Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive768

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User page breaching wikipedia policies[edit]

The poster was blocked as a sockpuppet, no further action required by admins. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:14, 11 September 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.

User:Timeshift9's Userpage has become a political blog where he posts quite abusive comments about political opponents. The user has turned his page into a blog. This is in breach of WP:UPNOT and WP:NOTBLOG. This section states 'You may not host your own website, blog, wiki, or cloud at Wikipedia'. On his Userpage he has an excessive level of political commentary, where he has labelled Conservative Politicians 'disgusting', 'loons' and other abusive politcal commentary. I would consider myself a progressive, but would not dream of my userpage into a blog. He latest commentary today is about Tony Abbott, a senior conservative politican. 'WHEN Tony Abbott lost the University of Sydney Students' Representative Council presidency, he allegedly approached the woman who beat him and, leaning into her face, punched the wall on each side of her head... you know what's worse? That nobody is surprised by his actions. It's just pure Abbott'. I would like an uninvolved admin to take a look and give an opinion. Welshboyau11 (talk) 09:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Admins looking at this should also have a look at the "Neutral point of view" topic at the top of this page, where a topic ban on Australian politics is currently passing on the votes on the OP. Orderinchaos 09:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I took a look and I agreed that this was well beyond what is acceptable, so I deleted it. We are here to build an encyclopedia, and there are plenty of blogging sites out there. --John (talk) 09:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Looks like User:John has deleted it. I'm sure this ANI post has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Australian_Greens. Nothing at all. No siree! —Tom Morris (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC
  • Comment I'm not going to get into a slanging match here but it has Nothing whatsoever to do with it. I haven't mentioned his user page until he went overboard now with Abbott. He went way to far. I don't dislike you or even him personally. This is about policies and their correct and fair application. Welshboyau11 (talk) 09:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Right, and it would have nothing to do with the fact that you have been trying to get him banned on this very board over an unrelated dispute you're having with him? Orderinchaos 10:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Nup, I don't want him banned. I just want his Userpage to follow the rules, and not be a personal abusive blog where he accuses people of being disgusting and loons. Welshboyau11 (talk) 10:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Why? It's clearly breaching policies. WP:UPNOT and WP:NOTBLOG. Welshboyau11 (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Er, yes, why? A clearer violation of WP:NOT#SOAPBOX you'd be hard pressed to find. If not deletion, it needs very large amounts of content removal. Black Kite (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Is there any particular reason why we shouldn't just have another MfD? There was one back in 2011 which was closed as delete and then overturned at DRV. It would seem reasonable to suggest that MfDing it means we might have a chance to see if consensus has changed since the last MfD/DRV. Personally, I'm okay with a small amount of user advocacy on user pages and I do not, for instance, get all concerned about having opinion or identity userboxes. But the simple principle of "hey, look, nothing wrong with having opinions but if you want to run a blog, Wordpress and Tumblr exist, go there" seems a pretty reasonable objection. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Possibly a good idea. The previous MfD and DRV are irrelevant anyway because the content of the page is completely different from what it was then [1]. Black Kite (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • If anyone wants a further admin opinion, they can have mine: the page should be summarily deleted - no discussion necessary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Black Kite and Tom Morris that this stuff does not belong here, but I acceded to the request from OiC to give the user a chance to defend this work and maybe amend it before outright deletion. If there is a BLP concern it needs to be instantly deleted but I am not aware of that being the case. What harm will leaving it up for 24 hours do? --John (talk) 10:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • None, I suppose; I simply couldn't see any way that the page doesn't violate WP:SOAP. Black Kite (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I have now blocked Welshboyau11 (talk · contribs) 24 hours for continuing this dispute after he had made others aware of it and I had asked him nicely several times not to. If anyone feels I have been heavy-handed I shall be glad to reconsider. --John (talk) 10:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment To explain my request to John - I asked him (as the deleting admin) for a courtesy restoration to give Timeshift9 time to fix it, and notice that the community desired him to do so. I think a user in good standing with the sort of contributions Timeshift9 has to the encyclopaedia deserves that, although it isn't a free pass and if he doesn't fix it, then it ceases to be up to him (or me, for that matter). Orderinchaos 11:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment After looking at the page, I agree that it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I suggest that it be blanked first, and that Timeshift9 be given a chance to copy the contents that he wants to keep. After Timeshift9 has had a chance to do so, it should be deleted and a new user page created. FurrySings (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Clearly exceeds the tolerance of WP:UP. Had I stumbled across it, I would have just MfD'ed it and not given it a second thought. Blanking is another option. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 13:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Final comment I feel like my initial instinct to delete was justified; I also feel like I was justified in acceding to the request to undelete. At the same time, I have no objection if another admin wants to redelete or blank it. --John (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I also agree it should be deleted. Perhaps MfD is the way forward? Wikipedia isn't the place to host "rant time!" [2]. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Fixed - I've boldly cleaned it up, which is the least drastic solution, as he will still have access to the data. I've left a note on his talk page explaining this, and that if he reverts, either myself or another admin is likely to either speedy delete or send to MfD, based on policy and a clear consensus here. He probably won't like it, but it is the least aggressive way to solve this issue. Any admin that feels it still needs to go to MfD/CSD is free to without hurting my feelings, I just felt like this was a minimal solution. If he restores, stronger delete action may be needed. Hopefully he will appreciate the mildness of this solution and just move on. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 16:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Please note that I've just blocked Welshboyau11 (talk · contribs) for an indefinite period as being the latest sockpuppet of another editor (please refer to my block rationale on their talk page). Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I note that Welshboy11 has been blocked as a sock. I have had this questioned multiple times over my years at wikipedia, and it's always been decided that some level is ok, but not excessive pages and pages. I admit that it may have grown a bit bushy of late, i've taken a chainsaw to it and introduced a minimalist version which is far less than the previous one that was given the all-clear in the last time it was brought up. Timeshift (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Regardless of the motivations of the original nominator, this page needs to be quickly sent for deletion. --Nouniquenames (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Not at all, if you read the above. Timeshift (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Timeshift9 reverted Dennis Brown's bold editing of the page; I have restored it. Not only is it a blog, it is also full of BLP violations, attacks on living people. If Timeshift reverts my restoration, the page needs to be taken to MfD. If it is deleted, and Timeshift recreates it, or starts a new page with the same problems, he should be blocked indef for disruptiveness. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I did not revert. Have you read what I typed above? Timeshift (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the page history, it seems Timeshift removed about 3/4 of the disputed content - see this composite diff. Orderinchaos 03:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
(ec) You did not completely revert Dennis, so I withdraw that, but your "chainsaw" version is still not acceptable - it still has serious BLP violations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Like what? Some level is ok on a userpage. 13,000 characters were removed. i readded 3,000 characters. Less than a page and very trim, more trim than the last time i was asked to scale back - i reiterate - some is allowed, notblog does not apply to userpages. If there is a specific BLP vio, then tell me the specific vio, and i'll fix it, as was said last time too. Timeshift (talk) 03:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I not only read the above, I read the page under discussion. There were unsourced negative BLP items still there alongside other entries that had no buisness there. I'll mention the possible exception (for the sourced material only) if the material is legitimately to be used in the near future for creating or updating articles here. If that is the case, the material should still not be where it is. The sourced info should, in my opinion, be moved to a subpage (to lessen visibility) and the unsourced portion must not be retained. That still only discusses the BLP issues, not the soapbox or blog problems. --Nouniquenames (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't think that it does - can you please explain what these are? The material looks like some middle-of-the road type comments about some public figures. Can you please also explain why you also removed the first paragraph of the talk page in this edit? - it's about why Wikipedia is good, and has nothing whatsoever to do with BLP issues or political commentary. I have to say that I'm really concerned with the apparent enthusiasm some editors seem to have to remove stuff from other editors' talk pages; this should only be a last resort, and should be undertaken with great care. Nick-D (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
This has been explained in significant detail on my talk page, in one of the most depressing conversations I have ever been involved in in my 7 years on Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Thankyou. Socks and their associated mopups... sigh. Timeshift (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination). Sigh per above. Timeshift (talk) 06:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Move to close - I've given my comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination) so won't comment here on the actual content. But given this has been raised elsewhere (notionally more appropriate) by an editor in far better standing (not a sock-puppet) and given the genesis of this particular notice (arguably vexatious), can we at least agree this particular case should be closed so that we avoid data redundancy? Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 06:53, 10 September 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.

JonFlaune recent behauvior and ban[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Let's wait until his block expires. He's got enough WP:ROPE at this point. --Jayron32 00:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to raise the issue about JonFlaune (talk · contribs). He was recently banned for 3RR violation and then a two week ban for continuing the edit war immediately after the earlier ban ended. Obviously he got quite hot-heated in the dispute, and then kept removing the notifications from his talk page, and issued quite a concerning message to the admin (User:Toddst1) in the edit summary: Pathetic. I'm going to make sure your POV pushing and abuse of tools to further the far-right agenda are investigated properly.. Quite inappropriate, and so that Toddst1 is not completely alone here being acccused, it would be good if other admins take a look at the situation too.

  • Furthermore, regarding the earlier behauvior of JonFlaune, he has accused an admin of bias earlier. The debate got heated over the deletion of Islamophobia related categories, and he filed a DRV that eventually upkept the decision. While at that, he condemned the admin who closed the CfD with harsh words (see the DRV). But not just that, he also nominated three antisemitism-related categories to make a WP:POINT Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_11#Category:Antisemitism_in_Palestine. Here he was even more aggressive accusing the closing admin (User:Mike Selinker) of "striking double standards" and "you people sabotaging" (diff).
  • While the discussion was going on with the CfD on Islamophobia categories, he updated his user page. (diff). He basically implies that the people he disagreed with are "politically extreme users" and quotes a newspaper article about subject hijacking.
  • Related to those newspaper articles, after the 3RR ban he issued a "Final note." (diff). He says more media coverage is coming on [on Wikipedia editing]. That's not exactly a WP:THREAT, because it's not a legal one, but just makes me wonder who should be worried and is he journalist or who's writing an article on it? After that, he issued the other inappropriate "warning" to the admin who banned him as I earlier linked diff.

I think this has gone too far. I've been participating in some those discussions and respect the people who I disagree with, so it's not definitely nice to see that. It really poisons the editing atmosphere if you go that hot-heated. And the threat that some editors are now getting "media coverage" is definitely weird. Should I feel worried about writing this ANI?

JonFlaune is currently banned for a 2-week period, but I've notified him on his talk page. --Pudeo' 23:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean s/he is blocked for a 2-week period, which is different from being banned.
That aside, s/he has been pretty much singularly-focused as User:JonFlaune states, "I try to do my best to counter Islamophobic POV pushing." Toddst1 (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Because I've been asked my opinion: I am not terribly happy with JonFlaune's behavior toward me, but I've moved on from it. I'll leave it to others to decide whether that suggests some sort of action should be taken, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Indeed a block, not a ban. My fault. Regarding the extent what JonFlaune went to criticize the CfD-closing admin Mike Selinker, that's probably a strategy to try to influence admins closing the discussions. If an admin who closes a tough CfD always gets attacked, who wants to make those calls anymore? Distruptive. --Pudeo' 23:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
That stuff doesn't work on me, obviously. I expect that any time I close a debate with an obviously disruptive user on the losing side, I will issue three opinions: in the original close, in the DRV, and in the user's subsequent block discussion. It doesn't bother me. (However, someone should really close those POINTy discussions he launched.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • After his block ended and he recommenced inserting his preferred version and then left a vandalism final warning on the talk page of a user who reverted him, before hounding him to a article he had never previously edited. He also reported an established editor that was contesting his edits to AIV. It is apparent that he does not tolerate disagreement and the retaliatory deletion nominations of three antisemitism-related categories further demonstrate this. Perhaps it is desirable that his adamantine attentions are directed towards a different topic area? Ankh.Morpork 23:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm the editor that Ankh mentions, and I was going to bring up those diffs, but I see he already has... I agree with what Ankh says, but would like to add one thing as well. JonFlaune has absolutely zero tolerance for anyone - be it editor or reliable reference - that disagrees with his POV. So if reliable refs disagree with him, he often just removes them, and says he's fixing the POV, while calling them "far-right extremists" on the talk page (i'm talking about established outlets like The Telegraph...). Ankh gave examples of which he harassed me, both on my user page, by wikihounding me, and by filing an NPOV report against me (which, ironically, he got banned for 2 weeks just a few minutes after he filed it...). His edits aren't constructive and his POV pushing violates so many Wikipedia rules... I don't have an opinion on giving him an indefinite block, but I definitely don't think he should be allowed to be editing this topic area (I'm referring to Arab-Israeli conflict, but I assume it's the same in Islam-related articles and Jewish-related articles as well, as examples were given above in these articles, so I'd say such a ban should apply there as well). --Activism1234 00:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment—He did the crime, he's doing the time. But how does anyone think it's reasonable to discuss this while he's blocked and can't participate?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This behauvior is going far back, as my top comment explains. The recent 3RR violation and its aftermath was explained in AnkhMorpok's comment, and I wasn't going into that in my original comment. Besides, after the last ban he still made that media coverage claim and that very questionable comment and investigation threat on the admin who banned him. Unfortunately, it just looks we're short on ways to cooperate here.
Also, he can comment this on his talk page and I hope he does so. --Pudeo' 00:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm closing this down. I concur with Alf here. If problems start again (socking or disruption when the block ends) then we can address it then. He's blocked, there's no need to sit here and gossip about him in his absence. This is quite enough. Let's invoke WP:ROPE here, let the block expire of its own accord, and see what he does when the block expires. --Jayron32 00:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
  • Socking was never an issue here. A blocked editor has the right to reply to an ANI on his talk page. JonFlaune still has an access to his talk page and I notified him. I request this discussion to be re-opened. --Pudeo' 00:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    I say keep it closed. He's blocked now, and one of two things will happen when the block expires - either he'll behave and things will be fine, or he'll misbehave and further action can be taken then. No further admin action is going to be taken just now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Juragraf and film-test.info possible spam[edit]

Juragraf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (alongside some Cologne-based IP addresses) has been adding reviews from the above German-language review site to multiple TV and film articles over the past few days, with translated summaries/excerpts being added into article text. Neither the site itself nor the named reviewers seem to be noted critics. I and other editors have reverted most of these edits. I then left a note on their talk page explaining the problem. They responded in a section on mine, in barely literate English, where the discussion continued, with my explaining that so far consensus seemed to be against inclusion but that there were places they could go for other opinions. In response I get accused of being a "rambo-editor" of not having a proper education and of trying to suppress press freedom. Since then they have simply gone round en-masse reverting all of my edits today, including my correction of apparent vandalism to the wholly unrelated Ottoman Empire page, all with the bizarre edit summary "subjective view!" N-HH talk/edits 10:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

  • It does look like he is spamming http://test-bericht.info around the place. I will leave a note on his talk page. I also note that they really hit the ground running with a new and complete article at their first edit, which is unusual... Dennis Brown - © Join WER 13:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Lucky102 && Talk:Milan/GA1[edit]

Resolved: improper GA review deleted. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Not an ANI issue, take this up with the user first instead of running here. "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Fram (talk) 10:55, 11 September 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.

The "review" at Talk:Milan/GA1 consists of exactly:

  • I find this to be a good article, passing all of the good article criteria.

This results in Talk:Milan's GAN notice stating:

  • the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.

The article has not actually been tagged as a GA or listed. I believe this "review" needs to be cleared so that the article is open to a proper review. Wikipedia:Good article nominations#How to review an article calls for a "detailed review" and this simply isn't. Milan, any GAN, deserves better. nb: I'm not saying the article should fail, but I found minor things to fix after this "passed", and so did Malleus). I'll let Lucky102 know about this post (and Malleus;). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:34, 11 September 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.
I did mention it to them at User talk:Wehwalt#Good Article Review, where they said they're sorry. The admin action needed here is a ruling that the review is invalid and possibly even deleting it to clear the way for a proper review. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
more: ANI is not simply about grievances about users, which I did not claim to have. The issue here is the poor GA Review. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
The better place to raise issues about poor GA reviews is WT:GAN, and there are enough admins active there to see that the review page is deleted if appropriate. BencherliteTalk 11:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that suggestion, I've re-posted there. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations has a FAQ dealing with these kind of situations. WP:ANI (or admins in general) are not among the suggested solutions (and have no special authority to state that GA reviews are "valid" or "invalid"). If you wanted that page to be deleted, you could have asked the user in question to put a G7 on it. It is in any case nothing that urgently needs admin attention. Fram (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Any reason, by the way, why simply blanking the review page isn't sufficient? Fram (talk) 11:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
On the GAN page, things key off of the mere existence of /GAn pages; by now existing, with a lame review, this GA1 page is causing Milan to be listed w/ (discuss review) rather than (start review), i.e. this is "taken" and potential serious reviewers will more likely move along. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

User: Fair Treatment blanking sections of law firm articles[edit]

Fair Treatment (talk · contribs · count) appears to be a single use account. All of the user's edits involve the removal of large amounts of information from a number of articles on major U.S. law firms. The account may be a public relations firm or something. I'm posting this here because I really don't know where else to go. I would like to revert all the user's edits, but I am afraid that might be too harsh a solution. --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 00:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Update, I decided to roll back only those edits which deleted a lot of info and history. --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 00:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Those blankings are too much and there seems to be some sort of agenda, although it's unclear exactly what it is. If there's specific information to remove fine, but that's just a slash and burn approach. And yes, most of those on the list are major international law firms. I think Eastlaw's perfectly within bounds rolling back most of those. Shadowjams (talk) 01:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Shadowjams about the approach. I reverted his edit adding to LeClairRyan because, though it could be true, it is unsourced and if it isn't true it would be really bad. I'll add a blurb to his talk that assumes good faith and reminds him to add reliable sources for edits. Go Phightins! (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Some of his deletions like [3] appear justified. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Parrot of Doom abusive behavior[edit]

There is nothing for an admin to do here, unless it involves a boomerang. Drmies (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I foolishly decided to do some research on their original dispute and offer what I found. Since you're talking about the behavior of rollbackers in another thread, I'd like to point out this: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. This isn't even bad etiquette; it's just outright verbal abuse. As I suspected, there was noone clean in that dispute.

BTW, and this: [10]. —Kerfuffler 22:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, much of this is way out of line. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Some of these comments were certainly rude, but I don't see anything that requires admin intervention here. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • *groan* - nothing to really see here. Concur with Mark. – Connormah (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I've just left PoD a warning for one comment, but some of the difs above are nowhere near verbal abuse, and some are pretty sensible [11]. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Eh, what's wrong with this? Kerfuffler? Drmies (talk) 23:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
    • "BTW, and this": that is very insightful. It's not PoD, it's Malleus, in spirited conversation with an IP editor who was blocked for edit warring, an IP editor whose side the plaintiff has taken. In other words, this smacks of sour grapes for being on the losing end of a content discussion. That conversation makes for interesting reading--PoD and Malleus are being their usual selves, the IP is trying to get a rise of out them ("the bored, trolling teenagers are winning"--screw that, and note the other abuse, and the allegation that PoD is operating a sock farm to control the FA he helped write), and Kerfuffler is playing the IP's hand. Moving right along: nothing here to see, except that we'll keep this in mind next time they try to get others in trouble by dragging them to ANI. Drmies (talk) 23:16, 10 September 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.
Users are advised to file an RFC/U about editors whose conduct they feel is harmful to the project. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:52, 11 September 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.

  • Drmies: Not only admitting to ownership, but outright bragging about it. How can that not be problematic? —Kerfuffler 23:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Mark Arsten: I'm getting a good feel for why Wikipedia has a reputation for driving people away, when people don't even try to be civil and actually get backed up for it. Seriously, I'm disgusted. —Kerfuffler 23:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
The point is that this doesn't require any admin intervention - block are preventative, not punitive. – Connormah (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
...and seeing as he can be fully expected to brag about WP:OWN more, seems like it'd be preventative to me... - The Bushranger One ping only 04:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Bushranger, go find something better to do. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Summary: Fuck Randies. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


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

User is mass tagging images for deletion under false and misleading rationales[edit]

Closing as formality, topic ban instituted. See new thread on AN. (NAC) Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:21, 11 September 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.

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

I do not know how long this has been going on. His/her contributions section is replete with a massive amount of "deletion tagging" and warnings to users about uploaded images, with the rationale that "no source is provided". I don't know if the user is using a bot, or is actually opening up the image descriptions to confirm whether or not the image has a provided source. Some of these nominations appear valid, but quite a few appear erroneous. This first came to my attention when this public domain image: File:John Albert Gardner III.jpg was nominated for deletion as no source. Source listed is California Department of Corrections photographic records. Bulwersator then added the image to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 September 6, again with the rationale that no source was given. When I asked about this, Bulwersator seems to feel that it must have an online link to verify the source. I pointed out WP:PAYWALL, but the user still thinks that only an online link can verify the source, and that we should wait for the result of the deletion discussion. I don't really trust those deletion requests. I've trusted that process in that past but many a time an admin has come through and simply deleted the image without verifying that the nomination was valid, and simply just trusted that the person nominating the image for deletion was correct. This happened to me a few times, by a now retired admin, whose name I will not mention here.

Bulwersator has also done this with several other images, File:963 AWACS.JPG, File:BoNM Rhodesia3.JPG, File:Ogden Portrait.JPG, File:Vicksburg-USCT.JPG, File:Discovery space viewedit1.jpg, to name only a few, and his talk page is full of several requests to either stop or to explain, including by an admin, most of which is ignored.--JOJ Hutton 15:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I caught a couple of these the other day, where the source website had simply moved location, and I was able to easily find them at the Wayback machine. If this a continuing problem, then yes, something needs to be done. Eventually, the source location for every file will move on the web and you have to rely on a bit of common sense, otherwise all images would be deleted over time, making the idea of having images from other sources at WP unworkable. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 16:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Appreciate that comment. What is your take on offline sources, or "Self" sources? Bulwersator seems to feel that unless there is alink that he can verify teh source from his computer, it is technically unsourced. This is troubling because it makes me wonder just how many images have been erroneously deleted under his rationale.--JOJ Hutton 16:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Verification must be possible, it isn't required that it is easy, whether it is a fact or an image. If it is easy to see that a website source has simply moved, then nominating the image for deletion is just disruptive. At the very least, you start a discussion somewhere instead of slamming it with a speedy tag. Now someone is going to have to go and look at every speedy tag he has ever done, which is going to take an insane amount of time. This is very, very disruptive to say the least. I would hope that admins rejected his tags about sources in most cases if it is just a matter of a source moving. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 16:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Wow, based on the conversations on his talk page, he seems to think that every images must have a free weblink provided in the licensing, which is clearly not the case. If we required free weblinks for sources, half of WP's citations and images would disappear over night. Either he needs to learn properly about sourcing, including that paywalls and offline sources are fine for sourcing, or he needs to be topic banned from nominating images for deletion. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 16:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I know that there are other forms of sourcing - "own work" based on AGF, books and other publications, collections that are not digitized, confirmations by trusted person that permission exists/existed (OTRS etc) and more. It was not my intention to imply that "free weblinks" are the only allowed source Bulwersator (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, I looked at this one File:963_AWACS.JPG and Bulwersator is absolutely correct - if this is a copyrighted image, the photo is a derivate work and therefore cannot be released under a free license. If it's not a copyrighted work, the uploader needs to specify that (and why) on the image page. Either way, yes, it needs to be tagged. Haven't looked at the others - will do so now. Black Kite (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Right, what I see is a mixture of copyrighted items and non-copyrighted ones. The uploaders appear to believe that they can take photos of things and the copyright belongs to them. They are wrong. Where copyright exists, the images must be tagged as non-free. Where they aren't, it must be clearly explained why they're free (out of copyright, never coprighted, etc. ). Bulwersator has possibly been a little too keen here, but policy-wise they are generally correct. Black Kite (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
      • The patch itself would fall under PD as a work of the US Govt. The photographer was the editor that uploaded, and he released his contribution of the "art" into the PD, whether or not it was a part of his job, which he claims it was, so it would automatically be in the PD. They are not correct. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 16:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Yes, that's my point. If it's PD, it needs a tag saying that (probably PS-US-Gov or something similar). If the uploaders don't tag as such, other editors are free to question it. Black Kite (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
          • I believe there is a tag saying so, at least on the patch.--JOJ Hutton 16:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
            • It does say that in the summary. WP:BLUE comes to mind when it is a work of the US Govt. and declared as much, but in this case, he explains it adequately. And discussing is very different than speedy delete. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 16:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
              • Woah, hang on - the tag and summary wasn't on it when Bulwersator nominated it - it was only added today. Thus, my point stands - it should have been tagged properly (which it is now). You can't blame an editor for questioning something that isn't tagged correctly. Black Kite (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
                • Retagged image was moved to Commons. Thanks for comments and fixes Bulwersator (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Some of the images in question are photographs of 3-D works of art, e.g., File:Vicksburg-USCT.JPG. A photograph of a 3-D work of art is a new work, given the photographer's options in choosing the angle, framing, etc.—that's supported by Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. I don't see any reason to leave those images up for discussion, unless he can make a valid claim that the uploader is not the photographer of the works. —C.Fred (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • But the two I removed speedy tags for the other day, NASA I believe and watermarked, were just a matter of the website changing locations. This is disruptive, even if that isn't his intention. I'm tight on copyright, but his idea that every image must be freely accessible on the internet to be verified, and these, shows a real, significant problem. Again, someone is going to need to filter through his contribs to weed this out and make sure we didn't lose good images due to a simple page move of the source. That isn't enforcing copyright, that is shotgun nominating based on a misconception of copyright policy and failure to do a little due diligence. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 16:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Well I appreciate that you have been actively checking whether or not images nominated for deletion have been validly nominated. That hasn't always been the case in the past with other admins, and it puts my mind at ease, at least a little, to know that some admins take the time to review the images before deleting.--JOJ Hutton 16:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Well, my concern is that I normally do not check CSD for files. I just accidentally wandered into that area for the first time the other day, or I wouldn't have been aware of the problem. And I deal with copyright issues every day, so I'm fairly familiar with the law. My concern is that even if we catch most of them, some slip by and get deleted, and if he is making a lot of bad filings, it creates unnecessary work for admins. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 16:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
          • Which is why I filed this report. My first inclination was to have the user explain to me the rationale, but was at first ignored. I of course persisted, but his answers were unacceptable. You're right, this is disruptive and causes more head aches than it solves. I can't speak for everyone, but the image that I uploaded has a source clearly listed, but his rationale is that since its not an online source, its not a valid source.--JOJ Hutton 17:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
            • To be fair, the problem is that in the past we have had a lot of issues with non-free files being attributed to a PD source with no real proof, whereas the onus is on the uploader to prove its free-ness. This one isn't actually a very good example, unless someone had Photoshopped a mugshot it's fairly obvious that it's a valid California mugshot, but other images aren't that easy to fix. Black Kite (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Why tag on File:Discovery space viewedit1.jpg is "false and misleading"? This file is without source (and I tried to fix it, but google image search failed to find this image on website operated by NASA, it is without any useful description and without ID of photo) Bulwersator (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • But there you go again. Thinking that every image source must be easily found online. There is absolutely no requirement that says that verifiable information must be found online.--JOJ Hutton 17:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
      • We don't require every image to be available online, but we do require better source information than just what that image currently has. There's no immediate evidence beyond the uploader's claim it came from NASA (obviously only a few entities could make that pic).
      • However, to that end, image searches are much better done by tineye.com, which comes up with this NASA IOTD page, so we can fix the source and the like. Be aware that tineye doesn't know original from copies so often you may find images that might have actually originated at WP to be duplicated to blogs. --MASEM (t) 17:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
        • I know how image search works, thanks for info that tineye is again useful (I stopped using it about three months ago as it was clearly worse that google) Bulwersator (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Source found with tineye, image copied to Commons Bulwersator (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
      • At some point, common sense has to come into play. Who the hell else COULD have done that photograph, Bulwersator? No one. You don't nominate things for deletion just because you can. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not deconstruct one, and you have to be able to determine which images really need discussion and which ones do not. Personally, I think you need to not be sending any photos to delete discussion at all because I don't think you understand the policy well enough to. It isn't personal, but we don't need a backlog of copyright discussions on images that aren't needing to be questioned. My opinion is that you are actually harming the project by creating unnecessary backlogs in an area that is already perpetually backlogged. I know you don't mean to, but you are. I would feel better if you voluntarily stayed out of image deletion for six months and learn the policy better. I would support a move to require this, as this isn't one or two issues, but a whole string of them that is causing problems. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 17:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
        • It was obviously made from ISS (full name: International Space Station). Images made by employees of Russian Federal Space Agency are not automatic public domain Bulwersator (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • File:BoNM Rhodesia3.JPG - yes, this one was my mistake as mentioned in deletion request that I closed 20 minutes after comment by 76.65.131.248. Bulwersator (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll chime in to confirm that Bulwersator's behaviour is a problem. Per threads at WT:AST, they seem to have been indiscriminately tagging images sourced from NASA as being unsourced. As far as I can tell, they're either using a bot or using tool assistance, as they were making several nominations per minute in bursts from the 5th to the 7th (haven't done a detailed check today). They certainly aren't bothering to put in due diligence, per other comments in this thread. They have been approached by several users on their talk page about this, and as of yesterday hadn't responded to complaints (there are a couple of responses today, presumably due to this thread, but I'm getting a strong WP:IDHT impression from the tone of them). Long story short, please put the brakes on this, because it's a serious problem and the last several discussion attempts didn't seem to do much. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Statues[edit]

  • File:Vicksburg-USCT.JPG - I wonder why obvious derivative work (photo of statue) was kept as "The original work is the photograph, not the statue: see Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright" despite Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Derivative_works and Freedom_of_panorama#United_States Bulwersator (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • The same problem - File:Ogden Portrait.JPG Bulwersator (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Photo is derivative work of statue, works of art are not covered by FOP in USA (see Freedom_of_panorama#United_States) (maybe statues are work of federal government or so old that copyright expired or for some other reason. But it was not mentioned in description, and still is not mentioned) Bulwersator (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • This is exactly what I'm talking about, you don't understand the policy, which is why I'm asking you to stay out of this part of Wikipedia until you do. There is no Freedom of panorama in the USA, but it doesn't apply to every building every made. And the decision is based on a consensus view of what is acceptable via policy, not our interpretation of US law as we are not lawyers. Either you learn the consensus, or you make mistakes. Generally, buildings and art before the 1970s (or 90s, depending upon statute [12]), when copyright law changed, are exempted (grandfathered) from panorama requirements, for example. Otherwise, you couldn't show pictures of old estates, homes, etc. Anything. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be mean to you, but your perspective is rigid and uninformed, which is why you are doing more harm than good. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 18:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
      • The best thing that I found is essay Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama with "In the United States, "freedom of panorama" exists only for buildings (17 USC 120). For photos of works of the visual arts (sculptures and statues, but also murals) there are no similar exemptions in the U.S. copyright law.". Unfortunately I was unable to find any policy about FOP Bulwersator (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
      • "your perspective is rigid and uninformed" so enwiki ignores potential copyright belonging to designers of statues, murals etc? Bulwersator (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
        • You are correct that there is no Freedom of Panorama in the U.S. except for buildings (any' building, whever built), but if the subject of the photograph is itself not copyrighted – for instance, if it as created prior to 1923, or was not labelled with the proper notice for the time period that was required (until 1968, if I remember correctly) – then Freedom of Panorama does not come into it, because images of non-copyrighted artworks are legal.Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Here is the Commons page, which explains which templates to use there, and they are WAY more rigid than we are. [13]. If you need to fix a license on a page, fix it, don't delete the photo. Ask the contributor if you think the license needs refining. If it is obvious copyright infringement, great, CSD it, otherwise, you need to choose a less destructive methods of dealing with it. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 18:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • We've had this issue with derivatives of 3D art in the USA before, and I can't remember what the outcome was - I've linked to this conversation at WT:NFC for more comment. Black Kite (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • 3D works of art do not have freedom of panorama in the US (per commons FOP). Furthermore, the photograph of a 3d work of art, while a derivative work of the original artist, creates a second copyright for the photographer since the angle, lighting and shadows selected for the art are creative elements the photographer can select. (this is counter to, say, a scan of a 2D work of art, where the act of scanning is presumed to be slavenly accurate as to introduce no creativity, and ergo there is no copyright possible on the scan itself. Now, if the statue is out of copyright timeframe, then the only copyright is what the photographer chooses (which we hope is a free license). --MASEM (t) 19:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I couldn't remember if that was the case (i.e. the difference between public 3D art and say, a picture of a copyrighted toy, which I knew was always derivative.). Black Kite (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Question[edit]

So we have file that is likely to be PD but without source and without source identifiable by description, title and image search. What I am supposed to do with this? I ask, as at least part of editors seems to think that tagging with "no source" or nominating for PUF is a serious offence. Bulwersator (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

  • First you should try to contact the uploader since many people are simply sloppy when providing source and author data, especially for obviously old works. If you you don't get a sufficient response because of inactivity or other reasons there is still Files for deletion to dicuss the file. I'd also like to note that we don't need a working url as a source. Many images have been scanned from books by the uploader or the original weblink is broken. That's not a reason to speedily delete the file either. De728631 (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, uploader is also notified during nominating file for deletion. And I really know that url is not the only form of allowed source. Bulwersator (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
      • It's good practice to establish a helpful conversation before nominating something for deletion that can be saved. Because if that works you don't need a deletion nomination at all. If you ask me, leaving the messaging to the bot is quite impolite in such cases. De728631 (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • This guy appears to be the latest entry in what could be called the Betacommand School of Deletionism. Generally, their approach is slash-and-burn, with minimal communication with the uploader and little or no effort to help otherwise. The guys who've taken that approach in the past usually end up getting booted from wikipedia. Bulwerks should try to do things better than his banished predecessors have done. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree with that assessment. In fact I'll take it a step further. Some admins have gotten into quite a bit of trouble deleting these "tagged" images. Again I won't try and open up the big can of worms by naming him, but one admin with over 50,000 edits actually retired, because he got so much grief from other users whose images he deleted, that were erroneously nominated for deletion from guys like this. It needs to end. Editors nominating images for deletion need to justify the deletion request and not just nominate the image and let the admins work it out. Like Dennis said earlier, its disruptive.--JOJ Hutton 20:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • If the sourcing template says "NASA", then spend the five minutes on Google it would take to find a link to the NASA image in question. There doesn't have to be a working URL in the image description; per other threads on this subject, these links stop working whenever someone decides to change their web page structure. All there has to be is enough information that a motivated party could verify the stated source with a reasonable amount of effort. An analogous example is academic journal papers used as references in articles. Most of these are not freely available online - but they are readily verifiable by either using an academic internet connection (where the academic institution has paid for access to the journals), or by visiting a brick-and-mortar library to look it up. For images, or article content, where it is highly likely that the source given is correct, assume that the template accurately reflects the source. Only if there's doubt should other action be taken. Even then, step 1) is to contact the author/uploader to ask for clarification, and step 2) is to bring the image/citation to the attention of the relevant wikiprojects and ask them to dig further. Deletion is for after both of these avenues have failed, not before trying either one. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • "spend the five minutes on Google" - I was doing exactly this - see beginning of this section "without source identifiable by description, title and image search" Bulwersator (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
      • The images you nominated that were noted at WT:AST had templates clearly identifying them as NASA, and you marked them for deletion with "no source information" as the rationale. Per my previous statements, you were doing this at the rate of several per minute. Long story short, no, you were not "doing exactly this" for the images that were brought to my attention, and based on your editing rate, the same applies to most of the images you nominated. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Maintaining the requirements for images or other medias is on the uploader or those using it, per BURDEN. Yes, its helpful to try to look for the source, but there is no requirement for this (much like BEFORE is not required for deletion). --MASEM (t) 22:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
      • So, by that logic, everybody who has ever uploaded anything is required to watch it like a hawk and instantly fix links when they break lest it be deleted for not having a source? - The Bushranger One ping only 22:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Perhaps WP:BEFORE should be extended to images as well. Certainly, the spirit of it should apply. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
          • WP:BEFORE has no teeth, what is needed is common sense and nothing else. You don't go trying to delete every possible image just because the source has moved or you have a question about it. It is flat out assuming bad faith, nothing more complicated than that. If we need a policy that explains this, then Wikipedia is hopelessly broken. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 23:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
            • I also noticed several files on my watchlist and that fall under WPUSA come up for deletion and asked him to stop. Certainly there are files out there that should be deleted but Bulwersator doesn't seem to me to be doing much due diligence with their deletion submissions. Its just, as my kids call it, "ding, dong, ditch". Kumioko (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
              • Ding Dong Ditch? Clever. That's what this seems like to me as well. Just seems to nominate and lets the admins figure it out. The problem is that not every admin takes the time to ensure that the nomination is valid. He seems to think he is helping but in reality he is just causing a big mess. His talk page is full of people complaining about how he is doing these nominations. I'm just the first to take it to the next level with an ANI thread.--JOJ Hutton 00:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
                • I'm glad someone/you did. I thought about submitting one myself for about 1/8th of a second but my opinion isn't worth much these days so if I would have done submitted it someone would have voted it down just on principle. I give my opinion anyway of course. :-) But I am under no illusions of how many (maybe even most) in the community perceive me. Kumioko (talk) 01:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, over on Commons[edit]

  • He's hitting there, too. Note that this image was one he had tagged here for deletion originally. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • This seems a strong case of "I don't hear you". I still think a topic ban is appropriate and I would support it without question. This causes way too much damage and work for others, plus the obvious loss of what is possibly good content. His comments thus far in this ANI and on his talk page can be summarized as "Prove it or it gets deleted" with no understanding whatsoever of the problem that others have with this kind of disruptive conduct. It is simply inconsistent with our goals here and a net negative for the greater project. Slash and burn, indeed. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 21:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban[edit]

User:Bulwersator is indefinitely topic banned from all deletion processes. Fram (talk) 07:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • I support topic banning Bulwersator from all deletion processes. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. We should help, inquire, discuss and try to fix, rather than this high-speed slash and burn of other people's hard work. Bulwersator has been given warnings and asked nicely, yet he does not show any sign of flexibility. On balance, the harm of his work exceeds the value. Good faith Wikipedians are offended, and good images are lost. Jehochman Talk 00:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per above discussion. It seems he is trying to use deletion processes to attempt to alter policy to his desired position, rather than to enforce policy. Orderinchaos 00:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Unfortunately I also agree for whatever my opinion is worth. Kumioko (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Looking at the situation, and given B's attitude and IDHT behavior, it seems as if a topic ban is the answer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - I made a good faith attempt to discuss this with him on his talk page and he seemed very inflexible and very set in his attempts to continue nominating images, despite the massive amount of threads on his talk page telling him he was erroneously doing so. He was very stubborn with my image, first trying to get it speedy deleted, and when I removed the Speedy delete tag, he stubbornly nominated it for deletion. In fact, he continued to nominate other images, even after I shared my concern with him. I wouldn't have begun this ANI discussion if it was just my single image that was erroneously nominated, but it looked to me that there were several. If a topic ban is the only way to get through to him, then let it be so.--JOJ Hutton 01:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Maybe that will work. --Nouniquenames (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support It's proof that he's missing the point when he essentially says, no one disputes that the image is public domain, but I am nominating it for deletion anyway. FurrySings (talk) 08:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per my previous statements. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 12:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per many above posted good points of this blanket deletion policy being disruptive to Wikipedia as a whole. Sf46 (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Bulwersator's current approach and attitude is not helpful to the project. De728631 (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - When a large fraction of files-for-deletion nominations made by an editor wind up as 'move to Commons', that says something, but he isn't listening - and is continuing his campaign over there. Putting a stop to the disruption here is a start. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Primarily due to IDHT behaviour. This blanket program of deletion requests is destructive and is a waste of the community's time. Resolute 14:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as the user is doing sloppy work. Here's an example. Obviously a radio station logo will be copyright whether it's publicly owned or not, but casual editors will not know copyright law and all the byzantine wiki rules and templates in that regard. If Bulserwator proposes to help with images, this knowledge should be de rigueur, and he should be prepared to help by adding the required templates on obvious cases and/or by teaching more casual users how to do it themselves. None of the work I completed on this file and article yesterday had to be done by an admin; he could have done it himself. The uploader commented on his own talk page and received no response, so he removed the deletion discussion tag from the file on the 7th. Bulwersator must not have been watching these pages, or he would have known that. He therefore missed an opportunity to communicate with the user via something other than a template. -- Dianna (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Putting the hack-n-slash antics of Betacommand out of bounds was one of the better decisions the community ever made. I see no reason why they should be tolerated by anyone else. Neither has Bulwersator proferred evidence that he is a licensed attorney practiced in copyright law, a Byzantine tangle of conflicting rules which occupies the rapt attention of many a specialized lawyer, so the degree to we ought to kowtow to his impressions is - and ought to be - limited. Ravenswing 04:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, with regrets. How are us evil deletionists going to take over the project if we have to keep banning 'em? Seriously, it does not seem from the discussion that he understands either the policies or the process, and it does not seem as if he wants to learn. Unfortunately, to protect the project as a whole, I see no other option than a topic ban. GregJackP Boomer! 05:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Unfortunately, Bulwersator's approach and attitude is unhelpful to the project and is a net negative. We should help, inquire, discuss and try to fix, rather than this mass deletion of other people's hard work. Basically, Bulwersator refuses to get the point. With that said, enough is enough and since Bulwersator's program of deletion request is destructive actions, it is a waste of the community's time. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Given it's almost 48 hours and unanimous, looks like it's time for a closure here? (If this was an xFD I'd say it's time to put up blizzard warnings.) - The Bushranger One ping only 23:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Seems like a unanimous approval rating for the topic ban, you are right. Should we wait for an uninvolved admin, or is this one of those obvious decisions that basically nobody will challenge, even if closed by an involved admin.--JOJ Hutton 23:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
      • The problem with non-admin closes of topic bans is that admins will have to enforce it, so it's better if an admin closes it, showing that at least one uninvolved admin agreed with it. "Better" but not absolutely necessary. I'd say give it another 24 hours or so, and if no admin has closed it, any uninvolved editor can do a NAC and log the ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - He has been rude in how he goes about this, and things would be resolved much better by talking to contributors instead of just leaving the generic message when he tags things for deletion. His attitude seems like he doesn't think he's done anything wrong, and he seems unwilling to change. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:58, 11 September 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.

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.

IP-hopping edit warrior[edit]

First, this happened (a change from "The Beatles" to "the Beatles"), then it got reverted. It went back and forth a few times, then the anonymous editor proceeded to change his IP address once, then again, making the same edits to dozens of articles. Up until this point all the addresses stayed stayed within the 69.5.x range, but then 74.115.33.163 showed up with this edit to the Who.

Is anyone else seeing a common thread here? My money is on this guy, but I'm not sure that helps. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Evan we need to talk you should open up your page bro. 74.115.33.163 (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry; not interested. I know I'm extremely attractive to you, but it just wouldn't work out. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 02:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
No really we could set you straight about many things to do with Wikipedia but we understand
have you ever been to st louis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.33.163 (talk) 02:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Dont you have anything better to do? Whats so important about tees anyways? 74.115.33.163 (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Since your primary focus seems to be changing uppercase T's to lowercase t's (and vice-versa), you should ask yourself that second question. This IP hopping editor needs to be stopped from the campaign they are on, as they are just flying through Beatles articles. Doc talk 02:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Is it now vandalism to follow the MOS precriptions? How are our edits any more or less vandalism then the reverts themselves? Take a look at how many editors have been warring, it takes two, or three or four or five to tango yo yo. 74.115.33.163 (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Please use the first person singular, not plural, for accuracy's sake. Thank you. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 02:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

how dare you tell us what we are we demand an apology now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.33.163 (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

If you think that "The/the Beatles" dispute is a new thing, or that the way you are running around to every article you can find to make your changes is the correct way to "settle" the issue, you are mistaken on both counts. Doc talk 02:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Not the point Doc it matters little to us if it is new or old. Why not just let it go yo yo joe joe? We have the mighty MOS on our side so why should we stop? 74.115.33.163 (talk) 02:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I suggest that no one changes "The Beatles" to "the Beatles" or vice versa until Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles has been resolved. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

thanks for the suggestion batty brains ditty danes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.33.163 (talk) 02:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Any admins watching this thread? Just checking... Doc talk 02:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
It is IP 99. I can practically hear the lustful infatuation as he types. Block, revert, and be done with it. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 02:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I've blocked it for 31 hours. I've not looked into the rest of it or whether it's a sock or whatever. Secretlondon (talk) 02:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
199.30.241.228 (talk · contribs), also from St. Louis, is now at it. Doc talk 02:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

what the matter with our actions are they unacceptable to you? what is wrong with our edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.30.241.228 (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC) who is more silly us or you? does it take less time to move from "t" to "T"? you will be assimilated, resistance is fucking futile what are you gonna do shut down 1000s of IPs just for big tees? hahahaha we could just drive around a city picking up WiFi IPs miller jones for me stones fans

Why is IP not blocked? Seriously? Doc talk 02:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
F'n whack a mole Huh?--intelati/talk 03:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Thank youintelati/talk 03:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
The problem is there are 7,000,000,000 moles. *sigh* Kerfuffler (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
This now too. Certainly something can be done about this? In the UK I believe this falls under the Malicious Communications Act 1988; I've been told that in the US at least a few of the comments he has made would be considered communicating a threat, since he has in fact made thinly veiled threats on my life. As far as Canadian legislation is concerned, I'm not quite sure but I'll look into it. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

we never threatened you dear evan whatever are you talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.86.3.26 (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The worst of it was all revdel'd, but "I'm coming to get you!" was one of the tamer ones. By the way, it turns out that section 264 of the federal Criminal Code is the relevant portion of Canadian law, in case anyone was still wondering about that. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Possibly worth noting that these are all in rackco.com address blocks. Kerfuffler (talk) 03:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Add 208.86.3.27 to the list. Kerfuffler (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

64.59.94.18 Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
64.59.80.114 G'night! :) Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
PS - Just pay attention to User talk:Hot Stop‎. He's defecating all over that page. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
64.59.82.146. Problem is that there are about >10000 IPs just in the ranges he's used so far. This could be a real pain. Kerfuffler (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
It's been a real pain for me for the past 2-3 months, but it looks like he wants to spread the love around. Regarding the IP ranges, give him time and he'll go through all of them. We won't even have to range block. End sarcasm. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 04:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
WP:BRI Repeat.intelati/talk 04:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
But how many times do we repeat? 'cause I'm pretty sure we crossed the century mark around the beginning of August. Is there really no precedent for a range block in a case like this? This is quite literally the worst troll I have ever seen. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 04:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
[14]--intelati/talk 04:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
A bunch of this latest round (64.59.*) is a commercial proxy service for anonymizing network traffic.[15] Can we just ban the whole damn thing? Kerfuffler (talk) 04:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I will dispense hugs, kisses, cookies, pizza, and barnstars to whoever does. This is taking up most of my time on the site and I'm damn sick of it. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 04:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I've requested a block on the known PP ranges. We'll see. The Rackco stuff is more problematic. Kerfuffler (talk) 05:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
FYI, that set has now been blocked. —Kerfuffler 05:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • See the the "Paranoid" section above too. I'd appreciate it if all pages in my userspace were protected (submitted to RFPP already). Hot Stop (Edits) 03:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
FYI, these IPs probably relate to CaptainHill (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) I user I reverted several times yesterday before all the fun started. Hot Stop (Edits) 04:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Hot Stop, please stop editing. You are attracting people here who are disrupting Wikipedia because of you. --MuZemike 05:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
No. Hot Stop (Edits) 05:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
If not, then we will have to block you. --MuZemike 05:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
What did he do? Or is that sarcasm? Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 05:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Causing disruption to Wikipedia via causing coordinated attacks to multiple articles. --MuZemike 05:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I heard that the first time, but what did he actually do? Do you have diffs? Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 05:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
User talk:Yeepsi. They're coming too fast for me to tag them all. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 05:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Stuff like that. --MuZemike 05:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Asking for help in dealing with trolls? What the hell are you talking about? Maybe I should just CSD this page, then? Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 05:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Hot Stop, as far as I am aware, you have not violated any Wikipedia policies, and thus are not at risk of being blocked. That others are attacking you is by no means a reason to block you. MuZemike, your comments are highly inappropriate. That is NOT a reason to block any user, and you are fully aware of that. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Then good luck with the imminent war. --MuZemike 05:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see -- you're a moron. Thanks for wasting everyone's time. For the record, this war has been going on for three months but I seem to be one of four people that has noticed. If there are any admins reading this, Yeepsi's page is getting ravaged at the moment, but why deal with that when we could just crucify Hot Stop instead? Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 05:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
For the record, I am not intending, and will not intend, to wheel war with any other administrator. I am just very frustrated with our inability to do anything, and I feel that the only solution is to stop the source, which I am afraid is those who are innocent in this. --MuZemike 06:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect. I've been dealing with this guy for months and I can tell you that attention does not motivate him, nor does inattention dissuade him. He is malicious, relentless, mentally unstable, and in my mind the best argument there has ever been for ending anonymous contributions on this site. If you want to stop him, the only way is to revert and go to AIV. Hot Stop has absolutely nothing to do with his psychosis. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 06:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

How is HopStop causing any of this?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
 
05:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Threatening a WP:AGF user with a ban because they annoy YOU is beyond the pale, withdraw the threat now - otherwise this needs to go higher and get your admin rights reviewed. It's outrageous behaviour. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 06:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
103-something, if anyone cares. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 06:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Fine, I won't do anything here. However, if you come up with any other idea to prevent him from editing while still allowing any and all anonymous editing to occur, let me know. I say that knowing that the WMF will not allow any ban of anonymous editing or anything past what there currently is for article creation. Besides, we have newcomers to think about. --MuZemike 06:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Stopping anonymous editing isn't the only option. Semi-protection of these articles (not talk pages), would work for starters. Let people vent, but stopping them from disrupting the articles might force them to wait for the decision about all this capital T and small t business, whatever it is about. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know who started this and who might be the root sockmaster, registered or IP? Right now many are being listed here: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 99.251.114.120, but I fear we're getting different socks blended into this mix. Of course we may just have a change of focus, since this IP does have a fascination for minor language details, and changing tactics by attacking the Beatles articles would fit his mindset. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Has any one noticed who has been conspicuously absent since this started Friday night??? Radiopathy •talk• 15:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


Give MuZemike a break. If HopStop's account was somehow related to this crapola going on, MuzeMike would be justified in issuing a block to alleviate any possible damage to the encyclopedia. This wouldn't necessarily equate to a black mark against HopStop the editor. If a leg has gangrene, the surgeon has to pull out the saw. In this case maybe a shot would do instead of the saw, but Gimli and Hersfold, your harsh condemnation wasn't needed.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
 
07:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Harsh condemnation? Hardly. It's not an admins job to swing the big hammer at any user that happens to come along and get caught up in something. There is no evidence of hopstops account being compromised. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 07:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
That is not an appropriate analogy at all. HotStop has done no wrong, and there is absolutely nothing in the blocking policy that would support such an action. This is an escalation of a series of questionable actions made by MuZemike in regards to long-term vandals, and one that is entirely unbecoming of an administrator. Hersfold (t/a/c) 07:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Got another one - 41.77.137.96 (talk · contribs · email) Yeknom Dnalsli (expound your voicebox here) 07:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

38.78.193.183 (talk · contribs), confirmed proxy. Doc talk 08:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
It seems our friend has started again. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 10:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocking IP accounts[edit]

It'd be nice to have some guidance on blocking the IP accounts. I just blocked two. I somewhat arbitrarily blocked each for 3 months. The reports at AIV keep coming in, sometimes with just one contribution, although it's fairly clear that the style is the same as the others. Are we supposed to just pick them off one by one? Is 3 months reasonable? Shorter? Longer? We don't have to be completely consistent, but some unity would be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

His original address (99.251 something) got a year. That seems reasonable to me. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 08:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Materialscientist appears to be doing it for six months. They are also using {{blockedproxy}} as the reason. I was using socking as the basis. Any thoughts on that one? You're understandably biased, Evan. :-) On the other side of the spectrum, User: CharlieEchoTango is blocking for 12 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I would say use your discretion. If those I.P. addresses are open proxies, then blocking them for a few months is fine. Personally, when dealing with an address hopping vandal/troublemaker, I tend to block single addresses for just a few hours/days, as the vandal will just switch IP addresses, and is unlikely to try using the same one again (making a longer block useless). If the same vandal keeps turning up on the same address after blocks have expired, then you can start using longer ones and be confident that they are actually effective. - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I have a stupid question. How am I supposed to know that an IP is using an open proxy?--Bbb23 (talk) 08:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Guide to checking open proxies looks like quite a good guide, but I wouldn't worry about it too much. We also have an extension and a bot which keep the common proxies (Tor) blocked. - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the link - looks complicated. Returning to the present problem, it sounds to me like you believe these IPs are not using open proxies and should be blocked initially for short periods of time. Do I have that right?--Bbb23 (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Just so you know, there is a team at this noticeboard that has experts at checking for proxies, feel free to use them as you need. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
There were something like three or four blocks (check the log for a specific number) against his original address, and he came back after each one. Just be aware of that. In general, a few hours does it, but I tend to think open proxies are a standing hazard, anyway. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 08:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Several of the ones I looked at more recently (81.218.236.182, 188.116.36.92, 91.228.2.67, 69.5.89.104, 41.77.137.96) have open PPTP ports, which indicates they are almost certainly VPN hosts. Kerfuffler (talk) 08:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The 47 one is definitely an open proxy. Geolocation tells me the IP is from Egypt. Unless this person can teleport from St. Louis to Egypt :P Yeknom Dnalsli (expound your voicebox here) 08:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Friendstotheend (talk · contribs) Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 08:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Heh, I think I'll let other admins deal with this (there seem to be plenty anyway). Besides, it's 2:00 a.m., and I should be in bed, not blocking IPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

No other IP's for 30 minutes now. Looks like we can give it the all clear (for now - I'd expect more coming our way sooner or later). Yeknom Dnalsli (expound your voicebox here) 09:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is this guy is obviously using commercial proxy free trials and going through open proxy lists. Blocking them for 3, 12, or 31 hours (as some did) doesn't really help here; it needs to be long enough that the list gets exhausted. Since I have no love for proxies, I suggest a year.Kerfuffler (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. These short blocks accomplish very little. If some good editor gets blocked out, they can get back in. The risk is very small. Use much longer blocks. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Apology[edit]

I would like to apologize to Hot Stop for my comments made to him yesterday on two separate threads. I also extend that apology to all others currently involved in this struggle. As Hersfold said, it was highly inappropriate and unbecoming of an administrator to threaten innocent editors in the fashion that I have done. As for myself, I'm seriously beginning to wonder if I have burned out completely. --MuZemike 13:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Recognizing and correcting a mistake in a forum that is just as public as the mistake itself is a sign of good character. It also proves that it was a mistake, not something you think is acceptable. We all make mistakes. I try to live by the same code, so I respect how difficult it is to step up and take the blame. Maybe a change of pace and venue would be helpful. I always say that an admin staying in heated and difficult areas too long is unhealthy, as you can easily get a jaded point of view of editors in general. Maybe some teahouse or help desk time, plus a lower work load for a month or two, de-stress, help others, don't even use the tools, and remember or reinvent why you came here to start with. I have tremendous respect for you Muzemike, and would rather see you take a break from the heated areas than to leave altogether. We all need a change of pace and surroundings from time to time, to keep us from burning out. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 14:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • What he said.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Hey, from the periphery, "what BB said he said", seen you around doing good stuff, don't burn and crash! CaptainScreebo Parley! 18:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Hey MuZemike, you've been a tremendous long term asset to the project, and constantly dealing with troublemakers really can take it out of you - and that apology for making a mistake was pretty cool. I take Wikibreaks from time to time, and am heading on one shortly, and I'm also thinking of having a non-admin spell for a while and only doing content work, just so I don't lose touch - might one of those help you at all? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Take a break if you need it old chap, you deserve it. You've worked so hard for so long to stem the tide of socks, remember you're not glued to SPI and CU, or even Wikipedia and the computer. Do something else for a bit, get your mojo back. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Forgive my harsh words this morning, take a couple of days off to refresh yourself before deciding to do anything drastic. This place needs decent people, and you are one. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 15:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Your apology is very much accepted! You're good. Too bad we have to fight vandals, but as long as we allow IP editing the way we do now (there are other ways to allow them, without so many problems), we'll keep wasting huge amounts of donor money, time, bytes, server space, and editor burnout. It all lessens the credibility of Wikipedia. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • This is all so ridiculous, and I wish we would do something about the root cause. No one - admins, ArbCom, editors - has ever yet provided me (in my seven years here, yes, I started as an IP for a few edits) with a good reason why we should allow IP editing the way we do. It's not necessary to allow IPs to edit articles directly, or at least for very long. The collateral damage far outweighs the good that some IP editors do. They should be required to register after a short trial period. This would still allow everyone to edit. It wouldn't change that at all. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that some kind of probationary period for a “new” IP address would make it much harder to IP-hop and would deter people like this. I think there are ways it could be completely automatic, even. But this probably isn't the right place for that discussion. Kerfuffler (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I haven't been able to relocate it, but I seem to recall awhile back that there was a petition sent to WMF to require Sign In To Edit, and it indicated that there was a strong and clear consensus for that. WMF's reaction: "lolno". - The Bushranger One ping only 21:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree that this isn't the best place, but it's a relevant place, considering the circumstances. These discussions about IP editing often happen so far removed from the actual consequences that innane arguments are used to protect IP editing, as if it somehow would prevent people from editing. It wouldn't at all.
  • A probationary period is exactly what's needed, and it should be automatic. After maybe 500(?) edits, then they must register. By then they'd know if they really want to get involved more seriously. Make them save their edits at least twice before those edits are accepted, IOW they meet a hoop with a request to register, and then have to jump through a similar hoop again, before their edits are finally accepted. The details can be worked out. At the same time, all featured content, policy pages, and controversial articles should enjoy permanent semi-protection. Semi-protection is the best way to block IP vandals, and by far, most vandals are IPs. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, WMF will never agree to something like this (they rejected a proposal to restrict page creation to autoconfirmed users, even though it had community consensus). --Rschen7754 03:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with the others; just take a deep breath and a break if you need to to recharge the batteries, you're one of the good guys here. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • That wouldn't deter this guy. I'm thinking something makes the IP hopping take a substantial amount of time. As an example (not saying this is right), “You must have edited your sandbox at least 15 minutes ago, and since the last time this IP was blocked.” Kerfuffler (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • When you've been working in contentious areas for months/years on end, you need to take a break every once in a while. Highways used to be a contentious area, and two arbitration cases and several death threats later, I was quite burned out, and it reflected in my interactions with editors. It took me two months of stepping away entirely to refocus. Plus, everyone picks up the slack, so when you get back, there's less that you have to do! :) --Rschen7754 07:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Highways? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Believe it or not. Drama llamas breed in some strange places. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • A good time for me to sing my song. We need (a) email-confirmed real name registration; (b) sign-in-to-edit; (c) one account per person. Ya can't really block any other way and we all waste far too much energy fighting IP vandalism. Carrite (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I absolutely agree with you, and believe if we did that vandalism would fall signficantly. I very much doubt it's ever going to happen, though, since the WMF is committed to its philosophy, and the burden which comes with it doesn't fall on them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It's reassuring that an admin was able to admit to a temporary lapse in good judgement. I'm echoing what others said about putting some distance between you and the area which caused the outburst. This doesn't necessarily entail ceasing to edit altogether. Just find something fun and non-contentious. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Advice Please[edit]

WP:SPI is thataway. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:01, 12 September 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.

Hoping to get some advice please. For over a month I have been dealing with a disruptive user and I'm pretty sick of it at this point. They will upload a photo to commons from a nude calendar that some Australian women football players were in around a decade ago, then they will create an account here and add the image to one or more pages. This is obviously a problem on two fronts, the copyvio as well as BLP issues. Initially I warned the user and followed with a block but they hop from new account to new account after each image so blocking doesn't solve the issue. The autoblock does seem to stop them briefly but the behaviour resumes afterwards.

On each occasion I have reverted the image addition, blocked the user and reported the copyvio image on commons but this has been happening for too long. I could semi-protect the pages, but there are at least a dozen potential pages (including some yet to be created, which the user has previously done) and given the persistence of the user it would probably need to be longer than a short term protection.

To see the accounts involved, check my blocking log - each account from August 5 is involved in this issue.

Any ideas please? I've gone through revert/block/ignore enough times now that something more is needed if possible. Camw (talk) 11:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried an SPI? Have you talked with the Commons AN? I've left a message at COM:AN, and presumably an SPI could reveal the user's range and perform a hard rangeblock. Nyttend (talk) 12:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I have not tried SPI, I did look into it but was left unsure if it was appropriate to request. I have submitted a request there thanks. Camw (talk) 12:15, 11 September 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.

Dennis M. Lynch[edit]

Nothing to see here, move along. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 00:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I wanted to request that others more familiar with BLP concerns take a look at the article on Dennis M. Lynch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Given a post I received this morning on my talk page claiming an interest in seeking publicity due to my actions, I wanted to post here to ensure my actions are completely open and public. My actions themselves are no big deal (all I've done was semi-protected the article), but others may want to review the article more closely due to the ongoing content dispute.

I first noticed the article due to a post yesterday at Wikipedia:Help desk#Vandals. After seeing a continuation of the problematic editing, I semi-protected the article. Another editor has since added in a more neutrally worded and better sourced abbreviated version of the content being added by the IPs - but I haven't looked closely at the sources used, and several statements in the "Entrepreneur" section remain unsourced. --- Barek (