of legal threats to "win" a content dispute. Verbal chat 21:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Reading his posts, I find it very hard to believe that this guy works for anyone or is involved in any other activities suitable for a person over the age of twelve, but I'm still willing to give him a chance to withdraw the threat and start contributing constructively. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Based on his recent edits, his talk page privilege should probably be removed and he should be directed to the appropriate email address to retract his threats. Verbal chat 10:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
User has apologized and withdrawn the legal threat. Matt Deres (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia Moderators and supreme ones. As I am now un blocked please do not inter fear with me again, and Verbal - do not comment on my personal status. I am glad you unblocked me you can see my thanks and apology on my talk page. For the sane ones here, thank you for making wikipedia such a great place!! For the not so sane please stay out of my life--789123man (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably not the best way to go about that, I would consider rewriting that statement. - NeutralHomerTalk • 15:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Per this and other statements from this account, I suspect we're looking at a put-on regardless - this editor claims to be "a communications officer for the BBC", but also that their laptop "corrects to American spelling". Something smells. Gavia immer (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
and he bought the computer while in the US? Something ain't right. Checkuser? - NeutralHomerTalk • 15:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I have nominated the BBC Blast page for deletion. This is not to aggrivate the situation or the user, I thought on this before doing so, I feel the article fails WP:N and WP:V and isn't necessary. This post is just for the sole point of disclosure. - NeutralHomerTalk • 16:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the point of that? The Blast page is fine at the moment and I'm not going anywhere near it again. Your problem is not getting on with me and the fact that you are all out to get me. I am English and Work for the BBC as a communications officer. I do live in BANES which I have not made up. As you are all Americans I don't think you should be allowed to comment. You don't pay the BBC License fee and therefore do not have a right to use BBC Blast. Also how would you like it if I suddenly said, you can't speak American. We English developed the language after all. So stop commenting on it. --789123man (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"American" isn't a language and I can access BBC Blast from my Virginia home just fine. If you really are a BBC Communications Officer, you would have a WP:COI on the page regardless. Also, anyone can comment on any page here, worldwide. - NeutralHomerTalk • 16:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I've tagged the article for COI, and replaced the AfD template that 789123man removed - after he said he wasn't going near the article again. I should also note that use of BBC Blast has nothing to do with payment of the licence fee. I doubt that many users of it pay the licence fee because most 13 to 19 year olds don't have their own TV licences. A communications officer for the BBC should know that. Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Without a doubt not an employee of the BBC working in an official function. One at home, maybe, but nevertheless it is irrelevant. S.G.(GH) ping! 16:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually BBC Blast is under the BBC Consultation for TV license fees and is facing cuts. Please get your facts right. If you look on the BBC spending section it will not say BBC Blast but BBC learning. It is payed for via License fee and is only available to UK Citizens. You can see all of this at BBC Freedom of Information. www.bbc.co.uk/foi --789123man (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't matter now, the page has been speedily deleted as a copyvio of this page by User:Rodhullandemu. - NeutralHomerTalk • 16:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I was busy dealing with copyvio elsehwere. In any case, I repeat, although the BBC licence fee pays for it, you do not have to pay a BBC licence fee or be a UK citizen to use it. EU citizens in the UK can use it, immigrants without citizenship, etc. By the way, there seems to be nothing on the FOI site about it. Dougweller (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Also, I was able to get into the site just fine and I am in the US (Virginia to be exact). I think the site is worldwide, just focuses on the UK. - NeutralHomerTalk • 16:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Update
My bad, I didn't realise the article was so old, and it appears the site plagiarised from us rather than other other way round. Accordingly, I have undone my deletion and will reopen the Afd. Sorry for the inconvenience. Rodhullandemu 16:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Just because you can view the site does not mean that you have a right to use it and create an account for it. So you have removed it because of copyright violations. I thought you said that there were not copyright issues with it. That shows that you did not think it through properly. Not good for a Wikipedia Moderator is it? --789123man (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no website you have a "right" to use, you can either use it or you can't. There are no "Rights of the Internet" or "Rights of a Website". Where do you get your information? - NeutralHomerTalk • 17:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No but to be able to interact with it (ie create an account, enter competitions etc) you do need to be currently living in the UK. By all means you can look at it but that is not what the site is about. Also you may not be aware that the site has changed a lot in the last year. Therefore the site did not plagiarise from wikipedia. Anyway as the BBC Blast site was the first website to right about BBC Blast how can you have put that information up first? Think it through --789123man (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Living in the UK, but not a UK citizen or licence fee payer. If the site didn't copy Wikipedia, the material in the article from the site is a copyright violation. Which is it? Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Ironically, the terms of use for BBC sites also includes "No impersonation". Sean.hoyland - talk 17:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Important News

Hello Everyone, I am sorry about the fuss this has caused I would be grateful if everybody could just drop it now as there is some bad news. The BBC Trust has backed the plans made to cut BBC Blast. This means that Blast will close early next year. My boss has not yet told me if this will put me out of a job but I think that it will.

For that reason I am not going to bother chasing this up anymore as I think that it is pointless. You can chose to believe what you want but at the end of the day I think that you could cut some of the talk you give me as this is my job on the line. If you do not believe me then the documents saying this are here [1].

I will now continue to contribute to Wikipedia in a clear and constructive manner like I was hoping to do before this started.

Thank You

789123man (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's stuff like this that drives me crazy about Wikipedia's culture -- it's not really a good idea to elevate AGF over common sense. Whoever this person is, they aren't what they say they are, and they're not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, so just indef block them and be done with it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree, this looks more and more like a PBML sockpuppet, or else someone else mucking around. Please block. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh Come on... I have apologised and I have said I don't want to cause any more fuss over this. If things on Wikipedia drive you crazy then you should not be here. How do you know I am not going to contribute to the encyclopedia? I am just here to contribute my knowledge to help people learn. If you do not believe me then that is fine but please do not block me just because you don't like me. 789123man (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No, we're not blocking you because we don't like you, we're blocking you because you're messing with us.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Can someone ban this person?[edit]

Resolved: Blocked 31 hours by CIreland N419BH 05:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

205.209.74.196 (talk · contribs) - I tried being friendly.... and I got more vandalism in return. A little help? Beam 04:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, it was done before I had a chance to notify him of this. Beam 04:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"Hey jerk, stop vandalizing articles" is an attempt at being friendly? Looking at some of your recent comments, I'd suggest a review of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL might do you some good. --OnoremDil 05:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
This is why we do not insult the vandals; it not only makes the vandals mad (like what might have happened here), but it also makes the good guys look just as bad as the bad guys. Not to mention, if you do something like that with an innocent user, you'd be ending up biting newcomers, which is what we also don't want. –MuZemike 07:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The best results are obtained by being firm but polite. Being rude will just make it personal for them and motivate them to keep vandalizing. (it works the same way in real life, by the way :-) ) --Enric Naval (talk) 08:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Also, WP:AIV is a better venue for reporting this kind of thing in the future. --Chris (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Abuse by User:Paxcoder[edit]

Continuous, completely unprovoked insults in the face of civility by User:Paxcoder.

  • User:Paxcoder: "I'd point you to something, but I'm afraid you'd vandalize it tbqh." [2]
and again
  • User:Paxcoder: "You should be banned from editing this article. Do your own research, vandal!" [3]
I then asked him to please cease trying to insult me.
  • User:Paxcoder: "I stand by my words to you." [4]
I posted on his talk trying to defuse the situation. I assumed the person was aggressive towards me on religious grounds so I made sure he understands I wouldn't dream of challenging his beliefs and that the issue at hand is completely unrelated to any such concerns.
  • User:Paxcoder: "You are a troll, "Direktor"." [5]

Frankly I've had enough. I do not see why I should have to take this sort of abuse. I was attacked immediately and without provocation and then continuously several times, despite maintaining a civil disposition towards the User, and despite actually trying to calm him down and discuss in the face of his attacks. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

To me, this looks just like a content dispute — by the way, note that you're both engaged in an edit war on that article, so I'd caution you both to stop reverting each other and start discussing —, where the user got pissed and violated WP:NPA, but I think a stern warning, coupled with starting a DR method, should resolve this issue. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 13:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
To me, on the other hand, it looks like I was provoked and called a vandal well before any edit-war or content dispute took shape [6][7], and then again after it had been resolved [8] (yes, the content dispute has been successfully resolved). And besides, it seems you think content disputes somehow excuse unprovoked abusive behavior?
Also, User:Salvio giuliano, considering our history I would appreciate it if you stopped making these vague comments on my posts here (even if you did not follow me around again). This is not an RfC on user behavior, but an administrator noticeboard. I fail to see what involves you in this other than your previous conflict with me personally? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Any editor is invited to give their opinion on AN/I discussions, and the point is that these opinions are from uninvolved editors. Please refrain from making borderline personal attacks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't particularly like the less-than-neutral ANI notification: "You have been reported on WP:ANI for continuous user abuse." Particularly the "continuous user abuse". I'm sifting through both of your contributions. Frankly I'm thinking you could both use a refresher on WP:CIVIL but I'll reserve judgement until I've looked into it further. N419BH 15:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I have warned the user with uw-npa2 about the "troll" comment; I don't think a block is appropriate here unless the behaviour continues after further warnings. I'll leave it to an admin to close, however. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
User:Salvio giuliano and I have a history and he makes a habit of following me about and opposing me without grounds. Commenting is fine, but malicious comments purely intended to hinder any effort I undertake amount to stalking.
Ah yes, "blame them both". Typical. Giftiger, I made no aggressive posts or comments to User:Paxcoder, and I challenge anyone to show grounds for your equal approach to both parties. I arrived at the page, opposed Paxcoder's edit in a perfectly non-aggressive manner, and was immediately attacked and called a "vandal" and "troll". Even after I tried to make it clear I harbor no ill-will with a post on his talkpage, and after the content dispute had been resolved, I was attacked yet again. This, I think, amounts to abuse.
Let me make it clear: the content dispute is over. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, that was certainly very carefully worded; you realised, of course, that I am referring to your comment directed at Salvio as being a borderline personal attack. And frankly your attitude here and treatment of neutral volunteers trying to help with a situation you apparently feel strongly about and what help with, is inappropriate. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Giftiger! Direktor, take a look at this page and you'll see I'm sort of an habitué here; I'm not following you around and, as far as I can remember, although we've met, here and there, a few times, but, to my knowledge, we've always been on good terms, even when we didn't agree on something. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 15:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Salvio, we are on good terms. My comment was misinterpreted. Its just that I always see you when I post on WP:ANI, and you always somehow seem to disagree with me. I get the feeling, if you'll pardon, that you have a personal bias or grudge against me. The feeling is, I admit, exacerbated by your contact with certain users closely associated with itWiki groups of banned users that have personally threatened me.
(edit conflict × 4)If you take a look at my suggestions here, you'll see that I tend to oppose blocking people, unless it's unavoidable. To make it short, I hate the concept of blocking people, but I know that it can be necessary to avoid disruption to Wikipedia and I myself support or endorse blocks, when I think that they're the only way to solve a problem. Well, in this case, I think that this issue can be better solved in another way: through discussion (on the talk page or requesting a third opinion, for instance). This user has been reminded that we don't take kindly to personal attacks. Should he continue insulting you, despite this warning, then I'll support a block. But, until then, I still think it would be premature. Hope I clarified my position. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 15:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
"...considering our history I would appreciate it if you stopped making these vague comments on my posts here"? A personal attack? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
(re: Salvio's first comment) Thank you. I am completely convinced this man has an agenda regarding the article Aloysius Stepinac. He has already pushed his POV - as evidenced by Talk:Aloysius_Stepinac#New_edits. As it turns out, the community disagreed with him, and the article was restored, but not without a lengthy discussion he has provoked, in which he has been the first to accuse *me* of POV (now evident I was not to blame for) - apparently I tend to stand in his way. I think it is apparent that user Direktor is ideologically driven (a Yugonostalgic if you will) which is the cause for some of his edits there, and I also think he has an issue with Stepinac. As I've explained in the context of my comments that he quoted above, he used excuses with obvious intention to remove the title "blessed". His did not simply want to conform with rules - otherwise he'd modify, not remove information from the infobox - so I honestly do believe that he is, in fact, vandalizing the page. I have overreacted and perhaps I should've chosen my words more carefully, but I submit to you that it was not "completely unprovoked" as Direktor says - his edits, I believe, are not done in good-will. --Paxcoder (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 4)This doesn't help. You should assume good faith and try to talk things through, not make accusations. Right now, you should apologise or, if you don't want to do that, just acknowledge that you shouldn't have attacked him. And say you won't do that again.
And then try to come to an agreement with him, using WP:DR. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 15:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
LoL... as you can see, User:Paxcoder harbors a lot of negative sentiment towards me. I can't say the feeling is mutual as yet, but I'm sure his efforts will eventually create a nice quaint little feud. Interestingly, I've just been notified of my own post [9]...
(edit conflict) Uhh, Paxcoder, he removed "Blessed" per policy. We don't use honorifics because it expresses a particular POV. Hence we don't refer to Jesus Christ as "Lord Jesus Christ" and we don't refer to Muhammad as "Muhammed PBUH". N419BH 15:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
This is my opinion, but since we do use "Saint", I think we should use "blessed" as well. But this belongs on a talk page... ^__^ Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 15:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy) we only use saint if they're indistinguishable otherwise. I'd say blessed is out, but that's for a talk page. N419BH 15:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't you think this is for titles of articles and regular text? There's a whole category devoted to blesseds, and most of them are called blesseds in their infoboxes. The particular cardinal infobox in question - as it turns out - has a field devoted solely to this purpose. --Paxcoder (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Paxcoder, I was merely trying to point out that the "name=" parameter is for names. The "honorific suffix" parameter is also not really for "Saint" or "Blessed". Your aggression was completely unprovoked and I feel an apology would greatly help our relations and move things along to actual article improvement. I have nothing in particular against Stepinac, I mean yes I do not think he was a "divine messenger", but I don't think he was a bad person. That said, the "Blessed" prefix should definitely go. The article lead and main text both describe his beatification in detail. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
(at Salvio)I did assume good faith at first. I have since come to a different conclusion. I might be wrong, as I can't see into hearts of men - I can only try and interpret their actions. It just seems to me Direktor likes to fight for his own views. I see no other explanation for his fascination with the person of Aloysius Stepinac - he has been reverted there quite a few times. Article's talk page made his views very clear to me. So I'm sorry, but I'm not buying his explanation (ie good wiki citizen who wants the infobox to conform to regulations). --Paxcoder (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
(at Direktor:) Now, even the honorific prefix (note: not suffix) isn't good enough for you? I thought you said the issue was resolved? BTW. Perhaps you should ask yourself why you get into so many fights with people before you report someone to the administrators? That's right, you didn't call me a troll - you comply with WP, and use it to your own benefit against other people. As long as you play the game like this, you're safe and can do what you want to do. But hey, let me stop talking before I say something offensive like: "perhaps it's not everybody else's fault". --Paxcoder (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Before continuing with this, Paxcoder, you should read here. If you commit yourself not to attack Direktor again (well, any user), I think we could make this resolved. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 16:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought I've already posted a response there, I've posted it now. I will try to rephrase my objections from now on.
Related: I'd like to know if a change is made is it ok to revert and then talk, or must one talk with the disputed change visible (the first option would seem logical as it is the original state of the article) - can one give me a reference? Thanks. --Paxcoder (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd point you to WP:BRD, bold, revert, discuss. That is to say: you are bold and make an edit; someone else disagrees and reverts; now, you should take the dispute on the talk page. If you revert, you're starting what may escalate into an edit war. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 17:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


Ok now this is really too much. User:Paxcoder is edit-warring on my talkpage [10][11][12] and repeatedly reintroducing his malicious retaliatory "notification" where he "notifies" me of my own post here. Setting aside the "retaliatory" offensive nature of the post itself, the user was warned and informed of WP:OWNTALK twice by N419BH [13][14] and once more by Off2riorob [15]. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

A short block for edit-warring is in order now it seems. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Fear so. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 18:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I appologize, I thought I should notify you every time I post something about you -which was 2 times (see my comment on the revert, maybe you realize my confusion). No harm intended. Can we conclude this now? --Paxcoder (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I might be inclined to take the above seriously had you not been explicitly warned about this, three times. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Here - I really thought that notifying you was what I am obligated to do. --Paxcoder (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Moving comments to bottom[edit]

Moved to WT:ANI#Moving comments to bottom

Timestamping--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

User talk:69.181.249.92 and Deletions.[edit]

This is a Ip that otherwise does amazing work here on the pedia. I am however concerned with his interpatation of the deletion policies and would like a admin go and just explain how csd's work, afds and mfds. He's been told by myself and at least one other editor but doesn't seem to get it. This definitely isn't blockable but it just might help for someone to chime in that does have some authority to clarify.

  1. [[16]]
  2. [[17]] are the recent examples. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Eh. They're so close to right in the two examples above, I hate the thought of trying to argue the point with them... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Different example, but I've just been discussing another speedy with them. They'd tagged it, I'd ignored the tag and worked on the article a bit, meaning to come back to, and another editor contested the speedy. 69.181.249.92's seems to have a pretty good idea about at least {{db-a1}}, even if we don't completely agree. TFOWR 18:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

For #1 above, the IP is correct - G3 can be used in userspace or articlespace. Probably not a point in your favor when you are using that example and it was being used correctly. I'm not sure I personally would use G3 in userspace, but it is one of the general criteria. Cheers! Syrthiss (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion (of #1). There's good reason to have some leniency in user space, but the editor should have the noindex magic words, a notice that it isn't a Wikipedia article, and probably some discussion explaining the rationale. Without that, it is a pure hoax and should go.--SPhilbrickT 20:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Hammy64000[edit]

Resolved: Indeffed by Sarek of Vulcan. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 17:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hammy64000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user has made several blatant attacks over the course of several months. User inserts POV statements in to religious articles and edit wars over content against consensus. Has been warned multiple times for incivility and not assuming good faith.

[18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]

[27] Possible hinting of legal threats.

Many more instances of incivility in the users contribs, but the recent ones seem to get worse and worse. SpigotMap 17:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef, for unacceptable personal attacks and conspiracy theories (WP:NOTTHERAPY). I'm willing to consider that this may have been excessive, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
ANI was suggested in #wikipedia-en. Would wikiquette have been more appropriate? SpigotMap 17:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, but I think a block was in order, in this case. He repeatedly attacked you, even after being told to stop. So, I endorse Sarek's call. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 17:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I endorse the appropriateness of the indef block. See also this edit: [28]. Edison (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Shoesquashfan5000[edit]

Shoesquashfan5000 (talk · contribs) is a borderline problematic user. In the past week, he has tried not once but twice to blindly redirect How Far Do You Wanna Go? to Gloriana (album), despite the fact that the "How Far Do You Wanna Go?" article clearly asserts enough individual notability for the song. He has also edit-warred over redirecting The World Is Ours Tonight and not once has he ever tried to invoke some sort of discussion. He also has a history of problematic edits such as censored profanity in an edit summary, use of ALLCAPS, and occasional chart position vandalism on Rain Is a Good Thing. I've constantly had to babysit this editor because he rarely puts categories on new pages, constantly forgets to pipe links, and has added several reviews to the now no-longer-functional "reviews" field in {{Infobox album}}. Also, said user never answers his talk page, which I consider a very bad thing. This user has many good-faith edits too, making the bad edits all the more frustrating. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 17:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

To the list of problematic but good-faith edits, you can include adding an episode summary for an unaired episode with no source cited. I've just reverted that and left a non-templated message about it. —C.Fred (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Dragonflysixtyseven has blocked him for 12 hours to get his attention. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 20:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Action required over User:Screwball23[edit]

For sometime now, Screwball has been pressing the inclusion of information on the article World Wrestling Entertainment. It involves the idea that the promotion has entered a new era called the PG Era - based on WWE's move in ratings to PG from it's previous rating. His additions basically appear as this latest edit from him. Initially, a small addition was made (as it appears prior to this edit) but that wasn't enough for him. He has forum shopped using RFC, Mediation and some canvassing as well ([29] and [30] for example). I refused to be involved in a mediation simply because Screwball just will not get the message. The consensus shown in both the RFC and on WP:PW here with some other scattered conversation makes it clear that Screwball's additions are in violation of WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. Despite being told this, Screwball accuses the project of bias and keeps at it. Already he has been blocked twice for 3RR violations and now with three more edits today trying to press the same issue, I've had enough. It's about time action was taken against him for disruptive editing against consensus. It has been suggested that he be permanently topic banned which I would support, because a general ban for a longer period than previously (24 hours and then 31 hours) has proven to be ineffective. Thank you. !! Justa Punk !! 12:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I was involved with this earlier, and was requested to attend the mediation - which I did though it seems a bit of a joke and got rightly chucked. Screwball has in the past made coherent and logical arguments for inclusion, but consensus seems to be against him. I didn't have the knoweldge of the subject to do more than sample consensus and conclude based on that. I found several instances where such consensus was evident (which have all been included by Justa Punk above.) I don't think he is able to say "well, I still believe I'm in the right but if consensus says then consensus says" which is something one needs to say around here sometimes. S.G.(GH) ping! 14:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't care either way about this article, but in the interest of accuracy, there are a few things that JustaPunk left out (and, for full disclosure, I freely admit that I do not like him, and he does not like me): Consensus was frequently built through canvassing. The opening of a threat at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#Screwball says it all: "Alert to members involved in protecting the WWE article from Screwball23. He's canvassing again..." (posted by JustaPunk, who doesn't seem to care that fighting canvassing with canvassing doesn't make sense). When the option of formal mediation was presented, it wasn't given a chance because JustaPunk was the one who chose not to let it go forward. This could have been over a long time ago if people like him were willing to work toward a solution rather than insisting on either being 100% right or dropping the gloves. This seems to be a case for trouts or topics bans to everyone involved. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Note to other readers - the link provided was late in the piece when the majority of Screwball's behaviour (including the two 3RR bans) has already taken place. I never went to people's talk pages, unlike Screwball. !! Justa Punk !! 23:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

61.18.170.0 /24 IP subnet block needed[edit]

A banned user (User:Instantnood) who has been blocked from two previous ISPs in the last week is currently using random addresses within 61.18.170.0 /24 for each successive edit. I don't know whether this is because of some kind of abusive proxying by the user or just the way the ISP handles it's NAT, but it is impossible to follow disruptive edits when they come from 250 sources. Can an admin block 61.18.170.0 /24 for a day or so, anon-edits only, please? SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you link to a few diffs from this range that you consider abusive? I am willing to place the block but don't have the time to check the entire range. --Chris (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Check my recent contribs for reverts. It is continuation/repeats of what has been blocked the last two weeks on other IP addresses. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
See WP:OPD for probably more. I've blocked it for 3 hours. The whole range has been an exit for an open proxy for about the last month. It's a fairly busy range to be blocking for long. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, this range has a long history of long blocks. 07:46, 14 August 2008 PeterSymonds (talk | contribs) blocked 61.18.170.253 (talk) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 years ‎ ({{blocked proxy}}: Blacklisted by Sorbs; confirmed Zombie computer)
Maybe long blocks on the entire range aren't uncalled for if it is being abused by more than just my pet stalker. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Most IPs are blacklisted somewhere, especially dynamic ones. That two year block is fairly arbitrary and useless on its own on a rotating range like this one. It has to be the whole range or nothing. There's probably a few thousand IPs using it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Thousand? A /24 subnet gives 253 addresses (61.18.170.1-61.18.170.254)--Rockstonetalk to me!
Only 253 if the same precise subnet is actually defined as such on a router somewhere (then .0 is the network ID and .255 is the broadcast address). But usually ISPs operate out of something between /24 and /16. --Chris (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
It's an exit server range, like when an ISP channels all web traffic through their caching proxies. See WP:XFF. It's been used by their 61.10/16 range, and as far as I can tell also their 218.252/16 - 218.255/16 ranges. It's difficult to say who's using it now. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Longer please

It's continuing as soon as the block lifted. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

2010 in film vandalism[edit]

Resolved: Dealt with by block @ SPI (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Recently there has been an individual removing an entry against consensus to 2010 in film (see this for discussion). The user Tdi7457 was blocked for IP puppet-ing on the issue and a new user Giordano Adams has recently done similar to identical edits. What should be done about this? BOVINEBOY2008 21:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Giordano Adams is Tdi7457, evading the block and making the same edit that Tdi7457 was doing against consensus. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
What the? Who is Tdi7457 and what have i done wrong?- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giordano Adams (talkcontribs) 21:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
If you suspect sockpuppetry, WP:SPI is the standard location for reporting it. --Chris (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I dunno, passes the duck test to me. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I opened the SPI now. BOVINEBOY2008 21:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu[edit]

I'm here after attempting to resolve an issue through discussion with editor Tariqabjotu, who blocked me for "slow-motion edit-warring".[31]. Tariqabjotu and I have recently been involved in a content dispute on another Israel-Palestine article, which included dozens of editors and stretched over three months.

I think Tariqabjotu misused his administrative tools per WP:INVOLVED: "editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved ... current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors) and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute". Before Tariqabjotu blocked me, I had already said on the AN/EW page that I would step away from editing the article. Respectfully, RomaC TALK 03:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did not follow your case, Roma, but I do not believe Tariqabjotu actions toward you had anything to do with their comments from January you refer to. Please see they blocked Breein1007 for 48 hours on June 1, 2010,and Breein1007 also complained about the block. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
While I understand WP:INVOLVED was, in part, intended to avert these kinds of efforts to grasp at straws, I will continue, as I have done in the past, to refrain from giving them any merit. As I said directly below the aformentioned comment by Tiamut, I get accused of bias all the time when I do anything in any area that involves national or ethnic disputes (including, of course, the Israel-Palestine area), regardless of whether I have even edited in said areas (and I'm sure other admins have had similar experiences). Certainly, without a doubt, that's part of the reason why we only have a handful of admins kind enough to respond to issues in these contentious areas. And, as is usually the case, such complaints speak more about the biases of the editor making the complaints (whose only defense is the alleged biases of the admin), rather than the target of complaints. Now, just because in this instance, the editor can say technically, you violated WP:INVOLVED because X,Y,Z happened six months ago doesn't mean we should treat such complaints as worthy of concern or otherwise requiring some sort of action.
If we can return to the block in question, we see little in the way of impropriety. It was a short, sixteen-hour block (and we all know people treat sub-24-hour blocks as minor and inconsequential). RomaC made an unblock request -- not even citing this six-month-old, now-resolved dispute -- and it was declined (by one of the few admins, by the way, who frequents the Israel-Palestine minefield). She asked a couple other admins (HJ Mitchell and Shimeru) about it, and neither found anything wrong with it. RomaC also, of course, asked me about the block, and I explained in detail the reasoning behind the block, and why I continued to find it reasonable, based on her efforts to deflect the reasoning behind her block to this claim of retribution. All of this over a sixteen-hour block, which has long been over.
I do not have anything out for RomaC. The dispute she mentions (a bit over-simplified, I should add) is ancient history insofar as I'm concerned, and I'm sure insofar as everyone else is concerned -- until they're blocked, of course. RomaC had no problem when I blocked Breein1007 for forty-eight hours a month ago, in part at her request, for edit-warring, even though, according to WP:INVOLVED, I'm supposedly involved with him as we have edited in the same area. RomaC had no problem deferring to Shimeru, an admin and editor somewhat involved in the Caroline Glick article she was blocked for edit-warring on. But, now she has a problem with this block, not because there was anything genuinely improper about it, but simply because she claims some unfounded bloodlust. Again, there's no merit behind this complaint; it's petty at best. -- tariqabjotu 11:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I dont think you are uninvolved in the ARBPIA topic area, but this wasnt an AE block (though you have made a number of those in the recent past as well). My reading of ARBPIA and of WP:INVOLVED is that you may be able to perform administrative actions in the topic area so long as you are not in active dispute with the parties or on the article that you are performing such actions, but that you may not enforce ARBPIA. WP:ARBPIA#Uninvolved administrators is a bit more strict than WP:INVOLVED, saying that For the purpose of imposing sanctions under the provisions of this case, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict. You certainly have "previously participated" in content disputes in the topic area. nableezy - 13:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Question: Should I have put "Block Review" in the section header? Cheers, RomaC TALK 08:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The edit warring report was with reason and the block was not lifted by Sandstein after you requested it. Don't edit war and you won't have to deal with it ever again. Cptnono (talk) 08:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Want to point out that the editor above commenting on the report is the same editor who filed it. But that's not my concern. Again, I'm here because I regard it as critical, particularly in the I-P topic area with so much emotional/partisan editing, that editors' use of admin tools is held to the constraints clearly spelled out in policy concerning WP:INVOLVED (see also ARBPIA per Nableezy). Respectfully, RomaC TALK 10:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Requesting further discussion on this. Per my Talk, I believe I can usually steer through the POV Warriors on Israel-Palestine articles, but if my restraint slips with one of them and I'm then summarily run over to the noticeboards, policy promises me an UNINVOLVED Admin. I'm not delighted when the only Wiki Admin who has clashed with me on an I-P content debate is waiting there with his gavel. Respectfully, RomaC TALK 09:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note in WP:INVOLVED where it states: "In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." We have three other reasonable administrators users coming to the same conclusion here, so its pretty obvious that the community is endorsing this action. So give it a rest, your block was good. Stop beating a dead horse. LK (talk) 03:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Lawrencekhoo, thanks for your input can you please explain: 1)If you think my actions were blatant vandalism; 2)Who are the "three other reasonable administrators" you refer to? Note please I'm not here questioning the block, I'm questioning inappropriate use of admin tools by an involved editor per policy. Respectfully, RomaC TALK 04:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to Sandstein, Mbz1 and nableezy (the later two I assumed to be admins, but didn't actually check). Frankly, I think the block was good, but that Tariqabjotu is likely 'involved', given the comments highlighted on this page. It's not a huge offense to reasonably use admin tools in an area you're involved in, but it is against policy. So, like Ncmvocalist below, I'ld ask Tariqabjotu to be more careful, and to abstain from the use of admin tools when he may reasonably be seen as involved, as he is in this case. I should add that further admin actions in this area would be against policy. LK (talk) 07:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Speaking as a totally uninvolved editor, yeah, I don't think the block is really an issue in this case. There's nothing to escalate, at this point anyway. Still, I'm concerned by some of the comments that have been made by tariq (I was looking at the ones on this page) - I'd ask him to reconsider whether he should be imposing sanctions in this particular area (rather than with respect to any particular user). I appreciate what you're saying tariq, that users are always going to try and pretend that you are involved in a dispute when you are not, especially in areas like that. A type of vigilence is needed against that type of behavior; I know that too well. However, I'm not convinced you had been making much effort to avoid involvement (even if it was 6 months ago); I'm seeing comments from you that go directly to the content disputes themselves - in all likelihood, those comments have nearly no chance of resolving those disputes as an uninvolved editor/admin. If you have had this sort of involvement in other national/ethnic disputes (from even 9 months ago), and you are imposing sanctions in those areas, then those concerns about involvement might be legitimate - you might not be fully appreciating the gravity of why this part of policy came into force, and that's affecting your level of compliance. Alternatively, this might have been the only area where you became somewhat involved, and it's just a matter of forgetting what seems rather ancient or something (in which case this is just a matter of one area). I don't (want to) know which it is, and it's unlikely I'll follow this discussion further but I trust that as an administrator, you understand that it's important to heed this feedback early on and review your own position in the matter accordingly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Cfm decision ignored[edit]

Resolved: User merged redundant categories in good faith. Discussion on naming needs to be on relevant talk pages. N419BH 20:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there any mechanism to deal with editors who ignored recent Cfm decision? There was a recent decision not to merge Category:Banks of the People's Republic of China into Category:Banks of China, but User:SchmuckyTheCat simply ignored it and move the articles en masse [32] without even bringing the matter back to Cfm. He has in the past depopulated many categories then speedied them. 61.18.170.120 (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

User notified. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 13:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Twice. N419BH 13:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The edits can be reverted per that discussion, although the user can open a new CfD if they feel there is a case. Although looking at that CfD, I somewhat doubt that the consensus would be overturned. WFC (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of the CfD discussion when I did it. The category structure was a mess, with articles and subcats in both parent and sub-categories. I just consolidated the entire mess by up-merging. That CfD discussion does demonstrate the 'CfD is broken' Wikipedian mantra that some repeat very effectively though. The only opinion represented is fringe. Reverting my edits will return to a broken mish-mash of parent/child category confusion but go for it. (Also, it is interesting to note the banned user who stalks me is proxying.) SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Now that you are aware, and have acted out of process, please revert yourself. Courcelles (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Acting to improve the project at the expense of process is textbook WP:IAR, IMO. This should not just be reverted for no reason other than adherence to process wonkery. Tarc (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Except this didn't improve the project- it was a decrease in quality, or the CFD discussion would have done this within the CFD process. Courcelles (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
No it wouldn't because CFD is completely broken. Spartaz Humbug! 16:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Why do we need two categories for banks in China? That makes no sense at all. Either call it "Banks of China" or "Banks of the People's Republic of China", but don't have both! Fences&Windows 16:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Because China is a lot bigger, and a lot older than the People's Republic. (And the Republic, for that matter, even before the Civil War.) Courcelles (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
That's dumb, nationalistic BS that shouldn't be allowed to be played out within the project. Why should different categories need to be maintained for different governments or periods of a nation's existence? Should we do the same for the French Third Republic and the French Third Republic ? Tarc (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually it is neutral to say PRC, because we still have the Republic of China on Taiwan, which officially proclaims itself as the rightful government of China. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh no, we also have Category:Financial services companies of China and Category:Financial services companies of the People's Republic of China. How many more categories does this apply to?! Is the Republic of China/Taiwan the reason for this mess? Fences&Windows 16:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's why. Hence Taiwan in Wikipedia is referred to as "Republic of China" and China is referred to as "People's Republic of China". Those are the official names of the two countries, and it is confusing. Before the split, there is just "China". The proper course of action is for PRC banks to be returned to their category, and ROC banks to be moved to their own category. That's the nature of the situation. We call it "Taiwan" but the actual name is "Republic of China". N419BH 18:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Not quite. There were no Taiwan/ROC banks in either of these two categories. Similarly, there were no China/PRC banks in the parallel (but not overlapping) ROC categories. The Taiwanese bank category is not a sub-category of the China bank category. It was simply an issue that the China/PRC categories were overlapping, and articles and sub-cats were scattered among both. Cleaning that up by upmerging was an obvious housekeeping task that was entirely tangential to fringey Two-China POV issues. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
There are banks established in China before 1949 that followed Republic of China's retreat and moved to Taiwan. Some of these banks have since been shut down or acquired by other banks. 61.18.170.64 (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
ANI is not the appropriate place to go over 60 year old history. The category name is just China. It does not define China as a geographic/cultural/political entity to the exclusion of any definition, but the obvious first definition is the current PRC. Did these historical banks fit in "China" by any definition? Great, include it. Does it fit in a Taiwan category? Great, include it there too. Wikipedia categories generally do not fine tune about historical conditions for any country/nation/state over the entire history of human civilization. That is just too bad for nationalist POV mongers, but works just fine for generalist readers. Now go away, IP sock, because your (anti-)nationalist POV pushing is what causes these arguments and that is why mongering got you banned, to save the rest of us from it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Reply to SchmuckyTheCat: That's fair. If it needs adjustment, we can just rename the category. But it's much better to have all "China" banks in one category. N419BH 20:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
This is pretty off-topic for ANI and should be discussed elsewhere, but I would tend to disagree. Just because they both claim the name "China" doesn't mean their articles should all be lumped together. (You may be missing the word "than" as in "much better than to have" in which case we are in agreement)xenotalk 20:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Apparrently they're not. The PRC banks are now in a group under "China" and the ROC banks are in a group under "Taiwan". N419BH 20:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Which are common names that generalist readers (who do not care about nuancies of sinology and ancient politics) would expect to find them at. Simplified navigation aids satisfy non-expert readers at the expense of super-accurate but obtusely named categories that would satisfy wonky editors. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Works for me; marking case closed. N419BH 20:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Before the merger the PRC category includes only banks that are/were unrelated to the Republic of China. If no action is taken it's bringing a bad precedence that Cfd decisions are to be ignored, and it's accepted that category mergers require no Cfd. An encyclopaedia is not a children textbook. And it takes only one more click for readers looking for PRC banks from Category:Banks of China. 61.18.170.16 (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Why would that be bad precedent? There's a reason WP:IAR is more then just a policy, but one of the Five Pillars. If process leads to manifestly broken results, then the process is wrong. -- ۩ Mask 02:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Insulting Source[edit]

Recently an IP added this source to the Arsenal F.C. page. I immediatly dismissed it as vandalism as an Arsenal-hater page from it's name but as I looked into it here it seemed rather racist and insulting to people from Israel and supporters of Arsenal, so I'm requesting can we have this wiped from the history as I fear if someone found it there may be trouble and i believ it may violate WP:RD2. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Would you mind keeping your odd opinions about 'racism' to yourself? (WP:SOAPBOX) Nothing here needs admin attention, & certainly not revdel, unless there's anything more to this? That said, there doesn't seem to be any need to put a call for a boycott in the article unless it gets a lot of independent coverage. Misarxist (talk) 09:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) On that website I see criticism of the Israeli government and military, but nothing racist or otherwise "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive" (though I didn't read the whole site, so feel free to point out examples if I've missed them). Also, WP:RD2 is about such material in the history of articles, not links to such material elsewhere. Unless there's a consensus I'm unaware of for revdelling links to such material, I don't see that any action needs to be taken. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I have notified the user responsible for adding the source. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Continued contributory copyright infringement[edit]

(This was originally brought up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Youtube)

Resolved: Material cited without using copyvio link

Editors are continuing to introduce a YouTube video to Eve Torres that was uploaded by a user without any evidence of permission. You can see at the uploader's channel that he has another video already blocked for being a copyright violation. The guidelines are not always clear enough on this (which is why I proposed a guideline discussing the related guidelines) but in this case it is simple:

"...if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. An example would be linking to a site hosting the lyrics of many popular songs without permission from their copyright holders. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors." WP:LINKVIO

The link needs to be removed. As explained already, {{cite episode}} without a link might work just fine. Both User:Justa Punk and User:Rick Doodle need to be blocked if they continue to insert the video until they make it clear that they understand Wikipedia policies with legal considerations.Cptnono (talk) 07:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I fail to understand this. You Tube videos (no matter what the legal status) have been used in the past to prove certain statements to be correct. This video proves that Eve Torres is billed as being from Denver, Colorado. How else can this be proved? I ask for guidance as to how to prove that the TV content of Raw and pay per views are in conflict with other information (sourced or not). RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 07:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Just cite the episode of the program, without the actual link. Use {{cite episode}} to do it. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah thank you! Please ignore the reply on your talk page. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 07:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Sweet. It all worked out. Apologies again for not realizing that I had not provided the info on your talk page, Rick Doodle. Here is a little bit of spam: WP:VIDEOLINK. Cptnono (talk) 08:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Ahem. Although I agree with the sentiment, Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry only had a preliminary injunction with that "finding"; the final decision dissolved the preliminary injunction, leaving the legal reasoning as moot. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Point 4 of the permanent injunction (incorporating terms agreed upon by the parties) seems pertinent here. Since the parties reached settlement on their own, the court did not firmly decide the matter, but by no means did their final decision indicate a reversal of their earlier inclinations. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
LINKVIO even says that it is not clear . However, community consensus has been not to link to the copyright violations on YouTube since it does shed a bad light on Wikipedia and legal issues could arise. Cptnono (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, the preliminary injunction is vacated, so the reasoning is not considered precedent (even if district court reasoning were considered precedent). I don't know of any other copyright cases related to stable links to infringing web sites; Napster, etc., are/were dynamic links. Still, we don't link to known copyright violations, but we may link to suspected copyright violations. Further discussion should be in Wikipedia talk:Copyright, if anywhere. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
In general, we try to avoid linking to probable copyright violations. 'Reasonable person' sniff tests are probably our working rule of thumb. I'm not sure what your policy basis is for the suggestion that we can link to 'suspected' copyright violations — it comes down to whether or not the suspicion is reasonable. Where suspicion is reasonable, we shouldn't link. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The preliminary injunction is vacated, but the court's tendency there was clear. It was not vacated because they reversed their inclination, but because the parties settled privately. Do we really want for Wikipedia or one of our content reusers (the ones we encourage to copy us) to be a new test case? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Editor182 refusing to acknowledge consensus on edit[edit]

Resolved: Blocked again (48 hours this time). Create a new thread here if he does it again. N419BH 12:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Editor182 (talk) continues to disregard consensus formed over the images to be included in the article Paracetamol. He keeps removing an image of a generic version of the drug calling it "redundant" - however, this conflicts with logic as the article is on the generic version and there is no other image of a generic.

A talk page on image consensus was formed, and consensus was reached to include the generic drug image.

I ask for the image to be reinstated and Editor182 sanctioned as he is a repeat offender. In accordance with the rules of this forum, Editor182 has been notified of this page. --Kristoferb (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

He's been warned about this several times, and I recently blocked for 24 hours because of it, so I've just blocked for 48. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Backlog[edit]

Assistance at UAA would be most appreciated. APK