Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User:Cute 1 4 u

This user is part of a complex blocking web and is currently requesting an unblock. I'm passing on it and am curious what the consensus of other admins is on this situation and the block. More information is here[1]. Yanksox 20:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin myself, but I hope my opinion is still valid. :) I wasn't aware that one had to be a certain age to edit Wikipedia, so I think blocking for that is rather odd. A checkuser filed came back inconclusive, so she's probably not the same person as S-man, as was speculated. However, she was in cahoots with S-man and his project to vandalize other Wikimedia projects. So I think that as long as S-man retains his block, Cute 1 4 u should, too, since they were blocked for the same thing. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 20:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think part of the block was based upon speculation, but in some manners she has exhausted some of our patience with certain actions. I'm not sure if this has to do with age or the possibility of trolling(?). The whole we'll vandalise other projects was the icing on the cake for me, maybe she needs mentorship in order to better understand the project. Yanksox 20:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

She claimed on her talk page that she didn't vandalize, and from what I can tell on Simple Wikipedia, she's telling the truth. Maybe we should reconsider...? --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

She has impersonated celebrities (see User:Raven Symone), and from what I've seen, she is exhausting the patience of a lot of people. While I do support the indefinite block, the user is just young, so a shorter, several month block may also work. I wouldn't say unblock, but lessen the block? Perhaps. Cowman109^Talk 21:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to lessening the block, but we would also have to consider the other younger users which all seem to be connected to each other. I've been curious about how all of these different users met each other, was it through here, a colberation? I'm not sure, there has been some exhaustion of community patience. Yanksox 21:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I would support a shorter (that is, a definite) block. We should also remember that assuming this person really is the age claimed, it seems to take longer for time to pass when you are young. That said, I'd fully support a permanent ban if there's any further problem behaviour from this user and furthermore, I explicitly agree with what Yanksox says immediately above this. We should also remind the user that Wikipedia is not a social networking site. It's also worth noting that I am probably functioning as a hopeless optimist. --Yamla 21:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

(De-indenting) (edit conflict) Perhaps the Wikipedia Youth Foundation had something to do with them meeting up? They're not the same person, according to CheckUser. But I do agree, their use of Wikipedia as a social networking site was inappropriate. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser was inconculsive, not definitive, we don't know wheter or not they are related. Yanksox 21:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you suppose a checkuser should be filed with just S-man and Cute 1 4 u? The others in the first one may have thrown it off... --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You can try it, I'm don't know how any checkuser will respond. Yanksox 21:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

((edit conflict)) Here I go again, butting in even though I'm not an admin. I saw all the ruckus on Cute's talk page and have to voice my opinion. From what I can gather, she never vandalized or intended to vandalize an article, project, category, template, etc., on Wikipedia. In light of this, and being WP:BOLD, my suggestion is: block for a short period of time (1 week, perhaps), indefblock her from the other project that she intended to vandalize, and set her up with a mentor (I'll volunteer). Srose (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That's actually not a bad idea. I don't think she has bad intentions, but merely age-related ignorance. I think mentorship would be a very good alternative to an indefblock - it's worked in the past. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me!<;/sub> 21:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I fully support this, it's a much better idea than the block alone in my opinion. I also support this for any other user blocked under these terms provided a mentor volunteers (please don't look at me, I'm not good at this sort of thing, though I'll chip in from time to time). I doubt we need anything particularly official set up. We probably need to run this past the original blocking admin, mind you. --Yamla 21:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I've notified The Anome. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly recommend that no one set themselves up as "internet mentors" for eleven year old children named "Cute 1 4 u" without discussing the matter privately with the WF. Jkelly 21:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Whilst well-intentioned, this would be worse that the original problem. Children should only be supervised by their parents or other legal guardians, not random strangers from the Internet, no matter how well-intentioned. I also agree that this issue should referred to the Wikimedia Foundation. -- The Anome 21:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on my part as well. I hadn't thought of the unpleasant legal circumstances. Srose (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a note. Aren't the servers in the US and under US law? Aren't all users required to be 13 years old unless they provide signed consent from their parents? I know Maxis requires anyone who signs up for the BBS that are under 13 years old to have their parents fax in the consent. Anyone found to be under 13 and without consent is banned.--Crossmr 17:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

We should get an answer from the Foundation once and for all about how old you have to be to edit Wikipedia, and therefore interact with other users. I do not think mentorship has to be anything other than communicating through talk pages, so I do not see why anything special would have to be done for it. Some people want all those under 18 or 21 excluded (from comments on the Village Pump), but I doubt that is going to happen. Blocking those that admit to be under 13 would be the most extreme thing I see the Foundation doing. Although, there is the problem of a person who is too young editing through a shared IP with lots of people on it, a dynamic IP or ultradynamic IP (an IP that changes with every page load). Also, there are school IPs that have people with a wide range of ages editing on them, from elementary students, to high school students and faculty. -- Kjkolb 18:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of what the foundation says, if there is law in place wikipedia will need to comply with it at a minimum so working from that is a starting spot. I'm not an American but I often see mention of it on sites hosted in the US, but I don't know the specifics of the law, if anyone has them handy it would be a launching point for a decision.--Crossmr 18:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That is what I mean. We would ask the Foundation and they would ask their legal counsel. -- Kjkolb 00:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the world's leading expert on this but I believe this 13-years-old thing only applies if the site wishes to collect personal information from the user (name, age, location, etc). Wikipedia asks for none of that so there's no problem. -- Steel 18:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I found it here [2]. Personally I'm not sure how wikipedia falls under this. We don't necessarily demand personal info to use the site, but on the other hand, we're aware that we do have it (especially if this user can be e-mailed, than we do indeed have their e-mail and fall under coppa).--Crossmr 18:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Age question aside, blocks should be preventative rather than punitive. If she's learned her lesson about sockpuppets, then I think she should get another chance. — Laura Scudder ☎ 18:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The age question is sort of central here. If I interpret coppa one way, she should be blocked indef until we have consent on hand from her parents that she's allowed to edit here.--Crossmr 20:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Technically, shouldn't she only be blocked until she's 18? =) Powers ^T 20:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Till she's 13 actually, so 2 years. Which would probably end up being indef as its unlikely they'd return to that account after 2 years.--Crossmr 23:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned this discussion to User:BradPatrick. — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we should be clear on the law so our policy is consistent with it. In the future, we may also want to post some suggestions to all young users when we notice them (Don't post your name, address, and other personal information. Don't upload personal pictures, etc...), sometimes the user is just not thinking of the potential consequences of being too open. NoSeptember 23:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a template is in order? Template:Younguser or something like that?--Crossmr 23:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's just be careful with the templates; make sure they're not too obvious... I don't think Wikipedia is pedophile-free. (No site on the Internet is anymore.) Srose (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer a more general securityreminder welcome which mentions this. There are three benefits: First, it would be flexible enough to be used with people who just post a lot of personal info regardless of age. Second, it would not work as a flag to pedophiles. Third, users given the template will be less likely to be offended by it. JoshuaZ 02:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good, we can work with that regardless of what happens in this situation. I still think we need to address the issue of Coppa though.--Crossmr 02:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

removed unhelpful speculation Jkelly 20:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Given that User:BradPatrick has been informed of this issue, we can wait for direction from the Foundation, and publishing further speculation here is unlikely to be helpful. Jkelly 20:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, folks, could some explain what is meant by "coppa" here? It seems to be a central issue, yet no explanation is given, no links provided, and there is no WP:COPPA. It seems to be related to underage children registering on websites with parental consent, but I haven't been able to find any Wikipedia policy on this issue. This is an important issue at en:Wikiquote, where q:User:Cute 1 4 u is an active editor and has even requested adminship (which I can say rather certainly will not happen). But I apparently need some pointers to critical info. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC), en:Wikiquote admin

COPA is the Child Online Protection Act - a law in the United States that forbids the collection of information online from minors under the age of 13. — Werdna talk criticism 07:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Child Online Protection Act --kingboyk 09:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), not Child Online Protection Act (COPA). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-25 10:02Z

Thanks! Do you have any links to any policy or discussions within the Wikimedia Foundation or its projects that pertain to how to protect both underage editors and the Foundation itself? For example, how are we supposed to confirm parental consent, when our editors are anonymous, even if they claim to be so-and-so? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. Unfortunately, I didn't see anything in the article or the FTC external link "How to Comply With The Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule" that covers Wikimedia's situation. We don't collect, let alone distribute, any personal information other than an optional email. The real problem is that children (and quite a few adults, too, but they're on their own) are often unwise enough to post all sorts of personal information about themselves. (I could write a few paragraphs of bio about "Cute 1 4 u" based on the info she's provided on WP, WQ, and linked sites, which would scare the hell out of me if I were her parent.) This is not information we collect, so it doesn't seem to be covered. Nor is it clear how Wikipedia could obtain "verifiable parental consent" when we don't even really know who the editors in question are. (All that bio info could be made up; "Cute" could be a 35-year-old male, for all we know.) Surely somewhere in Wikidom there is a discussion going on about how we address, or are planning to address, this issue? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

As to the point I made above and COPPA it doesn't require that you intentionally collect the information, but if you know that it has been provided i.e. someone admits to being under 13 and they've entered their e-mail address in their account, then you've violated COPPA. A site could be COPPA compliant and then 5 minutes later not be because an under age individual has shown up and entered their e-mail without parental consent. In order to remain compliant you have to either remove the individual's account or get parental permission.--Crossmr 18:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I'm a Wikiquote admin. I have reason to believe Cute is 11. Does Wikiquote have her email address? I can't query the database to find out. I could try to email her, but I will only know if she has one if she responds. If she doesn't, I still don't know. Assuming that Wikiquote is violating COPPA by allowing her personal information (unrequested, but on her user page) to be displayed, who do I contact to get permission? Do I become a stalker to track down her last name and address, then write a letter to her parents? Or do I remove this information, ask her not to repost it, and block her from editing if she doesn't provide a means to confirm consent? If she does this last, how do I know it's legit? We're probably not talking about kids scrawling poorly forged signatures from their parents about being unable to do their homework. These and many other questions and their consequences must be addressed by the Wikimedia Foundation. Where is this discussion taking place? As an active admin on a WMF project, with this likely underage editor currently causing concern on WP, WQ, and possibly other projects, I would like to join this discussion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but I am really concerned about the situation now. Maybe we should create a new policy that prohibits displaying personal info on a userpage. As said somewhere above, no website is safe. There could be a pedophile anywhere in Wikimedia.--Ed^{talk c E} 02:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Practical suggestion

Have a policy that "No one identifiable as under-18 may have a user id on Wikipedia". This doesn't mean no under-18s can edit, or even have user pages, just that if it is possible to identify them as youngsters - what a paedophile will be looking for - then the account is immediately blocked. This is one occasion when opening another account would be perfectly OK - as long as again there is no way to determine the age of the user.

The "identifiable as under-18" criterion could be very broad: photos, mention of school, link to MySpace site with info... Anything. And it should be made clear that these measures are not punitive to the user - they are entirely protective.

There is still the issue of potential abusers sending out speculative emails to users hoping are young. But some of these emails will end up going to older folk, which will then be an indicator of who might be dodgy.

Will require policing, but may be lightweight in comparison to other solutions. Dunno how any of this will interact with the legal requirements: as said above, let's wait on what Brad says. JackyR | Talk 15:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks this should be a matter for the Foundation and it's lawyers? Sometimes guidance has to come from up above. We're just unpaid volunteers and not (in the main) legal experts. --kingboyk 15:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This is up to the Foundation. We must be secure and protective to all young Wikipedians. But maybe we shouldn't be too harsh yet. If we make this new policy, all userpages, including subpages, will be reviewed by an admin. If there is info that could pinpoint the exact location of a user, the content in question will be blanked. If the user puts it back, then we tell the user it is for their own protection. If it happens again, the user will be blocked.

I also recommend that we have a special page for dealing with harassment. That way, if a young user is contacted by a pedophile, then we can take immediate action. Also, having a centralized page for complaints and reports could make it easier for local police to view all of the incidents and take action. Note: I am not an admin.--Ed^{talk c E} 15:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Publicgirluk

User:Publicgirluk has uploaded a number of sexually-explicit pictures of (supposedly) herself, mostly used in relevant articles. Wikipedia isn't censored, and the user seems well-intentioned, but there's something wrong about having a significant fraction of sexually-explicit images be of a single identifiable person... On User talk:Publicgirluk there is a long string of "fan mail" requesting more images emailed, and that is definitely not what Wikipedia is for. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-23 22:17Z

it could possibly be seen as self-promotion, but I wouldn't want that kind of thinking to be used to discourage someone from releasing their work here so that it could be used in articles. In this case the pictures do appear professional in nature, but she's stated she doesn't have a website, so its unlikely she's actually trying to promote a website or anything of the sort.--Crossmr 22:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Quarl says "but there's something wrong about having a significant fraction of sexually-explicit images be of a single identifiable person" and I agree. The solution is obvious. Just as it would be wrong to have a significant fraction of Wikipedia be about things English speaking geeks care about and its solution is more articles, not less; so too the solution is for more nude images of model-quality twenty-something female wikipedians. I suggest an immediate major effort by all wikipedians to recruit as wikipedians such persons; some of whom will upload photos as this lovely giving young lady has. I would suggest people keep an eye on her just in case, but it seems she has no end of fans who are most willing to do just that. Isn't volunteerism wonderful? WAS 4.250 00:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Why limit it to "model-quality twenty-somethings"? (I'd have no problem posting my own nude pics but I already get enough insults on Wikipedia as it is.)  ;) wikipediatrix 03:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's not censored, no, but Wikipedia isn't a porn site either. I'm no prude, but this sure tests my limits. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • My other concern is that we need to be sure that, though the user kinda-caused it, she is not going to be heavily harrased over the images on and off Wiki. Cropping in order for some of the photos? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree cropping is a good idea. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-24 04:03Z

I don't think there is a serious issue of self-promotion since the user has made productive edits to unrelated articles. Someone should keep an eye out to make sure this doesn't turn into self-promotion, but as it is now, there isn't an issue. JoshuaZ 02:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way that we can be sure that this user is really the person in these photographs? I could forsee some potential legal difficulty for wikipedia if this person isn't who we think it is. Is this a non-issue or does anyone see what I am talking about?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That's actually the only concern I have. There seem to be only good edits, and even if there is a secondary goal of some sort of internet notoriety, I don't think it will negatively impact the project or be long-lasting. Perhaps she can get her 'bf' to take a picture of herself in front of the computer reading this thread? Only slightly kidding. Anchoress 03:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

In general, we presume that users have correctly tagged images unless we have a reason to suspect otherwise. Is there some reason there would be more of a risk making that presumption with these images than with others? JoshuaZ 03:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What you brought up is a not an non-issue; I am sure there will be people who will check the licensed in the future. Right now, I am going to try and use AGF and presume she is the subject that is being photographed and she gave us a free license. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that we should worry about squeamishness, just article quality. If the images are relevant to the article in the same way that they should be for other articles, then I don't see the problem. It'd be inappropriate for us to suggest that people shouldn't do this because they may be stalked. One concern we would want to be careful about though is age issues -- it would be nice to know for sure that she's of an age that she can legally provide such materials. --Improv 03:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a discussion here about whether there are any illegality issues regarding serving pornographic images to minors. WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored does actually comment that despite the lack of censorship, Florida law still pertains. Is there an issue with pornographic images? Mike Christie (talk) 03:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue that was originally raised here was about her privacy. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The main reason I brought this up was not over legality, but now that you mention it, yes, that is a relevant, orthogonal, issue. 18 USC § 2257 requires the Wikimedia Foundation to maintain records proving every "actress" was 18 or older (the discussion you pointed to was worried about "children viewing pornography", rather than "child pornography"). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-24 03:58Z

Me, I think it could well be a setup to mess us up. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't we have permissions<at>wikimedia<dot>org for these kinds of things? Titoxd^(?!?) 04:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't have any mechanisms in place to verify image copyright ... or, for that matter, image authenticity. Generally, we trust that users will place correct copyright tags on images they upload, unless and until someone claims otherwise.

Consider: We do not enforce WP:NOR with regards to images. If someone uploads an image of a fuzzy camelid and says that it is a llama, we assume that it really is a llama and not an alpaca or a guanaco, unless we have specific evidence to the contrary.

This editor claims that these pictures are of herself, and that she is the copyright holder. We have no evidence to the contrary. By our normal practice, we would let the images stand unless and until someone claims otherwise. --FOo 04:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that copyright tags aren't verified well enough. Note that copyright is general a civil issue, whereas violating 18 USC 2257 is a criminal offense. Wikipedia could be classified as a secondary producer of sexually explicit media. See Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act. IANAL. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-24 04:12Z

I didn't say that copyright tags aren't verified well enough. I said that we don't do anything to verify them unless and until they are challenged. I don't think that's a problem that can be remedied, since there doesn't exist any registry of all copyrighted works anywhere. There's nothing else we can do that doesn't basically amount to asking image uploaders to triple super-swear on a stack of Bibles that they're really the copyright holder. Fortunately enough, under the DMCA in the United States, it's up to copyright holders to report violations to service providers (such as Wikimedia), so that isn't a big issue.

Regarding the sexually explicit media, I think there may be an issue there wrt some of this user's images. However, we have no policy on the subject other than Wikipedia is not censored. If you're concerned about an 18 USC 2257 violation, I suggest taking it up with Wikimedia's general counsel for real legal advice. --FOo 04:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I've emailed juriwiki-l@. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-24 04:35Z

The images of her that that I saw that she has provided as GFDL are not pornographic according to US law. Nudity is not pornographic legally speaking in America. An image of a sex reassignment operation or a foreskin removal on a one year old in spite of violence, gore, bondage, and being underage is not porno legally speaking unless you are selling it with lurid descriptions (and why how you are selling it should make a difference you'll have to take up with legal professionals - I find that entirely weird). WAS 4.250 05:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, good. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-24 08:02Z

In order for us to assume that these images are legitimately released under the GFDL by their author, we have to believe that an attractive young woman created a Wikipedia account, saw the opportunity to improve some sexual fetish related articles, and decided to upload private, professional-looking photographs of herself, including photographs of her nude and covered in semen. This, from a user who previously uploaded a copyrighted image of a British porn model (see bottom). Personally, I find the story a little hard to believe and think that we should request that Publicgirluk substantiate that this is her in the photos, or we should remove them before the real copyright owner complains. Of course, we could take the wait and see approach, but it seems like when it comes to placing 50x50 pixel images of cartoon characters on user pages the approach has always been to be proactive in avoiding copyright infringement, and I like to be consistent. — GT 09:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

A simple request to fulfill - simply ask her to make a picture of herself holding up a sign saying "Wikipedia rules". --Golbez 11:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. The copyrighted image she uploaded was not misrepresented as her own work or anything like that; I see no reason not to believe the woman in the other pictures is she. There's no promotional angle; her talk page provides her with numerous opportunities to advertise a larger repository of images, which she has not done. The images were uploaded at a variety of times, which is consistent with her finding an article, thinking it needs an image, and selecting one from her and her boyfriend's personal collection. Powers ^T 14:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. (1) Her edits are good. (2) If she has a porn site, she's hiding it pretty well, so I don't see an advertising problem. (3) Her images aren't any worse than a bunch we've seen. I suppose she could post an image of herself holding up a copyleft license if there is serious doubt as to her identity.

Has anyone notified her about this complaint? TheronJ 14:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting case, I'd never realised that Wikipedia allowed explict pictures of people recieving "facials" and the like. I can see wider problems in the UK with LEAs and public access in areas such as libraries. (BTW This is not a call for censorship just a comment).

--Charlesknight 14:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any particular problem with regard to LEAs, libraries, or any other public institutions. In those cases, the users themselves are responsible for the content they view. If you mean that public institutions are likely to try and block access to Wikipedia on this basis I would find that possibility very, very remote. Badgerpatrol 14:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a rational response and not really how it would actually happen - most of those institutions (and I worked for an LEA) basically want a hassle free existance. It's not really the actuality of wrongdoing that concerns them, rather the percetion for wrongdoing. If I want into a local library and said my son was surfing wikipedia and found pornography images and what are they going to do about it? well they will just add it to their block fliter no questions asked, they don't want the hassle.

I also used to run the school networks in a number of places (when I was a teacher) and on the basis of what I've just seen, I'd stick Wikipedia straight on the fliter list - because that is far less hassle than explaining to a parent how I've failed (in their perception) in my duty of care to their child. Why would I want the headache? far easier just to take the path of less resistance.

Look how standard page protections are misrepresented in the media - you honestly think a bored journo on a slow newsday couldn't spin this into "a number of degrading images too disgusting to describe in a family newspaper".

Indeed, Because i've been out of touch with this area for a couple of years, I've just phoned a friend who is a headmaster of a comp and after talking for ten minutes, he plans to block it from his network. to me at least that says it all. --Charlesknight 15:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that you persuaded your friend to block WP from his school? DS 15:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I phoned him up and shouted "will someone not think of the children!" down the phone. No of course not - as I mentioned above, I used to work in secondary education sector in the UK and because I have been out (thank god!) of that sector for a couple of years - wanted a different viewpoint from someone still in the trenches. He looked at the images (the ones where Sperm is dripping off her face and mouth) and decided that he did not access to such a site via his school network. While for various reasons we might not agree with such a decsion, i hardly find it a surprising one for the head of a secondary school (11-16 in the uk) to take. --Charlesknight 17:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've left a message on Publicgirluk's talk page to invite her to participate in this debate. I can see nothing to indicate she is other than a genuine and legitimate editor. As far as schools blocking wiki, this is an issue that goes beyond merely these images. I think we also need to extend some sensitivity to Publicgirluk over this. We are only talking about 5 images — hardly swamping the site! However, to ring the changes, it would be preferable if all images were not identifiable to the same person. Tyrenius 15:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry just in case I was unclear I was talking about pornography images in general and not those specific images. --Charlesknight 15:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

We can't pander to those who indulge in irrational behaviour, like over-sensitive headmasters or tabloid newspapers. Provided the images are within the (=Floridian) law (on which I am not any kindof expert) and provided the user is acting in good faith (which we must assume unless proven otherwise, although some may have their suspicions) then there is nothing wrong here. If schools or anybody else choose to block Wikipedia- then it's their loss. Badgerpatrol 15:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You know what might help, some proof that this Publicgirluk is actually the one in the pictures. I belief the standard way of doing this online is to get an identifiable picture of the person holding up a hand-written sign saying something like "I am Publicgirluk on Wikipedia". Publicgirluk, think you can handle that? Shouldn't be too hard. --Cyde Weys 16:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think most of the problem here goes away if you assume good faith. Does anyone have issue with the relevence, or the encyclopedic value of any specific picture? Does anyone have any specific reason to believe the license tags are not accurate? Are people being subjected to these images when they are not looking up topical material? If the pictures are not acceptable, are the articles they illustrate any more acceptable? Just putting a few questions out there. HighInBC 16:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm able to assume a lot more good faith in the presence of verifiable evidence. It wouldn't take more than a few minutes to scrawl something on a piece of paper, take a picture with it, and then upload that picture. I don't think that's too much to ask, especially because it will help clear up a lot of issues other people may have about Publicgirluk's other pictures. --Cyde Weys 17:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

But that is the opposite of WP:Assume good faith. It is an acceptable request I suppose, but should not be required. (just one guys opinion) HighInBC 17:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF does not mean "you are never allowed to ask someone for verification". Especially for copyright concerns (not saying that this is one), there are some very serious problems with just taking someone's word for it, especially if it could put the Foundation in risk of legal trouble. --Cyde Weys 18:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreeing with most of what Cyde says here. Since this user has other completely unrelated contributions, I see no reason to presuppose that anything is at all wrong with the copyright tags. The strongest claim made is that she once submitted a copyrighted picture- however, many users do that before they understand the rules for what sorts of pictures can be submitted so that doesn't seem to hold much water as an argument. Furthermore, there seems to be a slight element of WP:BITE here. JoshuaZ 18:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that if somebody does precede to insist proof from her it should be done with a level of tact that surpasses even what is expected here normally. Be sure to let her know your precise reasoning in questioning the copyright status.

I do see the validity in Cyde Weys' concern, primarily the proffesional lighting in the pictures.technical quality. HighInBC 18:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I may know less about what professional modelings photos look like but the lighting here looks competent but not obviously professional. May I ask what about it looks professional to you? JoshuaZ 18:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Specifically I think the camera was set up very well and that the camera was of high quality. I am not expert though, this is just my impression. I do not personally think it justifies suspicion as many non professional people are capable of such photography. I was simply trying to identify with Cyde Weys' concerns. Though I still do not agree with them. HighInBC 19:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You must be joking. These are not "professional quality", and one possible objection to them is on those grounds. There is no lighting, apart from a room light. By the look of them, they haven't even been processed via Photoshop or similar image processing software (they need more contrast for a start). I don't see anything that wouldn't be achieved by someone with a standard consumer digital camera. Tyrenius 00:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Hello? Let's do a bettor's square here. If legal/if illegal. Subject: llama/subject: a woman's bare breasts covered in ejaculate. Gain/danger. Llama: Legal: a picture of a furry mammal. Illegal: potentially an upset National Geographic photographer. "Pearl necklace": Legal: A photo that titillates some boys and shows what is adequately described in the text. "Pearl necklace": Illegal: Pornographic back doors into Wikipedia, a top 50 website with enemies aplenty and political enemies aplenty. So, what's the logical thing to do? Assume good faith, or decide that the stakes are high enough that legality must be proven because the subject matter is a legal and political tripwire? However, let's look at the further evidence: the talk page is a fan club of enrapt youngsters wanting more, more, more and wanting to treat her as a poseable model for their fantasies. Given that profiting by Wikipedia is absolutely, 100% wrong. This is not just an "Oh, you're a prude" thing. Geogre 19:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I am a little confused at your paragraph and had trouble following it. What do you think is illegal? Do you even think it is illegal? Who is profiting how? Who called who a prude? HighInBC 19:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

As for legal issues that is a matter for the foundation. As for assuming good faith, that is a policy. I don't see how this issue falls out of the scope of or violates in any way existing rules. HighInBC 20:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hang on, I have a pretty good Geogre -> English translator here... ;-) "Wikipedia may face far greater legal exposure from photographs of this nature, *if illegal*, than it would from illegal photographs of a less sensitive nature. That, plus the tolerance by the user for the use of her talk page for non-encyclopedic purposes, calls for treading carefully here and not calling for quashing further investigation." —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ohhhhh, he is saying images with greater potential for legal damage should be held to a higher standard(correct if I am wrong Geogre). Good point Geogre, thanks for the help Bunchofgrapes. HighInBC 20:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That is it. I have been having some aphasia today, I think, and even I hardly understand what I was saying, above. Grapes did a good translation. The issue, for me, is that there is very little gained by any individual photograph. While we like to illustrate our articles, we have to realize that we rarely need to take undue risks. In the case of pornographic images, or images that would be likely to be used by any of the people who dislike Wikipedia, the risks are undue. Because the subject matter is touchy, we probably need to be much more explicit in getting proof that we're not violating copyright. That is then combined with the fact that the purpose of the uploads may not be entirely salutory. I'll assume good faith when it comes to the user talk page, but we also need to watch out for those who have a vested interest in litigation against us. Geogre 00:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah. That makes some sense. However, if we hold any images to a higher standard that may make Wikipedia more liable for the images not held to that standard. IANAL but it seems to be analogous for the disclaimer template concern. JoshuaZ 21:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this seems to be a non-problem. If individuals are concerned they should watch closely till those concerns can be expressed by citing a policy or guideline being violated. And a person cannot be held responsible for what other people put on their talk page, her response has been very tempered. HighInBC 21:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

After having Tyrenius inform me on my talk page I have just finished reading this. I am suprised at the sheer volume of comment, half of which I found insulting and half of which is just laughable. Despite contributing to the project in good faith I appear to be being accused of lying, self promotion, illegal activity, sexual deviance and to cap it all getting Wikipedia banned in the content filters across the world. I don't see anywhere in the FAQ that says Wikipedia is a club, that it requires membership, nor that I have to prove or identify myself. Those asking for me to prove myself to them can start by posting of photo of themselves to show that they are not perverts and why they are entitled to ask for identity. To put the record straight on a number of items 1) I haven't posted a larger numbers of sexually explicit photo's. While accepting that everyone's difinition will vary, I think only 2 could be argued to be in this catagory. I think both of which add to their respective articles, both of which have caused some debate on the article discussion and both articles appear to have reached a consenses. I haven't changed any subsquent edit of mine as I happy with the principles of wikipedia. If you have something to say or don't like my edits then feel free to discuss or amend them on the appropraite page. 2) I am over 18 3) I can't see how my edits are self promotion but for the record I am not interested in self promotion. 4) I don't see the revelance of whether the images are professional or not. For the record they were taken in my bedsit with a proper i.e expensive camera, a canon something or other. 5) I don't have a porn site. I am not a porn star, I am a student. I am comfortable with my sexuality and sexual preferences and I am not ashamed by them. 6) I created one new page which I thought (and still do) added to wikipedia scope of articles and used what I thought was a fair use image. Others disagreed and deleted the article which I am happy to allow.

I am not going to enter further debate I don't have to answer to anyone or prove myself either. If you don't like my contributions then please delete them and my user ID. I have plenty of things to fill my life with. Publicgirluk 23:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think this issue has been handled insensitively and discourteously, and I am not surprised that User:Publicgirluk feels as she does. She was not even informed of or invited to this debate (until I discovered it and informed her), and as a new user would not be expected to know about it. There is nothing to indicate that she has acted in any way other than that expected of an editor (and especially a new editor). All sorts of suggestions have been made, but nothing verified, and some suggestions have been made on the basis of quite uninformed opinion. Particularly disconcerting is any negative reflection on her because of comments by other users on her talk page, which she has not in any way encouraged, but has responded to in a very restrained manner. We should be seeking to protect her, but no one has offered any advice or guidance as to how this should be dealt with. The last comment on her talk page is highly undesirable and obviously something she has found offensive. No one seems to have considered what it would be like for her to read this thread. Tyrenius 00:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Publicgirluk, you are my hero. Don't let anyone push you around. HighInBC 00:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

She has every right to feel aggrieved, and I hope Publicgirluk you won't feel dissuaded from contributing here. But, mmmm, wasn't the worry that the pictures might have been posted by, say, an aggrieved ex-bf? I have to add though, that until we have a policy which requires identification of the subjects in posed photos we shouldn't hassle this user over it unless there's a complaint. Which, as far as I am aware, there hasn't been. Move along folks, nothing to see here! --kingboyk 07:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Some issues are sensitive enough that it is too late once there is a complaint, e.g. John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-25 08:18Z

I think you might be right. But, we need a policy so that in future we aren't making a mess of it as we have here (result: one editor feeling victimised, and nothing achieved). I'm a little surprised there isn't more guidance on this from the Foundation (same goes for the underage editors situation above). --kingboyk 08:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in so late, but I totally agree with Tyrenius and HighInBC's comments immediately above. This has been handled insensitively, and I feel that any new user being discussed on AN/I should be made aware of the dispute at the time of the original posting. Just my $0.02, «ct» (t|e) 10:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I too agree entirely with Tyrenius and High, et al., and intended to express such opinion earlier. The only valid concerns expressed, IMHO, were as to the provenance of the images, and even those were overwrought. Cyde's suggestion apropos of an identifying picture was, I suppose, rather reasonable, but it was never conveyed to Public. We have here a user who has contributed propitiously, and our conduct here has served to drive her away from the project and thus, to be sure, to diminish the quality of the encyclopedia in the areas in which Public worked. Whilst some reasonable arguments with respect to copyright were essayed, many unnecessary intimations with respect to Public's character—vis-à-vis both credibility and, much more perniciously, deviance—were made, and I rather think the situation could have been handled a bit better. Joe 17:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There were some valid concerns and these need to be addressed. But let's learn something from this. It would be best raised by a tactful communication to the editor concerned in the first instance, and let's ensure extended debates of this kind don't go on without the user being informed immediately. That should be paramount. Cyde is absolutely correct that we need to validate the origin of the photos. It is obviously far more serious for a false posting of photos of this nature than it would be for a false posting of photos of a village pub, for example, so to protect the subject it needs to be established, tactfully, that it's all genuine. I feel from the user edits and conduct that that is the case here. Tyrenius 18:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you also have to address the issue of whether or not wikipedia falls under the kind of website that would require us comply with the US law of keeping her details in the custody of a steward to prove she's over 18 (this would then have to extend to all photos of nudity).--Crossmr 18:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The exact same images of a nude three year old would be perfectly legal so in this case the US law you speak of does not apply. Sexual behavior images (penetration for example) might be a problem; but doesn't apply to Google's pic search nor to some bulliten board. As a practical matter, I can't see the government believing the could find a jury that would convict Wikipedia - it would instead just show the governments hand at how it is useing "think of the children" to increasingly infantilize adults. WAS 4.250 21:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I would encourage you then to put up an image of a 3 year old with ejaculate on her face and tell me you won't find a government official with an issue about that or did you miss that image? Google's pic search doesn't host the image, wikipedia hosts this image, there is a difference. Wikipedia is also not a search engine, its held to a different standard. Wikipedia is also not a bulletin board, so those comparisons are inaccurate.--Crossmr 23:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Take the image from the upper right from here, crop at the neck, add a caption about "cum" and you have an example of the image you refer to further nudity on the part of the child would not make it illegal. Pics of nudity are not illegal. Pics of real or fake cum are not ilegal. WAS 4.250 00:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the big concern is that she refused to verify she's actually what she says. Which could have been done easily as cyde pointed: take a picture with a paper saying "yes I'm publicgirluk at wikipedia" (which could be removed afterwards if needed). She specifically stated

 I am not going to enter further debate I don't have to answer to anyone or prove myself either. 
 If you don't like my contributions then please delete them and my user ID. 
 I have plenty of things to fill my life with. Publicgirluk 23:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Since she is refusing to help verifying the source of the images, I will go ahead and delete them. -- Drini 22:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ref my IRC conversation with you, please do not delete these images. They are legal and correctly uploaded and released, and to ask publicgirluk to do things that other uploaders are not required to do is unacceptable to my mind. --AlisonW 23:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Like AlisonW, I am opposed to deleting these images. No policy has been broken with these images, they are correctly tagged. Let's all assume good faith. There is no reason to beleive that Publicgirl has uploading these images against copyright, or broken any wikipedia policy. If the requirements for uploading a picture of ones self is that with it you have to provide proof that you are who you say you are, face book is going to get a lot shorter. Thε Halo ^Θ 23:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The photos appear useful, and absent any complaint, I don't see any reason to hassle the uploader about them. We generally accept all claims of self copyright ownership at face value and I don't see any reason to deviate from that in this case. The only person with any real liability here would be the uploader if she is not the person she claims to be, which we have no evidence of. Assume good faith. Dragons flight 23:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleting those images would be a violation of assume good faith, an act against consensus, and a little bit of biting the newbies. I still have not heard one specific complaint that applies to existing policies. If there was a serious legal issue that is not covered by existing rules then the foundation would step in, that is their job. There is a serious danger of chasing off a sincere editor here, and I will resist it. HighInBC 15:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Though I'm with the pro-Publicgirl camp here, most of what I'd want to say has already been said, except for one thing: the idea of taking a picture of oneself holding up a sign saying "I am so-and-so on Wikipedia" seems sort of demeaning to me. It seems a bit reminiscent of a mug shot, or of being the kid who has to hold the little chalkboard for your class on school-picture day. That's a purely subjective view, of course, and I don't want to suggest that others should feel the same as me on this, but I bet some others do feel the same as me, and I think that should be taken into account any time we're thinking of asking someone to take a picture of themselves like that. --Allen 19:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The most important issue relating to these particular photos is whether they are uploaded by the subject. I don't think anyone is disputing that now (if they are, then they need to say so, and why). In this case, there's nothing for admins to do, but there does seem to be a need for various policy issues to be discussed elsewhere. Tyrenius 22:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Two AOL range blocks

Per ongoing heavy defamatory vandalism for the past hour. 152.163.100.0/24 and 205.188.116.0/23 each for 30 minutes, with new accounts barred -- Samir धर्म 08:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Gah, no! If there has to be an AOL range block, which I dispute anyway, at least leave new account creation open. Remember the 'Encyclopedia that anyone can edit' text on the main page? -M^ask 19:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

These range blocks expired by the time you had made this message, and new account prevention was necessary due to massive creations of impersonation accounts from a single user. Ryūlóng 23:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I know they had expired, but you still file a police report even if your house was robbed before you got home. And that was not necessary because of creations. You block those, but you dont shut off that huge number of potential contributors. The new blocking policies for AOL proxy pools say to leave creations up. Not wanting to find the bad apples of the bunch is no reason to WP:BITE so many potential new users. -M^ask 00:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the main issue was with the fact that several abusive accounts were suddenly created by a banned user (see below) as well as another unrelated "I'M GOING TO SUE THE WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION FOR $1,000,000" vandal operating in the larger range. Unfortunately, these two blocks were necessary at 5 in the morning (EST). Ryūlóng 01:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

An example of the latter is here. Ryūlóng 01:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Keeping new accounts open in this case would have made the range block useless -- Samir धर्म 04:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Then it shouldn't have been applied. By doing this block you dont just block the vandal, but every dial-up AOL user online at the time who rolls onto the proxy. New Account creations are to be left up for AOL range blocks. Thats pretty much it. This was childish vandalism, easy to fix, easy to block the new accounts that are used abusively, and no where near worth denying that many potential new users. Seriously folks, this isn't brain science. Get out of the 'we're under seige by vandals' mentality. There aren't that many of them and their easy to revert, and block as they come up. AOL gives us many, many of our contributors, a good portion of our admins and one of our stewards. -M^ask 21:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

(deindented) Apart from the creation of abusive accounts, there was mass removal of sockpuppet notices and userpage vandalism by the IPs in question. MER-C 05:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

And this was any harder to detect then normal vandalism? Was he using their name? any edit to a userpage by someone who isnt that user is easy to spot. Think about these things before the blocks get applied, and take your finger off the big red button cowboy. -M^ask 21:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Your points are well taken. I'm not a big fan of range blocks myself -- Samir धर्म 07:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Page moves by Njiro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please can anyone investigate Njiro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I've tried reverting his pagemoves, but now it won't let me revert them. Thanks, --TheM62Manchester 09:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed -- Samir धर्म 09:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! should he be blocked?? --TheM62Manchester 09:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Not the most severe vandalism, unlike this. Iolakana•T 11:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Dealing with EddieSegoura

The EddieSegoura vandal, editing from AOL, has become a real time-sink of late. Rather than just fighting off references to "exicornt" and bogus baseball edits, it seems like we are now spending all our time fighting over sockpuppet tags. See User:MER-C/Eddie Segoura, a new VIP-style page, which, interestingly, describes his vandalism *only* in terms of sockpuppet and impersonation tags. It also (shudder) recommends AOL rangeblocks as part of the standard strategy for handling his attacks.

My suggestion is going to be obvious, and obviously unpopular: let's stop tagging his indef-blocked puppets as puppets of EddieSegoura. We don't get much benefit from having the enormous, ever-growing list around; at this point, anyone involved knows "it's a very large list" and that's probably enough. I would go so far as to suggest we replace the existing sockpuppet tags with the generic indefblockeduser one. The benefit is, we will hopefully have fewer angry, concentrated attacks like those of late, and we won't have to block AOL IPs as often. The downside is that it is caving in to the desires of a banned vandal. That's a big downside. I know it. But the pages we are wasting our time on aren't part of the encyclopedia; we wouldn't be making a content-oriented compromise of any sort. Thoughts welcome. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I don't give recognition to individual vandals. They all do the same bloody thing, ergo they are all the same bloody person. All vandals are 'Willy on Wheels', they all meld into one faceless bore, - if they don't like it, then they should stop acting like him.--Doc 15:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, are you saying we should go ahead and remove the identifying sockpuppet tags, since they give recognition to Eddie, or are you saying that we shouldn't, since doing so would be treating him specially and giving him recognition? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm saying remove the tags. But don't treat this version of 'Willy on Wheels' any differently from all the other Willies - remove all such tags - delete the pages that list individual vandals. Merge the lot - and don't encourage the one universal vandal that is Willy on Wheels.--Doc 15:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

except that information is usefull to us.Geni 17:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Once banned, how? Except for keeping score. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think these LTA pages on vandals are our version of the police incident room. --TheM62Manchester 18:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bunchofgrapes and Morven. Probably the only reason to tag socks is when they are socks of a known user and have a significant contribution history. There's no reason to tag obvious vandals of the exicornt/willy/enthusiastfrance ilk with a specific template except scorekeeping, which has no value in tracking down further vandal accounts and may lead to more vandalism (either "blank me or I'll keep doing it" or "look how many times I can get blocked". Thatcher131 (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly my point. A vandal creates multiple disposable accounts - many of which are blocked on creation, and some idiot goes round creating a userpage and markng it with precisely the right deadly threatening official template, then categorises the userpage and adds the account to the vandal's hall of fame. It is all just CVU-style para-law enforcement crap - one big game of soldiers for the role-playing secret agents. It serves no useful purpose, except to encourage vandals and paranoia. Block, yawn, forget (repeat the process, until they get bored). And those who want a police incident room - should go play elsewhere.--Doc 18:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Or its useful for some people as not everyone is familiar with 100% of the vandals out there. Maybe not every sockpuppet needs tagged, especially for the big few, but some of the smaller-time or more unique vandals should have evidence pages and some sockpuppet links, especially if it can help establish any kind of pattern for identifying. --Crossmr 18:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

All right. I like the general debate, but I did come here with a more specific question in mind. Let me ask it more directly: If I go around and start removing {{sockpuppet|EddieSegoura}} tags from all the indef-blocked user pages that have them, is anybody going to accuse me of meatpuppeting for Eddie? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You've been here a year and appear to be an established editor. I certainly wouldn't. I wouldn't remove the tag from any sockpuppet thats done more than just be created though.--Crossmr 18:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This would be more of a philosophical meatpuppeting, if you will: carrying out exactly the sort of edit that Eddie has been trying to carry out all along. It's not literal meatpuppeting; there's certainly been no quid pro quo offered or anything like that. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Do it. Thatcher131 (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I see is that by him removing the puppet tags himself it identifies him very easily. its unlikely anyone else would do this. If we remove these and he instead decides to enter in with some other kind of vandalism it might make it more of a challenge to identify and deal with him.--Crossmr 19:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There's some truth to that, but our goal isn't to score points by catching as many of his socks as we can -- it's to make him go away. If he confounds us by editing in a constructive manner undetectable as him, that is also OK. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't buy this 'identifying vandals' bit at all. If they vandalise deal with them, whoever they are. If not, who cares. This all smacks of an obsession with 'Wikipedia's most wanted'. Our best weapon against vandals is to bore them into going away. --Doc 19:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

that's your choice, but if user x vandalizes a page , we should assume good faith and give them a break. If we don't identify past vandals we never really deal with them, because first time around we should always been assuming good faith. Once a user continues behaviour, we usually ramp up the recourse for it. If a vandal is an obvious sockpuppet of known vandal Y then they should be blocked outright, we shouldn't waste our time sitting there warning them 3 or 4 times then blocking them. If eddy shows up, removes a sockpuppet label the block should go into effect immediately. If we didn't identify any vandals and someone did something that was associated with a known vandal now, but wasn't because we threw out all the files, we waste time warning people who's sole purpose is to cause trouble because we didn't keep any information on their past behaviour.--Crossmr 19:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

But if he edits in a vandal manner, someone might be more likely to assume good faith and maybe not block him outright like he should. If any vandal comes back and edits constructively thats cool with me. Its if they come back and display entirely different vandal behaviour that causes me concern.--Crossmr 19:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that Eddie has always created socks here and there that don't change the tags, reserving that for IPs when possible (when the pages aren't semi-protected) or throw-away sleeper accounts when they are. So we're not going to be wastng time we weren't already wasting, in this case. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

So then might it not make sense to keep the record and just protect the pages? It seems your intent here is to remove these in anticipation that he's just going to do that anyway and people end up fighting over the page trying to undo his edits, etc. I guess it comes down to is there a purpose of having records or not having records and perhaps address this issue for all sockpuppets. --Crossmr 19:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Running around protecting hundreds of pages for this purpose seems a little heavy-handed to me, and plain unneccessary. All the record-keeping you need should be in the block log comment anyway. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, now look at my block log [3]. See the various username blocks on willy-wanabees and other trolling usernames. Most of these were blocked with no edits. Now, someone tell me why anyone went round creating userpages for these nil-edit accounts to mark them as blocked - or to categorise them by the vandal they were/were impersonating. Do we need a record (other then the block log) that I killed User:Outoftuneviolin's son User:Man, is Videogamer owning the admins or what? User:Whore bitch cunt fuck faggot User:BOBBY BOULDERS STRIKES AGAIN!!! TAKE THAT YOU FASCISTS! or User:Doc Glasgow on Dunlops?? What the hell is the point of this? --Doc 19:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, these are now going red, I'm deleting the useless things. See you on DRV. hehe --Doc 20:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have as well wondered the same about the people that go around following after the block log and applying those tags. I assume they just want to increate their edit count, and have struck upon one of the myriad ways we have of doing so without actually having to work hard. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

So then maybe we should set a threshold, only sock puppets with more than 5 edits should have a sockpuppet tag on them?--Crossmr 19:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Higher than that. Pure vandal accounts should never be specially identified. Tagging should be reserved for cases where the account lasts long enough to insinuate itself into the edit history of multiple articles, or represents a known editor with a known agenda, like Lightbringer. An account with all vandal edits should not be rewarded with a specific tag no matter how many edits it manages to accumulate before it gets blocked. Giving the vandal a name and a special page either rewards or angers the vandal, neither of which has anything to do with writing an encyclopedia. (Naming the vandal also rewards the CVU which ditto. Like Doc said, block, yawn repeat as needed. Thatcher131 (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Just put Indefblocked on them all, except in very special cases. If it is needed, a page identifying behavior is fine but, for example, we don't need help identifying page moves to "...on Wheels" as being bad, it is obvious even for anyone who doesn't know there is a history associated with it, and we don't need to have special logos for each of them. It is just a waste of time. —Centrx→talk • 19:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've started doing it. Thanks for the input, all. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Often wondered why we spend massive amounts of time with these templates. Sometimes the sockpuppet templates will be changed multiple time on accounts that I block. Seems quite pointless to me. Part of the Template for Every Occasion patrol.

The advantage for IDing is making it easier for less experienced users to understand the reason that reverts of banned user are made on articles or why articles that seem fine are deleted. IMO, posting the information on AN or AN/I does not help because it is removed. If the accounts have not edited at all them it is pointless to label them. The rest need to be dealt with on a case by case basis. In this case and many others not labeling makes good sense. FloNight ^talk 20:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[Message from banned user removed]

You are still banned, Eddie. The reasons for your ban had nothing to do with sockpuppet tags. You are not welcome to edit. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[Message from banned user removed]

No, no Eddie.. — Moe Epsilon 22:58 August 25 '06

I apologize that I did not get the message until now, but I'm seriously tired of AOL vandals going at pages I edit and even if they are not Eddie, the fact that they make themselves appear to be so is just a pain in the ass and just makes Eddie return and get more of his own true sockpuppets blocked. And Eddie, stop commenting here. It's not improving your case any more than it could ever be. Ryūlóng 23:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This repetitive vandalism strikes me as a modern form of arcade or video games, where people with nothing better to do spend their time racking up huge scores just for bragging rights. I agree that the solution is to make this boring for them, and one way to do it, if we have sufficient coverage to respond to these incidents promptly, is to go through the boring escalation of templates each and every time an anon or new user vandalizes. We kill two birds with one stone: truly "new" vandals will be given the appropriate cautions, and inveterate perpetrators must spend five times the effort to get the same "score", hopefully boring them five times as fast. I don't know if this is practical, though. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't we include Exicornt at WP:BJAODN?? --TheM62Manchester 23:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No. It's not a joke and it's not nonsense. Deny recognition to those not worth recognising. Spend editing time usefully rather than playfully. -Splash - tk 02:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be a bad idea, Jeffq. That requires spending at least 5 times the editorial/adminstrative effort on time wasters who deserve nothing other than a summary block and a redlinked user and user talk page. Don't give them oxygen, don't give them acknowledgement; certainly don't quintuple the effort they extract. -Splash - tk 02:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that all the real vandal pages get transwikied to countervandalism.org so that they are of some use to us, yet don't give the vandals their time in the limelight. Then start merging vandal pages which deal with vandals with similar editing patterns (e.g. TCV, Mr. Pelican Shit and WoW). I'll tag my two vandal pages for speedy deletion (u1) once they get transwikied.

As for tagging, tag enough accounts to establish a vandal's MO. MER-C 03:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, NCV's and WOW's long term abuse pages are up for deletion at WP:MFD. MER-C 04:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, my Eddie page has been deleted on my request (I've kept a copy on my hard disk). MER-C 05:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

User: Kingdom hearts III Repeatedly breaking the 3RR on the Naruto Uzumaki page.

Hi. As you can see Naruto Uzumaki history, Kingdom hearts III continues to break the 3 revision rule and continues to edit war with many other editors. At this point, it is no longer a content dispute and has become a case where we can no longer assume good faith, as he continues to add information without citing sources and continually reverts edits made by many other editors. While I agree that content disputes can and will arise in many different places, this extends far beyond that and beyond one statement on the Talk page refuses to discuss the changes or cite proof. Lankybugger 17:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest you use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR to report him for his 3RR violations. CharonX/talk 23:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

User:MuerteArbusto

Please look at the edits coming from User:MuerteArbusto (contributions). I warned the user for racist vandalism to Chitterlings (the user's first edit), and in response he or she left this message on my talk page. Most of the rest of this user's edits are copyvio or vandalism. --Allen 18:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Indef. blocked. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Username meaning in Spanish was Death to Bush. Not that it matters anyway, now that it's been indef.blocked. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 23:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Joining two/three accounts

By error I have registered twice ton Wikipedia - after some time of inactivity I couldn't log in so I have registered anew. Now I have found that I have some contribution to both accounts and also some to my IP before I have logged in for the first time. Is it possible to join the three into one account without losing any information? NoychoH 19:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No, sorry. At one time, the developers offered such a service, but with the growth in users and in demands on developer time, it is no longer possible to merge accounts. -Splash - tk 02:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

A good tip is to put a notice at the top of each of your user page linking to the contributions of the others. HighInBC 15:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:Mccready, please review

I have blocked Mccready for one week for disruption. I realize one week is a rather long block for a generic charge of "disruption", so I invite review. See User_talk:Mccready#Blocked_for_disruption for more information. If anyone feels this is inappropriate I invite them to adjust the block as they see fit. Friday (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Support. I know that you have followed his talk page for months like I have. I appreciate you following up with him. Likely you are the best person to do this block. His talk page has many requests from other editors for him to be more collaborative and civil. Still think that he has great potential. Wish that he would spend more time working on less controversial topics. FloNight ^talk 22:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I echo that. El_C 00:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Petr.adameк

Somebody has created account User:Petr.adameк for vandalising my user page [4]. Please, can you block this account and remove from its userpage false information that it is account of Petr Adámek on cswiki? It is probably the same vandal that has created account User:-Jkb- to vandalise page User:-jkb- [5]. --Petr.adamek 20:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Golbez 00:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

User:King Vegita

King Vegita (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been vandalizing my user page:[6], [7], [8]. —Hanuman Das 20:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've had the page deleted and recreated it, so these diffs will no longer work. Could someone simply inform him that he has no right to edit another user's user page for any reason unless he is an admin? —Hanuman Das 20:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've already attempted to address the issue on his talk page. So lets try continue discussion there, limiting conversation on ANI. Thanks. SynergeticMaggot 20:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You do not own your user page, it belongs to the community. I merely added a link to the previous name, because it had administrative action taken against it. The reference I found in the WP:AN/3RR archives of the last time he was banned for 3RR. It seemed an attempt to cover up a mischevious past, and my interactions with you suggest someone who would have a past as a POV warrior, and finding out about the 3RR violation in the past after having reported you made it important. I know that there is no policy banning me from editting your user page, so long as it is for constructive reasons. I did not add anything negative on the page, only a fact that I found in the archives.

However, I should note that there was a clear violation of WP:CIVIL in the reply. [9], "and it's none of your fucking business to expose it. Start a fight with me and YOU WILL NOT WIN. You've been reported for vandalizing my user page on WP:AN/I. You're not an admin, stay off both my user and talk page from now on" I neither vandalized it nor is there reason to use the f word, even if you later censored it to "f***ing".

KV(Talk) 21:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hanuman has since gone on a WP:POINT vendetta, removing a source he doesn't agree with [10] despite WP:V stating clearly, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth." Hanuman is an editor who tries to work the system to violate its principles.KV(Talk) 21:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I can see you're not willing to take this to your talk page. Just grab an admin and ask him/her to weigh in please. SynergeticMaggot 21:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I grabbed 2 that don't like me. KV(Talk) 21:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not one of the two, but I will respond anyway. 1) That wasn't userpage vandalism. It was a strange thing to edit war over, however. There's no obligation for Hanuman Das to keep a notice of a previous username on their userpage. 2) That response is clearly not a model of WP:CIVIL. Please make an effort to discuss things like reasonable people. 3) I have no opinion on the editing dispute, but it is probably better if the two of you avoid each other. This needs mediation, not administrator action. Jkelly 21:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I am one of the two. I do not actually dislike KV, we have just often disagreed. Hanuman Das' comment is uncivil. I understand KV's rationale in wanting to note a previous username. But, I see Hanuman Das says he changed names to avoid harrassment and coordinated with an admin about it. I didn't look any further into it, but taking it at face value I can see why he would be annoyed. If you guys are going to need to work together, mediation would be a good idea. I have no opinion on the editing issues or 3rr violations. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

User:King Vegita's actions were wrong. You don't just go around tagging someone else's user page with "this user is also known as so-and-so" unless (1) there is suspected abusive sock-puppetry or proven abusive sock-puppetry OR (2) you have that person's consent. While Hanuman's actions were less than civil, I can tell you I'd be annoyed if someone kept on adding "this user is also known as whoever" repetitively to my user page without any evidence -- Samir धर्म 00:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Next time, clarification need to be sought on whether what is seen as "cover[ing] up a mischevious past" warrant such a userpage notice. El_C 00:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Null edits for legal threats in edit summaries

205.188.116.5 (talk · contribs) has just performed two null edits (on Power Strike series [11] and Romanian language [12]) in order to make legal threats to Wikimedia in the edit summaries ("I WILL SUE THE WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION FOR $100,000,000 IF YOU DON'T QUIT"). The account seems to be an AOL proxy and has a bad track record. BTW, I have no idea what we are supposed to stop doing. Aecis ^{Appleknocker Flophouse} 22:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Further note: the IP might be linked to 205.188.116.131 (talk · contribs) two posts up. Both IP's use the exact same edit summary, verbatim. Aecis ^{Appleknocker Flophouse} 22:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, they seem to be coming from the 205.188.116.xxx range. I'd suggest a range block, but I'm afraid there would be too many innocent users affected. Maybe we're supposed to quit reverting his edits? ;) --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 23:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Perspective - those aren't legal threats. So just revert and ignore like most AOL vandalism. --Doc 23:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This user is now being idiotic in 152.163.100.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log). Ryūlóng 02:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Need some instant help here

Sockpuppeteer User:Prof. MagneStormix is creating sockpuppets faster than I can block and tag them. See my user page and talk page, and also check User:I'll bring the food. Thanks. Tyrenius 23:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Solution, don't bother tagging them. It only feeds the air of publicity and is of no other use. --Doc 23:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Block and ignore. Thatcher131 (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Tyrenius (and Doc), again! El_C 00:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Rob38204

User:Rob38204 has vandalized a number of pages by adding inappropriate commerical links. These have been his/her only contributions to Wikipedia; there is no mitigating constructive input. I placed a vandalism warning; he was also warned by an admin yesterday. Would suggest that the next episode of vandalism by this user be considered grounds for blocking. 68.166.14.179 00:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I will respectfully disagree. This is an unacceptable level of spamming, so the user has been blocked for 48 hours on this occasion. Thanks for the report. Gwernol 00:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Rob38204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --Andeh 02:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Robert38204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - another one of the users accounts (Robert instead of Rob).--Andeh 02:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

AOL IP strange vandalism

There has been exessive vandalism by AOL IPs in the range of 152.163.100.xxx and 152.163.101.xxx adding nothing to articles and leaving the edit summary of "Adding Child Porn"" what is to be done about this. Canadian-Bacon ^(contribs) 02:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:BEANS on this. Prodego ^talk 02:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Care to explain, I don't quite see how it applies...and I don't mean that offensively. But every 5 seconds when my recent changes refreshes I see 1 or 2 more dummy edits with the summary of "ADDING CHILD PORN" by the same AOL IP range. Sorry for not understandaing. Canadian-Bacon ^(contribs) 02:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

If you set an e-mail I will explain, but think about it for a minute. Prodego ^talk 02:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Got it nevermind, I'm an idiot. Sorry. Canadian-Bacon ^(contribs) 02:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It's at it again. MER-C 07:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

User:The Mekon

User has continued to revert pages, especially D12 to his/her own vandalism, and from user's talk page appears very understanding that his/her edits are vandalism. Proceeds to personal attacks when informed. - RPIRED 02:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:NCV

I am sure all of you know that I, the former NCV, have stopped after my last vandalism on August 25, 2006 at mercury (planet). Please look at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long term abuse/North Carolina vandal.Ryron 03:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

One wonders why he feels it necessary to create multiple new accounts just to go around telling us he's a reformed vandal. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Edits with inappropriate edit summaries need to be oversighted

Be on the look out for edits like this, which should probably be removed by someone with oversight. They are null edits with repulsive, and possibly damaging edit summaries. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Here's another.
• Here's another.
• Here's another.

They are all coming from AOL. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't meet the criteria for the use of oversight. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

They are still extraordinarily annoying, though. Is it within the powers of a sysop to just delete the page and restore it without that three-line-long edit summary? Hbdragon88 05:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say so; vandalism is speediable. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. pschemp | talk 07:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know admins could pick and choose what to restore. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 13:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Strange edits by a new user

Robert Demelo (talk · contribs) has been creating a hell of a lot of strange articles, several of which are about programs he created, as well as copying the contents of his user page into an article about himself. I'm not sure what should be done here. Ryūlóng 05:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a note from an uninvolved passerby, unless this person's contribution history has been modified (or unless I am missing something), it appears that he has created exactly two articles, not counting his professional resume appearing on his user page. You have nominated both articles for deletion. Shouldn't that be sufficient to handle the problem, at least so far? 6SJ7 07:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I would think. pschemp | talk 07:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

FeloniusMonk

Moved the entire Talk page discussion, multiple editors, over a long period of Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research into a subsidiary page, not an archive, simply based on FM personal feeling that he didn't like the long discussion. I feel that behaviour is highly inappropriate. Archives are one thing, but moving active discussion to a page that few if any people are going to have watchlisted, only serves to disconnect the discussion from any new editors who wish to join it. There is no productive value in that action. Wjhonson 07:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The talk page is being trolled. FM moved a fruitless discussion to a subpage, and anyone who wants to can continue it there in exactly the same way as before. It's not an issue for AN/I in any event. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

User:DOKDO IS KOREAN POV

This appears to have been created as an attack on User:Dokdo (whose user page stinks). --Lambiam^Talk 08:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Already blocked by CanadianCaesar. --bainer (talk) 08:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

And I've also blanked Dokdo's user page. --bainer (talk) 08:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Try WP:AIV next time, it's much faster. :) --Andeh 09:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing sourced material on Robert Spencer

User:CltFn & User:Dy-no-miite keep removing sourced material on Robert Spencer. (The controversy section). Removing sourced material is vandalism. Articles on Bernard Lewis and Edward Said do have a "controversy" section. So having this section is not against the policy. The vandalized section already has POV tag, so there is no NPOV issue. --Reza1 09:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Revert war in Pluto

I have reported the 3RR violation here:[13], but it seems that an admin sided with other party. Please take an attention on the suject.--Nixer 11:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean the equivelant of the wrong version. Since editing on the article by both of you stopped some time ago and blocks are preventative even if I agreed the other admin was wrong, a block at this point would be nothing more than punative. On the other hand looking at your edits for the last few hours you seem to have become rather obsessed with this even attempting to modify the admins outcome on the WP:3RR request, I suggest you find something more constructive to work on before this becomes disruptive --pgk^(talk) 11:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The matter is just would the rules in Wikipedia work or not. The case is clear and the violation of the rules also. And we see now that the admin sides with the party that violated the rules to protect them. The fact is that the side violated the rules winned because the admin sided with them. Note that the only right way to prevent conflicts is to be just and strictly follow the rules. If you do not want this user to be blocked, just revert his version and warn him not to revert back. I think this would be enough.--Nixer 11:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Why the hell do you want me blocked? To make a WP:POINT? Ryūlóng 11:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

"would the rules in Wikipedia work or not", well read WP:3RR its purpose is to stop disruptive edit warring, as has already been said you both stopped editing it some time ago, by my reckoning it worked it has stopped the disruptive edit warring. You might like to consider that we are a project to build an encyclopaedia, not an experiment in rule making etc. etc. --pgk^(talk) 11:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The edit warring did not stop as the party violated the rules still maintains their own version of the article.--Nixer 11:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt regarding Nixer's post, I invite everyone to review the relevant discussions and the article history. I am the admin in question (sorry, forgot to clarify that earlier). --Cactus.man ✍ 11:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Look also at my responses here:[14]--Nixer 11:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I forgot to add my page too, thanks. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the actions of Cactus.man. The edit war have stopped and there is no need to block anyone. Besides the edit war is a rude form of voting if 2 editors are for a version and 3 editors are for another version, the three should win. In this case we have a user (Nixer) against another (Ryulong). One against one. I do not see why Nixer should win abakharev 12:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

And why Ryulong should win? What the purpose of the 3RR rule if admins do not stop violators, but instead block others? He has right to revert 4th time, I - havent. Double standard. --Nixer 12:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

No, he doesn't have the right to revert a 4th time. Yes, he violated 3RR. No, that doesn't mean he has to be blocked. Blocks are to stop people from disrupting the encyclopedia - whether they've broken the rules or not. You've both voluntarily stopped disrupting the encyclopedia, so there's absolutely no reason why anyone needs to be blocked. --james^(talk) 12:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

He did not stop disrupting, he insists on his version. He reverted 4th time even after I worried him about 3RR rule. The WP:3RR says "Do not revert after the reporting the 3RR, just wait an admin to revert the violator. All parties violated the 3RR should be blocked"--Nixer 12:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

He hasn't touched the page in 3 hours. I don't see him still "insisting" on his version. Whether he reverted a 4th time is irrelevant - we've already established that nothing needs to be done over the 3RR report. WP:3RR actually says that offenders "may" be blocked at any admin's discretion - not that they "must" be blocked. It's up to the admin to determine whether there is a continuing problem, and whether that problem would be solved by preventing a user from editing. It's not about "Hey, you reverted 4 times, you're gone for 24 hours!". The 3RR doesn't work like that. --james^(talk) 12:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

He did not edit the article because his version is protected by the admin's intervention. He has no need to edit the version that is his own.--Nixer 12:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The page is only semi protected, you can still edit it. By the looks of things it's been that way for 18 hours, well before your edit warring began. I fail to see the problem. --james^(talk) 12:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I semiprotected Pluto last night; I don't think it's been unprotected since. This was because of regular and continuing vandalism, not because of edit warring. The version I protected it on was the last "clean" one. Shimgray | talk | 14:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact Ryūlóng continues edit-warring and reverting to his version: [15]--Nixer 19:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not edit warring. Somehow, every change was undone by another user and then I editted it to a completely different version, until you reverted me, again. Get off of it, Nixer. Ryūlóng 19:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Now this user even tries to remove information from WP:AN/3RR: [16]--Nixer 19:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

And I was reverted by an admin, who closed the AN, again. Get off of it, Nixer, for your own sake. Ryūlóng 19:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The question is: are there in Wikipedia users not eligible to the general rules?--Nixer 19:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I am subject to the same rules as everyone else, just as you are. The closing admin at both 3RRs decided that my actions did not deserve a block because I had stopped, mostly because I fell asleep. You, however, have been reverting and have broken 3RR for the umpteenth time, including a user who I think is also you. Get over it. Ryūlóng 19:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Now you are continuing revert-warring with total of 6 reverts for the 24 hours.--Nixer 19:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my last edit on the page was replacing two apostrophes with two sets of quotation marks. Please stop, Nixer. Ryūlóng 20:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you here: [17] also cortrected quotation marks?--Nixer 20:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That is a completely different edit. I did not revert in anyway. I merely editted to something resembling a version that had been reverted by someone else to one of your versions. Ryūlóng 20:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Image on main page

The image in the DYK section of the main page seems to have been lifted from here. To me it seems to be a copyrighted image put up with the wrong tag. The image is now protected so I am unable to put an appropriate tag on it -- Lost^(talk) 12:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Abdullah Geelah (talk • contribs) seems to have done this more than once. Image:Sheikh_Mountains.jpg is ripped right off http://www.hargeisacity.50megs.com/photo.html *sigh* This is going to take awhile to clean up. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  13:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed, with one more also (Image:Oasis Hargeisa.jpg). Given the 1st image mentioned and the article were on the front page I've removed the image from the article as well as from {{Did you know}} -- I@n 13:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through his image contribs and marked the ones I could identify as copyvios. There were quite a few: [18] Thanks to Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh for catching some of them! FreplySpang 17:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hafele-Keating experiment

A variety of IP's are conducting talk page vandalism and POV additions/removals is occurring on Hafele-Keating experiment and has now spread to the Global Positioning System article. Several users have reverted the additions to both pages, I'd like a 3rd party to take a look and possible semi-protection. Dual Freq 13:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This appaears to be a content dispute with some civility issues/removal of comments. I've posted a note on the page. Semi-protection seems uneccessary. JoshuaZ 16:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Lguong

Lguong (talk · contribs) User's only edits are to put tags on blocked usernames. Probably related to the usernames that have been blocked. Roadsoap 13:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry...but exactly what admin action is required here? Thε Halo ^Θ 14:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible checkuser or investigation? I dunno. Hbdragon88 00:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:COPPA

Regarding the issue of self-identified children posting personal information (such as Cute 1 4 u), I have drafted WP:COPPA. It is very rough, however feel free to whack away at it. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice work. --Guinnog 16:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Odd troll warning

User:TheM62Manchester placed a troll warning tag on Talk:Allan Wilson (Scottish politician) a day or so ago. I talked to the user about it (see User talk:Metros232#Troll warning on Talk:Lucozade and User talk:TheM62Manchester#Talk:Lucozade. After that conversation, I figured that TheM62Manchester would remove the tag from the talk page, however, that appears not to have been the case. Just a few minutes ago I got a message [19] from User:Allan Wilson MSP who—from what I see on his talk page—is hired as Allan Wilson's "Administrator of his online Presence". Allan Wilson MSP has asked me to remove the tag on the grounds that it could be damaging to his boss's public image. What's the best way to procede with this? Just simply remove the tag? Metros232 14:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. These things serve no real purpose anyway. --Doc 14:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, my mistake! --TheM62Manchester 17:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Bad Faith

Isn't this bad faith? --Striver 16:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's a shame that we have administrators vandalizing our encyclopedic content. --Cyde Weys 17:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Can't see the reason in protecting it from vandalism, when the only vandal was an administrator.--Andeh 18:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

There are specific protected page editing guidelines. An administrator vandalizing a protected page would likely be desysopped. --Cyde Weys 04:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I cannot fathom how someone can build the reputation to become an admin, and then do something like that. This does seem to be an isolated incident after a short look at his contribution history. HighInBC 17:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This template was vandalized by two members (not one), and also two other admins edited but they did not revert the vandalism. --Inahet 18:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize. I added the owl and the sound clip. That was immature. I won't do it again. It was my own edits which were by far the most egregious. The graphic added by the other editor, while maybe not in retrospect the best choice, was probably well-intended. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, we all feel a bit silly once in a while. HighInBC 18:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Why don't I simply speedy delete it? Any objections?--MONGO 19:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I was surprised to learn we had 12 pages on Alex Jones and his works. Maybe a template wasn't the best approach to organizing them, but I think something should be done. Merge a bunch and delete others? Keep all and make a Portal for him? He already has a category. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

How long would this have gone on had it not been noticed?? Unfortunately, this template in its vandalized form was transcluded in a number of articles [20]. I don't think admins should get off easy, some disciplinary action should be taken. --Inahet 19:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, honestly, whenever I see Alex Jones NWO stuff, I want to laugh, so maybe the template was created to put a pun in an obviously ridiculous bunch of POV fork articles that should be combined into Alex Jones but instead can't because all the conspiracy theory advocates come out of the woodwork to POV push nonsense in this encyclopedia.--MONGO 19:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, as one of the admins involved in the vandalism you should be apologizing, not making excuses. --Cyde Weys 04:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What vandalism? I didn't know the images were a factor...I didn't create it, I didn't add it to any articles and all I did was try to keep the text wording from running into the infobox, which I ultimately achieved simply by reverting the template to an older version. I didn't know the images there weren't to be used...that sort of thing here on wiki is a mistery to me. All I was trying to do was keep the article text from butting up against the infobox, which caused run on. Explain, so I understand how any of my edits to the infobox were vandalism.--MONGO 05:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll go along with whatever people think is appropriate. Speak up here or on my talk page, or put up an RfC if you want. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Striver doesn't seem to mind the template as demostrated on the template talk page. I didn't know that having a picture of the Dallas Cowboys in the template was "vandalism".--MONGO 20:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Striver disagrees with you: [21]. Dionyseus 05:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

But on the template talk page, where he made the comments after doing so on my talkpage, he didn't seem to mind the template minus the images...that was what I meant. I even said above I'd be happy to speedy delete the thing.--MONGO 05:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I can forgive a small spell of sillyness from an admin, but grudgingly. HighInBC 04:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

When I clicked on the sound file, I laughed so hard I literally fell out of my chair. If this is what you gents call vandalism, who am I to judge it? —ptk✰fgs 04:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

When I play it again, it brings me to tears. I pray this fits for BJAODN. —ptk✰fgs 04:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind we're writing an encyclopedia here. Whether or not it's funny is irrelevant. --Cyde Weys 05:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

A vandal peculiar to one single page?

Long Crendon is a village in Buckinghamshire that's had it's page continuously vandalised over time since 2003 by the same user constantly re-adding the same nonsense about badgers, and accusing those that set the page right of pedophilia, child molestation and general vandalism. The IP used is mostly 195.92.X.X though other IPs have been used over time. It's getting quite tiresome tbh; surely it's time to start blocking this time-waster on sight? -- Roleplayer 17:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

unfortunately its pretty infrequent, I don't think you'd have any luck getting it protected, as far as blocking the range, well again its pretty infrequent, a 24 hour block would likely do nothing to change the pattern, unless we're going to look at a several month block for the range.--Crossmr 18:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It may be an artful badger. Seriously, this is not much of a problem, so long as a few people keep the article on their watchlist and revert the rubbish. I've added it to mine. After a while this fellow will stop making the effort, because he will see his graffiti washed clean in short order. If he turns it into an edit war, then he can be blocked. So long as we have enough eyes on it, the article can be kept clean for 99% of the time, which for an article like this one is OK. After a while he'll stop doing it and we'll have it back completely. It may be worthwhile searching for other badger-related rubbish. --Jumbo 18:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible trolling accounts

The accounts Bobtherandomguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Big T (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are rather suspicious to me (possible trolling accounts). So far, I have reverted edits by Big T and others to Bobtherandomguy's user page, deleted Man boobs (attack redirect created by Bobtherandomguy) and User:Sanouske chan and User talk:Sanouske chan (nonsense/attacks, nonexistent user's pages created by Big T). - Mike Rosoft 18:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Jakov.miljak

This user is behaving very, very interesting. He used to be Croatian nationalist, now he is Serbian nationalist, he vandalises his own user page and is insulting himself. This edit by anonimous user states that Jakov has problems loging onto his own account so his acc seems to be hijacked. Should be block the acc? --Dijxtra 19:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible S-man Sock

I came accross this account today and I noticed on the page that he claims to be a relitive of User:S-man. This user page was also created by S-man. Not sure if he is a sock of S-man but wanted to bring it up to you all just to be on the safe side. Æon ^{Insane Ward} 20:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Dr.Gauss

At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive128 number 49, I had made a request for User:OhmyΩ to be blocked for repeating harrassing me (with quite personal stuff) at my talk page, which went successful. Now, User:Dr.Gauss just made edits referring to his/her former account, the above incident, as well as comments harrassing me on my talk page. This user is definitely a sockpuppet of User:OhmyΩ. His edits are: [22], [23], with quite unnerving comments like the section title, "Thinking of U ;-)" and "See in another TIME !!!!", quite referring to outside-of-Wikipedia life (This user seems to personally knows me, but I have no clue who he/she is). I reverted these edits, but User:Dr.Gauss reverted them back- [24]. I hope something can be done to alleviate my situation. Thank you, Basawala 20241114173924

Returning sockpuppet of RogerMooreArm

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

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/RogerMooreArm

• 14:33, 26 June 2006 - edit by User:RogerMooreArm (older diff)
• 00:30, 08 July 2006 - edit by User:Houlihan1 (older diff)
• 15:17, 26 August 2006 (current diff)
• 15:12, 26 August 2006 (current diff)

I really dont think an actual checkuser is necesary. --Cat out 20:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

User:FaIIout Boy

I'm not sure where exactly to report this, but this user has been impersonating me, which I suspect is the same user who created the accounts User:FaIIout boy and User:BinderBinder.--Fallout boy 21:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the account. DVD+ R/W 21:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous sock

Another opinion welcome here. Anonymous sock (talk · contribs) requested their talk page deleted and I removed the speedy tag since i felt neither CSD:G7 or CSD:U1 applied — there is use in keeping the talk and user pages in administrative context due to the sockpuppet activity and an indefinite block. Please see User talk:Anonymous sock#Right to vanish.

There are also issues with an IP block. Thanks/wangi 21:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Guiding Light

This user's first (and as of the time of this writing, only) edit is to nominate himself/herself for adminship here. I wonder who this person really is and what s/he is really trying to do...Scobell302 22:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure its just somewhat seeking negative attention.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

24.79.60.31 continuing to vandalize NHL team pages

24.79.60.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), over the past month, has been vandalizing NHL team articles in a number of ways, including POV pushing, converting spelling in articles about American-based teams to Canadian English and adding other nonsense. Here is one example of his work on the Detroit Red Wings page - he changes varsious spelling such as "center" to "centre", changes section headers to nonsense and adding opinion about an irrelevelant tiff between two players to the article. He has been warned repeatedly not to make these edits and has been previously been blocked for it, but ignores these warnings and continues to make a nusiance of himself in NHL articles. –NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 00:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up this page's edit comments

I've been tidying up the recent spate of abusive edit comments. I just tried to clean up this page's edit comments by delete/undeleting: I think the deletion failed, as this page simply has too many versions for the DB or UI to cope with. If this page suddenly disappears, you can blame me. We probably need some new UI to be able to do perform selective version deletion on pages with many versions. -- The Anome 00:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Please Think Perpendicularly is a sock puppet of banned user Zen master

Zen-master (talk · contribs · count), has previously avoided an ArbCom ban using several sockpuppets[25], appears to be active again as Please Think Perpendicularly (talk · contribs · count) and using IP addresses 70.68.206.90 and 70.31.232.210. The evidence is (1) an interest in Race and intelligence, (2) the claim that there are subtle yet fundamenal NPOV problems with the article, and (3) the use of the term "dichotomy" to describe the problem. Please ban sockpuppet. Is there anything else that can be done to enforce the ban? --Rikurzhen 00:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. If he's being particularly troublesome, Checkuser requests sometimes result in the IP being blocked for long periods, if it won't result in too much collateral damage. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. --Rikurzhen 00:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Move for community ban of User:Zen-master

I've extended the block on User:Zen-master, which was formerly one year to enforce an ArbCom ban, to indefinite, based on his evasion through sockpuppetry, which has already resulted in the block being renewed once. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Zen-master. I could renew it for a second time, but really, what's the point? He clearly has no intention of sitting it out. Any objections? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

another sockpuppet

User:Wait a Second --Rikurzhen 07:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Self taken Provocative Photos:

If the User:Publicgirluk stops uploading sexually charged photos of herself to Wikipedia, I have volunteered to start doing so myself. My boyfriend and I love to take sexy pics! We are thinking about making one to complement the Anal Sex article.

Also, User:Anchoress has also expressed interest in making photos for Wikipedia along those lines.

Thanks :)Courtney Akins 02:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You are hopefully aware that you might be tripping up WP:POINT. Hbdragon88 03:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say, WP:TROLL. Blocked indefinitely for disruption. El_C 04:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't say that her edits have been wise... but is an indefinite block really appropriate? Based on the user's contribution history, she seems interested in a) decreasing the Myspace-ness of the Wiki (using a few measures that have been proposed by others, a few not) and b) increasing Wikipedia's coverage of sexuality, particularly borderline practices. For that matter, the behavior you've mentioned hardly seems to come close to WP:BLOCK's description of disruption, and an indefinite block of a user with a couple hundred edits (many of which have been productive) without a community ban is highly irregular. As an admin of long standing, you've earned community trust... but is there something that I'm not seeing here? Would it not have been more productive to raise your concerns with the editor before blocking? Captainktainer * Talk 08:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely - this block seems very irregular. El C, please reconsider it. -- ChrisO 08:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify something - I think the editor was in the wrong with her proposal, and I think she was a little haughty and arrogant. But I don't feel that haughtiness and arrogance merit a complete and unilateral ban from the community. I think it might be helpful to talk to the user in question, warn her to spend more time in the community before making policy proposals - a very brief block to cool things off, if there was considerable disruption, I think might have been appropriate. She clearly has a lot to learn about Wikipedia policies. But, barring information that El_C has that I don't, I have to question the proportionality of the response. Captainktainer * Talk 08:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

While I have tried to mentor the above user, I feel that El C's block is pretty much in order. There were things that El C explained to me, via email, that gave me enough reason to believe the block was just. Sure, I tried to help Courtney out and gave her pointers and all of that stuff. But even with my advice, she is doing this, so I am not sure if in the long run if she will be a good contributor or I will be burned at the stake at some random RFAr. However, if this user is unblocked, I would still like to mentor her, but I need something with teeth, because I can admit that Courtney is a wild gal, I just need something to tame her. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay... I think there's something to be said for trust and respecting the long history of established admins in this matter. Perhaps ArbCom would be willing to place a temporary injunction on her, enjoining her not to make policy proposals until they can review her case? That way she can continue to edit while they consider her case. Alternatively, if she's willing to accept mediation, perhaps she could be talked into accepting that sort of remedy voluntarily. Maybe these ideas are farfetched... I just think that there might be ways to handle this situation that don't end in a block. Captainktainer * Talk 08:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There were things that El C explained to me, via email - how about it's explained to the rest of us - here? Wikipedia cannot have it both ways, yes THIS editor MIGHT be trying to make WP:POINT but as a general principle, if we don't have censorship here - then within the context set-up in the previous dicussions I have seen about this issue of people uploading pornography pictures of themselves, it seems entirely straightforward and reasonable for members to say "I see the scat article does not have a picture, do you want a picture of my girlfriend shitting on my face?". (I'm actually against pornography images on wikipedia but I bow to the community on the matter).

--Charlesknight 09:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC) Oh, and by the way, real pictures are highly controversial. Even drawings of anal sex and other sexual poses have been somewhat contentious; real photos would be even more controversial. Wikipedia is not officially censored, but consensus dictates what goes into an article or not (like, for instance, whether the drawign in Missionary position should have the teddy bear or not). Hbdragon88 07:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This person is talking about what they might do. How is that "disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point"? Not finding the word "troll" on WP:BP I am guessing this block is warranted under "exhausting the communitiy's patience" and I must admit to not being familiar with this editor's past but with only one block to her name I don't really see how the community's patience block applies here. Could someone spell out specifically which section of the blocking policy this block falls under? Thanks. (→Netscott) 09:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Challenge of the GoBots etc

Can an admin please look at Challenge of the GoBots and Transformers K-Mart and clean up all the page move vandalism, restore talk pages/edit summaries etc. Then can someone please block User:GoGoGobots for blatant and stupid vandalism. exolon 02:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but looking at it I would agree that it's juvenile and unacceptable vandalism. GoGoGobots has been warned but appears to take the warnings lightly (and I say that charitably). Transformers K-Mart should probably be speedied as a hoax after everything with talk pages and edit summaries is fixed. As an aside, this should probably have gone to AIV. Captainktainer * Talk 02:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

{prod} template used out of WP:POINT

I'd like an opinion on a editor I have a problem with. There's this fellow named User:Kmaguir1 whom I encountered because he put in disruptive and disparaging digressions about a few contemporary philosophers whose work (and articles) I follow. After a bunch of back-and-forth, he eventually got blocked a couple times, first for a few hours on 3RR, then eventually for 10 days for sockpuppetry. I was one of the main people filing the various administravia, looking up diffs, and all that (probably the main one; though by now a good chunk of editors have become pretty annoyed at him). Oh, those specific types of insults on those specific types of biographies was the only thing he edited before his blocks.

Mr. Maguire is back from his 10 day rest, with an obvious dislike for me personally. The latest thing he has done is add a weird template to two biographical articles I created: Alex Martelli and Danny Yee. Neither of these persons has anything to do with contemporary philosophy; so taken together with the fact that I created both articles (and that he has edited little else), it's pretty clear the tag is really about me, not about the subjects. On the other hand, neither person is huge general notability. I believe both are significantly more notable than a lot of biographied subjects, but neither is of worldwide fame (well, actually, both are known in many nations, but to limited audiences). Here's the tag:

{{dated prod|concern={{{concern|Not notable}}}|month=August|day=27|year=2006|time=02:54|timestamp=20060827025429}}

What do you think I should do? I've contemplated changing it to a straightforward AfD myself. I think both biographies would easily get voted "keep", but I'd certainly be happy to yield to consensus if not. On the other hand, the gesture itself is obvious bad faith... if someone I had no contact with had simply doubted the notability when they clicked on "random article", I think an AfD nomination could be in good faith (albeit wrong analysis). This is something different... i.e. it's WP:POINT. LotLE×talk 03:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I also see that Kmaguir1 has added the same tag on Raymundo Baltazar, which had been created by another editor he was in conflict with on the philosopher articles, User:Agnaramasi. I had never heard of Baltazar before just now, but Baltazar is also clearly unrelated to Kmaguir1's prior editing interests. LotLE×talk

Not to delve to deeply into the good/faith bad/faith, WP:POINT, or disruption aspects here, but let me just make sure -- you know you're free to simply contest the PROD by removing it, right? That puts no burden on you to take it to AfD. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, yeah. I know I can; and I certainly will in less than five days absent anything else being done. Still, I would sort of feel better if someone else took off the tag, both because of my prior conflict with Kmaguir1 and because I did create the articles (so perhaps I'm utterly delusional about the prima facie notability of the individuals... as unlikely as I find that). LotLE×talk 03:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sweetest Day

All primary source information (including photos) was just edited out of the Sweetest Day page by Transfinite. It was replaced with unverified information. It seems obvious that someone is interested in keeping the Sweetest Day page full of disinformation rather than primary source information. Can anything be done about this?

Thank you!

Miracleimpulse 06:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You inserted a lot of malformatted stuff into the article without clearly identifying a source. I would say the other editor was right to revert your edits. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

User with a famous username

Hello, I just noticed a new user Eddie Jacobson (talk · contribs) edit the article Butterfingers, an Australian band. Eddie Jacobson is the lead singer of this band. Not sure what would be an appropriate course of action now. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

He has inserted nicknames for two band members, including himself. If those nicknames are accurate, then there's no issue. If they're not, it's a case of adding incorrect information, in which case, we would revert the edit and ask the party to provide a source. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the question whether he is using some famous person's name, which isn't permitted, unless he is that person of course. He could just be a fan, for example. Tell him he can't use that name unless it's his. Tyrenius 09:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Just for reference - what if you happen to share the same name as a famous person? Is it not permitted then? --Charlesknight 09:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)