Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive640

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

Noticeboard archives


User:Anupkb uploading many copyrighted image[edit]

Dear all User:Anupkb uploaded many copyrighted image claiming his image/wrong tag. Each times he tries to upload that kind of image. This is inform to admin.Please watch this user. Thanks.- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 08:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Editor informed - as I was passing. a_man_alone (talk) 10:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


This board is not a venue for dispute resolution.  Sandstein  11:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Quantum666 (talk · contribs)

I've got two conflicts with this user and if we not decide them now, there will be much more conflicts.
First conflict is not hard. In the article about the city Karvachar (recent name in enwiki Kalbajar) he is deleting images, making vandalism and violating a rule of Wikipedia:Edit warring and 3RR, making three deletions: 1, 2, 3. This conflict is the easiest one.
And now about the more harder conflict. The conflict is really more wiser than one article about the Agdam Rayon, where have took place a conflict. There were a discussion in the my talk page, but as I see he don't want to gain a compromise. He repeats his arguments on which I've already answered and don't give new arguments repeating old arguments. I think that the discussion is at a standstill as he is not going to have a compromise.
About the problem (shortly). From the 1991 there are an independent Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR), while Azerbaijan things that it is their territory. Azerbaijan doesn't control a majority of the territory of the NKR. According to the legislation of the NKR there are one administrate divisions, while according to the Azerbaijan legislation there are other divisions. Here is a conflict about the quantity of the population. In this territory before the last war was an all-Soviet census in 1989. Results are available in Russian in the official Russian web-site. There were also two other censuses. In Azerbaijan was a census in 1999, but as Azerbaijan don't control Nagorno-Karabakh, there were no census at those time. Other census was in the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic in the 2005. The results can be found in the pdf file from the special web-page of this census (census in NKR in 2005) from the official web-site of the National Statistic Service of NKR.
Three quarters of the Agdam rayon since 1993 is under the control of the NKR, while one quart is under the control of the Azerbaijan. According to the legislation of the NKR, Agdam rayon was abolished and included to the territory of three other districts: northern part to the Martakert district, western part (with Agdam) to the Askeran district and southern part to the Martuni district. Eastern part is under the control of the Azerbaijan.
The problem is that Azerbaijan try to increase a number of population of the regions which has loosed in the war. They make falsifications for artificial increase a number of refugees. For this they are saying about a million of refugees and making falsifications on the state level. For example on the official Azeri web-site You can find an information about the population of this regions for 1993 which is more than during the census in 1989 from 20 to 30%. There were no any census in 1993 in this region at all and more than that there was a War and for 4 years of war it is impossible to have growth at all, especially in a quart. Even in the best region of the world it is impossible to have a growth of population for 4 years in 20-30%.
According to his contributions he is actively making edits in disputed articles mostly having a conflicts with other users. He already has got warnings on his talk page but he continues his behavior. Please make something as he is not going to reach compromise and I don't want to participate in edit wars with him. Also I want to add that in ruwiki he has been already indefinitely blocked. I'll notify him just now. --Ліонкінг (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The first incident of edit warring is from before my block of Quantum666 for another incident of edit-warring and is therefore probably not actionable at this point. Should edit-warring reoccur, please use WP:AN3.
The second incident is a content disagreement that cannot be resolved by administrators, or on this board. Plese see WP:DR for several ways that you can take to resolve this disagreement.  Sandstein  19:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll try to be patient and do not react to his actions, but if his contribution would not be more constructive I'll have to take the necessary measures. He spoils the articles relating to Armenia, adding a variety of dubious material which detracts from the appearance of article and I am very worried. Moreover, in recent years he had many conflicts with other users. I'm not going to pass other request on him now. Thanks, --Ліонкінг (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Please be mindful of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight#Casting aspersions, especially in view of your previous sanctions in this topic area.  Sandstein  19:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Quantum666 comments:

1. I made a mistake when was engaged in edit warring. As I have already explained I understood that it was wrong and I am not going to repeat my mistakes. Thanks Sandstein for explanations about my block.

2. I don't think that using words like making vandalism, he don't want to gain a compromise, They make falsifications, he is not going to reach compromise in Wikipedia is a good idea

3. Lionking hasn't answered none of my arguements and stopped the discussion at all. You can see it at his discussion page. And you will see that his description differs from the real matter of our dispute.

4. It's better to discuss disputed articles in details instead of saying he is adding a variety of dubious material. What exactly do you think dubious? I am ready to give you all necessary sources and explanations.

5. Lionking is givin only a part of information. I was blocked indefinitely according to my wish as I had decided to continue editing in English Wikipedia and to leave ruwiki. However I don't think discussing it here is a good idea. --Quantum666 (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, really? I have waste a lot of time trying to get a compromise with You while You have done nothing. You repeat old arguments on which I've already give answers. I'm not going to repeat them You are able to read them by Yourself in the discussion. You've deleted all gallery of images from the article and You don't want to hear from me that it is a vandalism? At least it is very strange. Anyway everybody can read my talk page to be sure that I've answered on Your questions and You're repeating them. You're adding a templates about violating of NPOV to the Armenia-related articles if there are not enough about Azeri POV while You don't do the same with Azeri-related articles when there are nothing about Armenian POV. It is double standards.
About Your block:
"The Arbitration Committee took into the mind that a substantial proportion of the contribution of the participant in the space of articles represents the introduction of controversial changes or the conduct of war update. Given this, the Arbitration Committee decided to keep a perpetual lock on the account Quantum666 valid justification for the change to violation of the rules of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, and account Absolutetruth block for 3 months. After leaving the lock on the party imposed a ban on the editing of controversial articles and restriction on editing the Wikipedia space for 6 months, as described in paragraph 3 of this decision." [1] So after a block in Russian wikipedia You are continuing Your contribution in English wikipedia testing Your luck here. So Your goal here and Your activity is understandable for me. I'm not surprising why You're deleting images from the article, avoid compromise and filling only one POV to the articles. --Ліонкінг (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
1. I have already written about your understanding of "compromise" and I can repeat it again. The "compromise" you were offering is not a compromise. You cannot "exchange" edits that have no relation with each other (except their authors). You cannot write "the Sun is rotating around the Earth" reasoning it like this "my compromise is to let you add information about the Sun's temperature".
2. Once again: you haven't given any answer to my arguements
3. Deleting the newly added photos was reasoned and the real compromise is about to be reached after the discussion in which you unfortunately don't take part. However you reverted my edits twice without participating in the discussion and even didn't answer my request about your reverts at your discussion page. At least it is not polite.
4. Show me any article that you think violates NPOV and I will add the template if it really does. All my addings of NPOV flags were reasoned at the discussion pages but I heard no answer from you. You cannot solve the problem of POVing writing requests here. The only way is discussing and getting consensus.
5. Are you trying to prove that 3 months="indefenitily"? Or are you trying to say that I'm "a bad user in Russian Wikipedia"? None of these tries will help you to defend your POV in our discussion about Agdam rayon. As well as discussing the sanctions against you will not help me to defend mine. --Quantum666 (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
1.In my talk page I've written about compromise. I've proposed You some variants while You have chosen none of them and not proposed any real variants. I'm repeating that I can agree with You with deletion of Armenian name from the chapter while we should delete misleading information about the population in 1993 from Azeri unneutral source to the number of population according to the official all-Soviet pre-conflict census in 1989. You disagreed with me and continued Your behavior saying old arguments. We can't move forward if You don't agree with compromise and don't propose smth what can be acceptable for both POV.
2. You can read them on my talk page in some rows up of Your arguments.
3. It seems to me that You don't understand. Not polite it is when smbd delete all 8 images from the article without any discussion. And when smbd delete all images from the article - it is vandalism. I'm an author of those images but to the article added them other user. And by the way the discussion started user who added images. You continues deleting them.
4. In wikipedia there are a great amount of articles that violates NPOV, but You chose only Armenian-related articles.
5. Sorry, but unfortunately I know Russian not so bad and I understand what is written:
ru: Арбитражный Комитет постановляет оставить бессрочную блокировку учётной записи Quantum666 в силе
en: The Arbitration Committee decided to keep a perpetual lock on the account Quantum666 in force
so it is not a problem for me to read what is written there. If You were a good user there You can not be blocked. And if You assumed good faith now You would work in ruwiki, but as You was blocked indefinitely You try to continue Your anti-Armenian contributions in English chapter of wikipedia, filling templates of violating NPOV, deleting images and filling anti-Armenian information to the Armenian-related articles. By the way, for a short period of time You've got here a lot of conflicts with other users. --Ліонкінг (talk) 06:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
1. Well, if you really don't understand that exchanging "name" with "population" is not a compromise you can ask someone else because being "anti-Armenian" I cannot convince you about anything.
2. Using colons doesn't mean answering. Read my arguements once again please.
3. Before accusing me of vandalism please read WP:CONSENSUS and write all your disagreements at the article's dicussion page. Reverting without discussion will never help you to prove anything.
4. They are also Azerbaijani related articles. Am I anti-Azerbaijani?
5. It's not necessary to apologize for your Russian. Could you please translate this text: Прошу бессрочно заблокировать данную учетную запись в связи с уходом из проекта.
Сделано. Разблокировка возможна любым администратором, но не ранее 1 октября 2010 согласно решению Арбитражного комитета по заявке 589. Артём Коржиманов 20:40, 4 июля 2010 (UTC)
I hope now you will stop discussing ruwiki here as you know very little about the matter and it has no relation to our dispute. If you won't we can continue discussing the sanctions imposed on you due to your contribution in AA topic. Should we? --Quantum666 (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
1. We are speaking about one article and there are two questions. As a compromise, in the first I agree to use only Azeri name and in the second to use only neutral number of population. I don't speak that in the first we should use only Armenian name and in the second also only Armenian. I purpose You a real compromise to gain a consensus, while You purpose to use in the first disagreement only Azeri name and in the second disagreement two databases: Azeri politically wrong number of population and a real number according to the census. If You want to gain a compromise, You should make assignments while now only I make assignments.
2. Ok, I'll do it again if it is really hard to find answers on my talk page.
2.1.Q:"The official site of Azerbaijani authorities is a reliable source to represent their opinion."
2.1.L:"there were no any census in Azerbaijan in 1993 this information can't be used. Azerbaijan just try to falsificate the real number of refugees, so after 4 years from the census the have added 20-30% of population to all regions which they have lost. Compare: in 1989: 131,293 inhabitans according to the neutral all-Soviet official census and in 1993: 158,900 (!) according to the unknown Azeri source. I'm sure that we shouldn't mislead the reader as the second data is very doubtful, it is unavaible to have such growth in theory and in practice."
2.2.Q:"You haven't shown any source confirming equality of territories of the rayon in Azerbaijan SSR and in Azerbaijan Republic."
2.2.L:"As I know a part of the territory of Agdam rayon is under the control of Defence Forces of NKR since 1993. But smaller part is under the control of NAA. According to the administrative division of NKR Agdam rayon was included to the Martakert, Askeran and Martuni rayons, so according the legislation of NKR there are no Agdam rayon. However a smaller part (without administrative center) is under the control of Azeri forces, if You're not sure, confirm it please."
2.3.Q:"We are editing differnt things. One is about name and another is about population. Don't try to axchange them. It is not a compromise. The only important thing is Wikipedia principles."
2.3.L:You can see an answer even here in the p. 1.
2.4.Q:"The article is not about the disputed territory but about the administrative division of Azerbaijan. Since Armenian is not the official language Armenian name has to be removed."
2.4.L:"partly it is under control of Azerbaijan, while the biggest part (including Agdam city) is under the control of NKR."
If you would have even the slightest doing, you could read again my answer, but you decided to just talk to me about their case every time again.
3. I would not do it. It is the equal if I delete now all images from the article about New York and somebody else will be obliged to write on the talk page why this images shouldn't be deleted. You have no right to spoil the article or delete images from the articles, especially to do it without discussion.
4. No, You're not anti-Azerbaijan as You spoil only Armenian-related articles. For example You fill a template of NPOV to the administrative division of NKR (which don't recognize Azerbaijan) and never filled such template to any article about any administrative division of Azerbaijan.
5. Stop misleading. I've wrote already everything. If anyone want to check, they can look Your block list.
(ru)"Yaroslav Blanter изменил настройки блокировки для Quantum666, истекает бессрочно (запрещена регистрация учётных записей) ‎ (учётная запись для обхода блокировки: Согласно решению по заявке 589)"
(en)"Yaroslav Blanter changed the settings for blocking Quantum666, expires on indefinitely (it is forbidden registration account) (account to bypass the lock: According to the decision on the application 589)"
--Ліонкінг (talk) 09:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
1.Once again: ask someone else uninvolved in AAconflict to explain the difference.
2. We have already started the discussion at your page so please continue there. Or you can go to the article's discussion page. I am not going to discuss it here.
3. Please go to the article's discussion page. I am not going to discuss it here
4. Please write your disagreements at the articles' discussion pages and I will answer. I am not going to discuss it here
5. So you cannot translate it? Good. Then I finish the discussion to avoid wasting of time. --Quantum666 (talk) 10:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I ask administrators to close the discussion as it becomes more and more absurd. --Quantum666 (talk) 10:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ліонкінг's signature[edit]

Resolved: Request made & declined. –xenotalk 14:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if, in line with the relevant guideline, the OP could be requested to modify his signature. It's quite awkward when reading, if you don't automatically know how they're verbalised, to run across words like "Ліонкінг", i find; it slows down the process. Cheers, LindsayHi 03:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The signature complies with WP:SIGNATURE. Just because WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to force a change. Mjroots (talk) 04:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
In my main page there are written that in English I'm Lionking. It is not principal for me in which language smbd apply to me. For example Quantum666 use English version Lionking and it is OK for me. But I use original Ukrainian Ліонкінг in all chapters of wikipedia and I'm not going to change this name. I think that it is better if signature and a real name's are equal, so I don't want to change my signature to not mislead other users who can mix up me with anybody else. For example, there are: User:Lion King, User:LionKing, User:Lionkingfan3, User:Lionkingmoviefan and others. Wishes, --Ліонкінг (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Verbalisation doesn't matter. There is no reason for it especially since reading is a visual activity and Ліонкінг is visually unique enough and distinguishable from any other sig. To communicate, if needed, copy and paste the sequence of the letters and reply to the editor. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 06:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, verbalisation does matter, very significantly, since we process things that are purely visual differently from things that we can speak. It's one reason why it's so very difficult to distingish one IP address from another and provide them with "identities" the way we do with account names. I understand why policy was changed to allow non-roman-alphabet account names, but for me, and obviously for LindsayH, dealing with them is quite a bit more difficult. Those with non-roman-alphabet-based IDs might think about altering their sigs for editing here to help others to "latch on" to them more easily, and vice versa for those with roman-alphabet-based IDs when editing in Wikis which use other systems. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. There are users, even admins, who sign using Chinese and Japanese characters. There are also others signing in Arabic and they never have been a problem for me. Same goes for those who use symbols in their usernames. The Artist formerly known as Prince did the same with apparently no problems. I don't see the issue really but I can't speak for everyone. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 09:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
The guideline quoted in the OP says editors are encouraged to use latin characters in at least part of their sig. They are not forced to do so if they don't want to. Mjroots (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree. By the way what is the OP? Dr.K. λogosπraxis 09:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
OP stands for "Original Post," usually meaning the first post in a discussion. In this case, referring to Ліонкінг. I suspect this was supposed to be a sub-heading for the previous discussion, so I've modified it to be such. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much Hand for the information. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 05:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I've got much more of an issue with some editors whose latin character signatures are gibberish. This isn't a terrible problem although it can make it more difficult to distinguish signatures from those very similar. Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This will be a problem for people who process written information by verbalising it, as they will indeed come to a screeching halt when they see a signature in a non-latin alphabet. I'm afraid unless someone tells me another designation, they all get thought of as "bleh" in my little brane (sorry, not very helpful I know). Not sufficient of a reason to enforce Latinisation, but it does make it worth putting a translation/transliteration on one's userpage, as Ліонкінг has done. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Reads like "Nioh-kihr" (neo-kerr) to me. Problem solved? –xenotalk 14:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, for me, yes. If I can associate that visual pattern with the sound "Nioh-kihr", it makes things much easier. And I agree with those above re: gibberish names. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it helps. Thank you, Xeno. May i just point out, gently, and leaving, that i didn't try "to force a change", nor did i mention that i didn't like the signature ~ actually i quite do; thanks for the feedback. Cheers, LindsayHi 17:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

State Farm claims[edit]

Resolved: if the editor agrees. We've both learned some new facts. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Amartya ray2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

OK, I'm not quite sure where to take this, so I'll start here. We have this user who is alleging that editors of the State Farm Insurance article are engaged in a "conflict of interest" because the articles cites the State Farm website for some of its information. He posts a tag calling for expert review of the article, which is certainly reasonable and fair. But he also removes those company-based citations and then posts "citation needed" tags on them, making a bad-faith assumption about whatever State Farm's website might say. He also argues that the lack of what he considers valid citations should be a basis for deleting the article. State Farm is America's largest car insurer, so it's plenty notable and deleting it would be silly.

Ironically, the user was blocked himself last spring, for spamming, which might explain his motivation in attacking this article (it wouldn't be the first time a user has attacked a corporate article for just that reason).

Regardless, I'd like a ruling on whether it's appropriate to remove citations and replace them with "cn" tags; and whether it's appropriate to slap a COI tag on an article when the editor admits openly that he doesn't have time to investigate the details, and is expecting "the experts" to do that work. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

While for the most part, this seems to be a content dispute, his better option would be to use {{Self-published}} or {{Primary source claim}}. I suspect he is misunderstanding {{COI}}. As per WP:SPS, self-published sources can be used in articles about themselves, but I would be inclined to think that "It is the largest automobile insurer in the United States continuously since 1942 and insures more cars and homes in the United States than any other insurer" might fail point 1: "the material is not unduly self-serving". Presuming this is true, more reliable sourcing should be locatable. And, of course, the company clearly makes WP:ORG. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I see that he re-posted the COI tag. More generally, is it appropriate to remove references and then post a "cn" tag? I would have thought the tag asking for review would cover it sufficiently. I still think this is a vendetta stemming from his short block last spring when he was spamming his poetry site. He hints at that when he talks about "if I were to post a website about myself..." in arguing that a corporation's website is automatically unreliable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
In fact, having re-read this edit summary,[2] which specifically mentions his site that he was blocked for, that's a dead giveaway. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

My justification[edit]

Look folks, this is how this started:

I came across this article State Farm Insurance and found to my shock that almost every citation from it leads to! This is definitely not and obviously not NPoV and the website cannot be considered a reliable source at least so far State Farm Insurance, the article, is concerned!

Now, I therefore though it was my duty as an editor of wikipedia to raise this as a discussion topic. I was further flabbergasted to see that the article is already controversial enough and has even been recommended for deletion by a number of editors. My first reaction was to try and improve the article and therefore

1) Tried to find credible sources (other than to justify what it already say. But failed to. This therefore led me to believe that the article was more of an advertisement for the company than a statement of facts, by and large.
2) As I was brushing through the article, I replaced some of the citations linked to with citation needed.
3) I also raised the issue in the discussion/talk page, as is visible.

Suddenly, the use who raised this issue (who I did not even know, before this point), Baseball_Bugs started sending me weird provocative and aggressive messages! I tried to de-escalate the issue but then his aggressions increased! He started reverting things from the article. Finally, he simply deleted the points i raised objections on and informed me that he is going to raise the issue here. In a sense, though i think this is not an issue to bother the admins about, I'm relieved that we can solve it with ur guidance. I seek ur protection!

I'm not interested in how an editor feels! I'm only interested in making sure that no one succeeds in making wikipedia his mouth peace. I did the same with Varun Gandhi!

I just read what Moonriddengirl wrote... I'm of the opinion that while more credible sources are being discovered, we need to delete the article any republish it at a later time. If you want, I'll contribute myself!

Regards, Amartya ray2001 (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Generally, no, that's why I say {{Primary source claim}} or {{Self-published}} would be his better choices. I don't know that I'd presume this is pointed; he might simply have learned from his own experience that self-published sources are a problem and be trying to enforce that, though with an imperfect understanding of what constitutes a "conflict". (In case he stops by: a "conflict of interest" is a problem on the part of an editor, not specifically with the content. It's a behavioral issue and means that the contributor is not neutral, not that the text or sourcing are not. {{Self-published}} or {{POV}} may be better if you think the content is not neutral, but don't have any reason to suspect the editor who added it of being more interested in promoting the subject than documenting it.) Since it seems to involve only the two of you at this point, this might be a good occasion for a quick WP:3O. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Moonriddengirl and would always appreciate a WP:3O Amartya ray2001 (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, for starters, another editor has already weighed in on the State Farm talk page and has advised the editor that the COI tag is not appropriate. "Primary source" or "Self published" could be fair. I don't like the presumption that a major company is automatically going to lie about facts and figures. He even tagged the Barry Manilow reference, which is funny, as it's well-known that Manilow wrote the "State Farm Is There" song. Also, given the pointedness of his edit summaries, he's got no business calling me aggressive. He's apparently under the impression that if he changes something in an article, no one else has the right to revert it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
You don't like presuming that companies are interested in promoting themselves? To me, this is perfectly natural. :) It doesn't even require lying, just selectively viewing facts, ala, "It's very true that we are the largest insurer of cars and homes...together. Of course, Company A insures more cars separately than we do, and Company B insures more homes separately than we do, but nobody sells more combo policies!" (And, of course, there may be no selective viewing of facts at all. But it's a possibility.) What is well-known is very cultural, I would imagine. I know that Barry Manilow wrote the "State Farm Is There" song, but I bet if we polled the readers of ANI alone, you'd find quite a high ratio of people who did not (and don't know many of his other jingles). His calling you aggressive is an entirely separate issue, and one you had not previously raised. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
There is no question that companies promote themselves. But to assume they're lying without checking any facts is not appropriate. He's from another country and obviously knows nothing about State Farm. But that does not excuse his approach of tagging everything and then expecting someone else to do his investigative work for him. As far as being "aggressive", well, I challenged his actions, and he didn't like it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
We don't assume they're lying without checking; we just don't assume they're telling the truth. That's why we have the provisions at WP:SPS. It is standard procedure, you know, to tag items you have problems with on Wikipedia; the main problem here is that he has been using the wrong tags...including assuming misbehavior on the part of the contributors to that article. Had he used the proper tags, I don't know that there would have been any more issues. Hopefully, somebody would have replaced or supplemented the self-published sources and everybody would have moved on; the article and the project would have been the better for it. Aggressivness in editing is always unfortunate. Things go much more smoothly when people remember to be cordial. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
You're right. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

───────────────────────── (@ amartya ray2001) The company clearly meets WP:ORG. Suggesting that it be deleted until better sources are found is so beyond the pale that any afd you created would be speedy closed as keep. I have no objection to removing peacockery until we get better sources, but basic operations statistics taken from their own site can be trusted. Syrthiss (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the citation needed tags are a little absurd for the information given. I think the tags on the article should be removed and any concerns with the reliability of the sources should be taken to WP:RSN.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Now he's trying to push an NPOV tag on the article. He needs to label any citations he has a problem with, with the "better source" tag, as Moon indicated above. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Syrthiss, if you notice, most of the article is peacockery. Though operational stats can be used (because they are audited), considering any other part of for an article on the same company is clearly unethical! You are admins and I shall respect your decision. Let us however make sure that we do justice to the millions of people who consider wikipedia as a reliable source. That, in my opinion, looks more like an advertisement page for the company than anything else. If you noticed, it appears to have been recommended for deletion before. I agree, the company is important enough to find a place in our website but can we allow advertisement?
NortyNort please read what I've written to [[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss].
Look, I'm a passerby so far this article is concerned. I don't care what one says about the company! However, I do care about what people say about wikipedia as a reliable source of data. And to fill an article with citations from itself is beyond justification, in my opinion! Amartya ray2001 (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
As I recall, it was requested for deletion by an editor with an agenda, and of course it was laughed away. If you want to make your point in the article, tag all the citations you disapprove of with the "better source" template, as suggested earlier. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Those millions of people who consider Wikipedia a reliable source are, sadly, misinformed. I think Wikipedia is a fabulous resource, but they need to know its issues, some of which are addressed at Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia. As far as promotion within the article, that can be repaired. The article is not unsalvageable by any means. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia, with its "anyone can edit" philosophy, is by definition inherently unreliable. It merely serves as a summary, a guideline, that might stand alone or might lead to further research. As you said earlier, he needs to do the right kind of tags - and better yet, to do the actual work of improving the article, rather than expecting someone else to. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Moonriddengirl, the fact that the article is not beyond salvageable was my fist reaction too. To salvage it we need to ensure that neutrality is foremost in our mind. And do you think (a humble question) it will be fair to let talk about it in wikipedia? I would request an administrator to watch the page and help improve it. Look, I, as an editor will move on with other articles (I'm more interested in) and my own blog. It is sad indeed that we, as a part of the community, are failing to stop advertisements by large corporations! I would also request one of the admins to give a final verdict about the article. Many thanks Amartya ray2001 (talk) 13:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I think it is fair to let source some of the material in that article, so long as the material meets these guidelines: WP:SPS. If material goes beyond those guidelines, additional or better sources are necessary. We don't have any evidence that statefarm themselves placed this content; plenty of articles use official sources to supplement information. I have myself used official sources to supplement information. For example, there's no reason at all to doubt the location of their corporate headquarters or the year they were founded. Not all information is contentious. I don't know what final verdict you want on the article, but as an admin I'll give this one: "It's not unusable; it could be better." That said, admins don't have any greater authority on that kind of thing than anybody else. :) (See WP:ADMIN.) There's nothing wrong with requesting that the article be improved, but it is important to use the right tags to do so. And helpful to be diplomatic about it, as people's feelings can be understandably ruffled when the quality of their work is challenged. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Alright Moonriddengirl, feedback taken... I'll vide WP:SPS and try to find time to improve the article myself. I'll keep in touch with you, since you know about the issue and helped resolve it a great deal, about making changes to this article, if not even others. But let's make sure that the article is neutral and of better quality. Furthermore, I'm grateful, you intervened. :) .. Keep guiding me! Amartya ray2001 (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

He also continues to accuse the editors of deliberately acting on State Farm's behalf, which is a bad-faith assumption and needs to stop unless he has evidence (as he was told already on the article talk page). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

IP advocating suicide[edit]

Resolved made this edit. Sounds like it's "encouraging" suicide. Bejinhan talks 12:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Tame, but blocked 2 weeks anyway. They'd received a final warning last week. –xenotalk 12:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[edit] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) seems to be on a wiki rampage. I have warned him about his conduct, but he insists on removing Nazi allegiance flags from WWII articles. I suspect it is blocked user JKGREINEDER who has been blocked for this and other things. Dapi89 (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I've explained the situation to the IP, and informed them of the consequences of continuing to remove the flags. Mjroots (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Aaaaand.....he's gone straight back at it [3] [4]. It appears blocking may be the only language he can hear in. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Blocked 48h, let's see if that makes a difference. Mjroots (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

IP trying to hack my account[edit]

Resolved: No security concern. Stickee (talk) 03:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I just got the following email from Wikipedia:

Someone from the IP address User talk: [a blocked vandal] requested that we send you a new login password for the English Wikipedia.

The new password for the user account "TomCat4680" is "(removed)". You can now log in to Wikipedia using that password.

If someone else made this request, or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it, you may safely ignore this message. Your old/existing password will continue to work despite this new password being created for you.

~Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please stop this blocked vandal who is holding a grudge from hacking my account. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not a hack. He simply press the "Email new password" bottom on the Log-in page. Unless he or she has access to your Email account (doubtful), he or she can't retrieve the temporary password. This happens all the time, even to me. He or she can't see your Emails, so there isn't a security risk. He or she can't get into your account. Your old password should still work. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay thanks. I'm pretty sure they don't have access to my email account. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Ignore it. It's a long-term vandal. –MuZemike 03:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
How come the IP talk page was moved to a different location? [5] - - Burpelson AFB 15:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know but I noticed User:Ohnoitsjamie blocked him for 30 days for doing the same thing to him. I'd suggest an indefinite block. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
IPs cannot be indef'd - too high a risk of collateral damage. —Jeremy (v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!) 17:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Question regarding this situation[edit]

Having had this happen to me several times over the years I have always wondered why the "change password" function is open to being used by any IP editor? Is there some way that it could be protected from being clicked on by anyone other than the registered editor whose "my preferences" page it is attached to? Not being very programming savvy I don't know how easy/difficult this would be. Perhaps it could be included in a future version XXX update. Thanks to anyone who can educate me on this. MarnetteD | Talk 17:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't think this is "change password" as such. This function is for people who have forgotten their password and are requesting a new one be e-mailed to them. Wknight94 talk 17:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not the "change password" option that's open to everyone (that would be silly), but the "recover my password" option from the login screen. This has to be open to anyone, because when you notice you need it, you will have been logged out, and maybe your laptop with the cookie on it is at the bottom of a lake or something. MediaWiki implements the "recover password" option in a very smart way - no "please supply your mother's maiden name from her Facebook page" nonsense - but the annoying emails come with the smart implementation. Gavia immer (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
So anyone can request a new password but only the person with access to the account's email address can see it? Makes sense. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Right. Plus, it never discloses the original lost password regardless, so even an attacker who compromises someone's email address won't get access to a password that might be used elsewhere. Apart from the unavoidable fact that the email has to be transmitted in plain text, it's really quite secure. Gavia immer (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the explanation. The distinction between the "log in" page and the "my preferences" page is one of those things that I would never have thought of. It is a shame that disgruntled IP's can mess with registered users like this but we all put up with worse from time to time. Thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 18:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive edits of User: 124x247x221x146[edit]

124x247x221x146 (talk · contribs) has been constantly changing and blanking out sections of numerous airport-related articles without much / no explanation. This particular user is also engaged in several edit wars. If you refer to his / her talk page, you will find that there have been several warnings made. Toyotaboy95 - Hong Kong ☺ 12:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It may be worth taking a look at this. It is possible that (s)he has edited using that IP. I don't know, is (s)he allowed to have a username with his IP, but replacing the dots with "x"es? HeyMid (contributions) 13:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Note: In the future, please remember that you must notify any user you discuss by using {{subst:ANI-notice}}. HeyMid (contributions) 13:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Comments - I've informed Toyotaboy95 (talk · contribs) of the need to change his signature. I've also raised the issue of 124's editing earlier with Admin MilborneOne, having warned 124 and another editor over edit warring yesterday. The other editor has responded with positive discussion and has ceased engagement with 124 over their editing, which leads me to think that 124 is the problem. I've no objection to any other admin taking action here before MilborneOne replies to me, if they think such action is justified. Mjroots (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
If this is an edit warring issue, is there a reason we aren't at the edit warring noticeboard? Just wondering. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Wow, def-initely... however, a block may not be justified now, since it appears he has calmed down. HeyMid (contributions) 14:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
It appeared at first sight to be an edit war, but when one of two parties engages in civil discussion after a warning, and agrees to desist, then it looks more like one editor is editing disruptively than two editors fighting over an article. Mjroots (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

In passing...[edit]

I thought Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was topic-banned from Cold fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and under some kinfd of injunction against pages like User:Abd/Sandbox where he constantly restates his side of everything as fact and refuses to accept anyone else's POV as valid? Guy (Help!) 07:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure his topic ban expired earlier this month per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley#Abd_banned_from_cold_fusion_article. AniMate 07:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
No ban (expired). No injunction relating to this. User:Abd/Sandbox? Eh? That page was used, and stands since Sept. 18, as a copy of Talk:Cold fusion, with all of my prior comments removed, and those of another editor, to measure edit volume in various ways. JzG, if you want to edit my Sandbox, fine. Say whatever you want! Permission granted. But bringing this to AN/I? --Abd (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
ANI is an appropriate place for allegations of ban violations. Nyttend (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, not for a ban placed by ArbComm. It would be Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. There, one is required to cite the ban, so time wouldn't be wasted with an expired ban. You can also look at WP:RESTRICT and see almost all current restrictions, normally including expiration dates. --Abd (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
But it remains inappropriate for you to be editing a restriction that was imposed on you by ArbCom (example). You should've left it to someone else who is not involved and specifically not the subject of the restriction - even if it was no longer in force. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Really? NCMV, what is the object of telling me this? Should I revert that change? If I just reverted without clear advice, I could be violating WP:POINT. I'll happily do it if you will confirm that it was truly inappropriate. Or, again, if I edited inappropriately, why didn't you, seeing that, revert it? I thought it would be, instead, helpful, to avoid the mess of someone thinking I was banned when I wasn't, and that this would help out with maintenance of that page. I thought that this was what WP:IAR required. Sure, if it had been controversial, I shouldn't have touched it with a ten-foot pole. But it wasn't controversial. Or was it? --Abd (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
You are permitted to discuss a dispute in which you are an originating party, but it remains inappropriate for you to edit the restrictions that were imposed on you. Hopefully someone (who actually has the patience to deal with your level of clue, style of interaction and type of editing) will make you understand the problems with your general editing before further sanctions become necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Let me translate this: the edit was good, but the editor is to be reprimanded for making a good edit. Does this mean that WP:IAR is dead? I have always understood that if an edit was uncontroversial, it didn't matter who made it, that COI and similar rules applied only to controversial edits. NCMV, it seems to me that you are, here, violating WP:POINT, making a fuss over nothing, to make a point about me. I hope that this is the end of that. --Abd (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Abd, I would say that if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. But I do think you need to do something about your volume of comments on the Cold fusion talk page. You need change form "lecturing mode" where you play the role of a professor who needs to explain or convice students about something, to "collaborative research mode" where you play the role of a researcher who collaborates with other researchers. It is then ok. to point to a new article and explain in a few sentences what you think it shows, but it is up to your collaborators to pick up on that. You shouldn't be lecturing about the small details and present detailed arguments why you are right, unless they clearly indicate that they want such a detailed argument from you.
If people don't pick up on your comments, you can ask in one or two sentences why they don't find your point convincing. From the answer, you can see if it is worthwhile to continue the argument. But always proceed in a manner where you minimize the number of words you use. It is not difficult to let your collaborators do most of the talking. If you proceed in this way, it is easy to sense if in a particular case, a long explanation by you would be welcome. Count Iblis (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the sensible advice, Count Iblis. I try to follow it. I cut way back on my posts there when asked to do so. However, there was some very striking news recently, the whole topic is heating up, and what's been going on there for years -- driving away many contributors -- is becoming very obvious, to those who know the sources. Most editors don't. So, it's tough. I'm looking for a mentor, by the way. No reasonable offers refused. --Abd (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the topic ban caused you to save all your enthousiasm generated by the recent news events over the last year for this topic :). But remember that Wikipedia articles should not report on the latest news. About mentoring, you could approach a few editors who you trust and who understand the problem that your editing style sometimes causes. Create a directory on your userpage on which they can give you feedback. Count Iblis (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

code or tag problem: The Chocolate Soldier[edit]

Resolved: turned into a properly archived link. Amalthea 12:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This page won't let me fix the ref tags because of an oocities link (note that the oocities page linked is a good page transferred from geocities). The software won't let me fix the ref tag, even when I try to delete the external link first. Can someone please fix it? Thanks! The Chocolate Soldier. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Intention to mass-revert edits that changed geocities to oocities[edit]

Since this request is still making its way through the BRFA process, I intend to mass-revert the semi-automated edits made by Updatehelper (talk · contribs) shortly (having the net result of restoring the original Geocities links ahead of the Anomie's bot providing the waybacklink), to prevent the spam blacklist tripping up editors which potentially results in the loss of possibly useful source material. I will be marking the edits with the bot flag to mitigate the impact to watchlists and recent changes. If there are any objections to this, please make them known. –xenotalk 15:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this even a remotely reliable source? Who created this page and are they a published expert in the field?--Crossmr (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Geocities links were used not only as references, but you're quite right that many are used as references, and many (or most) do not comply with WP:RS. That's an independent issue though, the cleanup of those links is being worked on at WP:WikiProject External links/Geocities and should be discussed and organized there. Amalthea 11:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Aitna deletion[edit]

the page

  • Biancavilla- in talk - discussion the vandal edit delete
  • Aitna - is vandal delete

The pages and the edit are been cancelled with a series of ripetut vandalisms without a valid motive.This vandal writing that the pages are copyvio from a nonexistent Italian text. Please blok this vandal and your ripetute vandalism on his talk User_talk:Vituzzu,where he write only in italian.In he is a problems for many user.

Thanks for your assitance - --Alpha30 (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandals don't have the right to delete pages here. Neither have Italian sysops one of which User:Vituzzu is. Aitna · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions] was deleted by as copyvio. I've declined to restore it at WP:REFUND as not uncontroversial. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
It's a long term - crosswiki copyvio issue: about 70 images deleted on the Commons and almost all text on and, trying to hide all that with a lot of lies on source and other users. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Commons have just blocked Alpha30 for 24 hours. TFOWR 14:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The Aitna page is an edit and the text not exist.It isn't a copyvio.There is the edit in this page [6] was already delete from an italian User:Vituzzu,we see his talk its all in italian.He is a real vandal for the edit here [7] ,it's only an edit not a copy.The only image in it have been deleted. thanks for all --Alpha30 (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that Alpha30 has unwisely restored the Aitna article. I never saw the original version, so I don't know whether this version has the same copyright violation, but I know that someone should check this. Gavia immer (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there's the same copyvio. One, two. --Demart81 (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted and salted for a month. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 19:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Outrageous attack[edit]

Resolved: socks blocked Jclemens (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I object strongly to having my edits referred to as "terrorism". Please take the appropriate action, thank you. O Fenian (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This rediculous. O Fenian, has been involved in edit warring on the Giant's Causeway wp and has also made accusations of sock puppetry. Can this user please be blocked. I am fed up with this.Factocop (talk) 16:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I have made no accusation of sockpuppetry towards you, please do not make false allegations. O Fenian (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Factocop blocked 24 hours for the "terrorism" comment. Can someone take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Maiden City and see if he needs to be indefed for evasion? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. As I said in my evidence there, I did not add Factocop to the report and I do not actually believe him to be a sockpuppet of The Maiden City, although he has been seemingly dancing to whatever tune The Maiden City's latest sockpuppets have been asking him to. O Fenian (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser has confirmed that Factocop (talk · contribs) and Blue is better (talk · contribs) are one and the same. O Fenian (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone at the SPA has said that all the confirmed have been blocked up, but they haven't. I'm just off out so can't do it but can someone take care of it please? Case already archived I don't want them to slip under the radar. --S.G.(GH) ping! 17:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Factocop and Blue is better are now indef blocked. Blue is better as a checkusered sock and Factocop per DUCk on The Maiden city--Cailil talk 18:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit war on template:nfl predraft[edit]

The template in question is constantly being edit warred over the style of presenting the feet/inches. Discussion on the talk page isn't getting anywhere, and I mentioned this at the NFL Wikiproject, but I still haven't had enough editors on the talk page to calm the "warriors" down. Should this be discussed here or on template talk:nfl predraft? — Timneu22 · talk 19:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this is a disagreement about an extremely minor detail. The edit has been reverted three times in about the last 2 weeks. I don't see any need for administrator intervention here, so I think this discussion can remain at the talk page. Why not try getting a third opinion, starting an RFC, and/or posting a message to a relevant WikiProject to get more involvement in the discussion and come to a clear consensus? SnottyWong confer 21:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


User:Alpha30 added such a copyvio-patchwork three times, now as, also Aitna has been created twice with the same "technique". I don't know how use to manage issues like this so I'm asking for admins' intervention. --Vituzzu (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Aitna has been "salted" (protected against recreation). By tradition, will refer you to WP:SPI for allegations of sock puppetry, and by tradition at least one admin will ignore that and take a look at issues reported here. I'll be that admin, and take a look at TFOWR 20:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Both editor & IP address informed of ANI. a_man_alone (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I revdeled the copyright infringing sections, and semi-protected the page for a month. If the ip's actions are found to be malicious (it is not obvious to me that they are), the page can be unproctected after the ip is blocked. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Uhm it's a really **big** range and the user is so used to change IP...--Vituzzu (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, semi-protection it is then :) Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Interactions between User:SlimVirgin and User:J Milburn are getting out of hand.[edit]

{{resolved}}Users have reached an agreement not to interact with each other anymore. As such, admin attention is not necessary. If interactions resume and get testy or out of hand, bring it back to ANI. Otherwise, move along folks, nothing to see here. - NeutralhomerTalk • 22:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Struck/reopened, see below-DePiep (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)}}

Interactions between these two administrators are getting out of hand. There's a hell of a lot of heat developing here, and it's boiling over. Threats to report, personal attacks, accusations, you name it. This has spilled over into several places:

and probably a lot more. I'm not recommending an interaction ban at this point, but it might be a good idea to ask both administrators to undertake efforts to avoid each other, at least for the time being. Would some other administrators please take a look at this? Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I am talking to SlimVirgin on her talk page about our interactions generally. I would be happy to keep this between the two of us, if she is. I don't think either of us want this here. J Milburn (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, what goes on between two consenting administrators need not be brought into the public spotlight unless dialog breaks down and they start flinging bodily excretions at eachother. –xenotalk 22:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that picture in my mind, Xeno. :) - NeutralhomerTalk • 22:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, we've reached a conclusion of sorts- neither of us has any intention of interacting with the other any more, and we have had some discussion about the underlying issues. Perhaps this thread could be closed? J Milburn (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Xeno agreed above that no admin attention was needed, so I will close it. - NeutralhomerTalk • 22:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The underlying dispute (on fair use) is generating a lot of heat, as seen in Talk:Battle of Berlin#Free equivalent of the Reichstag photo. I think if J Milburn or someone should open a centralized discussion on fair use of historic photographs. With all the concurrent discussion going on, each with only a few participants, it is likely to turn personal. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, I'm not sure how an intention to avoid eachother will help if the underlying dispute continues. –xenotalk 23:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree that we need some central discussion about Holocaust images. They are almost never free. Even when on the Commons, even when given us by the Bundesarchiv, they are not free because of their age, and because we almost never know who the authors were, or if we do know, releases aren't possible. Every so often an admin with strong views about non-free images will pop up (Rama last time, J Milburn this time) and try to have them deleted, always unsuccessfully so far as I know, leaving long discussions, RfCs, AN/Is, and so on in their wake. It would be great to get it resolved in general terms without the personal issues. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
There needs to be a general discussion about WWII images. Far fewer of these are free than people think, because changes to copyright laws in the last 60 years has generally extended copyright for everything. Having at one point had an interesting discussion with one of the guys who was originally involved in the policy (or so I believe), it is not meant to prevent the use of historic photographs because of copyright issues - something Paul Seibert has also picked up on in the Battle of Berlin discussion. The aim was to restrict the use of commercially available images of current events/people/objects by encouraging people to go out and make free alternatives - something that cannot be done for photographs from WWII.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I do not think the potential dispute is related to images of the Holocaust. While I appreciate the copyright related work J Milburn is doing on the 95% of Wikipedia content that is not included in the "actually usefull stuff", I can see problems arising on all images that are or could be labeled as {{Non-free historic image}}. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Erm, Elen, as someone involved in the Battle of Berlin discussion, I'm going to totally agree we need some type of centralized discussion if that's the current thinking on things. The idea of NFC is to minimize the amount of nonfree content we use altogether, not only to encourage free photos of current things. This is a free content project, so we should always look to any possible alternatives (including prose alone with no image, existing free alternatives, etc.), before concluding that an image is so essential to comprehension of a subject that it's worth compromising one of our core goals (being free content) to include. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The issue is that many editors would find the position that we can't use Holocaust images because they compromise our non-free status to be a reductio ad absurdum of the non-free stance. What use is an educational project that won't allow itself to educate? Hence the need for the discussion. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
─────────────────────────I struck the "Resolved" since the talk is continuing here afterward.
Which gives me the opportunity to chip in two questions, back on-topic. First: OP by Hammersoft: two administrators are getting out of hand. Why is it relevant that they are admins? Second, maybe they can do this among each other, but the list Hammersoft mentions has three out of four debates not in Userspace (And indeed, there are more). I recall describing how a discussion was spoiled by this. -DePiep (talk) 06:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I do see some substandard cluefulness in some of J Milburn's participation, such as the BRFA (CBM's comments in it are correct) and that pedophile thread. J Milburn is certainly entitled to form any opinions s/he likes about pedophilia or any other topic, but per NOTFORUM and NOTFREESPEECH, Wikipedia is not a venue in which to debate those opinions. Re the WW2 images, SV is being a bit heated, but if she wants to propose adjustments to the NFCC policy regarding them, she's entitled to do that (I'm not convinced it's advisable). Re the SV-JM conflict, voluntary disengagement for a while is surely the simplest thing. If SV really wants to pursue dispute resolution she's going to need more evidence than I've seen so far (not that I've looked very hard, but I did click the diffs and looked over the BRFA). Anything like that should be done in a central place like RFC, not multiple arguments scattered all over the wiki. Right now what I see doesn't warrant formal remedies, but is enough to express a general view that both should ease up a bit. (talk) 10:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I do not think that SV or anyone here wants to propose adjustments to the NFCC policy. What may be happening is that J Milburn is shaking the established status quo on historic photographs. What makes this worse is that the discussions are continuing on an on, as if one or both sides were stonewalling. In the protracted cases, I think that in the protracted cases J Milburn should just step away. If his point-of-view needs defending, I am sure Wikipedia has other editors that will defend it. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Petri, you have made it quite clear that you do wish to change the NFCC, as you seem to be of the belief that "historical media" (whatever that means) is exempt. That's simply not the case. There is no reason "historical" media should be treated any differently to the things you don't care about in terms of non-free content- our policy applies to all non-free content. You sitting here and accusing me of "shaking the established status quo on historic photographs" is a little rich. You may not like it, but we do actually have a policy on non-free content, and non-free content is non-free content. J Milburn (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I am not suggesting we change the NFCC, and neither is anyone else. What I am simply saying is that historic photographs is the locus of the dispute. I simple solution would be that you step back from the area of dispute and let others deal with the fair use issues – or that you at least pay more attention to the arguments of the people defending these photographs. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
If you're not suggesting they are or should be treated differently by policy, why are you singling them out? J Milburn (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, would you look at that?[edit]

As I made clear, I do not make a habit of watching this board, so, please, whether you're opening or reopening or whatever, notify me. I think this has to be said- SlimVirgin is a drama lover. She's not happy unless she's in the middle of a fight. I am very much the opposite; I do everything I can to avoid a fight, despite what SlimVirgin would have you believe. SlimVirgin's love of drama can easily be observed by her interactions with me- immediately after saying she wants no further interactions with me, she comes to this thread and talks about me (so, I guess that's our mutual no-interaction idea out of the window...). Despite being a long-time very active editor working in often controversial areas, you'll note that my appearances on the noticeboards have been very few and far between- yet, since starting my interactions with SlimVirgin, I have found myself here twice. SlimVirgin has made it quite clear that her issue is with me, personally, and not with my conduct- take for instance, her first reply to that damn deletion nomination, here. She for the most part completely ignored the NFCC, instead implying that I had an issue with, or was part of some campaign against, "Holocaust images". She also couldn't wait to bring up my participation in the discussion on paedophilia, because, obviously, that was so relevant. Take the bot discussion- she opens with "I don't understand bots and bot approval" and then goes on to oppose purely because it's me. She later used it as yet another place to attack my character, despite the fact I had just invited her to discuss it with me privately. She felt the need to bring up paedophilia and the Holocaust. I wonder if she could have thought of any worse things to imply? I think "private discussion" is a little boring for SlimVirgin, because where's the drama in that? SlimVirgin has a ridiculously jaundiced view of me, and she has made clear that it is her intention to wander around slandering me whereever I go, repeatedly threatening me with "taking it higher" unless I "change" to be more like her. She has even criticised me for not taking part in ANI threads and taking time off Wikipedia (something I did once) when, in the same breath, she accused me of seeking out drama and being the cause of a lot of it. (In response to some points made in this thread-, the paedophilia issue was relaated to Wikipedia, it was a discussion about Wikipedia policy, not some kind of discussion about paedophiles generally. Here is absolutely the place. Petri, the non-free content criteria, it may alarm you to find out, applies to all non-free content. Not non-free content in articles that Petri has not determined to be "actually usefull stuff", and not non-free content other than non-free content that someone has decided is "historical"). J Milburn (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Milburn is a nice person. I can attest to that. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Re: "historical" – Hmm, I do understand why some people may think they are speaking to a wall. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I find this a good description, concurring with what I've read from SV lately. Astonishing news to me is, that SV is an admin (SV can revoke me rights?). And in these elaborate discussions, no admin stepped in to restrain such a noise maker. Now, working forward constructively to improve Wikipedia, I propose a policy that can block a User (admin or not, but there might be levels), a User distrurbing a discussion from that discussion. Especially, since decisive discussions might be only seven days. Let's not reward the disruptors with a victory-by-distractions. -DePiep (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Block a user from disturbing a discussion from that discussion. Who gets to decide what "disturbing" a discussion actually is? And who gets to block them based on that decision? We don't block editors for civilly discussing an issue (devoid of personal labels like "noise maker"), even if they choose to filibuster. Seven days is too short, so silence the "noise makers"? I think not, good sir... Doc9871 (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
The obvious solution here is to ban Slimvirgin from interacting with or commenting about J Milburn anywhere on Wikipedia. Jtrainor (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, that's far from the "obvious solution" to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
@Jtrainor - that's not going to work, as it would prevent SV from participating in the very image deletion discussions that kicked this off. Although I do agree that walking away from each other now would help. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I've been following this ANI thread with interest, but I am not familiar with the background discussions of the image files, and I am deliberately not going anywhere near them. So I have no knowledge of the merits of the arguments. I also haven't crossed paths with J Milburn that I can remember. But, having read J Milburn's description at the top of this sub-thread, I have an intense feeling of recognition. It matches exactly the pattern of SlimVirgin's conduct towards me, ever since I was a newbie editor and committed the apparently mortal sin of editing some animal rights pages in ways with which SlimVirgin disagrees. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Trypto is piling on because he too doesn't like to be disagreed with and takes it personally. His mischaracterizations are familiar and tiresome.-PrBeacon (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
No, none of that is true. You previously tried to raise this at WQA, and were told by uninvolved editors there that your characterizations of me are without substance. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
That was a separate issue & your recollection is faulty or disingenuous. You have a long history of disputes with SlimVirgin which devolve into petty bickering since, when you lose the arguments on content and policy, you resort to snide and dismissive retorts. Much like others who disagree with SV, apparently. -PrBeacon (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually your claims at WQA were exactly the same thing. I'm sure disinterested editors here can judge for themselves the tone I use, versus the tone PrB is using. But I'm sorry that this thread, about the concerns raised by J Milburn, are being sidetracked by a pro-animal rights editor. The only part of what you said that is true is that I have a long history with SlimVirgin. It started when I was a very new editor, and was not at all as you described it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
In the unlikely event that anyone cares: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive84#User:Tryptofish bullying other editors on PETA article. WQA, as I described it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
PrBeacon is right. You've been doing it for years, and you've been asked many times to stop. You're now trying to keep this thread going when it's well passed its sell-by date, simply because it's about me. J Milburn and I disagreed about Holocaust images. We had a discussion on my talk page. We have moved on. There's no reason for you to try to involve yourself after the fact. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't expect you to agree with me, obviously. J Milburn said something here, and I endorsed it in part. My subsequent comments were reactions to other editors, not an attempt to prolong this. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Re Doc9871: who gets to decide on disturbing -- well, such decisions are made daily, e.g. by admins. Disturbing edits, texts, behavior, you know. We don't block editors for civilly discussing an issue -- is what I said. Actually, I said it mirrored: block those who don't. Ah, and didn't I smell that good old you too argument. Always useful, I should note that one. -DePiep (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  • @DePiep: You speak of "admins" and "disturbing edits". Is utter crap like this "civilly" discussing anything? And then you reinsert[8] it after he removed this garbage, which is his right? On open invitation for all admins to "get a mind"? Good luck on that "new" policy you propose above: seriously. And yes, there's a "You, too" clause attached to all editors, even those that you feel are simply just making noise. It's called civility, and it's already a policy. Focus on the edits, not the editors, DePiep... Doc9871 (talk) 02:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know much about the situation, but I think Jtrainor's solution might be the best, or at least for a little while until things calm down. Elen brings up a good point, but there are other things SV can do in the meantime. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Non-interaction bans hardly ever work unless they're two-way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This thread should be moved here. Count Iblis (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I wonder what SlimVirgin's response is to being being called a 'drama lover.' -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Replying to the two posts directly above, it would be very unfortunate if this AN/I thread were to attract trolls, but let us be very clear that J Milburn began the thread by raising serious and appropriate concerns. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
It may help if they both sign up for an account at WR and talk things over there. My experience here at Wikipedia is that when two parties in a dispute start talking without the big community watching every exchanged word (and interfering), it often helps to resolve the dispute. SV can't do this own talk page as it is watched by so many people. Count Iblis (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I misinterpreted your previous comment to mean that you thought this discussion was becoming the kind of (fill in the blank) thing that some of us perceive WR to be. If instead you are suggesting WR as a good place to pursue dispute resolution, well, let's just say that external websites have no standing here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


I think such comments must be noticed by administrators.diff. The user's 3 month block has just finished and he is doing such things. I really don't understand it.--Quantum666 (talk) 10:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Editor informed - as I was passing by. a_man_alone (talk) 10:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
The issue, I presume, is with the edit summary - "dirty azeri propagand"? I'd agree that that's not good. I'm unfamiliar with the editor or the topic, and hoping that better informed admins can weigh in - I don't really have time to look into this now. I have copy-edited the article a wee bit: it described the subject as a "terrorist" group, which it really shouldn't, per WP:WTA. The next sentence notes that several organisations believe the subject to be a terrorist group, and that's fine. We report what others say - we don't use words like "terrorist" ourselves, per WP:NPOV. TFOWR 10:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Although in this request I didn't mean disagreement with the edit itself thank you for your comment. --Quantum666 (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Quantum666, you're using double standards. You must mention that I commented on your continuous POV-pushing, which I called a dirty azeri propagand. So you even do not reject that you know Wiki rules, you know that your edit is against WP:WTA, but you're pushing your attacking view again and again. Than if it is not a dirty azeri propagand, but what?? Are you a baby, who is just mistaken, or maybe you're not responsible for your behaviour, or what else? Andranikpasha (talk) 05:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
And I have sources calling azeri army terrorist. If I made it terrorist in Wiki article, will you assume good faith? Andranikpasha (talk) 05:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


Resolved: Report actioned by Administrator Georgewilliamherbert

Need your urgent help with Ppwrong (talk · contribs). He keeps adding incorrect information and keeps edit warring. He confuses the Indian National Film Awards with the Rashtrapati Award, loading the Best Actor/Actress pages with false and unsourced names. I asked him to cite sources but all he does is citing Wikipedia pages, keeping his reverts, and above all, using personal attacks, calling me a racist for no reason and using capitals. He also simultaneously uses an IP account - (talk · contribs) to add his false data. His edit summaries contain incorrect statements. The user was warned in the past for other disruptive edits and his IP has already been blocked. I don't want to revert him now because I'm sure he will keep reverting so I don't think it will make sense. Please help. ShahidTalk2me 18:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I suspect Tollygunge (talk · contribs) is his sock puppet. ShahidTalk2me 19:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Notified the user here. There does appear to be clear IP editing associated with this user, I have given a single issue warning for the totally unfair racist allegation the user made in this edit summary, as I have experienced the user has multiple issue that if they don't either start discussing or backing off an editing restriction may well be the best way to start them listening to general policy and guideline advice. Off2riorob (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

User is quacking more now creating multiple accounts User:Prem87 is a new one, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

So is loud revert account creation quacking ok, and is this an OK edit summary.. GUESS UR NOT BLIND - GUESS UR A RACIST ? Off2riorob (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Investigating - applied 3 day semi-protection while I do so to stop the edit warring. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
3 day anon-only block on the IP (I hardblocked but reversed myself to a softblock immediately, will deal with accounts 1 by 1). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
...Ppwrong blocked for 1 week for NPA, sockpuppetry, and disruption; Prem87 and Tollygunge indefinitely as sockpuppets. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • - Thanks for looking at this issue and for your Administrative actions Georgewilliamherbert. - Off2riorob (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

 Confirmed, plus about 4 other socks. –MuZemike 06:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


User:Jayjg suggest I post a notice. I'm following up on User:Eversman, whom I understand has a long history of mal-edits, his talk page regularly blanked, multiple blocks and much disruption. Since April 2010 at least he's been amending BLPs to state the people are practising Catholics and adding a "Roman Catholic" categories, based on their parent's religion, misquoting sources. Most of these hundreds of edits stand unamended, as far as I can see. He is still reverting attempts to modify or balance what is written as at Pierce Brosnan. He is still going strong. Please advise. Thanks Spanglej (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You should have notified him, but I've done that, and noted on his talk page that he never responds on his talk page. You might want to see WP:BLP which says "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to his notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." Dougweller (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
This bothers me a bit coming so shortly after the notice, but it's hopefully a coincidence. (talk · contribs) Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

User Spanglej should have responded the issue of Pierce Brosnan on his talk page, where I have posted a message. And it is not true I have been adding a "Roman Catholic" categories based on the parent's religion, anyone can see that in every article I've changed. Also, I have not been been amending BLPs to state the people are practising Catholics, I have been adding info that they where raised Catholics and every time I have provided reliable reference. So, it is not nice that Spanglej is misleading the admins in hope that they will take actions against me. P.s. I don't have multiple blocks set against me, only 2 which all where made by User:Jayjg to whom you have made a complaint. So, another lie you have told. With regards --Eversman (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: I think it is only to my concern what I do with my talk page. Anyone can see history edits of my talk page, so It is obviously that I got nothing to hide, but why I do it is only up to me.--Eversman (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Apologies if I have moved through the incidents procedure in the wrong order. I am new to this. I pursued the question too hotly, no doubt. I did raise this on the Brosnan talk page and other pages where edit wars are going on. My intention is not at all to mislead but to flag on-going conflicts and unremitting contravention of policy that is, in my view, compromising, hundreds of articles. From Eversman's talk page history it is clear that the issue of controversial religious classification has been on-going for years. Thanks Spanglej (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

What issue of controversial religious classification that has been on-going for years? Every article I've changed has been reliable sourced and that is a fact that anyone can check. Please STOP with misleading the admins about my contribution to Wiki, it is not nice in anyway.--Eversman (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
The key point is the part of the BLP policy referred to above: "... the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to his notable activities or public life ..." I'd suggest Eversman carefully consider whether their edits to so many articles are in accord with that. In BLP, it's not necessary to add a fact (or category) just because you can. A quick review of Eversman's contributions and edit summaries suggest that the key point above may have been missed. --RexxS (talk) 03:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
My recent interactions with Eversman, on Talk:Pierce Brosnan, suggest that while we are dealing here with a somewhat obstinate user some of whose edits are not made out of concern for the correctness of BLPs. I don't think there's anything here that requires an administrator's oversight, though I am glad Spanglej gave the matter some public attention (and I must admit I have not gone through Eversman's edit history and so cannot judge the scale of these alleged BLP violations). I would appreciate some of the passers-by here to drop by Brosnan's talk for commentary, since that is the only place where Eversman is communicating about a specific edit they made; the opinion I gave there could be entirely wrong, and the community's input is valued as always. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
After seeing this edit and its summary I feel a bit differently--perhaps it is a good idea to not close this yet, and to let others weigh in. Should this be moved to the BLP board? Drmies (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Eversman has added Catholic categories, without evidence of practise as an adult, to around 700 pages since February 2010, in my estimation. These are in addition to unsourced adds to Jewish ancestry and other categories of ethnicity dating from 2007. Since June 2010, pages with Catholic category adds include Ross McCall , Jack White (musician), Megan Fox, Freddie Prinze, Jr., Simon Baker, Gerard Butler, Nicolas Cage, Nicholas D'Agosto, Matt Dillon, John C. Reilly, Ryan Murphy (writer), Ashton Kutcher, Heather Graham, Susan Sarandon, Brigitte Bardot and Tom Brady. There is a history of on-going edit wars over religious and ethic labelling. [9] [10] [11] [12] His two blocks were concerning this. He states "my source is for being raised Catholic and not quitting the church." And "anyone raised as a Catholic is a Catholic for life" . Thanks. Spangle (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

  • This is indeed troubling. I looked at the first three, and having found no evidence to warrant the categories, removed that information. I also raised the related issue of the categories themselves on the BLP board, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#.22Catholic.22_issues. I hope some other editors and some admins will look over this section and give their opinion. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Spanglej, those two last diffs you gave, they misrepresent Eversman's words--anyone who looks at those edit summaries sees that they don't say what you make them say. I urge you to be more careful. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Apologies. My intention was to give the two diffs as evidence of edit-warring. Spangle (talk)
    • No problem, Spangle. Well, the discussion here and the remarks on the BLP board seem to confirm that the edits by the above editor are not in accordance with our BLP guidelines. It would be nice if they would comment here again, so at least we know that they know that we know, but that may be too much to ask. I don't think that administrative action is necessary at this point, but I do think that a block might be in the works if the editor persists in this behavior. I'll leave a note on their talk page; perhaps someone can close this discussion, unless anyone objects? Drmies (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for everyone's time and feedback. I have learnt a lot. Best wishes Spangle (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


This IP is being used to communicate threats such as "I want to kill you", and specific threats such as "You will not remove my crap again. If you do, I will find out who you are, go to your house, and kill you!!!" Likely a sock, and IP has received "final warning," but I am reporting here because the nature of the threats go beyond simple vandalism. -RoBoTamice 15:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I just realized that these edits were made five days ago. I'll leave the block up for now, but if someone feels it's unnecessary at this point, then go ahead and remove it. I'll go about revdeleting the threats, though. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Content of the three edits specifically noting death were deleted. I left the others as they seem to be your regular run-of-the-mill vandalism. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I think two weeks is fine, even if the edits are five days old. Shouldn't be too much of a problem for anyone, really, especially if it is a sock IP. Strange Passerby (talkcstatus) 16:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to be a prude, but such death threats are normally reported to the authorities, trolling or not. Such stuff should come to the attention of law enforcement. –MuZemike 17:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit hard to report them to the authorities when it has been RevDel'ed? -Stickee (talk) 03:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
That's why we don't RevDel evidence. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
The threats are quite obviously Rev-deleted. The real question is why? It does no one any harm to see the threats in the history. This is just another completely unneeded use of revision deletion to censor the history when there's no need to. Buddy431 (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree that revdel is sometimes overzealously used. This is exactly the sort of thing that should stay in the history in case he gets up to any more foolishness in the future. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I will note that he also [threatens to blow up the planet Earth], so, y'know, probably safe not to take him seriously. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Regulate (song)[edit]

Someone has created a "hip" plot summary of this song, full of inappropriate language and original research. The "summary" is thought of as hilarious by various external websites who keep linking to it, and every time the non-encyclopedic material is removed, some "helpful" editor restores it again. The issue has been brought up repeatedly on the article's talk page, but the advocates for the removed language just dismiss the rest of us as tired rigid oldsters who are against "fun" edits. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I was linked to this on one of those said external websites, and my response was, "On the one hand, I want to delete it because it's unencyclopedic; on the other hand, I don't want to destroy something beautiful." (Though, I'm not seeing any inappropriate language. Verbose wording, too much wording, but nothing inappropriate...) --Golbez (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I consider "verbose meme" style grossly inappropriate, as being totally non-encyclopedic. This is Wikipedia, not The Onion. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • While the other concerns raised may have merit, I don't think it's original research as it does not "[advance] a position not advanced by the source". It's simply an explanation of the lyrics in (frankly hilarious) verbose meme style. –xenotalk 14:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
    • There are a lot of unsourced assumptions about plotline, character motiviation, etc. in the summary. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Did this editor write those "unsourced assumptions" himself, or do they come from the cite he references? Fell Gleamingtalk 15:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The "references" are primarily to the lyrics themselves, and to a footnote in which he explains the reasoning behind his original research. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Is "someone" Cander0000 (talk · contribs)? Because xe's done the same thing at Boyz-n-the-Hood (edit, from a draft at User:Cander0000/Boyz). Uncle G (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Yep. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
      • It's clearly intended as a joke. The old "let's apply clinical/academic language to the analysis of a gangsta rap song! Lots-o-laffs" bit. Cander0000 has been given a final warning for creating and restoring these synopses. Regulate has been protected; will protect Boyz in the Hood if the meatpuppets descend upon it. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
        • A straight-forward non-interpretive plot summary does not require any additional references, as the song itself serves as reference. However, in this case, although labelled as a "synopsis", it's actually an interpretation of the lyrics, and, as such, requires a citation from a reliable source to be included in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the protection. This nonsense has been going on for several days now. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

And is still going on... --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Verbose meme "synopses" in rap track articles[edit]

Baby Got Back has one too. If Wikipedia is being targetted with these then that needs to stop. By any chance are they being lifted from some external source? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I actually checked into this on the 'Regulate' one, but it appears to be original writing. The same user who posted it here on the 21st posted it to another site on the 23rd, and no instances exist before the 21st (at least none that I found in my searching). –xenotalk 12:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Targets thus far
All clean at the moment. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Not anymore. Please see Talk:Baby Got Back! Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm somewhat concerned that a user who reinstated the Baby Got Back synopsis was issued a final warning in the absence of any previous warnings. As it stands they're clearly edit warring and have nearly violated WP:3RR (and it may well be appropriate to block them for that), but issuing a final warning for inserting original research, with little previous discussion and no previous warnings to the user, is being a little gung-ho, imo. I think it's a mistake to treat all of these synopses as equally invalid: I noticed Baby Got Back a while ago and while it's clearly at least partly intended to be humourous, it appeared to at least be accurate; is it not better to remove the colourful language and cut it down to a serious discussion of the content (and discuss it on the talk page), rather than simply removing it and then issuing warnings to anyone who disagrees? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
It's a clear violation of WP:OR, and it's plainly disruptive. Actually, the joke goes farther back than the "verbose meme," per this Snopes article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's a violation of WP:OR. But since when does inserting original research warrant a final warning and then summary block? As I explained at Talk:Baby Got Back, there are multiple reasons why its reinsertion may not even be a matter of bad faith, and bad faith shouldn't be assumed. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
In each instance I've seen so far, it would be naive to pretend that the user wasn't aware of the humorous intent, and was trying to argue for it on technical grounds in an attempt to have some fun on Wikipedia. I've already tracked down one case of someone crowing about how funny it was on their blog, then showing up on the talk page to argue for inclusion with a straight face. If there was a case where there was some doubt as to whether a reversion was in good faith, I would consider giving additional warnings, but otherwise, it's best to nip problems like this in the bud before hip hop articles become a "haha this is funny and they can't revert it on technical grounds" free-for-all. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive (good faith?) edits by JuanF7[edit]

This is my first time resorting to this action, but I had after the user possibly forced a pretty good editor to leave. Anyway, JuanF7 (talk · contribs) has, for the past two weeks, been posting a good-faith edit(?) (see here) onto a section in the AS Monaco FC page. After being informed of the criteria for the section two days into his good-faith edit on his talk page, the user continued to do this for another two weeks. About a week ago, he took his incorrect good-faith edits to other pages, most notably Boca Juniors, and ignored comments issued by Bocafan76 (talk · contribs), who has subsequently semi-retired, possibly due to the inability to limit this user.

The user has recently switched to using this IP,, to insert the same information he has constantly been told not to input on the basis that it is incorrect. I don't know what will be accomplished by reporting this user because he/she ignores talk page comments. Maybe a message and final warning will eliminate the edits. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a borderline argument, and either one of you could be right. If I understand it correctly, you're objecting to JuanF7's addition of players to the "Notable Players" section of various team articles, because the players he is inserting only appeared in a relatively small number of games (i.e. under 30) with that team. The argument is whether "Notable Players" means "players who made a notable contribution to this particular team" or "players who are notable (in general) who played on this team at any time". I'm not sure which one of you is correct, or if there is a precedent set elsewhere on Wikipedia for this argument. However, if there is no precedent, then I think you should try to start a discussion (possibly via an RFC) to find a consensus. Then,