Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive744

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User causing me stress[edit]

I need some administrative help. This user Strange Passerby (talk · contribs) is persistently following me around. It looks like he's harassing me and it's certainly causing me stress. Like most editors, I do make mistakes and I'm not a robot, but I'm human. Regardless of any minor mistake i've made, he's rubbing it in every chance to bother me around such as [1], where he is challenging my competency to edit Wikipedia and [2], where he/she challenged my nominations and enthusiasm at WP:ITN. Because of this, I did do the mistake of replying with uncivil comments such as [3], and [4], because I felt that he's simply pestering me and trying to challenge whatever I've done. I appreciate that he is a valuable contributor, but he's been leaving messages on other people's walls about my competency to edit. I've asked him to leave me alone, yet he's choosing not to listen. Can someone please warn him/her to stop stalking my contributions and leave me alone? Thanks, Ab hijay  01:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Bit pointy from Abhijay if you ask me, considering he's under an interaction ban with one other editor. I have no further remarks to make, for I don't believe I've done anything wrong. I'd invite Floquenbeam (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to mediate if necessary, as he's dealt with Abhijay before, but I see this as mere point-scoring by Abhijay and an attempt to evade scrutiny from others. —Strange Passerby (talkcont) 10:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Don't assume things the way you think them to be Strange passerby. Similarly, there's no 'scrutiny' involved - All I ask is that you just leave me alone, and let me carry on with my own business on Wikipedia. I have got to wonder why someone such as yourself is so behind my back. It's stressing me out right now. As much as I appreciate your constructive help, Challenging the competency of others isn't such a great idea. I may have not edited wikipedia for some time after Creating my account in 2007, but as I would like to point out, one of the things we get trouble with is that there are too many policies on Wikipedia and some editors just get too overwhelmed upon knowing that there is a whole big tank of policies that the project operates under. In this case, it was right of you to note my initial follies on WP:ITN/C, but I feel it is wrong into starting a thread on the talk page of WP:ITN/C as talking about someone who makes minor errors (such as nominating things for WP:ITN/C which doesn't follow the guidelines) tends to stress out an editor and he/she may be obliged to drive away. I don't mean to start of again, but please mind your own business. I had the same sticking-your-nose-into-other-people's-business attitude once, but I realize that attitude is just wrong. I would like to start off working with you on WP:ITN/C candidates, but I feel that it is just plain wrong for another editor to find about the follies of another person, and use it against me without me even noticing. The End. Ab hijay  11:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I've had previous interaction with Abhijay, including blocking him (and his nemesis) in the past, and SP asked me to comment, for what that's worth.

    The boundary between harrassing a user and checking an editor's edits if they have been previously problematic can be a grey one, but I don't see it as out of line here. I've had to revert some of Abhijay's edits myself in the past, and when I have a few free minutes, I do ocasionally check his contributions to make sure nothing needs fixing (for example, placing indef-blocked notices on talk pages of users who aren't, in fact, indef blocked). I would certainly disagree I'm stalking or pestering or harrassing. There's a guideline or essay or something somewhere about this; it's not harrassment to watch the edits of an editor who has had problems in the past to make sure they don't recur.

    While I haven't checked all the interactions between SP and Abhijay, I don't see any diffs presented above of SP doing anything that could be called harrassment. If there's more to it than this, the diffs should be presented. For example, I'm a little puzzled about Abhijay's autoconfirmed status myself. I don't know anything about the ITN discussion, but editors are not immune from people asking if they're causing problems.

    You can't keep finding new people who have to leave you alone. I think if an editor has a relatively large number of problems, they cannot expect their contributions not to be checked. I'd ask Abhijay to consider his own conflict-to-productivity ratio, and consider that the problem is not that other people are keeping an eye on him. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I guess I just blew my head off with this. I guess I misunderstood the situation. It turns out that SP was actually helping me do the right thing, not go against you. But still, I would like him to stop accusing me of being too incompetent to edit Wikipedia. Ab hijay  13:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Clarifying Floquenbeam's question regarding autoconfirmed as I added the privilege. Have had no interaction with User:Abhijay in the past. Added the right when reviewing WP:PERM after seeing he had it before. Another user reviewed in the interim that it took me to do that (took me several hours as I was editing at work. I am a gastroenterologist and was editing between emergency procedures at the hospital) and did not approve. I didn't see that until after, added the right in the meantime. SP and Kingpin13 came to clarify, both rightfully so in my opinion given the above. I would not view this event as wikistalking. If a discussion is to be held regarding whether Abhijay should have this right, please feel free to do so. If another admin thinks otherwise, I am happy to have this decision reverted. -- Samir 17:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Backlog at AIV[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mrlittleirish 16:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Sorry, but 2 IPs and 3 users, that's not much of a backlog. Anyway, Daniel Case took care of most of it already. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bruno Bouchet[edit]

Hi, it appears that Bruno Bouchet has been editing his own article. User:Brewhahaha uploaded a photo of himself at File:BrunoBouchet.JPG, also appears to be shamelessly self-promoting himself and 2DayFM's Kyle and Jackie O Show. Thoughts on the issue? - 114.76.227.0 (talk) 05:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

How can he have taken the photo himself and thus own the copyright? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
If he paid someone to take promotional shots of himself, they are his to do with as he likes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.205.198 (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I suppose he could have used a timer lol! More likely, its the common mistake that people think that snaps taken of them belong to them. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Yep, it seems unlikely he'd be attending an awards event with a tripod and using a timer, so I've PUFed it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The photographer may have assigned the rights to him. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
That wouldn't fit with "I Bruno Bouchet created this work entirely by myself", which is what it says. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Doh! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I have a photo of myself, taken by myself, in one of those photo-booth machines. Y'know, the ones where you can get driving licence and passport photos? Pesky (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
It would have to have been a bloody big machine in this case :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Hehe! The mind boggles ... having said that, I could also quite easily Photoshop my pic to have a background of almost anywhere that I can snaffle a pic of ... ;P Pesky (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Now there's a thought. Maybe in the original he was standing outside the toilet holding a plunger.....Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • At the risk of igniting a wholly different debate... this wort of lawyering over images is really aggravating to me. I mean, you're assuming that someone else took the picture and didn't give him the right to reuse it (if he has a digital copy, I feel fairly confident that the "original" was given to him). Of course, that's open to challenge (and that's partially what OTRS is for), but this sort of... assumption of bad faith (to use Wikipedia parlance) bothers me. That and the hoops that everyone has to jump though to post any images on Wikipedia any longer.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
    No, it's clearly labeled "I Bruno Bouchet created this work entirely by myself", which is quite plainly incompatible with someone else having taken it and having given him the rights to it. And I'm simply saying that the copyright information is inadequate, which may well be an entirely innocent mistake through not understanding copyright - nowhere have I suggested anyone is deliberately doing anything wrong. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
    This is obviously not the best venue for an in depth discussion about this, but... my point is basically that we're guided (especially by that convoluted "wizard") to use the template that says "I <whoever> created this work entirely by myself", so to then accuse people of being deceitful after they do use it isn't very cool. Not that you're screaming at him that he's a liar or anything, but consider the situation from his perspective is my only point.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Did anyone say he was being deceitful? He could have made a mistake with the template quite easily. But it's pretty certain it's wrong, and only he knows what the answer is. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

User:WOLfan112[edit]

User retired. Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 20:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WOLfan112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I came across this user after noticing a valid article nominated for deletion, and found many more like it, including this, this, this, and this. He also incorrectly added CSD tags to articles such as here. I warned the user about these AfDs/taggings here, and he subsequently reported a good-faith contributor at AIV here. Fine, everyone's new at some point.

However, WOLfan112 then proceeded to misuse Twinkle for dozens of rollback edits, and requested the rollback right nine times (by his count) in a span of two weeks: March 13, March 20, March 21, March 25. Today, I received this warning to assume good faith regarding my initial warning from two weeks ago. His talk page is littered with warnings, and his unintelligible replies are evident throughout, including #Here tell me exactly what I need to do to get rollback and #Years of experience. I am requesting an indefinite block on this user who apparently cannot understand what several users are telling him. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

please....don't! I am very sorry and will stop now. 1 more Chance, please. 1 more chance. I want a last chance and a fresh start. --UserWOLfan112 Talk 22:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Last chance saloon - here are the rules
  • You don't use Twinkle
  • You don't ask for rollback
  • You don't nominate articles for deletion
  • You find yourself a WP:MENTOR
  • You do something useful on the project
  • You don't argue with anyone enforcing these rules

Keep that up for three months and you can leave the saloon as a normal editor. What do you say? Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment The above is entirely reasonable, but I would not be optimistic. Clearly the user needs mentoring, and has added the mentor wanted userbox to their userpage, but I doubt that the user is capable of accepting it. I left a couple of comments on his talkpage, and although one did get a reply it was not what I could call an engagement in dialogue. Generally their behaviour is disturbing and peculiar.TheLongTone (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah well, it's probably not a good sign that they have not responded here. Unfortunately, ignoring it will mostly get them blocked. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The user seems to know a lot more about how this place works than he initially lets on, so I suspect sock puppetry of some sort. WP:IDHT behaviour indicates griefing intentions rather than naivity, the intention being to mock the supposedly weak response to antagonistic editing / sock puppetry, this is especially apparent if you read the user's comments at village pump. SkyMachine (++) 13:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment Has it crossed your mind he genuinely isn't aware he's doing it wrong? I rarely edit (just typos from IP, normally), but I do read these pages when bored at work, and I've seen others do worse, openly admitted they were antagonising, and got away with it. But they had admin mates. The tone of WOL's critics comes across a bit bullying, IMHO. 62.255.248.225 (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
He's been warned he's doing it wrong for weeks. Weeks. And yet, Elen of the Roads proposed a modest set of restrictions that sound reasonable. If this is bullying, I'd hate to see what you think actual abusive behavior looks like. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I suggest this editor to look at WP:TPNO for guidelines on how to collaborate with other editors. For example, don't use exclamation points or other excessive emphasis, because it implies you're shouting or don't make legal threats (even using words like 'defamation' or 'libel') makes it seem like you're going to sue someone. From this editor's talk page, they want to be an administrator, if that's their eventual goal, they should read the advice for RfA candidates and learn from that. For example, "Maturity: There are no age restrictions for being an admin. The criteria are based on the users' common sense, good judgment, and good prose. 'Cool-talk' and 'teen-talk' may win fan club !votes, but may not go down so well with older editors.[4] Wikipedia has several very young successful admins; it also has a lot of older people who behave like children." I suggest this user keep that in mind when posting like "R" and "U" and "1". In addition, this user has requested the desire to have a fresh start, I don't think that will do any good for the community if this user's attitude stays the same. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 23:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
RETIRED
This user is no longer active on Wikipedia as of NOW!!!.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by WOLfan112 (talkcontribs) 05:52, March 28, 2012‎

───────────────────────── Well, that was melodramatic. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment - This is the cat that nominated Polyester for deletion. See ya!!! Carrite (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editor abuse right to rollback[edit]

Mea culpa for the mistake, and seafood for the reporter. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[5] This person removed my edit without explanation and no good reason. My edit was perfectly legitimate, because Burger King Whoppers redirects not to the burger which is widely known under the name whopper, but to a foreign basketball team. I asked him politely to explain his reversal (less than one minute after his removal!), but instead he rudely ignored me for more than 15 minutes. I checked his edits, and I see several times his use of the fast undo rollback tool is not in line with the policy of rollback at Wikipedia:Rollback feature. I ask that his access to the function be removed because of abuse, incompetence, and rudeness not to answer the legitimate questions. 70.53.152.51 (talk) 12:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Certainly not vandalism, which is what the tool is meant for. Having had a look at the contributions I agree that the user needs to be (at the very least) strongly reminded not to misuse rollback. —Strange Passerby (talkcont) 13:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I admit that the edit is legit and I mistakenly used the rollback tool on this case due to the high volume of vandalism on PBA-related articles. As you can see on my edit history, an anon vandal edited the Philippine Basketball Association article and added hoax teams on them (1), at the same time that the edit on the Barako Bull Energy article was made (2). In this case, I admit my mistake here but the anon IP that reported this case here should look on ALL of my edits and rollbacks first before being escalated here. And for the claim that I "rudely" didn't reply to his question is out of order. I cannot be online in Wikipedia for all of the time. -WayKurat (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The anon has made a mountain out of a mole hill here. Mistakes when using rollback happen all the time. The first thing to have done is to go to the rollbacker's talk page and discuss the rollback, which I acknowledge they did do. The next thing to do is to be patient in awaiting a reply. Running to ANI after 15min is patently ridiculous. WayKurat has admitted their mistake and should keep in mind to be careful of their use of rollback in future and this report closed. Blackmane (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Amen, with a trout slap going to the reporting anon IP, who plainly needs to be told that Wikipedia is not like texting your friends, and that it's quite common for editors not to hang around their keyboards 24-7, poised to respond to you the moment you want them to do so. Ravenswing 15:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to Block 8.225.198.150[edit]

WP:AIV in future, thanks. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've never done a block request before, so I apologize if I'm using the wrong format or forum. In any case, I just rolled back User:8.225.198.150 vandalism edits on the Muammar Gaddafi page, and I noticed this IP address (which is from a school) has a laundry list of notices for vandalism dating back to November 2010. The address was temporarily blocked twice in 2011. Can we permanently block it? Probably just kids screwing around (get off my lawn!), but if they legitimately want to edit, force them to log in. Thoughts?JoelWhy (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Already done According to me IP is already blocked by User:Zzuuzz uptil a period of August 2012. Dipankan says.. ("Be bold and edit!") 16:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Really? How can you tell? I see it says that the IP address has been repeatedly blocked, and that anonymous editing may be blocked. But, I don't see where it says it's blocked until August.JoelWhy (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/8.225.198.150 (the "User Contributions" link from the user talk page) tells you, and has a link to the block log. But to answer your original question, IP addresses don't get permanent blocks. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Ahhh, thanks!JoelWhy (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Joel, look here; you'll see the blocks increase in length. Zzuuzz blocked until August; that's pretty long. A next block might be a year, but you'll rarely see IPs blocked for longer than that, and you'll usually only see such lengths if the IPs are static and if they belong to schools. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Next time, also report vandalism here: WP:AIV. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 19:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pink slime[edit]

Already being discussed on AN and article talk page, no need for it to be here too. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We've got a blatantly POV title for this article and a bunch of self-appointed activists blocking all attempts at compromising on a neutral name. Most of them cite WP:COMMONNAME though common name specifically prohibits POV names even if they are common names. Discussion fails because they've got a POV to push and they're having none of it. I'd be happy to take unilateral action on the basis that the title is a high-profile article (this subject is currently in the news) with a blatant POV violation, but since there's a whole group disrupting the process, it's going to end up here anyway. My recommendation would be to redirect this article to the relevant manufacturing process - which has been on Wikipedia a lot longer than this article - and make a note of the controversy invented by ABC News. Rklawton (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I see that this was brought here after a discussion has been going for 5 hours on AN/I and on the article talk page also. I ask that this be closed for being an obvious case of using multiple venues. I'm really surprised an excellent admin. like Rklawton would be doing this, no matter how outraged he is at the title. Myself, I'm troubled, though not quite as outraged, but the place where I thought best to join the discussion is the article talk p. DGG ( talk ) 23:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Definitely canvassing. SÆdontalk 23:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I've explained here why the talk page isn't working - this requires admin attention - so I've posted here and WP:AN. This does not meet the definition of WP:CANVASSING. Closing this thread, however, was premature and highly inappropriate. Rklawton (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
No, it wasn't. See WP:FORUMSHOP. Let's leave this be now. —Strange Passerby (talkcont) 23:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Websense / Content-control software[edit]

User blocked - end of discussion. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could an uninvolved administrator please take a look at this article? It's become a battleground for internet censorship activism, and any attempt to improve the article is being met with cries of foul play & reversion of other people's edits to a highly politicised POV. Contrary to the talk page, I'm not seeing any evidence of a greater COI conspiracy by Websense employees in the edit history.

I have been accused of hounding for suggesting improvements on the talk page, and of being a vandal (a first for me at WP) for trying to make pragmatic and neutral improvements the article itself. I have recently tried unsucessfully to engage with the person who is "protecting" the Websense article, but unfortunately do not see any positive outcome occuring without admin intervention, given her disruptive patterns of interaction and behaviour towards other editors. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Socrates2008 is WP:WIKIHOUNDING me, there was a previous discussion where he was also threatening me with "reporting to admin"[6](2012-03-24, 10:44) on Talk:Browser security and then when I avoided the arguing and gave up on trying to edit that article due to his combative nature apparently trying to WP:OWN articles, a couple of days later he suddenly arrives on Websense [7](2012-03-27, 11:18)[8][9][10] apparently trying to start a new argument with me on there instead...
Again, I don't want to get involved in an argument and was avoiding him, but he is following me onto other articles after the browser security discussion... I am not going to reply here any further due to the problems with drama but I thought I should at least report what actually happened Face-sad.svg
(Also I reported on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Websense, Inc. before that Websense has been subject to a sustained propaganda campaign by the company spanning years, I provided lots of evidence there even though some of it is too stale for checkuser to be any use, looking at the contributions of the ones in that list there makes it very, very, obvious, with the marketing manager openly coming out of the woodwork at one point...) --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 21:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
My interest at WP is in improving articles, not in following arbitrary people around, as my edit history clearly shows. The Websense article would be looking a whole lot better today (and be less politicised) if every editor trying to improve it was not labelled a vandal or meatpuppet, and their improvements constantly reverted. I'm going to decline to comment further and let the edits (and more importantly, the reversions) speak for themselves. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Here is a reversion on another article that may be of interest. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Just in relation to one of the points raised above, contrary to Mistress Selina Kyle's claims, no evidence has been presented to show any sort of concerted campaign by Websense in regard to that article. The SPI to which she consistently refers was a fishing expedition - the bulk of the IPs and user accounts haven't made any edits that would lead anyone to suspect improper editing or sockpuppetry, and the checkuser on the non-stale accounts came back as unlikely to be related. There are a very small number of exceptions, but nothing to suggest anything resembling a sustained propaganda campaign over many years. It's time to drop the stick. - Bilby (talk) 09:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I've given up trying to improve that article. It didn't stop MSK's venomous accusations of bad faith, being a shill, &c; but maybe that problem will go away if the community keeps on tolerating MSK and and keeps on taking their comments at face value, yes? bobrayner (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
This discussion can be closed now, as MSK has been blocked for 6 months for violating conditions of a previous unblock. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Harassment[edit]

Could an administrator please review this edit, and this response, and advise as to what can be done here? It started as a personal attack and trolling, which I removed as inappropriate for an article talk page (or anywhere on Wikipedia, for that matter), but now the editor is tendentiously warring to keep his attacks on the article talk page as well. Help would be appreciated. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not harassing you. I do not know you. A user, User:The_Gnome suggested [11] you were doing article ownership and I responded that I agreed, which I do, and have since requested a discussion of the matter on the article's talk page as is appropriate per Wikipedia:OWN#Single-editor_ownership. That is not harassment by any stretch. Warmtoast (talk) 11:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Per the Wikipedia policy cited by you, "Always avoid accusations, attacks, and speculations concerning the motivation of any editor" -- you did just the opposite. Also per the policy cited by you, "it is important to make a good attempt to communicate with the editor" -- you have not done this, and have instead said, "So rather than discuss it I await mediation." Mediation doesn't come looking for you, Warmtoast, you must request it. I am removing your highly inappropriate post from the article talk page.
(Administrators can consider this matter closed, unless Warmtoast resumes his repeated posting of harassment on article talk pages.) Xenophrenic (talk) 06:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Update: He's still edit warring to keep his uncivil comments about editors on an article Talk page. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Wiki user:Fasttimes68 is vandalizing pages referencing celebrity model Stephanie Adams[edit]

This has been an ongoing issue with this user since 2006 and apparently Wikipedia removed her page per her representative's request and redirected it to the Playboy Centerfold list with her bio. Now this user has recently started trying to remove any information about her (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fasttimes68) and seems to be overly obsessed with her. Regardless, the vandalism, obstruction of information and pure silliness should stop here. MikeHasIssues (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Just looked at old notes from past edits he made and saw that he was told by Wikipedia editors to STOP making edits about her, due to his personal conflict of interest, even though he doesn't know her. MikeHasIssues (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you closely related to the subject in question? It appears that Fasttimes68 has made many edits on similar topics to this particular bio, indicating more an interest in that particular field rather than vandalism/obsession. I'm not sure though, but since your account has been registered today and you already know your way around here, I think perhaps you know more than you purport to know. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Since you've been here since 20 minutes ago, and not 2006, could you perhaps link this account to your prior accounts so that we can know what your history is in this matter? This doesn't make Fasttimes68 right or wrong, but when you display precocious knowledge of Wikipedia with a brand-spanking new account, it raises eyebrows. Wikipedia allows multiple accounts, but it doesn't generally allow one to mask one's identity in doing so.--Jayron32 17:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I've watched this one user as a non-user for 6 years and am not linked to any other name on here. Rambling Man also sounds familiar and there seems to be some sort of animosity towards this one particular Playboy model. MikeHasIssues (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I "sound familiar"? Perhaps. I've been here with a single account (apart from my travel account) since May 2005. How about you? You waited 6 years to make this complaint? Really? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
You've been on here since May 2005, but seem to edit on here often. You probably see clearly that this matter is an ongoing issue with user Fasttimes68 religiously editing this subject with ill intent. The subject of the article has a web site listed here and her web site has a (somewhat hidden) contact page. I wonder if she looks at Wikipedia. By the way, I noticed he once had a blog that was blanked on a page that called this subject a "c`^t". Just look up the pages where he was editing/arguing with other Wikipedia editors. Definitely conflict of interest here. MikeHasIssues (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I edit often, mea culpa. So, are you prepared to admit that you are editing under a number of different accounts? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
You sound like a lawyer, but then aqgain you'd probably be in court now. This is my only account. I edited a few times before creating an account, but this is my only one. Now, back to the issue. Your thoughts about this user? MikeHasIssues (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you certain that what you call vandalism is not more accurately described as "edits to a subject which you don't agree with"? Have you discussed it with the user in question? Or on the talk page? If so, what was the outcome? S.G.(GH) ping! 18:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

And can I suggest in the mean time that someone speedy closes/voids Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Fasttimes68 as an inappropriate overreaction/forum shop. S.G.(GH) ping! 18:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Going for the Grand Slam of forum shopping. ANI, LTA, AIV, and now AE. Favonian (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Gah... deleted the LTA page and reverted the AE request. One location (here) is enough, I think. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, you commented prior to reading this user's edit history on the subject matter since 2006. I might sign off here soon and go to visit the subject's web sites. MikeHasIssues (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTFISHING, I've opened an SPI on this. There has to be a master out there somewhere. Calabe1992 19:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"MikeHasIssues", it would be easiest if you declared any kind of conflict of interest right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

  • I have checked a sample of 40 edits by Fasttimes68, ranging from his/her first edit to his/her latest edit. The user's edits relating to Stephanie Adams are a small proportion of his/her total of 567 edits. On the other hand, it seems that 100% of edits by MikeHasIssues are about Stephanie Adams. So who is it who is "overly obsessed with her"? (Quoted from MikeHasIssues in his opening statment of this discussion.) Fasttimes68 has removed mentions of a subject which, by consensus in a community discussion, was decided to be non-notable. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. MikeHasIssues disagrees with the removal, and, instead of seeking to discuss the issue with Fasttimes68, has launched directly into a string of attempts to get Fasttimes68 prevented from doing so, including calling the edits he disagrees with "vandalism", and a substantial amount of forumshopping. There is a clear consensus in the above discussion that the problem here lies with MikeHasIssues. I will warn MikeHasIssues that further disruptive editing is likely to lead to a block. That seems to be all that needs to be done, unless the trouble continues, or unless the SPI produces a positive result. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Part two: the abusive editing[edit]

There are clearly two related, but separate, issues here. On the one hand we have a sockpuppeteer who appears to have some direct involvement with Stephanie Adams. That issue appears to be being dealt with at SPI. On the other hand, we have an editor (user:Fasttimes68) who has been on a multi-year campaign against Adams, on and off Wikipedia. It is discussed in more detail than anyone cares about here, and here and quite likely here. Several editors (including admins) warned the user to stay away from editing related to Adams, but they appear to have continued. Now that the sockpuppetry is out of the way, can we deal with the other issue, please? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I closed this discussion on the basis of a careful study of those questions which had been raised here. Delicious carbuncle is quite right to point out that there are other relevant issues, and other relevant discussions, so I am reverting my closure. It seems that MikeHasIssues may have legitimate concerns. If so, it is unfortunate that, instead of expressing those concerns in a constructive way, has been obstructive and combative, which led to attention focussing on his behaviour, rather than on the problems he was trying to call attention to. It looks to me as though there are, in fact, problems with both editors. Also, I realise that I used unsuitable wording above when I referred to removing mentions of a subject which, a community discussion had decided was non-notable was "a perfectly reasonable thing to do". The discussion had decided that the subject was not notable enough to have an entire article about it, not that it should not be mentioned at all. Removing mentions of someone of low notability is not entirely unreasonable, but "perfectly reasonable" was overstating the point, for which I apologise. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Suitcivil133[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Suitcivil133 is becoming a problem, this user is a supposed fan of FC Barcelona and reverts anything that seems to shame that team. This user needs to lash out at other users to prove she is correct. She recently reverted 3 of the same pictures on 3 different articles because it was FC Barcelonas rivial, Real Madrids victory. MadridistaFG7 (talk) 07:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

As per the big orange box, you're required to notify any user you report here. I have done so on your behalf (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all you are probably a former banned user because you are deleting the EXACT same correct information the former banned editors did (deleting sourced information even) and constantly trying to give a bad picture of FCB. You claim I cannot write any negative words about FCB which is far from the truth. It's less than 3 days ago that I deleted information that put RM in a bad light.

I am pretty convince that this MadridistaFG7 is either RealCowboys or Seaboy123 both banned from editing on Wikipedia. Could possibly be even the same editor behind the two users (the later was proven as a sock puppet)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RealCowboys

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seaboy123

They deleted the exact same information as this current user who funnily enough also is a RM fan.--Suitcivil133 (talk) 10:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Probation breach[edit]

Copied from above: Domer48 is in breach of his probation. Here [12] which falls under The Troubles sanctions. Under probation, Domer is only allowed to make 1 edit per page per week but under WP:Adam_Carroll, he/she has made 4 edits in 2 weeks regarding the persons nationality. This is surely in breach of their probation outlined here [13].

This user is very aware of Troubles related pages and should know better. Gravyring (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Provide the diff's which violate any of the remedies of Troubles arbcom? --Domer48'fenian' 22:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I think the link to the article edit history page has already been provided showing 4 edits in 2 weeks. Try reading other users comments first. Obviously in breach of your probation, and not your first probationary period. Something wrong with the wiki system if an innocent user like yourself Domer can found guilty so many times.Hackneyhound (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I think a check on Graveyring & Hackneyhound might be in order. These two seem to work as a tag team, both forget to inform about ANI and both forget to sign their comments from time to time. Bjmullan (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Ironic that Bjmullan turns up 5 mins after Domer to accuse other users of "tag teaming". Give me a chuckle.Also as a new user I was not aware that notification was needed especially if the notice was raised against a stalker. I've learned my lessonHackneyhound (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Unless someone thinks it a horrible idea, I'm about to block Gravyring indef for being a trouble-making, POV-pushing SPA in the Troubles subject area, who has now tried to game the system and get an opponent blocked for something they did in October of last year, and who misrepresented the situation too. Also, if he isn't a sock of a previously blocked editor, I'll eat my hat, although I don't know the players in the whole Troubles Drama well enough to identify which blocked editor. Any reason not to indef? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    Gravyring blocked indef; I don't know enough about Hackneyhound to say whether a check is called for or not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I object. No grounds for block, unless requesting an RFC, and trying to find a compromise on a page that is covered in pov and years edit warring. Something not right here.

I would have thought that with one SPA account being blocked for making a frivolous report, that the other SPA would have thought twice before they decided to keep it up but apperently not. First off, this was back in October 2011. Secondly, there was no violation and no supporting diff provided to suggest otherwise. Now having been put on notice already today of possible sanctions against you this is not a very good move on your part and this post is very unwise. I suggest you stop now.--Domer48'fenian' 10:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
a link was provided to edit history of the page. That is enough evidence and is easier to read than 4 diffs. The page is troubles related as almost all Northern Ireland related articles fall under sanctions. You knew this yet continued to edit on a person's nationality while under probation. Hackneyhound (talk) 11:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Any passing admins: Domer brought this up on my talk page, but I have no time to deal with it. Just a quick note to point out that I blocked Gravyring indef for behavior that looks remarkably similar to what Hackneyhound is doing here (frivolous gamesmanship about a 5 month old issue (plus the 3rd edit was an immediate revert of 2nd edit, so no violation anyway)), and the editing histories of Gravyring and Hackneyhound look remarkably similar on a quick glance. I just don't have time to look at Hackneyhound the way I did with Gravyring, but I think a Checkuser might be in order, or even a final warning or indef block for intentionally causing trouble in a contentious area, sock or not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not here to argue Gravy/Hackney's case, but it wouldn't be hard to see how they might feel aggrieved when they get maligned and even punished for doing things that are not much different to that which Domer/BJMullen seem to routinely engage in. It only took me 5 minutes to find out that BJMullen's one and only block is for "deliberately gaming 1RR restriction at Carlingford Lough." as recently as last month. Domer's block log is huge, and includes several similar violations. Working as a team just like Gravy/Hackney, the pairing of Domer/BJMullen appears to me to be just as much a single purpose entity as Gravy/Hackney are being painted as, unless you can find any non-Troubles related edits in their history? I certainly couldn't. And even if Gravy/Hackney are one person, that obviously doesn't warrant harsher treatment than what two people working as a team warrant. The activities of Domer/BJMullen at articles like Carlingford Lough should not be overlooked just because they are more experienced than their opponents at any particular venue. All of them are POV pushing warriors from where I'm standing, they all have multiple reverts on that one article alone, yet the only justification for Gravyring's first and only block being indef is apparently that he hasn't been smart enough to spread his interests around the Troubles area first; instead he just objected to what was going on in relation to one issue, and has seemingly paid for it. Looks to me like a just a 'win' for the Domer/BJMullen camp more than anything preventing the sort of ongoing brush fires that arise out of the continued tolerance of POV editing camps. I was quite disgusted to see an admin calling what has gone on at the Carlingford Lough talk page as an example of Wikipedia type consensus building. It's nowhere near it, as the claim about how the article title dictates what it should be referred to in the article shows - can you imagine the disputes that would be unleashed if this line of reasoning was allowed in subjects like Derry/Londonderry? It's a clearly bogus argument, presented as nothing more than as a way of getting out of the obligation of having to consider the other side's position. Truly neutral content is not arrived at this way. Neetandtidy (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Neetandtidy you have inicated you have edited on wiki before, "But who knows, maybe things have changed since I last editted" under what user name? Just as you know from the articles talkpage, the area is littered with socks, even if you would care to e-mail an admin in private about your previous account, they could say you're cool and that would be fine by everyone. Murry1975 (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Having a past account is not the same as having a sock. I'll not be emailing anyone - if someone wants to make unfounded allegations against me, that's fine, I'll just retire this one too and go about my business. Do I need to highlight that your first edits are pretty much the textbook signs of a returning user too? I only re-registered to get the island included in the opening of the loch artice, and then to try to ensure this situation is investigated properly, appearing as it does to me to be pretty one sided and ham-fisted way of going about stopping POV editting disputes. If people are less bothered about that, and more interested in maligning me as well, well, I guess that's just how it will have to be. Neetandtidy (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I know its not the same as having a sock account, but for clarity e-mail an admin. My first edits? I tried to intervine in a dispute and made a b@@@@ of it. I created my account in May last with the idea of learning before being invovled, and not making any mistakes, it didnt work I have to say, but all in good faith and I would be willing to e-mail an admin to prve who I am, even pertaining to my "real life" person. Its odd that you want this to be investigated properly yet are hiding your previous account, and the pattern of misrepresenting what I am bothered in, is familar too, but lets AGF. Your call on e-mailing an admin, but as socking is active in this area it would be for your benefit. Murry1975 (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The blocking admin has sided with Domer48 in this case, a user with a history of blocking offences and as of yesterday had just completed a 6 month probation on The Troubles related articles. Looking at past discussions on Carlingford Lough page, Gravyring was the first user in all the recent years of edit warring to raise a DR and RFC. This can hardly be considered dusruptive? It certainly does not deserve an indefinite block if Domer can continue to edit given his past decressions. From what I fan see Domer and Bjmullan have been tag teaming a lot longer than anyone on NI related issues.Hackneyhound (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Is that you TR or perhaps MMN? Bjmullan (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

*Any reading admin please note requests for disclosure of User:Neetandtidy to disclose his previous account have been rebuffed and met with threats of blocks and abusive language [[14]]. Murry1975 (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Note, I took up Floquenbeam's suggestion and have now indeff'd User:Hackneyhound as being the same person as User:Greyring. I have a strong suspicion both are User:Factocop who recently had an appeal to have his ban lifted turned down. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing...not sure what to do[edit]

There is a user, Arzel, who has a pattern of deleting sourced content over and over with weak arguments. Most of the deletes appear WP:IDONTLIKEIT. He has contributed very little content (maybe a comment or two), and that content poorly sourced (didn't bother to include a full reference description). A few editors have confronted him about the deletions, and discussed it at length, including myself, but without much result. He has been most disruptive on the hydraulic fracturing pages, but recently followed me to another page I was working on. Discussions of behavior can be found on Talk:Hydraulic_fracturing and Talk:Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_States. The page he followed me to was Philadelphia Water Department. I had warned him a while back and just let him know that I was reporting him for disruptive editing, though I didn't use a tag. I thought he had calmed down last week, but he's back, and wasting everyone's time.Smm201`0 (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The editor Smm201'0 seems to think that it is his/Her duty to destroy the Hydraulic Fracking industry by inserting every negative story or complaint about the industry into related articles. He/She then added unrelated fracking information into the Philadelphis Water Department article here. Is it sourced? Sure, does it have anything to do with the Philadelphis Water Departtment? No. The previous edit follows a clear WP:COAT model. The article is about the PWD, and there have been some water quality issues, he/she then adds in a bunch of information unrelated to the PWD talking about Hydraulic Fracking because of concerns regarding Fracking and ground water. Use of Wikipedia for environmental activism should not be tollerated. Arzel (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The editor also put most (maybe the whole thing) of this article into the Hydraulic fracking article and has yet to adress why the all of the anti-fracking information needs to be so many places. Arzel (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I have had similiar problems with Arzel. If you look at the page Talk: Seamus (dog), editors have repeatedly asked Arzel not to remove infomation that is relevant and sourced to mainstream media sites. We have tried to talk to Arzel, but he continues to remove material that his doesn't like.Debbie W. 15:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it does look like a similar issue. Also, to clarify a remark above, the environmental page was split off from HF without discussion, so I brought it back and started a discussion. There were also other attempts to remove negative environmental info from HF page. I agreed to condense the environmental info on the main page and have been working at that. Disruptions delay that work.Smm201`0 (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Robin Ficker, SPAs and persistent IP removal of info[edit]

Okay, this article was flagged at BLPN as Pemilligan (talk · contribs) was encountering regular deletion of sourced, notable information (i.e. the guy was famous for being a sports heckler), so I had a look and weighed in on the talk page, along with two other editors, that makes 4 in consensus that this information is correct.

Well,

are both SPAs, and could well be one and the same, as the second account was created the same day as the first stopped editing the article, and Msin147 took over the job of only removing this specific material. Trainhead's last edit followed by Msin147's first edit.

I have also requested page protection here as there is an army of IPs, that all curiously remove just this info or blank the whole section, and nearly all geolocate to Area code 301, Maryland, which just happens to correspond to where the subject of the article lives.

Okay so the last one geolocates to Philadelphia, just up the road, and has made the same changes to the article four times so far, since Sunday, and is an SPA, who I have warned twice today about their disruptive editing. (See contribs and talk).

For the IPs I only went back as far as November 2011 but there is a clear pattern of persistent disruptive editing and the possible Trainhead/Msin147 sock. An experienced editor's intervention would be appreciated. CaptainScreebo Parley! 15:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
* By the way, I have informed the named users about this discussion but not the IPs, is that right? CaptainScreebo Parley! 15:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Ashrf1979[edit]

Ashrf1979 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) edits the articles Bahrani people and the related Template:Bahranis infobox in a disruptive way. The editor keeps inserting original research and fringe theories without any verification. He/she reverts whenever this is criticized, removes [citation needed] and [original research?] tags and restores when unsourced and dubious passages are removed. (hist of 'Bahrani people', hist of the infobox template). Ashrf1979 re-reverts at a frequency that might be considered edit warring. He/she shows indications of "page ownership" of the concerned articles. I have repeatedly tried to discuss with Ashrf1979 and to explain Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to him/her, but the user is reluctant to either understand or accept them. (Ashrf1979's talk page, mine, article talk page) Ashrf1979 argues that the information added by him/her is just true or logic and that it must be included without any verification or reference. Discussion with Ashrf1979 is complicated by his/her difficulties to write comprehensible English. Often, I cannot follow his/her argumentation due to linguistic deficiencies. I have tried Third Opinion, but Ashrf1979 ignores this as well. (see talk page) --RJFF (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  • That is a mess, yes. What about the edits on Bahrani people? You know the content of those edits--if they continue to insert the same stuff, that's edit warring and can be reported. Of course, you might be edit-warring yourself... ;) And what about their latest edit to the infobox? I haven't dealt with references in infoboxes much, and my Arabic is terrible. If the sources are not reliable, if the formatting is not correct, etc., then there is reason to revert and to question competence. As for linguistic competence, yes, there is a deficiency there, no doubt. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

User:The Border Patrol 2[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Border Patrol 2 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is posting dubious questions on several user's talk pages. Not sure if this is vandalism or not. Admins please decide and/or intervene. --bender235 (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Given this edit, that was easy. Bender, next time present a real challenge. Thanks for reporting. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Wasn't there a user named "The Border Patrol" brought up here last week? If so, wouldn't an SPI be more illuminating? —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 18:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes: The Border Patrol (talk · contribs). I don't see the need for an SPI, but Bender or Jeremy, if you want to start one and see if there's any sleepers, feel free. But these vandal edits are so obviously vandalism that blocking on sight is an easy call. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MickMacNee is back[edit]

Socked to 'em, whoever 'em are. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolved: MickMacNee was stale and SPI believes it is a Joe Job by an unrelated troll. However, may other socks of Neetandtidy found and blocked. - Burpelson AFB 16:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

A new user registered yesterday, Neetandtidy (talk · contribs) and immediately has become involved in heated discussions at articles which has seen another editor (Gravyring (talk · contribs)) blocked. The user has already confirmed that they have previously edited here using a different account. On seeing that this new user was spelling my username incorrectly some alarm bells starting ringing and after a quick search I came across this edit of one of the very few people who has gotten my username wrong. I then had a look at this new users contribution today for other signs of MMN MO (policy and swearing) and it wasn't hard to come up with...

Mention of policy: TPO OSE

Swearing: [15] [16]

Of course I may be wrong but I would request that admin action is taken immediately to investigate this user. Question for all; do we really need a editor who is not only abusive to other users but has displayed a battlefield mentality from day one? Bjmullan (talk) 06:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Clearly the same guy. I suggest that you take it to WP:SPI so that a checkuser can have a look at it; there may be other sockpuppets lurking on that IP address. Prioryman (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Maybe a little bit "too clear" or "too Neet and tidy". It's possible that this may be a Joe job. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I have now opened the case at SPI as requested. Bjmullan (talk) 08:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Angle trisection[edit]

Hello,

On Wikipedia's following webpage, the seventh heading down is entitled, "By infinite repetition of bisection".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_trisection

Over the last year or so, user(s) have added this heading to this webpage and contributed to its contents.

Using Wikipedia's VIEW HISTORY, I notified the following users of employing proprietary information contained in United States Copyright (TXu 636 519), dated 7-17-1995 and entitled, "Trisection, an Exact Solution -- Revision A".

Joel B. Lewis -- grad. student AND

D.Lazard

At first, I simply corrected their unknowing infraction by attempting to give the user(s) full credit for their portion of contribution(s) to the article and maintaining them under same heading.

User(s), just deleted my input several times and effectively told me to "get lost".

Thereafter, user(s) asked what my basis was for my input and I informed them of:

a) The US copyright information noted above AND

b) http://truescans.com/Trisection.htm webpage which contains full disclosure, rationale and proof.

After then being deleted AGAIN, I informed user(s) that they had no basis, claim, or proof for their their own portions of contribution.

After again being deleted, user(s) continued to re-enter his/their information. I then notified user(s) of POTENTIAL COPYRIGHT VIOLATION.

After a further repeat of this, I notified user(s) of PARTICIPATING IN COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT by means knowingly publishing information on Wikipedia that is considered to be in conflict with a cited United States Copyright; and further refusing to render substantiation for their own claim(s).

Lastly, I notified user(s) of Wikipedia copyright policy and informed they could be BARRED from future editing rights on Wikipedia by continuing their same course of action.

After all of this, the user(s) again DELETED my input; which is where we presently stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WIKI-1-PIDEA (talkcontribs) 19:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no merit to this; I'll leave a note on the editor's talk page about WP:3RR, WP:NPLT, and ways to avoid getting blocked from editing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I've already reported this to WP:AN3 William M. Connolley (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
(ec) I am having trouble finding where the material in Wikipedia's article (angle trisection#By infinite repetition of bisection) infringes the copyright of the outside document. While copyright does protect an author's written description of an algorithm, it does not protect the algorithm itself. In other words, copyright covers a particular description, but not the method described; any other author is free to describe the same method in their own words.
That said, any assertion that the algorithm in question was discovered in 1995 is laughable. I suspect it is centuries old, and trivial searching demonstrates that high school mathematics teachers were talking about it with their students at least as early as 1963: [17]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised if the original poster had some sort of connection with the true-scans website. Observe this addition to Around the World in Eighty Days and these to Jules Verne and the remarkably similar editing style (use of underlining and html code and always bolding the website title) of this editor who has added it to Daniel Defoe, Palisot de Beauvois, and er.. Gettysburg Address. The website is so off the radar that google doesn't even pick it up. Voceditenore (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason WIKI-1-PIDEA and Joel B. Lewis should not have tried discussing with each other on Talk:Angle trisection instead of continuing to edit war and yell at each other via edit summaries. Both users blocked 24 hours for the edit war. --MuZemike 21:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Murry1975 and accusing others of being socks[edit]

Neetandtidy has been blocked as a member of this sock farm. -- Dianna (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm a self admitted reitiree. Having seen above the drama about Carlingford Lough, I re-registered to request an edit to here and then got carried away and decided to start this move request based on the silliness that was going on at the talk page. In that request, BJMullen said '"Not another bloody sock!" in reference to me apparently. I am not a sock, and resented this casual labelling of me as one as if it was a perfectly normal thing to do (who knows, perhaps the Troubles area has become such a cesspit this is perfectly normal). When I last editted though, calling others socks without doing anything else about it, was classed as an attempt to smear another editor without justification. Accordingly I struck it out and warned him about making such allegations, and advised him of the right way to do it if he wanted to pursue it, and to be fair BJMullen hasn't editted since, so I don't know if that was the end of it. What's pissing me off though is that Murry1975 decided to take up the cause and has been accusing me of being a sock ever since. I've informed him that he's wrong in policy and told him to file a report or stfu, and he's totally and utterly ignored me and just kept going and going, like a total asshole frankly (before anyone objects to this sort of language, just go and see how many final warnings I gave him, he has well and truly wound me up to be sure). Despite making it very very clear that I considered what he was doing was now entering the realm of deliberate aggravation, and having advised him to go and get an admin and back him up if he still disagreed with the striking (he had been removing it), he has just persisted in poking me, finally with this edit antagonise me. Now he's giving me more shit trying to pretend nobody is allowed to strike comments on talk pages, which is obviously false - I consider being called a sock without evidence and without any apparent willingess to file a report, as the sort of trolling and personal attack that WP:TPO allows to be removed (not that I even removed it, I struck it). I sincerely hope that admins agree at least on that score, otherwise I think we've probably found the answer to why nobody sticks around beyond their 10th edit anymore. The guy obviously knows nothing about the relevant policies, about what is and isn't a sock, or what is and is not the right way to deal with one, but that's not the issue per AGF etc, the issue is he persists even after he's been told of such things, to the point of deliberate aggravation. Neetandtidy (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Where have I accused Neetandtidy of being a sock? I have said Neetandtidy should connect your accounts so that we know thier contribution history. Neetandtidy has used foul and abusive langauge, I have kept calm and requested they show their previous account, even suggesting to an admin not to the community, Neetandtidy has rejected these claiming bad faith, yet accused me of calling them a sock. I have stated that I have never called them a sock and asked to show me where I have, they have not done so, bad faith indeed.
Neetandtidy has striken part of a comment by BJmullan, I have unstriken it with the proposition that Neetandtidy ask Bjmullan to strike it. AS Neetandtidy struck it again using WP:TPO in the summary I qoute it to him.
"Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request "
They have not answered in good faith about thier previous account and have used abusive language and tried to intimidate me with threats. The account is new, admits to have a retired account yet refuses to be transparent. I understand if it is a privacy issue he would be protective of it and have no problems with the editor disclosing the relevant information to prove what the previous account was and the reasons for leaving it behind and the admin declaring it clean. Their actions and words do not seem to me of an editor who is transparent and acting in the best interests of the project. Murry1975 (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
@Neetandtidy: You certainly share some Spotfixer characteristics, creating your userpage with a single sentence and jumping onto this noticeboard so quickly. Calabe1992 21:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
If spotfixer means 'suspicious user', then for what must be the fifth time of saying it, I am not a new user, and never claimed to be. I even said it in the first sentence of this report. What I am not, is a sock. And whether Murry1975 realises it or not, this is what he is not so subtly accusing me of. And whether he likes it or not, TPO allows the removal of trolling or attacks, which is what I take unsubstantiated accusations of socking as. He's had all day to file a report on me, but as I pointed out to him, it would be rejected, as he hasn't got any grounds at all apart from ABF. Anyway, I'm beginning not to care at all, it seems this whole area is screwed up - the admins getting involved either don't know or don't care what's going on and just take snap decisions. Floquenbeam basically admitted it. And take a look at EdJohnston's page, you can hardly tell who is the admin and who is the guy under probation - he's actually just asked him if it's still in effect!?!? Was that not what was being argued about above or what? Who's in control here? Domer and BJMullen appear to have this area all sewn up, the admins seem to be dancing to their tune, and editors like Hackney who are to all intents and purposes no better or worse than them as far as being disruptive SPAs goes, are just given the finger as they're automatically tagged (like me now) as automatically presumed disruptors/socks/SPAs, whatever they say and whatever they do. I haven't even editted a fucking article yet. Hackney/Gravy started an Rfc on the talk page as is directed by policy in the face of edit warriors like Domer and BJMullen, and it's then filled with total bollocks and fillibustering, which of course has but one effect - to restart the POV edit warring again, meaning my request for a simple uncontentious edit to the Loch article has gone unanswered for 10 hours now due to a protection. 10 hours! All I've done since then is deal with this accusatory shit from Murry1975. No admin gives the tiniest of fucks about the actual content or long term problem users in this area. Not one. It's been totally abandoned to the mercy of whatever the likes of EdJonston or Floquenbeam can be bothered to pull out their asses when they feel like it and have a spare 1 minute to look at one diff maybe. When you see what Ed seems to thinks represents good faith collaborative consensus building on that talk page, your eyes bleed at the incomptence. It's a joke, there is no hope of any quality content, not in this topic area. Neetandtidy (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I tend not to file reports (only 1 done so far), believing that discussion should be placed first as a means of resolving any dispute. The fact that this began here would be another reason to just continue it in the original section rather than clogging up the boards. I am still waiting for the diif of me calling Neetandtidy a sock. All I read is foul langauge and blatant battlefield mentality. Murry1975 (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IPs putting improper tagging on editor's talk page.[edit]

Resolved: IP rangeblocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

85.210.187.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
88.109.31.145 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
(WHOIS indicates it could be the same person, I didn't ask)
Both have been giving/reverting back a Level 4 warning on User:Alison Buchanan's talk page about being a vandal and a sockpuppet. No Level 1-3 were given. There was a CU requested for Alison, and refused at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alison Buchanan. I have reverted twice and left notices on their talk pages informing them they can't just make accusations without providing diffs and/or other proof, and decided it should just go here instead of getting into battle after they keep adding it back. The only diffs they have provided are on Alison's talk page (they finally put them there), with most being IPs and none of them being obvious vandalism, and instead being a content dispute. Making claims of vandalism on user talk page as well as being a sockpuppet without substantiation. I have no idea if there are merits to their claims, but this is a disruptive and improper way for these IPs to handle the situation. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  • IP:88.109.31.145 just deleted this ANI report at [18], so I'm thinking a short term block may be needed. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Look, when I reported the other IPs, which made the EXACT same disruptive edits, in exactly the same style, nobody complained, and they were blocked, instantly. I reported them each and every time, and every time, someone responded in the appropriate manner. Why can't you? This edit here [[19]] is EXACTLY the same as this edit here [[20]] and that IP was banned as a sockpuppet....in fact, it was discovered that that IP WAS in fact a sockpuppet, right here [[21]]. Look at these IPs edits. They are EXACTLY the same. Alison is the same person. And stop preventing me from defending myself! 88.109.31.145 (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The way you are going about it is disruptive, calling someone's edits vandalism without providing evidence, starting out with a level 4 warning. The IPs were blocked based on WP:DUCK, but nothing has been done to the USER, and it is the USER to whom you kept reverting the tag. I didn't say I disagree (or agree) with your assessment of socking, but there is a proper process to follow, and posting a level 4 warning with no diffs, no explanation, just claims, is NOT the right process. And furthermore, you deleted THIS report on ANI, which is enough reason (imho) to block you for 24 hours to allow others to review the situation, for the purpose of preventing you from being even more disruptive. You never gave me a chance to agree with you because you were too busy going about it wrong, and you still fail to see that now. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not asking you to agree or disagree with me. I'm asking you to open your eyes. Anyone else who has seen this sockpuppet before KNOWS exactly what they're dealing with. Don't believe me? Ask the guys who blocked the last IP account, or blocked the other IP accounts. In my book, they received their warnings in previous accounts, which means that they are STILL valid. When it is painfully obvious that the user is not only a sockpuppet but has no intention other than to vandalise, then I think it's pretty clear that they don't deserve to be given warnings, when they can leave their account before the crucial warning and create a new one. No one else who I have reported this user and their many IPs to has had an issue with me reporting them. It is only you. 88.109.23.136 (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Blocked 88.109.31.145 for 24 hours for repeating the disruption after Dennis made his last revert. Nyttend (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Stop disrupting my replies!! I'm sick of this, every time!! 88.109.23.136 (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
And don't you dare accuse me of being a sockpuppet. My IP changes every time, I can't help it. 88.109.23.136 (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
But to use a new IP address, knowing that your previous IP address has been blocked, DOES make you a block-evading sockpuppet, so you are rather destroying what credibility you may have had in making such accusations about others. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

88.109.16.0/20 has now been blocked for 31 hours. --MuZemike 21:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat?[edit]

Manveer-ampm (talk · contribs)

  • In this diff the user named above makes a somewhat confusing series of comments, among them commenting that "the police are the next stage" - does this rise to the WP:NLT level? I'd say yes but the rest of the context is (at least to my decaffinated mind) as I said confusing, so I thought I'd ask before doing, or not doing, anything. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's a threat. Nobody Ent 18:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate removal of speedy deletion tag?[edit]

Resolved: Image deleted per CSD-F7 -- Dianna (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

File:EvanchoPresSanta.jpg was nominated for deletion a few days ago, with discussion proceeding. Last night, I discovered that the file's uploader had mistakenly identified the file as a publicity photograph; it is in fact a news photo controlled by Getty Images. It is therefore required to be deleted under our nonfree content policy (there is no question that the "sourced commentary" exception is inapplicable). I placed the appropriate speedy deletion tag on the file page, Shortly thereafter, User:Hekerui, in good faith, removed the tag from the file page, citing the ongoing FFD discussion. While an ongoing XfD with arguments on both sides is ordinarily enough to forestall speedy deletion, my understanding of practice is that in a few cases, like the undisputed copyright/NFCC problem here, the speedy tag should not be removed unless the copyright/NFCC issues are themselves subject to dispute. (Otherwise, the existence of an FFD on other matters would delay the removal of such copyvios, which we pretty much want expunged as quickly as possible.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack - accusation of being a racist[edit]

It would be nice if the person supposedly attacked actually reported Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Meh...what do you want them to do? Levy a fee?--MONGO 23:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I apologized to the user I inappropriately called a racist, and I'll do whatever that user wants me to do to make it up to him. I'd like Cla68 to stay away from me. Could someone institute a binding interaction ban? I don't think trolling my talk page with his "threat charges" is in any way an attempt to deescalate - in fact, it seems more like he was trying to piss me off so I'd do other stupid things. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:ANKMALI[edit]

The user is apparently a huge fan of Alka Yagnik, and that is why he keeps turning her page into a fansite of sorts. I had made a short cleanup on the page, and since then the user has been reverting the page to the same version - which goes in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:WEASEL, WP:PEACOCK, WP:CITE (with some bombastic claims, really, which must be sourced). Their argument is that the info is true, and they keep doing that in spite of having been warned and despite seeing other users reverting them as well.

Another instance is the Screen Award for Best Female Playback article, where they change the winner of the 2002 award to, as expected, Alka Yagnik. I cited a reliable source (The Tribune) to prove them wrong, but they keep changing it to their own version, citing some very poor sources (clearly unreliable). I started a talk page discussion where the user, instead of trying to discuss the matter, just removed my message from the section (!).

I request that something be done as soon as possible - this is becoming insufferable. ShahidTalk2me 08:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This User:Shshshsh is trying to repeatedly delete my hardwork done on page of Alka Yagnik. All info added by me was verifiable ! Further Screen Award for Best Female Playback was won by Alka Yagnik thrice whereas this user insisting on Asha Bhosle winning the award although 2 of the 3 available sources sight Alka Yagnik as winner of the award in 2002. Further the user is repeatedly threatening to block me though I've committed no offence !! It is user Shshshsh who should be blocked !!! ANKMALI (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC).
You say that all of your work was verifiable. That may be, but content really needs to be verified, not just verifiable. Please don't add content without a solidly reliable source to back it up, and please don't remove something that's already reliably sourced (e.g. the 2002 award winner) without discussion with other users. And DEFINITELY do not remove other people's talk page comments; doing that is highly disruptive. Nyttend (talk) 11:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I've used extremely reliable sources for everything. As per rules of wikipedia content must be verifiable which I've always complied with. Definition of reliable can be subjective. ANKMALI (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

No, WP:RS is not as subjective as you think, nor does the reliable source noticeboard take things lightly. You cannot remove a info from a known RS and insert opposite information from a non-RS, period (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources cited by me are well within the purview of reliable sources as stated by wikipedia. Infact I've added a live video as the source ! ANKMALI (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:BLP. Rules for articles about living persons are much more strict. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 00:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I have do nothing wrong or nothing which is against wikipedia rules. Each & every info added by me is evidenced & from reliable sources . Nobody can prove what I've written on Alka Yagnik page is false. It is this User:Shshshsh who does not have reliable sources . ANKMALI (talk) 07:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not reliable just because you say they are reliable. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Shshshsh[edit]

The user has been constantly editing my immense hardwork put in page of Alka Yagnik. Infact he has not cared about pages of other singers which are more like fan-pages. Each & every info added by me is verifiable & through very reliable sources. Further the user is threatening to block me since a while though I am haven't done anything wrong. Infact the info added by the user about Alka Yagnik has far less reliabilty in comparison to info provided by me. Would request action to be taken against the user. ANKMALI (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The existence of other problematic pages is not a problem per our policies — we're all volunteers, so the fact that he's not worked with other singers' articles is not a problem. As I told you above, verifiable and verified are two very different things. Moreover, your user talk page has at least one message (20,000 songs) discussing a situation in which a reliable source contradicts your writing, and the bit about the 2002 award is the same thing. Finally, did you read the message just below the "save page" button? "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here" — it's not a problem that someone or someones edit your writing. Overall, Shshshsh has been editing your hard work because your hard work is reducing the quality of our articles; his edits are necessary and helpful. Nyttend (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

20000 songs of Alka Yagnik is supported by the live video of Screen Awards. Further User:Shshshsh has no reliable source to prove his claim. He is just a huge fan of Asha Bhosle . My hard work is enhancing the quality of the article & it is Shshshsh who's reducing the quality of the article !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANKMALI (talkcontribs) 02:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Redcorreces[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolved: User has been indefinitely blocked by Hersfold (talk · contribs). — foxj 03:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Redcorreces (talk · contribs) calls people Nazis ([22][23]) and say that my comments are "Gestapo nonsense."[24] He refuses to prove that his upload is free but blanks the discussion and promises to reupload the image if deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I've left a warning - I thought about just blocking, but I've given him the old "last chance". If he repeats the comment or the upload or any other nonsense, a block will be necessary.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Fine. I would personally say that I care more about blanking and copyright policies than about the Nazi and Gestapo comments. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
You people need to get a life. Seriously. Redcorreces (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

A couple of things are concerning aside from the apparent Naziphilia the user possesses:

  • Our photos strikes a concern that this may not be just one person under this account, but it's possible that I could be taking this out of context.
  • By our photos, I was referring to myself and all the other people whom Stefan2 has had the pleasure of intimidating. Is that much clearer now? Does that no longer "strike a concern"? Get a life. Redcorreces (talk) 02:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

--MuZemike 01:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Well, your nonsense policing of a supposedly FREE, NON-PROFIT and EDUCATIONAL website is reminiscent of such. Let's also not forget FAIR USE. Whatever it is I forgot to note during my upload has been addressed via discussions, etc. because I kept getting pestered in what I thought was a community. If I'm not earning a single penny from those photos, then leave them alone. OK? Redcorreces (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
    • We're supposed to police vandalism, not reasonable contributions that improve the appearance of articles. But sadly, you're turning Wikipedia into playground of immature people on ambitious power trips. Grow up. Redcorreces (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Redcorreces, your remarks show a deep misunderstanding of how seriously we take copyright concerns here at Wikipedia. For example, one of the pictures shows a statue, which is not covered by WP:Freedom of panorama under U. S. law, and it is therefore a copyright violation on the work of art itself. If you could please read WP:Copyright violations that would be great. The onus is on you, the uploader, to provide a source for each picture in the montage and prove to us that the pics are in the public domain or licensed under a license compatible with the way Wikipedia works. Yelling people who are trying to explain these polices, and engaging in name-calling, will not prevent an image in violation of copyright law from being deleted. -- Dianna (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

And Diannaa, your remarks show a deep misunderstanding of how seriously I take the freedom that Wikipedia stands for. I wasn't yelling at people; I was merely pointing out how those people's actions are preventing that freedom. Redcorreces (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to make a social statment. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
@Redcorreces, your antagonistic attitude does you no good. Diannaa is correct about Freedom of Panorama under American copyright law, and Wikipedia policy is actually more stringent than American Fair Use standards (unnecesarily so, in my opinion, but that comes from the Wikimedia Foundation and is not something we can change). However, it's still possible that the statue you show in the montage of Omaha is not under copyright if it was created earlier than 1921. I can't tell what statue the image is of, but you could do a bit of research and find out when it was made. If it's before 1921, then you can upload the montage as a free image. If not, it can only be uploaded as a non-free image and must fulfill the requirements of WP:NFCC, and must be used in an article.

Copyright law is complicated, and Wikipedia's image policies are complex as well. You'd do better to lay off the polemics and reach out to work with the people who are counseling you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

And also, The Bushranger, policing an otherwise reasonable improvement to a page isn't civil. Maybe you all should read that first. Redcorreces (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Please stop changing the title of the section. Referring to people as "immature" and that they need to "get a life" is not maintaining a civil atmosphere. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
How about Please delete this nonsense attack on me section? Group think must be fun! Redcorreces (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
This is not an attack, nor is it nonsense; your continued refusal to understand this does not bode well for your continued participation in the project. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Indeed; Redcourreces, if you are unable to maintain a level of decorum appropriate for a collaborative project, you will be blocked. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, Hersfold, I have maintained a level of decorum. I have not used any profanity in all of my dialogue. I have a right to defend myself, and that is what I have been doing ever since my contribution was unfairly attacked. Speaking of which, I'm glad to see you've joined in the fun of group think. Redcorreces (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
There are more ways to be incivil than swearing at people. Name-calling, failure to assume good faith, and refusal to listen to concerns are all examples, all of which you've exhibited in this thread. These behaviors make it difficult to impossible to work with others in a collaborative environment. I'd strongly suggest you step away from this situation for now, taking some time to read through the various policies, guidelines, and essays that have been linked, and try to view all this from another's perspective. If things continue as they are, a block will likely be issued before long. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Redcorreces, you clearly have little understanding of Wikipedia copyright policy, which - whether you like it or not - is necessary for legal reasons, regardless of its other merits. Nobody was attacking you - we were pointing out that your montage may violate our policies. Your response seems to be the only 'attack' evident - and I'd suggest that if you think being told you can't post something on Wikipedia is on a level with Nazism, you clearly don't have a clue about history, either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, AndyTheGrump, join in the group think fun. If I was not being attacked, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But I am, so we are. Again, making accusations about my contribution is not civil, either. I'm just defending my contribution, and I am not being profane about it. Redcorreces (talk) 03:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, point proven. Soapbox? Yes. Clue? No. Not wanted here... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
And as such I've blocked Redcorreces indefinitely, with a note that he can be unblocked once he can show he understands the concerns originally raised and can work with other editors. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shared account[edit]

Block handed out for reasons expounded very well below. Don't believe that further commentary will do much more than increase h:l ratio. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Symbol recycling vote.svg Reopened

User(s) warned (see my comment below.) Policy changes should be proposed on the talk pages of the concerned policy. 28bytes (talk) 05:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Through the course of my adventures I've come across Inventcreat (talk · contribs), an account belonging to a married couple and used by both. Obviously this is a violation of WP:NOSHARE, however they do appear to be a constructive account and are apparently reluctant to have separate accounts. I would be grateful for some further opinions on this, I'm unsure how to proceed here--Jac16888 Talk 23:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

  • I saw your conversation with them--thanks for taking the time to do that. Yes, NOSHARE is quite clear: they each need to get different accounts and stick to them individually. They could take Mr. Inventcreat and Mrs. Inventcreat (I assume it's a mixed-gender couple), or Inventcreat and Inventcreata? Drmies (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I would say let common sense let em keep it... many societies see matrimony as the joining together of two persons after all Face-smile.svg. Of course to do that, we all have to pretend this thread doesn't exist; therefore I would ask some admit to close after me, and for no one else to post anything. Egg Centric 23:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Right it's been decided that closing it ain't acceptable. Well I stick by what I said. A great many married couples can be considered as more or less the same unit, ready to take responsibility and credit for anything that the one does. I see no reason they can't share the account, except for a pesky policy which we can ignore. Egg Centric 01:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
(Or we can even change the policy - especially now that gay marriage is finally rolling out amongst the civilised world) Egg Centric 01:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps this is a special case that can be excluded from the rule, however for that to be so there should be an actual consensus here, NOSHARE makes it very clear that it's not allowed except for staff accounts and bots, and even bots need clear consensus--Jac16888 Talk 01:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Yup, I rather hope we can come to one now... not sure this is the right place to propose it, but lets have a go: