Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive746

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Persistant vandalism by Anon Ip, suspected to be banned editor User:ColourWolf[edit]

Information on this vandal can be found here [[1]]

M.O. - Fond of vandalizing Singapore TV drama articles by introducing fake synopsis/content, after being banned and going through a list of successive socks, now tends to IP hop, currently around the 202.156.10.** range. occasionally acts self righteous and claims the reverting editor is the vandal.

Within the last few days made the following edits:

With 202.156.10.10 - [[2]], [[3]], [[4]], [[5]], [[6]]. Note last edit includes information about someone who probably does not wish their contact to be publicised online.

With 202.156.10.240 - [[7]]

With 202.156.10.13 - [[8]]

If one looks at the edit histories of just the 1st 3 pages alone: The Unbeatables III, The Hotel and Honour and Passion (the vandalism is more widespread, these 3 are just the more recent ones), its fairly obvious the problem has persisted literally for years; specifically, since the Colourwolf account got banned. Previously he IP hopped on the 218.186.**.** range [[9]][[10]] [[11]][[12]]. Even though the IP ranges are different, the same type of fake content is being introduced. Probably switched service provider.

Considering the vandal is repeatedly introducing the same type of content (he's not terribly original), will Cluebot be able to help out here? On top of any other manual measure we can take? Zhanzhao (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Try here.Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I considered that, but it seems unsuitable as the vandalism introduced is unique to each article. Just this morning, the vandal went on another "spree" under 202.156.10.245 and 202.156.10.10 which resulted in the 2 IPs being banned. This cycle has been repeating itself and unless we can find a long term solution, the guy will just keep IP hopping. Simply banning the IP does not work. If we can monitor instead the individual articles for specific texts, and auto-roll back or even prevent the edits from being made, that would be the best. I am trying to submit a request via cluebot, but is there any other automated means? Short of semi-protecting all affected pages? Zhanzhao (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
FYK, it's blocking, not banning. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Whoops my bad, yeah the 2 Ips are just tempoarily blocked, which means it goes back into the pools og Ips the hopper can use once the block expires..... Zhanzhao (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

New Vandalism activities by Colourwolf[edit]

Guys on another spree again. This time back to the 218.186.156.** IPs. See [[13]], [[14]], [[15]],[[16]]. Now even adding dubious stuff on the talk pages. Zhanzhao (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Situation getting out of control, now he's apparently "outing" someone and leaving the victim's contact details on the edits.[[17]] Zhanzhao (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I see the pages have been protected, thanks guys. He's a stubborn one :P Zhanzhao (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Fake warning[edit]

Is this OK? (A rhetorical question.) To which extent is it not OK? (Not a rhetorical question.) Drmies (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  • As a lowly editor, I would say no, that it borders on a legal threat, just in the opposite direction. A two edge sword still cuts in both directions. If I had the mop, I would have slapped User:198.205.17.200 with it. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
    • The entire debacle isn't OK. Given the edit war mentality, the infobox has been moved back and the page semi-ed. - J Greb (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
      • And IP 198 has been given a heads up that the edit summary isn't acceptable. - J Greb (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Taken as-is, there's no question it's a legal threat; but given the IP's contribs list, it looks more like just being silly. (And this edit from another IP, yesterday, is priceless.[18]) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Man, that's hilarious. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Note this discussion regarding the writer who picture the IP wants in the article. Formerip (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Impersonator?[edit]

I think, [19] Just created the account and redirected to user:MuZemike Darkness Shines (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Already resolved[20] Darkness Shines (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Been getting a lot of those lately... - The Bushranger One ping only 21:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Yeah, cross wiki we're suffering from a username vandal, and some other joker keeps creating spoof admin accounts. If you see em, just block on sight if you have mop, or report at the usernames board (for which I haz temporarily forgotted the alphabet code). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism/legal threats[edit]

A vandalism/legal threat spree on medical-related articles by an IP with an apparent grudge against MastCell with a consistent edit summary. See edits by 184.173.180.2 (talk · contribs), 184.164.128.10 (talk · contribs), 50.28.72.144 (talk · contribs), 27.50.93.122 (talk · contribs) using proxies, all blocked at present. No idea what they're on about. Acroterion (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be the same as Timesroad2 (talk · contribs) -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat?[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: Already blocked as a sock per the SPI case. Basalisk inspect damageberate 02:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if this counts as a legal threat, but could someone take a look please? See this SPI case for background. Many thanks. Basalisk inspect damageberate 02:35, 10 April 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.

Long term disruptive edits, vandalism, sockpuppertry II[edit]

Same individual as before, refer to previous report User:TwiceBlessedPape, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TwiceBlessedPape — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coronerreport (talkcontribs) 09:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Refer to previous ANI: Long term disruptive edits, sockpuppetry, vandalism

I'd like to propose an investigation of User:147.203.126.215, who was also warned here: [21] and here: [22], has been reported here:[23], comments to article here: [24]. Coronerreport (talk) 05:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

  • We don't really poke around on the offchance we'll find some misbehaviour, and neither do we control or take much note of what happens on other sites. 147.203.126.215's edit history doesn't seem to be anything to worry about, and I can find no mention of that IP address on the sock puppet investigation you linked. If you're proposing that 147.203.126.215 is SCFilm29 and that SCFilm29 is evading their indefblock, you'll need to provide evidence. If it's something else you want administrator assistance with, you'll need to be more specific. EyeSerene talk 13:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It would appear this user: [25], appears "suddenly," here: [26], with same article edits as this user: [27], who is this user: [28], and this user: [29], all with comments to article here: [30], and same article and subject-related topic mentioned here: [31], as well as this user: [32], who makes User:Griot/User:SCFilm29-identical and -related edits here: [33], along with same IP range: [34], with identical User:SCFilm29 edits, as here: "23:57, 21 June 2010 (diff | hist) Happy Hairston ‎ (Hap!)" and stance, as here: [35], who was blocked for evasions, here: [36] like this: [37] and with the same IP range, and the same position on Julie Dash as this user: [38] and who was also blocked, here: is pretty much the same person, who is engaging in sockpuppetry, vandalism and disruptive editing. Clearly the same person, who uses Wikipedia to harass. Coronerreport (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coronerreport (talkcontribs)

  • Note I have bracketed your comments because, wow, there wasn't any way to make sense of them. Use a single bracket on each end of a full url please, we don't need to see the address for every single link you provide. Two brackets for wikilinks. NOW I can look at the merits, as it wasn't readable before. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Reply Ok, finally I can easily see you have copied and pasted an entire previous conversation, which is unneeded and obviously unhelpful. The user you are linking, User:TwiceBlessedPape, made a total of two edits a couple weeks ago, which do not look like vandalism. If you think he is a sockpuppet, take it to WP:SPI, not here, but I don't see it having a snowball's chance with two simple edits (one edit really, then a minor correction). Or simply revert it and explain why on the talk page. IPs made the other edits, this is a registered user. Even if it IS the same person, he can simply say "yeah, I finally registered an account", which is fine. There isn't anything that can be done at ANI. I also suggest reading up a bit on linking and presenting cases here, because honestly, this was dreadful to pour through and make sense of before I cleaned it all up. And please sign your posts with ~~~~, if you can file an ANI, certainly you can format it properly. And finally, you should be more careful about what you call vandalism [39], as reverting and declaring an edit vandalism when it is not (even if that user was mistaken in their edit) can boomerang on you and get you blocked. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
So many odious edits. Such a long history. I for one do not wish to keep cleaning up after this disturbed troll. Recommend a semi-protect on the article. Coronerreport (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The place for that would be WP:Request for page protection, although I don't think you have a case. We can't block someone based on your "gut feeling". You are jumping the gun here. Watch the user, and if patterns of abuse show up, then start an ANI. Jumping the gun and accusing a new editor of being all these terrible things is disruptive when you can't provide clear evidence, and you haven't. Remember, if you are wrong (and you just might be...), then you have welcomed a new editor by dragging them to ANI for a "trial" because they made ONE edit, two weeks ago. Pushing this further looks WP:BITEy, and can lead to a boomerang sanction via WP:BITE, WP:AGF, etc. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Dennis, I appreciate your opinions, which, respectfully, are incorrect. The evidence is quite clear. IP/s and sockpuppets have added odious and/or unsourced content, have vandalized this article and others, and/or have used articles on Wikipedia as a tool for harassment, for years. Furthermore, there is no question that this user name is intended to mock and harassment RW individuals, as per my sockpuppet report. I'm tired of cleaning up after it, and tired of witnessing it. It's time to put an end to it. Coronerreport (talk) 07:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I see you have opened an SPI case [40], although no action has yet to be taken there. I have no idea, as ANI isn't the place to determine socks anyway. Even in the above discussion you improperly quoted, they didn't think you presented enough evidence nor want to take action, and no one else is jumping into this discussion. Being "right" isn't enough if you can't demonstrate and articulate what the "offense" is. This users sole contribution was:
  • Mistaking Vanity for Art (2003)<ref><u>Women Filmmakers: Refocusing</u> by Jacqueline Levitin; Routledge: (2003)</ref> ~~~~
  • You claim that this is the same person as some 147.203.126.215 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and the editor is doing the same "disruption". You went out of your way to warn 209.216.198.51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for them adding "Tupelo 77 (2012)" to that article, yet I see that same data (different year 2013 now) at Julie's IMDB page [41] so I'm confused as to how this could be vandalism or disruptive. 209.216.198.240 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made the same edit [42] and you warned them [43] but again, this info is at IMDB, but you warned them as vandals instead. None of the IPs in question here have ever been blocked for anything and have made very few edits, so not sure how this is long term disruption. There has been only 50 edits in two full years, hardly a large amount of edits, and 18 of those are your edits. The editor you are complaining about made a different edit on the same page. At this stage, you are making connections that may or may not exist but you haven't supported your case with diffs that clearly show any vandalism or disruption. I'm guessing you are wanting this new user blocked, on the basis of essentially ONE edit that happened to be to the same article you spend a great deal of time protecting? I would love to hear an admin viewpoint on this. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • - Seems like a decent report to me - don't bite the messenger - I also note the IP addresses are all proxy servers and could all be blocked. Youreallycan 22:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Youreallycan. I'd also like to say special thanks to User:MuZemike, who indefinitely blocked User:TwiceBlessedPape as a sock. Admins are now alerted to this persistent stalker and harasser. I'm thrilled and relieved to see that Wikipedia admins are sending the message that this sort of activity will not be tolerated. I consider this a great victory. It is absolutely a giant step in the right direction. Thank you! Coronerreport (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I would support Youreallycan's suggestion for some kind of long-range block. While being indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry, the same proxies, same Iran-related article edits and sockpuppeeteer's harassment and sockpuppetry continues: [44] and [45]. I suppose the "Slut" reference refers to [46], while Odious Mortem mocks my use of the word, as here and here, plus Happiness! edits, here, perhaps mocking or mimicking mine, here coupled by, I can only presume, that the "Wikipedia Idiots" author and her sister Jeanne Marie Spicuzza's mother is a Latin scholar, per here and likely wishes I and/or they were dead. He is likely reading this, and, in his narcissism, thinks it is amusing. I suppose that, what this user does not understand, is that anyone would feel threatened by that and, if any harm should befall his harassment targets, whom he objectifies with his malice, he is the first person who would be suspected. Not funny at all. Coronerreport (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Civility issues in Talk:Colchis[edit]

I ask for an inquiry in what is going on this talkpage.

In this one message, GeorgianJorjadze called me "a truly ridiculous and poor Russian", a "poor guy", "just some Ivan from Russia", and "not worth it". Furthermore, he used language like "Just because some Russian is saying", "tons of these kind of guys", "this kind of pathetic people", and so on. Virtually every sentence of that message was intended to offend.

I asked the editor to revert the message, and apologize, and was in response advised to stop editing in expressions like "Don't even try to revert", "This is not your Russia [Russian Wikipedia, I believe - F.S.] where everyone can write whatever they wish for", and "whatever you guys in Russia think", and finally was threatened to be "banned for good".

I do not ask the user to be blocked. I do not feel offended by this type of hate speech.

However, other editors might be sensitive to insults of this kind. The user had been sanctioned several times since last December, so I thought this type of behavior was rather typical. I therefore ask to pay attention to this case and decide if any measures should be taken. Thanks, FeelSunny (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

GeorgianJorjadze's comments cause me a fairly high level of concern and I for one am tempted to block, but I'll leave the decision on whether to block or just give a stern warning to another administrator. Ks0stm (TCGE) 16:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) It may be worth noting that GeorgianJorjadze also has a habit of "blanking" comments and warnings from his talk page, without even acknowledging them. I am aware that a user has the right to blank their own talk page, but when a user is blanking things immediately after they've been posted without acknowledging in the form of a replied comment, then it is a cause for concern. Only a few moments ago, the user removed this ANI invite that FeelSunny (talk · contribs) posted a few moments ago. WesleyMouse 16:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, blanking of warnings and notices by a registered user on their own talk page is considered an acknowledgement. If GeorgianJorjadze wants to go that rout, it's fine, they just cannot use "I was never told/warned/notified" as an argument if/when they are blocked as a result of those warning. - J Greb (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
It's always a bad sign in a conversation when users tell others they are "offending [X country's] statehood, [and] are naturally offending the [X] nation". GeorgianJorjadze seems to have a problem with communication. There's a distinct rarity of edit summaries, even when reverting a simple formatting change. I think we've passed the point where a block is preventative, but a warning that wikipedia is collaborative and we have policies like WP:CIVIL is well due. CMD (talk) 06:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I have respect for you CMD but can you please tell me what kind of problem do I have with communication? The user from Mother Russia comes by and calling us "Racists" and that "we are a disgrace of our nation" and I should get that in a positive mood? I haven't done anything to be blocked for just because this above-mentioned Russian individual thinks and wishes to. --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
From this conversation two issues can already be seen, blanking comments rather than responding, and not using edit summaries. It's also useful to note that FeelSunny never called you racist (although they did note your message was) or a disgrace to the nation (the way you used quotation marks was wrong there, you only use them around exact copy-paste, which in this case would be "Being a racist is always a disgrace to your nation"). Note above I said you shouldn't be blocked at this point, but you need to realise that unless you follow WP:CIVIL and engage in better communication a block become likely. CMD (talk) 07:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
About edit summaries, I agree. I am now using it. GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
The thing is, when I saw a first racist comment in the thread, I called it a racist comment. You may just not understand what was meant by that "Georgians are more genetically related to each other than any Russian (who are descendants of not only Slavs but also from Germanic, Turco-Mongolic and Scytho/Sarmatian peoples), no offense". Claiming Russians are Mongols or Russians are Sarmats is an often seen racist statement, implying Mongols and, thereafter, Russians are inferior to other peoples. Examples of this from the first page of google results to the quiery "Russians are Mongols": "Russians are mongols. Americans are half niggers. Germans are half Jews. Italians and spanishs are half arabs...", "Russians are Mongols and Jews plus alcoholics...", etc. All results are about Russians being inferior or not. And that was exactly why Mongols and Sarmathians appeared in User:Dj777cool's message.
Now the question is, imagine a user says "Americans are half black", or "Germans are half Jews", or says "you Italians are half Arabs," - would you call him a racist?FeelSunny (talk) 09:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I clearly said what I meant by that, it's just FeelSunny doesn't paid attention to it. Here is my comment ---- No,no,no.. I don't find the descent from turco-Mongolic peoples despicable, I just want to illustrate that the Russians are extremely heterogenous. You being a Russian, criticizing and separating genetically interwoven Georgian people is a real shame. I don't care what you think about the early Georgian statehood, because your ideas are just theories, thank god. By offending Georgian statehood, you are naturally offending the Georgian nation along with it, so choose words carefully.. I don't consider Georgians to be superior to any nations, and support racial equality. Criticizing the history of other nations than yours comes easy. While I do not think of Georgians as superior than Russians, I clearly see that they are far more Ancient. Perhaps this is the reason of your strong dislike, if not hate of their history and claims. that was after he said these words - No "Georgian state of Diauehi" never-ever existed, sorry again to disappoint, dear. No "Georgian state" of Colchis ever existed either, sorry. -- I naturally find this offending and FeelSunny doesn't get that. Moreover his cynical attitude towards Georgian statehood is very irritating ----Dj777cool (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Dj777cool, sources I mentioned on the talkpage, and that are used in the article say those "Georgian states" from the article are in reality "proto-Georgian". That was clearly explained in my message. Now could you please explain what was offending in calling them "proto-Georgian", as they were? Please do so on a page you find relevant to the topic.
So, how does your reaction explain why right after your message about Mongols another user you know well comes to the page to say things like "just some Ivan from Russia", "Just because some Russian is saying", and so on?FeelSunny (talk) 10:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
1) So far both user Dj777cool and user GeorgianJorjadze have this unfortunate habit of stressing my ethnicity every time they talk to me, or about me. In the Colchis talkpage, on my talkpage, and right now, even in the message above that CMD deleted.
2) At least in one case, this referring to ethnicity came to the level of hate speech.
3) After all this started, I checked GeorgianJorjadze contributions to better understand this user. It looks like it's quite normal for him to just stalk users asking them if their ethnicity qualifies for editing articles: [47], [48], [49].
4) Both users started to accuse me of racism right after I brought the matter to this board. Neither of the two cared to explain what exactly was the message of mine where I showed any racist views, i.e. claimed or implied that people of some ethnos are inferior. Well, I'd say - a nice try to switch attention, but does not explain any of the first three facts.
5) I asked for the admins' inquiry in this all when GeorgianJorjadze, in his very first message in the discussion, used expressions "just some Ivan from Russia," "Just because some Russian is saying", and so on. I personally do not want this type of language and mentality to become too wide-spread in Wikipedia. However, whether we decide that this type of behavior is normal or not, I'll agree with the community decision. FeelSunny (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

MikeyMouse10[edit]

Several editors - myself included - have talked to User:MikeyMouse10 on his Talk page about a pattern of disruptive editing. I'm not sure if he has read these comments; he occasionally edits his Talk page but in a rather erratic way that seems to involve moving stuff around at random, including chunks of other people's comments.

This isn't simple vandalism. Many of his edits are legit (minor spelling/grammar fixes etc) but others introduce subtle errors:

  • Breaking links in non-English alphabets (see e.g. the Chinese link on Nick Park)
  • 'Correcting' titles that might look unusual but are true to the source, e.g. here and 'correcting' quoted text e.g. here

My best guess is that he's copying the entire article source into some sort of word-processor, sometimes making intentional changes, then running a spell/grammar-checker on it, and then pasting the result back into Wikipedia, without checking that all the automated 'corrections' are correct and without checking whether non-English characters have been inadvertently changed. He probably fixes more errors than he adds, but the ones he introduces are less obvious - sort of like unintentional sneaky vandalism.

He has had numerous requests on his Talk page to stop doing this, and a couple of days ago warned that he'd submit a blockuser request if it continued. I seconded that warning.

Unfortunately, since that warning Mikey has made at least two more of these edits [50] [51]. I don't like requesting a block for somebody who seems to be acting with good intentions, but he's clearly not taking any notice of his Talk page and maybe a short block will get his attention. I'm open to other suggestions. --GenericBob (talk) 11:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

My best guess is that he's copying the entire article source into some sort of word-processor, sometimes making intentional changes, then running a spell/grammar-checker on it, and then pasting the result back into Wikipedia. It's possible that he's a slow typist and often gets burned by edit conflicts. What you suggest he's doing is one way of preventing it but can cause problems on frequently edited articles, ironically the same articles prone to the edit conflicts he might be trying to avoid. I also think he never quite figured out how to use talk pages which can sometimes be more difficult for new users to edit then articles. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I had originally thought, on the basis of limited looking at this editor's edits, that he was either a sly vandal or a buggy robot. After more looking, it's a buggy human using a grammar checker. Everything this editor does has to be double checked; nothing he does can be trusted to be correct. He's been notified repeatedly that he's making careless mistakes. But his response has been silence plus continuation of edits with careless mistakes. GenericBob says very reasonably: "A short block will get his attention. I'm open to other suggestions."
In the following edit by MikeyMouse10 on 6 Apr 2012, "Laon and Cythna" is wrongly changed to "Laon and Cynthia"; "create" is wrongly changed to "creates"; and most insidiously the Chinese zh:珀西·比希·雪莱 is wrongly changed to zh:珀西•比希•雪莱.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Percy_Bysshe_Shelley&diff=485913993&oldid=485686572
He made the same bad edit to the Chinese on 6 Apr 2012 at [52].
He was notified about those on 6 Apr 2012. In the following edit on 9 Apr 2012 "compleat" is wrongly changed to "complete" and the same bad edit to the Chinese is made again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eadweard_Muybridge&diff=prev&oldid=486434288
On 19 Feb 2012 MikeyMouse10 wrongly changed Persian fa:صخره (زمین‌شناسی) to fa:صخره (زمینشناسی). Someone discovered and corrected it on 4 Mar 2012 and notified him on his talk page to please watch what he's doing. The more recent errors to the Chinese shows that he's not paying attention. In the same edit on 19 Feb 2012 he wrong changed "ejecta" to "eject": [53]. "A short block will get his attention. I'm open to other suggestions." Seanwal111111 (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
With users such as this character who display such serial cluelessness, a block is really the only effective way to get through to them, I'm afraid. Reviewing the evidence here, I'd say a 24-48 hour break from editing would likely help prevent future problems. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I think there's clearly a competence issue here of some sort - don't know if it's language, comprehension, not understanding Talk pages, or what. I've imposed a block in order to force their attention, and we'll see how they respond. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

New user and personal attacks against himself?[edit]

And baddie's TPA revoked too. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:55, 10 April 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.

[54] user:BADDIE610 is also probably user:Sam5959 based on the page history. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:55, 10 April 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.

82.18.191.248[edit]

82.18.191.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has a long history of disruptive editing, mainly in relation to religious and ethnic categories but also general constant addition of unsourced material. They have been blocked twice as their current IP, but also once as 82.18.191.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and four times as 82.16.122.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). They are also extremely uncommunicative, you won't find a single post to a talk page or user talk page across any of the three IPs.

Problems since their last block include claiming Lucy Lawless is of Irish descent here when there's nothing in the article about it, violating WP:BLPCAT on Lauren Laverne here, violating WP:BLPCAT on Richard Ramirez here by claiming he's a former Catholic when the only mention of Catholic in the article is saying his mother was Catholic. Basically the same problems they've been blocked for time after time after time.

Constant policy violations despite multiple blocks and refusal to communicate, must be time for a longer block I think? Three months as 82.16.122.103 didn't deter them much, so something longer than that looks like being needed. 2 lines of K303 14:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

A multi-year history of pushing an ethnically motivated POV -- even if the POV-pushing has been largely in the form of seemingly very minor edits, does warrant more effective preventive action than has been applied on this case. This IP user has been on my watchlist, but I was unaware of the history on other IPs. The short duration of most of the past blocks presumably was due to the fact that this is an anonymous IP, not all of the edits are disruptive (e.g., this recent edit was constructive) and the user's history on multiple IPs hasn't been available to the administrators who were making block decisions. Now that the ONIH has "connected the dots", I would support a 3-month block on the current IP, but I don't think it's a good idea to block the anonymous IP any longer than that. --Orlady (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Am also reviewing their edits, but it should be in the article that Lucy Lawless has Irish ancestry (one of those six degrees of separation things - I knew someone who used to work stunts on Xena:Warrior Princess, who mentioned this very thing). I'll go see if I can find a proper source so it can be added. And the article on Ramirez is really badly written, but I don't think I'm up for a copyedit tonight. It seems with the IP that the problem is adding things that are "probably true" but not verified (the 'I heard it on the radio' defence), rather than outright BLP violation, but it's very difficult if the editor won't talk to anyone. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
A quick look at User talk:82.18.191.248 and User talk:82.18.191.7 shows they have been warned countless times about adding unsourced categories though. For an earlier example, take this edit to Tobey Maguire. Now I can't find a single reliable source saying he's of Irish descent, although I can find some unreliable ones saying Maguire is an Irish surname when talking about him. That's blatant WP:SYN - Maguire is an Irish surname, he's called Maguire, therefore he's of Irish descent - no!! The issue isn't whether other edits are theoretically correct, but whether the category is merited by (ideally sourced) article content, and also WP:BLPCAT. The fact they keep ignoring this and refusing to communicate doesn't really leave us with many options. It's unreasonable to keep passing the burden of cleaning up after this editor's disruptive edits, when the disruption can be prevented at the source. 2 lines of K303 13:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I became aware of this IP user after stumbling upon a series of edits adding American communities to Category:Irish-American neighborhoods and Category:Little Italys in the United States, in the absence of evidence that they belonged in those categories. (I later worked out that communities were being added to these categories if census data on "ancestry", as compiled on city-data.com, showed a relatively large percentage of people listing "Irish" or "Italian" ancestry.) This editing pattern is similar in many respects to the user's practice (noted above) of adding articles about people to categories like Category:American people of Irish descent, apparently often with no basis other than the person's surname. I am pleased to see that the user has quit categorizing Irish neighborhoods and little Italys. Most of the user's contributions are wikignomish in character (including some good edits); seeing that most of the messages posted at User talk:82.18.191.248 were templated warnings that did not provide details on the specifics of the problem, I think it's possible that some more detailed communications to this user will cause the user to understand why it's often not appropriate to tag or categorize people as "of Irish descent" or "atheist" or "Catholic" (etc.). (This discussion may help in that regard!) --Orlady (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
A quick clarification on the "template" explanation I leave on the IP talk pages when there are BLPCAT issues. The particular wording is completely my own; there are a number of these IP-hopping BLPCAT sock farms that I try to keep a lid on (a losing battle, unfortunately). The message is meant to inform (e.g. "these are the reasons your edits are inappropriate"), as opposed to the standard uw-unsourced or uw-bio warning templates. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter how the subject is broached, the user is on a mission to have the categories included and is not interested in discussing why the edits may or may not be appropriate. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 00:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Short block requested for Schicagos to prevent disruption[edit]

Resolved: User has been indef'd and directed to the internet overlords.

Schicagos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) I'm trying to get through to a new editor who has exhibited some problematic behavior. He's made repeated personal attacks (here and here), and has edit warred to include unsourced content on a few pages. This behavior has continued past warnings. I posted to WQA, hoping another editor might step in and discuss the matter with him, but he removed the section. I think a short 1-day block might help to prevent further disruption while the issue is discussed with him. If an admin feels a block isn't warranted, I'd ask that they step in and discuss the matter with him personally. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ 17:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


This guy is deleting edits on subjects that he knows nothing about, subjects that I have experience on the university level in. Unless he can prove that the chemistry is wrong, I would like him to stop deleting my edits. Plus he is annoying because he doesn't know how to take a joke. --Schicagos(Schicagos) —Preceding undated comment added 18:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC).

I don't think "joke" means what you think it does. Your personal attacks themselves should be worthy of some adminstrative action. It also appears that you need to review Wikipedia policy on sourcing statements in articles. And deleting an entire WQA section seems symptomatic of wider issues.LedRush (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Schicagos (talk · contribs) blocked for a week for making personal attacks. I must say that the temptation to just indef him was quite strong; so I won't object if another admin feels less lenient than I was. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

An administrator should probably have a look at User talk:Schicagos as there are currently three open unblock requests following his previously declined unblock request. Thanks. ChemNerd (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Excessive requests have been closed, several have been denied, various warnings have been issued, and there are plenty of eyes on his Talk page now. I think we're done here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing by Danrolo[edit]

Danrolo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) This user has a long history of disruptive editing. After adding and changing certain ideology labels of (literally!) hundreds of political parties around the world without any verification for a long time and having been warned of original research and advised to comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines umpteen times, Danrolo has now broadened his/her activity to introducing downright factual errors (diff1, diff2) and adding extensive unverified personal information to BLPs of Argentine showgirls.(diff3, diff4) The user knows that original research and unverified information are deprecated on Wikipedia, because his/her user talk page is full of kind advice, patient explanations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, warnings and final warnings. There is no reaction at all from the side of the user. Communication with Danrolo is impossible. I am afraid that only administrative action can solve the problems with this user. --RJFF (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

This editor, whos userpage states that s/he is from Chile, has also clearly been socking from several Chilean IPs. See this sockpuppet investigation. RolandR (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Policy says to block the editors, not the page, in cases of these sorts of edit wars. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 01:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

What's going on here?[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nathan_Ballard&action=history Three new users, all of which have no edits outside this article, which is one of the articles created by known paid group account, Expewikiwriter. Do we have more socks? 86.** IP (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

An SPI investigation is in progress at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Artie04. DoriTalkContribs 02:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
How is he even notable to be here? MOst of the content is rubbish anyways...seeing as hes in PR it seems he wants to use WP to enhance isprofile.Lihaas (talk) 06:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I concur. This looks like a really close call at AfD. I'll run a tag on it. Carrite (talk) 06:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Spam talk deletion[edit]

(Originally posted on the talk page of the admin handling the report; I am unsure where to ask about this.) A discussion about a spam/unreliable source was completely deleted [56]. Can it be restored by an editor like me, or does it require bureaucrat/admin work? Especially since another edit has come after. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Well, I have magic admin powers, but you could have done it too, yes. That's one hell of a discussion by the way. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I was unsure, as it is a project page. I am less interested in the discussion than in the findings, and in seeing them properly archived. Thank you for also posting on the admin's talk page. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 04:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Sure thing. If I read the rules for user talk page guidelines correctly, it can be done on one's own talk page, but not on other pages. Thanks for your diligence. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Trouble with Kwamikagami[edit]

Move request opened. Charitably, nobody was gaming the system here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:52, 11 April 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.

Kwamikagami is an admin who has an interest in linguistics. However he seems to abuse his admin privileges by making unilateral decisions and changes to articles without establishing consensus. A case in point is the article on Pre-occlusion which he has moved and re-moved despite the objection of two editors, myself being one of them; the other is Angr. We have both asked for the article to be moved back to Pre-occlusion but he has refused to do this, and now because I'm not an admin I can't move it back over redirects. I think Kwami is abusing his privileges, and is being a bully. -- Evertype· 09:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Evertype's argument is that we need to use his preferred term, used in his sub-sub-discipline, rather than the nearly universal term, because anything else is "prejudicial". He seems to forget that this is an encyclopedia, and that nothing is preventing him from using the term he likes where sources warrant it. The first move was done without any objection, and in fact in response to an objection on the talk page to the title at the time, when I merged the content forks and needed to choose either the name of one of the existing articles or a third or compromise name. The second, after Evertype objected to a term he had never heard of, was to the WP:COMMONNAME, which had been used in one of the two content forks to begin with, following Ladefoged and Maddieson, The Sounds of the World's Languages, the Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, and just about everyone else, judging not just by the immediate sources I have, but by an overwhelming preference demonstrated by GBooks.
Evertype can make up whatever story he likes, but if Angr or another admin wants to move the article to one of the other names, I won't object. — kwami (talk) 10:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem with the initial move and no reason for Everytype to be "disgusted" by it. It's just another "bold" edit subject to WP:BRD. A minor quibble though, since kwami did propose it here he could have given a little more time for other editors to chime in. However, since a bot edit to the redirect Pre-occlusion makes the "R" in BRD impossible for for Everytype, kwami should consider moving it back pending the result of the discussion. Also I strongly object to the charge of "abuse of admin privileges". The article wasn't move protected so any autoconfirmed editor could have moved it. Kwami simply made a BOLD edit that he reasonably believed to be non-controversial. It had nothing to do with him being an admin. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with everything except the "kwami should consider moving it back pending the result of the discussion" part, which would just be process wonkery for it's own sake at this point, I think. I sympathize with Evertype's position (having been in it a number of times), but... things will be how they should be, eventually.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Making a unilateral move without enough time for discussion isn't that serious. Nor is declining Angr's suggestion to move the article title "back to Pre-occlusion to allow a discussion to take place" (after all Kwami perhaps shares User:Ohms law's perception of such a move as "process wonkery").
Where Kwami's behavior breaks into inappropriate is when he undid Evertype's restoration of the article's title to "Pre-occlusion." The edit summary says[57] that the move is to an interim WP:COMMONNAME while they discuss which term is best, which makes it seem as though Kwami has made a compromise move, but Evertype's issue was that the title was not "Pre-occlusion" so changing it to something else is basically the same as a full revert.
If Kwami's thinking really was that his move was a good interim solution, then he simply made a mistake of theory of mind. It's important to be mindful of others' perspectives when making move decisions like this, but we should understand that the difficulties of communicating over text makes mistakes more likely.
I suppose it's fine if we want to discuss the issue of Kwami's theory of mind abilities and how to go forward if we accept that he's not very good at guessing people's perspectives. But, like User:Ron Ritzman, I think it's unfair to accuse Kwami of misusing administrator privileges when the actions in question don't seem to have used administrator tools. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 17:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Kwami can move the article back to Pre-occlusion as Angr and I have asked him to do. Not being an admin on the English wiki, I don't have the power to do that. Note how Kwami has accused me of having a fiefdom (as if his behaviour wasn't worse), how he has belittled my view with the trope "sub-sub-discipline" and arguing that it is "my" preferred term, when Angr has also pointed out that it is the only term in Manx linguistics as well as Cornish. This phonological phenomenon is also found in Faroese. It's important to Celtic linguistics. I never have heard of "pre-plosion" as a term, which was Kwami's first bright idea, nor really of "pre-stopped consonants" which seems to be his second bright idea to avoid going back to pre-occlusion. Apparently in Austronesian linguistics these terms are used. So claims Kwami. How does this trump Celtic linguistics? Are we to trust Kwami's use of Google Books? Kwami says he refuses to move the article, but is that he will not object if Angr or another admin moving the article. If one of you will delete "Pre-occlusion" I will be happy to move it myself. -- Evertype· 08:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Evertype, you should really consider how strong your case is here. Already, your main point of bringing up the issue, that Kwami is misusing his admin privileges, has been shown to be false. Now you are switching the issue to talk page conduct, though this very nearly approaches a Tu quoque fallacy considering the problems of your own behavior. It doesn't help that you are misleadingly referring to Angr's comment as an endorsement of your preferred title when he was actually just asking for discussion.
Because you brought a shrill tone to the conversation early on, because Kwami has outlined very clearly what his issue is and how he can be persuaded, and because you have chosen to report him rather than discuss the issue on his terms, it seems that you are the one that is acting inappropriately and attempting to misuse policy. Doing this is just going to make it harder for you when Kwami or another admin is actually abusing their privileges.
Go back. Discuss the issue. Come to a consensus. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 12:50, 10 April 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.

Possible State PR rep as Wiki editor[edit]

In doing some new page patrol work, I came across a page on Biotechnology in Maryland. The page is written like a press release and the author is "Mdbizauthor" (i.e. "MD" is an abbreviation for Maryland.) Every page this individual has worked on is related to the state of Maryland, so I don't think it's a giant leap to conclude the person is likely employed or contracted by the State of MD to write/edit MD articles. Of course, I could be wrong and maybe the individual is just a devout Marylander. In any case, I thought I should bring this to Admin's attention to determine if further action is warranted.JoelWhy (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest/Noticeboard is the best place to try raising this sort of thing for review, unless there is some immediate admin specific action needed. -- (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I have tagged Biotechnology in Maryland for speedy deletion as way too promotional in tone. It needs to be zapped and rewritten.--ukexpat (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I wasn't aware of that noticeboard. I don't think the page should be deleted, just heavily edited (and we need to go through his/her other edits on different pages, as well.)JoelWhy (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Speedy declined - I don't know why I bother, looks like a clear case to me.--ukexpat (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
PROD it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
It's at AfD right now. To add, this editor created a similar article back in 2009 about Maryland business (Business in Maryland). That article's been edited by others since, but it still is very promotional in tone ("Maryland's world-class education system helps to fuel its highly professional and technical workforce."; do these people not realize how unpersuasive this is?). That said, the account doesn't seem to have been very active in the meantime.
What is the current status of paid/advocacy editing? I know there was some discussion a while back about clarifying the rules beyond simple COI policy. Shadowjams (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

IP user in possible breach of 1RR restrictions set out at WP:NCMAC[edit]

(Originally posted at helpdesk and WP:AN, but I think it should really have been opsted here first) Greetings Wikipedians, I had originally posted this at the help desk, and have been advised to bring it to the attention of this page instead. User:109.242.108.54 has started to breach 1RR restrictions as set out per WP:NCMAC, in regards to the naming of "Republic of Macedonia". According to details at NCMAC, and also ArbComs decisions, when the country is being listed with other countries in articles, the we should refer to it as Macedonia. Both myself, and Kosm1fent (talk · contribs) have issued warnings to the IP; and the IP still re-reverts things back. The articles in question so far are:

Subsequently, the IP has accused myself of making up this decision, despite the fact its ArbCom's ruling; and has also submitted a request to rename and move article. What actions (if any) should be taken now, as I feel like we're hitting our heads against a stone wall, despite relevant wiki-guidance being shown to the user. Thank you in advance. WesleyMouse 12:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Warning logged in the WP:ARBMAC decision. Since the case imposes a 1RR rule about changing the name of Macedonia in any articles, which he has already broken at Macedonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012, I recommend an immediate block if he continues. EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into that EdJohnston - very much appreciated. What happens about the IP's request to move Macedonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012 to Republic of Macedonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012? Is their request eligible for speedy rejection, or quashed? WesleyMouse 16:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Ban proposal for User:Jason James Scott[edit]

Jason James Scott is formally site-banned per community consensus for an indefinite period. -- Atama 20:40, 11 April 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.

Fellow Wikipedians, I am proposing a siteban on editor Jason James Scott (talk · contribs). Ever since his indefinite block, he has to date created 131 sockpuppets in a period of three years, in addition to another 18 suspected socks. Throughout 2009-2010, he has had the knack of creating a huge sockpuppet army. While what all seemed to rather peaceful, he has returned to create more socks, as per his WP:SPI case page, more recently in April 2012, where it is suspected and confirmed by checkuser that he returned to create more socks with the purpose of evading his block. It is disappointing to note that a serial sockpuppeter such as him was not enacted to a community ban in 2010, hence I believe the community needs to step up and collectively say "you're done here" through establishing consensus for a full ban on him. Bearing the comments BMusician said to me when I commented on Mr. Curious Man's sock, Blinkybill, I have not fed the troll here. -- Soviet King Pound me if i messed up. 15:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Looking back at the investigations archive, we have had problems with this user since 2009, it does appear that this user in question will continue to vandalize and will not let up. The MO appears to be creating fake article for his/her or others personal amusement. I support a Ban on the English Wikipedia, as this user has not shown any signs of stopping, and will continue to be a APT. Phearson (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Support, due to the nominator of this ban. Soviet King Pound me if i messed up. 17:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Support, obviously. Calabe1992 18:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
20-Mule-Team Support: One hundred and thirty-one sockpuppets??? Hell, after looking things over, I'd support sending a team of bruisers wielding frozen trouts to administer seafood justice. This is someone in need of serious help from professionals. Ravenswing 18:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Support - yep, no question. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Support with icy sushi. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Support Adios Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Seeing that there are more supports than oppose, I'll be contacting an admin to mark this as close and put the ban into effect. Soviet King Pound me if i messed up. 09:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Ban discussions are supposed to run for a minimum of 24 hours even in WP:SNOWy conditions. Hasteur (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, see WP:CBAN. We want the discussion to last long enough that people who may have a contrary opinion log in and have a chance to be heard, even if the first 10-20 people support something the next 10-20 may not or may have really good additional information to educate admins and users commenting and a potential closing admin. The policy only requires "normally" but the discussions that led to the existing wording strongly encouraged mandatory 24 hr or more runs before closure, and I doubt any admin familiar with the policy will close faster... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Votes for banning is silly, and I won't close it for that reason, but... George, take a look at the time stamps. Any admin familiar with policy could have closed this about 10 hours ago. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I concur Floquenbeam. This discussion has been running for an awful amount of time right now, and votes for banning just sounds totally silly. Soviet King Говорите со мной. 09:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Support - 100+ sockpuppets?? Ban this troublemaker now! Bmusician 10:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Support Mrlittleirish 11:58, 11 April 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.

Bad Faith and Mr Bratland[edit]

No action needed here as it is a content dispute. Take to WP:RFC if you must. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:28, 11 April 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.

In the article 'BMW R1100GS' motorbike there was a section on a book called Ghost Rider that featured the R1100GS bike. This section was non-relevant trivia and so it was deleted on 15 MARCH. The deletion was reverted several times by Dennis Bratland. A ‘Talk’ page discussion on the material began. D.Bratland put his case for inclusion based on his contention that the BMW R1100GS was the only motorcycle uniquely suited to its application in the Ghost Rider book. This - of absolute uniqueness - was the only argument advanced. (It would be the only argument advanced for the next 3 weeks, 30 posts and 3 venues.)

First, when evidence was presented that proved the original contention incorrect - that there was no evidence that said the bike was unique and, in fact, that there was clear evidence that the R1100GS was NOT unique - see ‘Talk‘ page - there followed a series of premature and heavy-handed use by D Bratland of policy code breaches such as WP:SNOW, WP:OWN, and accusations of trolling. In order to avoid ‘edit wars’ I didn’t revert the deleted section that DB had reinstated.

Instead I opened a Dispute Resolution Noticeboard discussion.

The Noticeboard allowed far more detailed presentation of sourced evidence that again clearly proved the BMW R1100GS was not unique in the original way stated, thus undermining the sole reason for the inclusion of the Ghost Rider book material on the R1100GS page - (there is a blue-numbered list (1-6) summation of evidence 3/4 down the noticeboard discussion). Other editors - e.g. Coaster92 - contributed the same opinion, that there was no proof of the bike's uniqueness.

Then in what I contend was an attempt to derail and ‘topic ban’ the discussion, D.Bratland then lodged complaints of ‘personal attacks’ and ‘canvassing’ in ‘Request to delete personal attacks else topic ban’. These were investigated by non-involved editors who found that the accusations were unfounded, but also that Dennis Bratland himself was suspect of WP:GAME, WP:OWN, WP:BOOMERANG and of using multiple open forums. (The complaint against me was tagged as ‘No Action Needed’)

The Unintentional Reveal
This tactic not having worked at getting the topic banned, Mr Bratland continued to advance his sole argument for uniqueness of the R1100GS to the Ghost Rider book - even in the face of mounting evidence and opinion otherwise. However, when he then made a second attempt to suggest why the material be included on another bike article, he made the revealing mistake that brings us to the core reason for this complaint:

  • On 7 April 2012 (15:56), Bratland said: - “if the issue is that the GS1100R is not distinct enough from the other the BMW GS adventure touring bikes -- after all, BMW's David Rob said "We had 19 models covering just two and a half market segments" then I'd be happy to move the Ghost Rider section to BMW GS.’ (this can be found just after 'Section break 3')

Now, this is highly revealing because - in that one small, careless aside - he reveals that he knew his argument was false: in his attempt to make a new case for including the material on a generic GS page (though that doesn‘t stand up either), Dennis Bratland had accidentally and unintentionally revealed that he himself already knew there was evidence that the BMW R1100GS was not unique in the way he had argued himself for the last 3 weeks! Even quoting a sourch that proves there were indeed other similar bike models.*

  • * (And, note: this isn’t an instance of the user changing his mind on the issue because of the evidence; it is an instance of a user unintentionally revealing that they knew full-well their argument was ill-founded.)

Basically, it amounts to Mr Bratland metaphorically saying: ‘Okay, even though I’ve argued for 3 weeks that the bike is totally unique, I actually already knew that wasn’t the case. But anyway - moving quickly on - let’s now look at my other argument…”

  • I’m sorry, but this is too fundamental a breach to ignore. (And it's a wee bit depressing to have spent all that time collecting evidence to prove a case that the other editor already knew to be true.)

  • It’s bad enough that a user falsely accused other editors in an attempt to topic ban the discussion
  • But it’s even worse that they knew all along their case was false but continued anyway
  • And it’s even more damaging to Wikipedia to have a case where an editor can spend weeks debating something that he clearly did not even himself believe and that knew to be founded on a falsity.

I would contend that that is the very definition of an argument that is not in good faith. And is exactly the kind of disingenuous, partisan, mendacious ‘arguing’ that drives potential new users (and some old ones) away from contributing to Wikipedia.
Rivercard (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Cheese and Rice. Roll back the stone, This thread has been basically resurrected here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
* I thought a separate complaint would demand it's own seperate filing. Is that not the case? The other topic was not filed by me, and it was also recommended (by Dennis Brown) for closure. So for those reasons I didn't think of this as a ressurection, but as a new case (which, really, it is). It didn't seem right to tag this on to the end of the other one.
Rivercard (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • To be clear, there was a dispute resolution case, and it was reopened. [58]. TransporterMan was the only uninvolved party to offer an opinion in the matter, saying: "There is clearly no consensus at this point in time to support the removal of this long-existing material, so it should remain in the article until a clear consensus has been formed to remove it. If the editor wishing for the content to be removed desires to attract additional editors to the question, then a request for comments would be the best way to do so." In short, leave it in the article and file at WP:RFC. A search at RFC shows no such request, [59] telling me you ignored good advice. You both have been moderately rude to each other, and I think no action is needed against Dennis Bratland here just as I recommended no action against you in his ANI. My advice is to close this ANI, for you to stop deleting the info for now (based on the recommendation of TransporterMan above) and instead go file at WP:RFC. You both need to drop the petty sqabbles and go to RFC, or risk sanctions. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  • And someone please change that title and anchor to the old name. Obviously a non-neutral title. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Dennis (Brown, that is), couple of really important points, if I may: TransporterMan's initial comment was from 3 weeks ago and before most of the evidence supporting the case for deletion was presented, so the content of that initial comment is not up-to-speed as we now stand. TransporterMan has not contributed since, apart from when he reopened the Noticeboard discussion (one week later), but then he did not enter the discussion at all, and the only comment he made was to clarify that WP:WPACT was a indeed a part of communal consensus used to supplement established procedure. So for that reason, I think comments left later into the case are more conversant with the edvidence.
If I didn't think there wasn't a foundation for this ANI I genuinely wouldn't have filed it. (And I think you can see from the discussion exchanges so far that I'm not easy to rile and I don't cry wolf regarding the behaviour of others.) But when one of the two original contributing editors in a discussion (in this case, the user Dennis Bratland) clearly reveals that they themselves did not believe in the argument they were advancing, then that seems too important to ignore - it's the very definiton of a bad faith argument. And it actually disproves their own case (see quote in first post).

And in trying to look at this as dispassionately as possible, I still cannot see how a very fundamantal breach like that can pass without comment or sanction.
Rivercard (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Also important to note, even the initial opposer Dennis Bratland has has now conceded (on 7 April) the case, and admitted that the BMW R1100GS is not unique. So I think that rather trumps the comment of TransporterMan from 3 weeks ago at the very start of the discussion.
    Rivercard (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Enough. This is a content dispute. This board is not for content disputes. There is no administrative action to be taken here. The applicable policies are WP:V - is the information verifiable, WP:UNDUE - is it excessive to include it, and WP:CONSENSUS - is there consensus to remove it. So far, you do not seem to have gained consensus to remove it. If it is really that important to you, I recommend taking the RFC step. However, I should point out that plenty of articles on cars, bikes, trucks, planes etc have a section about the vehicle's appearance in fictional media (Bond's Aston Martin DB5, Inspector Morse's Jag, Starsky and Hutch's Gran Torino) so the general consensus seems to be that it's OK if the media appearance is notable. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:53, 11 April 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.

Sneaky date-related vandalism[edit]

For the past several weeks, User:76.103.171.69 has been making small changes to a number of articles ostensibly correcting facts and concentrating on dates. His edit have been repeatedly challenged by other editors and he has been asked to provide sources or at least to explain how he is coming up with these new dates. He has ignored all attempts to communicate. For this reason he just received his 4th block yesterday (his second 3-month time-out). Although it is possible that these are the edits of a well-intentioned person who is simply unfamiliar with Wikipedia's sourcing requirements, certain facts stick out for me which concern me. On the Moomin comic strips article, for example, 76.103.171.69 first claimed that the strip "Moomin's Winter Follies" was published on June 22, 1955 in this edit; he then later changed it to June 8, 1955 in this edit; and most recently he changed it to July 13, 1955 in this edit. Considering how many times the same strip has been re-dated by the same editor, it is clear that he is either using an exceptionally volatile source or he is just making the facts up out of thin air. For obvious reasons, this kind of "sneaky vandalism" is very difficult to detect normally and I think it merits special attention.

Someone reported User:76.103.171.69 at AIV yesterday and I also expressed my concern that User:24.4.254.10 was a sockpuppet account for User:76.103.171.69, but no action was taken against 24.4.254.10. Today's edits all but confirm this considering that 24.4.254.10's first edit since mid-March comes 1 day after 76.103.171.69 was banned and 24.4.254.10's edits match 76.103.171.69 precisely. At AIV I had asked where would be a good place to alert editors about "sneaky vandalism" and got no response, so I'm taking a stab at it here. If this is not the proper forum then please point me in the right direction. Thanks for your help. -Thibbs (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Sorry, but I don't see it. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I'm sure I just haven't explained it well. Is it that you don't see the connection between 76.103.171.69 and 24.4.254.10 or that you don't see the edits as characteristic of vandalism? -Thibbs (talk) 05:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... Well I'd really hate to have this fly under the radar so I made up some evidence sheets for you. Please let me know if these are enough to convince you. And if anybody else could weigh in here I'd be mighty obliged. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Proof of sockpuppetry
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Location:

  • 76.103.171.69 geolocates to Moraga, CA, USA
  • 24.4.254.10 geolocates to Lafayette, CA, USA
  • The two towns are both located in the same county (Contra Costa County) and are separated by just less than 4 miles of road (~10 minute one-way car trip).

Chronology & articles & style:

Other items from WP:SIGNS include edit warring, an account with occasional usage, and arguably knowledge that an obscure article exists. These two accounts are quite obviously used by the same person. -Thibbs (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it vandalism?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

As for whether or not it's vandalism,... I suppose that's the beauty of sneaky vandalism. It often appears indistinguishable from legitimate errors. There really is no way to prove that these edits are vandalism short of extracting a written confession from the vandal, but there are clues we can look at that would lead us more toward or more away from the determination of vandalism.

  • I guess the strongest clue I have comes from the fact that in three edits to the same article, a newly introduced date was changed to three different days. Paying specific attention to the date for the strip entitled "Moomin's Winter Follies", please note that 76.103.171.69 initially claimed the strip was published on June 22, later changing it to June 8, and finally settling a few months later on July 13. The question that naturally arises is "what sort of a situation would result in an editor changing the date 3 times in 3 edits?" One option as I suggested above is that the source is volatile. If the NYTimes source prints a date and then issues a correction and then later another correction then I suppose we have our explanation for this kind of an edit pattern. In most cases, though, sources covering facts like dates are static and can be relied on to remain the same from day to day.
  • Further evidence that these edits may be vandalistic in nature comes from 76.103.171.69's and 24.4.254.10's respective talk pages where over a dozen warnings have been issued for adding "incorrect information" or dates without sources. Edit warring to restore incorrect information is not proof of vandalistic intent, but it might be considered suggestive evidence. -Thibbs (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I can see what you mean. The user is almost certainly the same, but I'm not persuaded by the evidence that it's vandalism. The user added quite a bit of content, and it's possible that the three changes to a single date were either a mistake, or some other informed revision. For me the test of sneaky vandalism is whether you can come up with any source to prove any of the information is false. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
The IP has already been blocked for 3 months.--Atlan (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
The other subject of the complaint, 24.4.254.10 (talk · contribs · block log) is not currently blocked. I believe a talk page notification is traditional. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not convinced a talk page notification would be helpful if this is a case of sneaky vandalism. Given that I've outlined an MO above, why provide an opportunity to change style? It's a judgment call though so if someone wants to alert the editor then go for it. -Thibbs (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

As it's clearly a sockpuppet account evading a block, a new block (simultaneous with or without a warning) seems like the obvious move, but I wanted to raise awareness of the possibility of sneaky vandalism with this one since it seems likely to me. If nobody else is concerned about that possibility then perhaps I'm just being paranoid. I'm willing to entertain that possibility. -Thibbs (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Relatedly, would it be a good idea to file with SPI? I'm uncertain about the rules regarding IPs as socks of other IPs. Is such a thing possible or would I be wasting my time? -Thibbs (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps... I want to add, that first off this date change vandalism (height changes to bios is common too) is pretty pervasive and I suspect there are a few dozen socks that account for a large amount of it (aside from the typical one-off vandalism). I've followed a particular sock for similar date changes to a bunch of music articles. I've also seen IPs doing exactly what you showed here, often on children's cartoon articles. In fact, I would not be surprised if this was the same person[s]. However I don't think I ever dug much deeper on the cartoon-date changes, so I can't direct you to the appropriate SPI case... but you might look through the edit history on those pages and see if there are some IPs in similar ranges that did some prolific editing in the past. You might be surprised what you find.
I've been talking about this kind of subtle vandalism for a long time, and it's pernicious because it goes unnoticed for so long, and because in my experience these individuals are persistent. Factual changes like dates are particularly bad because they provide no context to help evaluate their truth, often you have to take a date at its word. For example, if I change the date of Henry VIII to 1984, then it's obvious. But if I change it to 1490, would anyone know the difference?
When you come across an editor who's making lots of sequential date changes, or even adding more specific dates (as in the case of the music sock), it's a completely valid question to ask them where they're getting their information from. If they respond adequately, then great, especially if follow ups on that check out. But I've found most of these editors never respond on the talk page, they just go on with the edits until they're blocked. I've even seen IPs I've monitored be blocked for spans as long as a year, and they're editing again within 24 hours of the block letting up. I've honestly considered the possibility that there's some sort of automated bot making their edits for them. Shadowjams (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Wow. I did a little digging and there are dozens and dozens of these accounts flitting about in the children's cartoon articles (Several from California, some from Wisconsin, others from WA, OH, NJ, etc., etc.). I suspect you may be right about it being bots because with so many active accounts (only one of the first ten such accounts that I noticed had ever seen a block) it's not as if these editors are waiting with baited breath for the their blocks to expire. The fact that they seem to immediately resume their activities hours after lengthy blocks expire sounds very robotic. We need a new Voight-Kampff test for the tag filters as they've obviously stepped up their game a bit. Some of the accounts I was looking at have been active for 8+ months and they are still operating block-free. It's disheartening to see how devoted some people are to discrediting Wikipedia. The only motivation I can guess is some kind of spite or revenge... As it is I wouldn't trust dates in any of the TV show articles at this point. I wish I had time to make an in depth SPI report. Anyway thanks for your comment Shadowjams. Glad to see I'm not the only one who cares. -Thibbs (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

BLP violations, edit-warring and incivility by user:DonCalo[edit]

RESOLVED.
Lovely when AGFing carries the day. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:11, 11 April 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.

DonCalo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) adds BLP-violating material without citations to the Propaganda Due (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. He has also resorted to edit-warring and gross personal attacks on his edit-summaries: diff. Admin action is requested. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Now the editor is templating me on my talk page. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no edit war. I properly referenced the inclusion of a member on the P2 list, which was subsequently removed without explanation. Then I restored a dead link which has been removed as well. Dr.K. should first check what he is deleting before deleting it. - DonCalo (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
The citation they attempted to add does not support membership of Publio Fiori in the P2 Masonic lodge. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • How has this gotten to ANI when no one has tried to use the article talk page to discuss?
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that edit summary is clearly a demeaning personal attack in the form of bullying - if User:DonCalo refuses to apologize or retract its worthy of a block - Youreallycan 20:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you YRC. The user has expressed regret for his actions. I accept this in good faith and I think the matter should be marked as resolved. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:04, 11 April 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.

Persistant copyright violations at 2011-12 Arsenal F.C. season[edit]

The past few months on the 2011-12 Arsenal F.C. season page, Arsenal's premier league fixtures have been placed on the page. This is a copyright violation which was best summed up in this description by User:Spiritofsussex and the page was semi-protected for it.

Recently, user Ricky Sen has been doing the same thing over and over again and he has been told several times in the descriptions that he cannot do that and he has also been warned twice on his talk page by me but he still continues with no acknowledgement of either. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Pardon this ignorant yankee, but I'm seeing him provide facts with citations, not prose. For the sake of people like me, can you provide some info or a link to the guideline this violates? I'm not arguing for or against, I'm just confused and could use some education on how this violates copyright law. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
    The Premier League fixtures are copyrighted. Including them here, with citations or otherwise, is a copyright violation if we don't have prior permission to reproduce. —Strange Passerby (talkcont) 18:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I apologize for taking this away from the topic at hand but I have to ask: The list of who a team played is copyrighted? Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • That was my point. I don't see how this can be copyrighted according to US Copyright law (which is the controlling law for Wikipedia), as it is just facts. That is why I asked for further explanation, beyond what the edit summaries are saying. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) How can it be a copyright violation? National newspapers (both British and International) publish league fixtures and league results, as do media broadcasts. If it is a supposedly copyright violation, then wouldn't the global media also be in breach of the same law? WesleyMouse 18:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, is it a copyvio? Your communications with Ricky Sen strongly assert that it definitely is. But you don't cite a policy, or a guideline, or a discussion, that clarifies that this is the case. We have one, right? Maybe. Searching for clarity isn't easy:
  • I see you and Spiritofsussex discuss the possibility that this is a copyvio at Talk:2011–12 Arsenal F.C. season#Premier League fixtures. In that discussion (in which only the two of you take part) neither of you seems very sure, saying "it would seem that the fixtures are copyrighted" and "it's a copyright issue then maybe the fixtures should be removed." So "it would seem" that "maybe" these are copyvios?
  • You'd think Wikipedia:Media copyright questions would have discussed this to death. But all I find is this rather unsatisfying discussion. So it's okay after all?
  • Or has WP:FOOTY a guideline about this (just writing down the outcome of previous discussions helps us avoid having to revisit the same issue over and over). I cant' find one. I can find this discussion. So they're definitely forbidden?
Don't get me wrong - I don't know if these are copyvios either. Are we really saying that even naming the very next fixture ("Newcastle are playing Leeds away next Wednesday") is a copyvio? If not, how much is too much? To my mind Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and WP:FOOTY needs to sit down and at least write up a clear guideline, which you can in future direct people like Ricky Sen to. I'm rather unhappy at the prospect of blocking someone on the basis of a rather poorly documented miasma of guesswork - at least let's have a well documented miasma. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 18:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Not sure if this article from BBC News is any help. But is does explain that the fixtures are protected by copyright, and that media and betting stores pay a licence fee to a company called "Football Dataco". The article goes on to state that anyone wishing to publish the needs to pay Football Dataco a fee in order to be given permission. Although there is legal proceeding on-going in the British courts to have this overturned. WesleyMouse 18:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Fortunately, it has no legal weight in the US. Facts cannot be copyrighted, only the presentation of the facts can. So, we couldn't use their specific table layout, but the facts therein are free game. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I have no idea what this means for the law, since IANAL in copyright or anything else, however my understanding of the idea-expression divide is that expressions may be copyrighted by ideas may not. That is, the simple fact that a match occured, or is scheduled to occur, cannot itself be copyrighted, since that idea is not fixed in a permanent form. A specific example of prose which meets the threshold of originality describing said match would be copyrighted, but people cannot own the copyright on a simple fact. --Jayron32 19:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)*The UK has different laws on copyright than the US, perhaps, but it is US law that applies here. Wikipedia's servers are in Florida, US, where facts can not be copyrighted. According to the US Copyright Office, "Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed."(cite: [60]). I would say this can't be protected, but would invite a larger discussion. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Just on a technical point, Football Dataco have sui generis database protection rights in the fixture list under Section 3A of the (UK) Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which implements Article 3 of EU Directive 96/9. See Football Dataco v Smoot [2011] EWHC 973 (Ch). Not strictly a _copyright_ violation, but definitely against EU law. Tevildo (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • (IANAL!) It should be noted that this was a default judgement, due to the findings in the Yahoo UK case, which was about publishing or copying the database as a whole, which itself is on appeal (according to the case you linked). Even if UK law was supreme in this case (and I can't see how it is), then the question would be about Fair Use exception (in US law) for these individual facts. Most of the guidelines on WP cover "files" (works) rather than snippets of text, so the policies aren't helping much. Still looking.... Dennis Brown (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
WP:QUOTE is relevant, but far from definitive. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 20:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I've asked Moonriddengirl to participate. Since she works on copyright all the time, she may have already come across the issue before. If this was published in the US, there would be zero issue. I just want to make sure that the Berne Convention or some other treaty isn't into play. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
    • We should keep this discussion within its narrow scope. It's not the job of administrators, or ANI, to decide what the copyright policy should be on English football fixtures. The only matter here is whether administrators should take some action against Ricky Sen for adding this material (or I suppose against those who removed it). I think the weight of ambiguity shows we can't in good conscience do so. So I move that this discussion be hatted (with a suggestion to both parties to desist until some actual clarity arises). A discussion about what should, or shouldn't, be permitted should either be at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or a content RFC. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 20:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • You are right, it does need a bigger venue than this discussion. Moonriddengirl can possibly shed some light as to prior consensus (if it exists) but this isn't the forum to make a wiki-wide decision on bigger issues and it wasn't my intent to do so. I was assuming there was precedent, but I shouldn't have. I absolutely agree that no action should be taken against the editor, for reasons you have already articulated. I have no issue with hatting it, so the bigger issues can be handled elsewhere. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for some of the clarification on this. I don't think anything should be done to the editor for now and I would like to see what Moonriddengirl's thoughts are on this. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi. Just got this message and it's bedtime in my household, but I wanted to stop by and say that we are bound by US copyright law here. We do not, for example, recognize "sweat of the brow". Many months ago, I engaged in some extensive discussion about copyright in lists with one of the Wikimedia Foundation lawyers. I was working on an essay about the issue; what I have is at User:Moonriddengirl/Copyright in lists. I have never completed it because the advice we received was actually more conservative than the approach we had traditionally taken (it's the big bit that's stricken out). The basic rule of thumb is this: if it is actually fact, the information in a list or table is not protected, but sometimes what looks like fact may be expert opinion and lists/tables may be protected for other factors, including creativity of selection and arrangement. Is a list basic fact, selected and organized in a way that would be conventional for any source discussing the subject? We're probably safe. If there is creativity in information, selection or structure, we may not be. I haven't had a chance to look at this table and won't tonight, but I would recommend looking at in that light - assessing creativity of content and organization - to determine if it is usable here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and finally moved that essay into project space. I would have liked to get a successful discussion going to expand the recommendations for fair use usage of lists that we agree are copyrighted, but since my one real effort to get something going on that failed to attract any attention, I've just summarized what the actual state is - kind of nebulous - and reproduced the advice at WP:NFC based on our attorney's feedback. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

For anyone interested, S3 &3A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 says [61]

  • 3 Literary, dramatic and musical works.(1)In this Part—

“literary work” means any work, other than a dramatic or musical work, which is written, spoken or sung, and accordingly includes— (a)a table or compilation [F1other than a database], F2. . . (b)a computer program; F3. . .[F4(c) preparatory design material for a computer program][F5and (d)a database] “dramatic work” includes a work of dance or mime; and “musical work” means a work consisting of music, exclusive of any words or action intended to be sung, spoken or performed with the music. (2)Copyright does not subsist in a literary, dramatic or musical work unless and until it is recorded, in writing or otherwise; and references in this Part to the time at which such a work is made are to the time at which it is so recorded.

  • 3A Databases(1)In this Part “database” means a collection of independent works, data or other materials which—

(a)are arranged in a systematic or methodical way, and (b)are individually accessible by electronic or other means. (2)For the purposes of this Part a literary work consisting of a database is original if, and only if, by reason of the selection or arrangement of the contents of the database the database constitutes the author’s own intellectual creation.

I believe that the fixtures are created by random draw (can someone confirm that) which means there is no creative input, (eta, apparently the fixtures are a designed set, not a random draw, which is significant for UK copyright) and the selection of the contents is all the fixtures (ie there is no creative input to what's in the fixture list, it's just all the fixtures) so the only thing copyright can be the arrangement of the contents in the database. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

  • In the Yahoo UK case[62], they describe in great detail how the list is created, describing it as part science and part art. In the end " the computer software is used as a tool to assist in finding a solution to problematic fixtures." (they hand pick certain matches that must take place, the computer fills in the rest I believe) then it is reviewed again by humans and perhaps tweaked. It is a mix of both. But even if we assume the UK allows that to be copyrighted, it is very clear that in the US, it could not be and the law is very clear on this. So does Wikipedia conform to UK or US law here? Normally, US because of location, so it would have to be some kind of exception I don't know about to apply UK law. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
    • IANAL, but no reasonable person would consider a sports league's schedule to be protected by copyright... - The Bushranger One ping only 01:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
      • I agree, but in the UK, they are. Very unAmerican of the Brits ;) So again, no action should be taken against the user adding them. And like Finley said, an admin probably needs to tell them both to stop adding material until RfC or some other final ruling is made (or pointed to if already been done) as to whether or not is ok to add them here. I think it is fine, but it isn't my call to make. Moonriddengirl just added an interesting note above that seems to indicate that in this instance, adding it should be ok. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I am uncertain as to how it is very clear that these lists cannot be copyrighted in the US as in my opinion deciding when certain games are definitely creative and is not a fact. Of course once the game is played it is fact and so lists of results are no problem. So from the court case information Dennis Brown gives I think we must err on the side of caution and assume these lists are copyrighted even in the US and so we can not use them. I am uncertain as to whether a court would decide the creative content was enough for copyright protection but, as wikipedia is not in the business of making case law, I think we must be cautious. Whether they are copyrighted in the UK is largely irrelevant although it may be relevant to people editing in the UK and posting the material. As an aside, the state in the UK seems to be debatable at the moment due to various court cases. All that said the edit wars here seem to be over the addition of one game at a time and I think a case could be made for fair use of just the next fixture, although this may require more discussion. Dpmuk (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I link it above, but the actual Copyright office for the US govt. makes it very clear that it can't be, only the way that it can be presented is. Phonebooks can't be copyrighted either. I've also run across it a few times in my day job. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Which is the point, really. If I say, for example, that my team is playing team X tomorrow, that's clearly not an issue. If I list the entire season's fixtures in the format they're originally presented, then that might well be - which was what the editor was doing here. Black Kite (talk) 11:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
A sports league plays games; this is a fact. A sports league schedules its games; this is a fact. The dates and times of these games are made public; this is a fact. Ergo, the league schedule is a publically known fact. Or is everyone who says "I'll be at the Foo vs Bar match on Foosday" be slapped with a copyright infringement suit? - The Bushranger One ping only 04:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
That Wikipedia is not in the business of making case law is irrelevant; I don't see at all how that leads to "we must be cautious." That's another term for "we need to self-censor because the other side's lawyers are making scary lawyer-noises." I say that - especially since copyright law in the location of Wikipedia's servers is not at issue - we tell them to stick it in their ears and dare them to do something about it. As Bushranger says, we are dealing with public facts, publically released and known. Wikipedia is not in the business of protecting the Premiership's bloated profit margins. Ravenswing 06:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I think my concerns stems from the fact that games may not actually be played as per that schedule and so although it is a fact that they are scheduled to play on that day it is not a fact that they will play on that day. The scheduling element introduces enough element of creativity, in my opinion, to possibly be copyrightable. We can't get away saying anything we want just because it's a fact otherwise we could say things like "Author X wrote [insert entire text of copyrighted book]". It's a fact but we can't do it because of the creativity in what they wrote and so it's copyrighted. Although an extreme example I hope it illustrates my point. Personally I think it's very debatable as to whether a fixture list such as this has enough creativity to be copyrightable but, given the advice by our attorney mentioned above, I also don't think it's worth running the risk as we don't want to get wikipedia into some sort of test case with all the costs involved. Dpmuk (talk) 06:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
More to the point - given that the article is one which covers the history of the season, does it need a list of upcoming fixtures? I think the answer to that is no. As an aside to Ravenswing - Football DataCo is nothing to do exclusively with the Premiership; it covers all eight league divisions in England and Scotland. Black Kite (talk) 10:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I feel a bit different on this one. I'm not convinced that the schedule would be copyrightable in the United States under Feist. Although it is true that some courts get wonky about schedules ([63]; [64]), these cases turn on the skill, judgment and labor of compilation, as I understand it, and the US is indifferent to that. I'm inclined to agree with User:The Bushranger here. That said, copyright is not the only factor to consider in including such material. To quote from WP:NFC footnote 1, relating advice from the WMF counsel, "She also recommends that the use of even uncopyrightable lists be considered with regards to licensing agreements that may 'bind the user/reader from republishing the list/survey results without permission', noting that 'Absent a license agreement, you may still run afoul of state unfair competition and/or misappropriation laws if you take a substantial portion of the list or survey results.'" Speaking strictly as a volunteer, of course, I do not believe that this would create liability for WMF, but there may be risk for the individual who copies the content. Whatever decision is reached, I would urge contributors to be careful for their own liability. I think sometimes Wikipedians forget that we are individually responsible legally for our actions here. Even if we were to decide that appropriating the entire list is within US copyright law and a-ok for Wikipedia, editors who live in the UK need to remember that they answer for their actions in that jurisdiction and are bound by those laws. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
On the one hand, allowing reuse is a priority. On the other hand, we allow non-free content as well as images of people (which are protected by personality rights), so I'm not too worried. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
In response to Ravenswing - I think you may have missed my point a bit - it is my opinion that whether this data is copyrighted in the US (and more specifically the location of the servers) is at question here. I'd agree that if it was clear-cut in the US there wouldn't be a problem. My comment about not making case law is related to the fact that I think the status is questionable in the US. If we do conclude it's possibly copyrighted in the US, even if probably not, then I think we should err on the side of caution. I doubt the foundation would appreciate it if they got dragged to court about content on their servers.
In response to Mooniddengirl - I'm not convinced that it would be copyrightable under Fiest but I'm also not convinced it wouldn't be. If the fixture list was completely machine generated I'd agree that it wouldn't be under Fiest. The addition of humans fixing certain games to happen at certain times introduces some creativity and so I think means that Fiest does not directly apply. There's two elements of creativity I see there - firstly which games are worthy of fixing which doesn't seem to be decided in any deterministic way and once that's decided when to schedule those games, which again I doubt is in any way deterministic and is instead creative. Whether that creativity is enough for copyright protection is