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

Help plse

Want to get acct i mean create account on this computer but everyone here says i will be called a sockpuppet right away, that menas i am someone else and not me right away. help plse. Many people use this computer and we all called sockpuppets. Help?

Thanks.

Formats, date

I'm puzzled. I changed the date format from International Dating (12 March 2004) to American Dating (March 12, 2004) in an article concerning an unambiguously American subject, and an editor has changed it back!

It's not as if this user is ignorant of the discussion on this subject, so I'm wondering what's going on here? I'd like to think it was an honest mistake, but that's too much for me to swallow. --Jumbo 21:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The convention is to use Yankee spelling/punctuation/grammar on Yankee articles and proper spelling/punctuation/grammar on British articles and likewise on articles that would tend to derive from those linguistic origins. In this case, it's an article about an American, so the American date system is used. Note that because the dates are wikilinked, provided you have your Special:Preferences set properly (see date/time) it will be rendered to you in the way you prefer. -Splash - tk 23:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Weeeellll, the American for Americans and British for Brits thing is more like a gentleman's agreement than an actual policy. Folks violate it pretty often, but the key thing is that, if there is a dispute, it's a guideline. People who war over orthography are pitiable to me. Warring over date formats would require an even greater bur in one's saddle. Geogre 01:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, up to a point. What concerns me is an understandable focus by editors on editors as end users. In fact, most users of Wikipedia are readers who do not have accounts and thus do not have date preferences set. For far too many articles they see dates in the "wrong" format (and it goes beyond U.S. vs U.K.; most tof the world's nations use Inteernational Dating rather than American Dating), or worse, a confusing jumble of formats, including un-linked dates. We should be editing, not for our peers, but for the main users of the Wikipedia - the general internet public. --Jumbo 06:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely everyone using the world wide web has already experienced this "confusion" and knows how to do the mental athletics necessary for converting? I don't see how this should be a big deal. Most of our users are readers, I agree, but Americans are still probably dominant among them, and, if they're not, they're close to a majority. If Americans are more insular, innocent, and possibly uneducated, then we would need to be more protective of them than other nationals, if we make the argument that discomfiture of the reader is a reason to change the editing rule. 12:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo's recent comments at Wikimania about improving quality are particularly relevant here. Are we going to be happy with a slap-dash, more or less, bit of this bit of that, encyclopaedia? Or are we going to have something we can really be proud of? I hate to be anal about fine details in the Manual of Style, but if we are going to present a polished product, it's only through the MoS that we are going to achieve it so that we are all singing from the same sheet. --Jumbo 18:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

With that last independent clause I disagree entirely. It is not a volunteer assembled encyclopedia if there is an editorial board enforcing style sheets. In many prestigious publications, essays submitted by scholars will have local variation (festschrifts, e.g.). Unless a person is actually wrong, I don't believe they should experience correction, and I also don't think that we will be "slapdash" by having variation in trivial matters like orthography (especially since the "American" orthographic reforms were all British reforms until Noah Webster made them and then suddenly were anathema) and date formats. Geogre 19:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

We had this discussion earlier and the overwhelming view was that Jumbo was doing the right thing with these stylistic changes. I think changing them back simply for the sake of changing them back is something we should disapprove. Let Jumbo get on with this. Whether it is high priority is open to debate, but it is not work that anyone should be trying to frustrate. Metamagician3000 23:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree. The worst is when there are several formats in the same article, but overall it is something we should have consistent across the project. --Guinnog 00:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've left a warning on the talk page of the relevant editor. Metamagician3000 00:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you'd leave me a "warning" for objecting to Jumbo's changes. It's not at all clear that there's a consensus for his programmatic changes; in fact I'd say the discussion here tends toward the opinion of tolerance of different dating systems and against his unilateral Wikiwide program. There is no provision for such enforcing of uniformity in the manual of style. To be warned about this on an article on which I am the only substantive contributor, and which seems to have been chosen by Jumbo for precisely that reason, is particularly galling. - Nunh-huh 00:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The consensus is unambiguous. Galling or not, as it is an American topic, under the MoS it is supposed to use American English and American Dating. It is crystal clear. Meta's warning was completely correct. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The question of consensus most emphatically is ambiguous because of the issue of quorum, which is always unsolved on Wikipedia. What tends to happen is that some of the wire-pulling topics (particularly MoS, but also images, copyright tags, etc.) grow contentious and then distasteful to the wide community. The result is that those who care, perhaps too passionately, about enforcing their will on these matters populate the discussions. If they manage to agree with each other, it's a blue moon, but it's also not representative. To some degree, the low participation rate in MoS debates is a testimony of the "no preference/no uniformity" position. The only people who will participate are interested first and foremost in a uniform presentation, so the broader question, "Should we all have to follow exactly one format?" is begged. Geogre 01:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus for Jumbo/Jtdirls actions, no matter how many times they say there is. The MoS talks about changing dates only for substantive reasons, and the idea that an article is American and therefore has to have a certain date format is not supported by the MoS, which speaks only about various considerations that might be made by those who write the articles, and does not envision or encourage programmatic changes simply to dates. It is precisely to prevent such arbitrary changes that the date formatting syntax and preferences were devised. It's also clear that Jtdirl's change to the article (to which I am the only substantive contributor) is not an improvement. As he has edited it, it is now rendered for me as "June 19 1793 – 16 February 1882" (The first date is in a format used by no one, as it has no comma.) This is not an improvement over "19 June 1793 – 16 February 1882", the way I wrote it and the way it's been for the past four months. - Nunh-huh 01:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason why Jumbo should not continue to do the valuable wiki-gnome work that he is doing in bringing date formats into consistency with each other and with our style. This has been discussed before on this very board, and it appeared clear that Jumbo was given the green light. We should accept that and move on. I've asked [User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]] to drop this issue for 24 hours on a voluntary basis and then see how he feels - though he has not been receptive to the idea. I'm very reluctant to impose a block on a user with clean record, but I think it will be called for if he continues to disrupt edits that conform to good style and continues to revert pages to stylistically worse versions. Whatever he thinks of Jumbo's actions, there is never a reason (except in extreme cases involving banned users or whatever) to revert on an article on point of style to a worse version as defined by our own policies. Metamagician3000 01:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Enforcing your interpretation of consensus by blocking me would clearly be inappropriate. The version I reverted to was not a worse version. That is your interpretation. - Nunh-huh 01:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If the point is correct that the comma is not coming out in the American format, then that is a specific different issue and Jumbo obviously needs to do it correctly. Of course, I have no objection to Nunh-huh making that correction if it is needed, or bringing it to Jumbo's attention. If that is the problem, then it was certainly not clear to this point. I would apologise to you for misunderstanding this, but you've had numerous opportunities to raise it before now if it's your only problem. If it is your only problem, then of course I see your point of view. Please clarify this. To clarify what I'm saying: my objection is to any reverts that you make from a properly-formatted version of an "American" article to International Dating (or vice versa). Metamagician3000 01:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is correct, but the main point is that it is Jumbo's edits that are disruptive, and, as you have no doubt noticed by now, not universally approved of. His changing of perfectly acceptable format to one he prefers, in an article he's had nothing to do with, as part of a program to enforce style conventions that are in fact not "enforced" but merely suggested as possibilities by the style manual, is inappropriate, and certainly not supported by consensus. His choosing an article, Joseph Earl Sheffield, to which I was the only substantive contributor is, of course, to make a point, and not a very nice point, either. - Nunh-huh 01:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hang on, isn't this just a basic edit war? Two valid formats. One is American, the other British. MoS supports both. Nunh-huh is reverting to one, and Jumbo to the other, but both are supportable by MoS. I write about British subjects, for the most part, but I use the date format that's natural to me, which is "American." I also prefer to link all dates so that monobook settings will magically make them seem natural to the reader, but we had a similar crusade against linking dates. I had to endure three or so people using -bots to unlink virtually every date, whether a person very much wanted to draw attention to it or not, and now, because they're all unlinked, we're going to get someone else changing from one acceptable format to another? Perhaps it's time for an RFC: "One format for all dates or not?" I'm not a believer in either format, but I have to agree that they're both acceptable, so coercing a change is at least a bit bullying. Geogre 03:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

To the extent that it's an edit war, it's one started by Jumbo who is running a jihad to change date forms. I am resisting the jihad, and agree with you that dates should basically be left as found, rather than changed in a systematic way. If you can think of some other way to discourage this jihad, I am open to suggestions. I had already suggested several times that he try to gauge the feelings of the community on his conformity program, but he decided he didn't need to do this. - Nunh-huh 04:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we all please just get along? I'm not for one format or another, except that full dates should all be wikilinked so that they show up correctly in user preferences, and for those users who do not have prefs (which is most of the internet) the dates should be in the appropriate format for the article. Conducting edit wars on date formats as a matter of personal preference is just plain counterproductive. We should be working together on improving the quality of the project, and I'd like to see these sorts of issues thrashed out in the relevant MoS talk pages. My beef here is with people going around and reverting my careful changes because they think I'm on a campaign to change WP to my personal format. I'm not. I change jumbles of dates to uniform wikidates in the correct format as per the MoS. I'd like to have a lot more help in this, actually. --06:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It's the latter part of your program (all articles must use the date format suggested by the MoS) that is controversial. There is no agreement that month, day, year must be used on so-called "American" articles, and no where else, and that day, month, year must be used everywhere else. The MoS does not assert that there is one "correct" format, and embarking on a program to enforce suggestions is not justified. The way we "got along" before you began your program is by leaving these things alone, and I once again suggest to you, as others have, that the way to "get along" is to stop making those changes. Change date formats only when there is a mish-mosh of styles. - Nunh-huh 12:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but Nunh-huh says that the date comes up for him in a non-standard form. If that is so, then the method you are using is not correct. I think you are doing the correct thing in-principle, but it actually has to work. Is the problem that you are leaving out the comma? It seems to me that you have a fair bit of support for doing what you're doing, but it's hard to give you that support unless it's done properly (though why Nunh-huh couldn't have simply inserted the comma rather than reverting is mysterious to me). Metamagician3000 09:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, he could be right. Dates shouldn't be displayed in an incorrect format for those editors who have set their preferences correctly.

• [[12 March]] [[2004]] => 12 March 2004
• [[March 12]] [[2004]] => March 12 2004
• [[12 March]], [[2004]] => 12 March, 2004
• [[March 12]], [[2004]] => March 12, 2004

The first two are my preferred formats. I have tested these and they show up correctly for me. The second two have commas included and should show up exactly the same.

With no date prefs set:

• [[12 March]] [[2004]] => 12 March 2004
• [[March 12]] [[2004]] => March 12, 2004
• [[12 March]], [[2004]] => 12 March 2004
• [[March 12]], [[2004]] => March 12, 2004

With date prefs set to International Dating:

• [[12 March]] [[2004]] => 12 March 2004
• [[March 12]] [[2004]] => 12 March 2004
• [[12 March]], [[2004]] => 12 March 2004
• [[March 12]], [[2004]] => 12 March 2004

With date prefs set to American Dating:

• [[12 March]] [[2004]] => March 12, 2004
• [[March 12]] [[2004]] => March 12, 2004
• [[12 March]], [[2004]] => March 12, 2004
• [[March 12]], [[2004]] => March 12, 2004

Is anybody else getting a different set of results? --Jumbo 09:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the actual problem is that Jtdirl inserted a space character, thusly: June 19. I have not tested it, but I am reasonably sure this is the reason it is rendered incorrectly. - Nunh-huh 12:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, you've been removing the necessary commas from Month, Day, Year dates. This is wrong, since your (purported) rationale for changing the dates is to make them render "properly" for those who are not signed in. - Nunh-huh 18:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like having a leading or trailing space [[ June 19]] [[2006]] or [[June 19 ]] [[2006]] => June 19 2006 gives an incorrect result. But this is clearly a minor point, easily rectified by removing the space so that it shows up correctly. As is easily seen, removing the comma from the source does not prevent it from showing up correctly in the displayed text. [[June 19]] [[2006]] => June 19 2006

Minor details such as this do not bother me overmuch, but what is perplexing me is your attitude, which is not entirely helpful, and the reason I raised this point here.

You also make much of the fact that the MoS does not say that format changes must be made. Indeed it does not. However, it says that they may be made, and that is the approach I am taking. Your changing of date formats in British articles to American Dating and American articles to International Dating is not supported by any guidelines, and I wonder why you do so when you are not ignorant of the discussion over this point. --Jumbo 22:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The MoS says such changes should be made only for substantive reasons, and the reason you have evinced as substantive is not. The discussion thus far seems to me to indicate a far from unanimous support for the program you have embarked on. I encourage you to reconsider it. As for Joseph Earl Sheffield, I wrote it, I didn't "change" it. It is you who "changed" it. I changed it back, as you had no substantive reason for changing it. - Nunh-huh 23:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed a biographical article on an American so that it had wikidates in American format. That's completely in line with the letter and spirit of the MoS. If you are trying to assert some sort of ownership of an article, then please reconsider. Each edit page has a warning in bold: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. My edits are in line with the MoS, which is the result of intense and detailed discussions. If you disagree with the MoS, then raise it there, please. The unpleasantness and edit warring over this issue is not something anybody should be happy with. --Jumbo 23:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Instead of mischaracterising what I say, how about absorbing it and considering it. Your editing is not in line with the spirit of the MoS. I'm therefore doing what you should have done before embarking on your program: making a request to help gauge whether the community prefers the proposition "It is appropriate to embark upon a program to change all dates not in "American" articles to day, month, year, and all dates in "American" articles to month, day, year" over "it is not appropriate to change an article with a consistent date style merely to switch date styles from one to another". - Nunh-huh 00:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Let's see what sort of comments you get. --Jumbo 00:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Diana Irey

For the past two weeks a anon IP has been stalking this article. 12.72.119.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) keeps putting an [ad] tag on a news report. This has been reverted 5 times.[1] Looking at the contr. history the user is pushing POV at D. C. Stephenson and Madge Oberholtzer. C56C 06:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The IP put it back in. If you visit the talk page and history, a similiar/changing IP has WP:OWN. C56C 06:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed look at the articles for D. C. Stephenson and for Madge Oberholtzer; I was extensively involved in giving them content. Either an edit-gang or one fellow with a several sock-puppets (Grazon?) has subsequently been trying to erase D. C. Stephenson's involvement with Democrats and the Democratic Party. (See the Indiana Historical Society page on their D. C. Stephenson Collection, to which a link has long been present in the External links section of the Stephenson article) for some of the substantiation of Stephenson's ties to both major parties, and earlier to the Socialist Party.) And before C56C (using that account) stepped into the article for Irey, I worked to remove both left- and right-wing spin from that article. C56C nonetheless felt it appropriate to declare the listings of the positions that she'd taken as ad-like, and then to include a critical section which was no less-or-more ad-like. —12.72.119.59 06:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Putting an [ad] tag and reverting it in 5 times is not acceptable in a section discussing her news appearance. Neither is taking quotes from her campaign website and making a section for each issue listed. C56C 07:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Since what was presented was a selective quotation whose cited source was a political advocacy group, it was no less ad-like than the section that you marked as ad-like. In both cases, we are talking about “what she really said”. And, while I cannot peer into the mind of whomever originally created the Political Views section of that article, it was easier to quickly locate political views of peculiar interest when they were subsectioned. Ease of parsing ought to be a consideration in the writing of any article herein.—12.72.119.59 07:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

12.72.119.59 is a stalker troll who needs to be banned. 132.241.246.111 17:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No. You're systematically editing articles to disparage one major party — going so far as to claim that the Simpson's character of Mr Burns is based on a politician who was unknown when Monty was created — while erasing any unfortunate ties of persons or events with the other major party. —12.72.118.216 04:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

12.72.119.59 someone took the "political views" off her website and was written in her words, thsu I added a [ad] tag. You added a [ad] for a word for word transcript of a national news program. C56C 20:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

First, not only is quoting Irey a legitimate part of presenting her (alleged) views; you continued to quote her in your version. The principal change that you effected was to collapse subsections into a single section (making the article somewhat harder to read). Second, if you'd tracked the actually history of the article, you would see that someone with my same ISP (unsurprisingly: me) had already made numerous changes to the “Political Views” section exactly to removed right-wing spin. Third, as you well know, many ads have used selective quotation. Fourth, it was not even just an excerpt from a pure transcription, but had been tweaked with such things as the (false) use of “conclude” to describe Matthews' final quoted remark.

I doubt that the administrators are going to try to bring edit-gangs such as yours under control; I'm not even sure that they could if they wanted. But if they don't, then Wikipedia will be nothing more that a BBS. Indeed, the term “BBS” will better fit it than it does traditional BBSs, exactly because on those systems, while it might have been hard to find content of value, it was not so readily obliterated. —12.72.118.216 04:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Writing what you've heard isn't doing anything wrong.

BTW troll also goes by —12.72.119.122 132.241.246.111 22:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

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[2]. 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 [3]. 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)

AntiVandalBot

Is there anything that stops someone from running an AntiVandalBot, or an AntiVandalBot type script, as an IP? Assuming that the edit summary but was written out, to avoid drawing attention to the bot? Would anyone know the difference?--152.163.100.65 21:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• It's not possible to write a bot whose contribs don't show up in recent changes, article histories, and the rest of the usual places ... so yes, we would definitely notice it, and would block it. --Cyde Weys 16:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Of course not, but suppose this hypothetical anon AntiVandalBot didn't use edit summaries or issue warnings, would you really be able to tell the difference between a bot and a person doing RC duty?--205.188.116.65 15:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yup. And by the way, none of the RC patrollers I'm aware of it do it anonymously. --Cyde Weys 15:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

umm... I beg to differ. a few days ago a 172.x.x.x ip was RC patrolling and vandalreverting. «ct» (t|e) 19:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• So you're saying that simply seeing an IP making rapid reverts of vandalism would be enough to identify them as a logged out/unregistered bot?--205.188.116.65 15:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

A bit off topic, but I would just like to say if the bot(any bot) is written to do so, then it cannot be technically distingueshed from a regular browser. Only by watch behaviour can you tell if something is a bot or not. HighInBC 14:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Octagon is a sockpuppet of Young Zaphod?

I recently became active editing the Hummer page, and noticed shortly thereafter an odd post under criticisms that used a job interview/resume as the basis for GM rolling out the Hummer H3. After going back and forth ( some of his edits were abusively titlely, see the talk pages), while the sentences were still disputed, it was agreed that they belonged on Hummer H3. However, at the same time, the original citation changed ( see the Hummer H3 talk pages). Doctor Octagon's other edits are very strange. Gomco, for example, does not manufacture a Gomco clamp for performing circumcisions. Googling Herbert Elwood Gilliland III turns up Wikipedia sockpuppets of Young Zaphod. All in all, the edits seem bizarre.

All in all, I'm little confused about whether to care, or how to proceed.

cheers, Kristan 03:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If nothing else, he's naming himself after a famous person/performer. Doctor Octagon is/was a legendary "beats" performer along the lines of DJ Shadow. Geogre 03:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It's the same guy. He's got a pattern of inserting references to himself in wikipedia like this. Ehheh 15:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've started cleaning up after him. He's pretty clearly a sockpuppet to my eyes. Nandesuka 15:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 5 days -- 2 days for repeatedly removing warnings (after being specifically warned not to do that), and an extra three for this edit. Nandesuka 12:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

User:3 Brands

Hey. I came across a confusing situation with this user. He has been blocked by an IP address (216.78.95.175) for being a sockpuppet of User:OzWrestlemaniac. Though this is true, he is a sockpuppet, he has done absolutely nothing wrong since creating this account to get himself banned, plus I'm not sure that IP address should be capable of blocking with the amount of contribs it has made. Can someone verify wether he shouild be banned or not for me? By the way, this user and myself have had some conflict in the past but it has been resolved...I think. Normy132 05:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Um... You have to have a username to be an admin (in order to block.) The IP just added an {{indefblock}} notice to the user's userpage. Nevertheless, it's an odd block, and I am unfamiliar with the banned user this is a suspected sockpuppet of. I'll ask DVD RW (the blocking admin) to comment here. Grandmasterka 05:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I figure since I saw Grandmasterka's message to DVDRW that I'll leave a comment too, as original blocking admin back in June. As Normy pointed out, Ozwrestle has had conflict with both himself and Moe Epsilon in the past, to the point of harassment (which was what my original indefinite block on the account was for). I'd just like to comment that DVDRW approached me for advice and I suggested a block as it's block evasion. The new account has also continued to harass Moe, so in my opinion a fully legit block. – Chacor 05:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I was glad to recieve Chacor's advice, as he had placed the original block, and I was unfamiliar with the case. As my summary indicates, I blocked this user for creating a new account to evade the outcome of his disputes in June. It was pretty obvious, after being brought to my attention, that this was the same user that was previously indef blocked for harassment. The discussion that shows this is on my talk page, and if any one has any further questions, please ask. DVD+ R/W 01:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

User06201 (talk · contribs) false warnings, harrassment.

user I've previously had a run in with as an IP. History established through this message he keeps removing from an admin's talk page [4]. He previously made uncivil remarks and personal attacks towards myself and Royboy. Every now and then I check up on interesting vandals and problem users that were more than run of the mill (for me) and discovered the 3 accounts. I made a benign comment to ensure Roy knew abou them, now 10 days later, this user finds it and comes undone. You can see the IPs contrib history for some of the previous attacks as well as User talk:Sue Anne as he posted some of the long diatribes there.--Crossmr 19:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

and I should note the harrassment is occuring on my talk page.--Crossmr 20:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

and he continues with his disparaging comments via long diatribe here [5].--Crossmr 21:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

difs here [6] [7] [8] [9] attacks more here [10] --Crossmr 02:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone at all want to comment/intervene here?--Crossmr 18:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Its been over 24 hours and there has been plenty of activity on this board, is there somewhere else I should be asking for help with this individual?--Crossmr 00:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've listed this on WP:PAIN as his personal attacks and harrassment have continued.--Crossmr 14:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

And the've again continued. see WP:PAIN Whats a guy gotta do here?--Crossmr 18:12, 25 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)

Incivility by User:Slrubenstein

"this is just your own delusion, due to your neurotic splitting of the workd".[11] I asked him to read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and stop this, but he continues: "Go ahead and report me. I dare you." "There is no double-standard, only your neurotic splitting."[12]

Please warn him, I want a civil discussion on Wikipedia without being attacked as a person.Ultramarine 22:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comment, I do not think your personal opinions are very interesting, directed at the user you are complaining about, does not seem particularly civil either. While original research is not allowed on Wikipedia, no article could be written without the editors having some opinion on what should be included in the lemma, and this is what the two of you need to constructively sort out. Feel free to report any users that are being unilaterally uncivil, and they will be warned. In the current situation, I would prefer to see both of you sit back, take a deep breath, and take a trip to the museum or the zoo if this isn't something you usually do. Come back when you're ready to have a laugh about the dispute. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel that I'm being wikistalked by User:Light current

I had an altercation with Light current about a week ago (I can find the diffs, they're numerous and all over the place), where I tried to help him out and he ended up getting blocked. When he was unblocked he was unnecessarily unpleasant regarding me and my help so I told him I wasn't going to have anything to do with him [13]. He apologised but I still don't want to have anything to do with him. Lately he has started addressing me personally in response to posts I make on the Reference desks, asking me if/when I am going to 'forgive' him and 'talk to him again' [14] [15] there are more diffs but they're just a chore to find in the ref desks.

But this edit [16] gives me the creeps. I want him to stop and leave me alone, but I feel that asking him myself will be exactly what he wants, because if you look at his contributions, the large majority of them are to threads I am posting to and I think he's trying to draw me out to make any acknowledgement of him. I appreciate any help forthcoming. --Anchoress 01:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe if you say "OK I forgive you. Please no more weird comments." after one of his ref desk asides? I wouldn't call it stalking as he didn't follow you to the ref desk-- you both have been doing more ref desk answering in recent weeks than anything else, and he seems to be enjoying the social interaction there with lots of people. There are several of us who answer lots of the same questions, and we should all be a little alarmed if it constitutes an appreciable portion of our social lives. alteripse 02:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand your POV, and I'm not suggesting he's posting to the ref desks just because of me, but I'm not going to be pestered into giving him an insincere acceptance of his apology. Because that is what he is doing. I've told him several times I'm not going to have anything to do with him, and he continues to try in the most public way possible to engage me. He has never made any attempts to contact me privately, either on my userpage or through email, and the incident that got him blocked was because of a combination of his desire to make his conflict with another user as public as possible and his lack of understanding of how inappropriate his communications were. Listen, maybe it isn't stalking, and if it isn't, I don't mind nothing being done because it isn't impacting my life. But if I say 'I accept your apology, 'kissy kissy' (to quote him) 'we're friends again' (to quote him) 'sure, let's date' (to paraphrase him) just to get him to stop making unnecessary and unwanted overtures to me, that's giving in to bullying IMO. His comments to me are not helpful to the threads they are posted to, and they are not helping to build a better encyclopedia. I'm not asking him to be blocked or to be banned from posting to the ref desks, but I think it's not inappropriate for him to refrain from making the same personal asides to me in pretty much every thread we both post to. Also, really, the 'here is my blood' thing was really creepy. I mean, YUCK. Anchoress 02:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Look at my suggestion again. It says "please no more weird comments", not "let's date", "let's be friends", or "kissy kissy". What you do is up to you, but now it looks to me like you two are playing a game. Sorry to have gotten involved. alteripse 02:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ugh...he is totally making creepy comments. I'd say something but i'm not his favorite person :( pschemp | talk 06:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

So how would you feel if somenone didnt accept your sincere apology for something you didnt actually do in the first place and if then they started to say you were weird and complaining about you for trying to make amends and resolve the situation?--Light current 11:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Whats creepy about trying to restore a working relation ship. Over here, if people want more than you can give, we say 'What do you want blood as well?' Not creepy at all unless one is of a nervous disposition. Only trying to joke her along not scare her.--Light current 09:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Anchoress has completely misrepresented the sistuation to everyone in saying I was nasty to her. In fact all my posts were either thanking or apologising to her or trying to cajole as you would a small disgruntled child. Im surprised in the extreme that she has sought to make a mountain out of a mole hill by complainig here.--Light current 09:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• The comments are inappropriate, even if made in jest -- Samir धर्म 06:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Which comments were inapproprate exactly?--Light current 11:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• What would you say to him? "Please stop being creepy?" – ClockworkSoul 06:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It's clear to me that User:Light current is just trying to be funny, but sometimes comments made in jest can be interpreted in different ways by people. He has already been warned by an administrator about his comments on the Science reference desk page [17] and was blocked for incivility and personal attacks [18] as recently as 2 weeks ago. I know it's fun to try to inject humour into edits in projectspace sometimes, but when many others start complaining about the appropriateness of your jokes, you probably should tone it down a notch -- Samir धर्म 07:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I was just trying to be friendly in a jokey sort of way as you would with an upset child.--Light current 12:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've left this user a message about it, I agree with Samir. ++Lar: t/c 07:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Deletions

Speedy Deletions is getting out of hand. 100 pages now, with a blatant copy of a page I tagged over 1/2 hour ago still there. exolon 01:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

C:CSD tends to fluxuate, but it goes down once people take the time to clear through it. Nothing too much to worry about. Cowman109^Talk 02:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, mentioning it here sure makes it empty fast! --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:User strip

Is this really nessecary? I suggest deleting it, it's worthless. — Moe Epsilon 02:56 August 24 '06

Subst then delete is what I think. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Its no different than any of the other hundreds upon hundreds of userboxes out there.--Crossmr 03:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Try WP:TfD. Eluchil404 03:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Think WP:GUS as well. (→Netscott) 03:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I read all these comments and the best solution looks like substituting it onto the only users userpage and then deleting it from the Template namespace. Someone will have to delete this though.. — Moe Epsilon 03:12 August 24 '06

Done. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

possible sock/meat puppets causing disruption

Recreated article Jared_Bolton KTM Jared 683 (talk · contribs) on the talk page cites this recently created article as defense of this: Jan_Blackwelder given its recent creation and obvious non-notability, and the users obvious non-knowledge of wikipedia, I'm doubting he just happened to come across it. Creator is likely either one in the same or a friend. Given Foodshin (talk · contribs) few contribs to create that article and remove a speedy from another, they only seem to have one goal in mind here. --Crossmr 03:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

KTM admits to using someone else's account here [19]. I think I read something against that somewhere, but it should be noted.--Crossmr 03:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

this is how the Jan Blackwelder article was found by my brother he told me "i looked under something about speedy deletions that had been challenged and found her" as for my brother using my account I was VERY angry because that is mine to use and not his.

67.165.202.97 vandal and defacing warnings

67.165.202.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been vandalizing a number of pages as of late. I reported their previous behavior earlier ([20]), but the report was removed when it was judged they stopped. However, shortly after this, the user removed tags from another article ([21]) and repeatedly defaced the warnings on their talk page ([22] [23] [24]). –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 04:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This user has now put an 3RR warning on my talk page [25] and has again defaced the warnings on their talk page [26]. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 06:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The latest sockpuppet of blocked user Peterklutz?

Indefinitely blocked user Peterklutz may have returned under the latest sockpuppet name Peterjoe to continue his edit war to include only pro-TM content in the Transcendental Meditation, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and Yogic Flying articles. New user Peterjoe just appeared and is adding content with a strongly pro-TM POV to these articles, which is neither attributed nor sourced. I reverted the articles with a request that he provide attribution and sources for such changes. Without providing either or making any comment, he simply replaced the promotional content. It appears Peterklutz is back waging an edit war. Askolnick 04:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Odd behavior from King bugsy (talk · contribs)

On RC patrol today, I noticed that User:King bugsy appears to be manufacturing a history by copying other user's user and talk pages (barnstars and all) and simply changing all the names to read "King Bugsy". This doesn't appear to be a user who changed his name. Am I wrong and he is a good faith name changer, or is he a shady character? – ClockworkSoul 05:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Big time deception going on here. An admin should blank both this user's talk page and user page. Is there anything else that this user has done that you are aware of that the community should know about? (→Netscott) 05:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

He has less than 50 edits; he hasn't time to do much else. I just wanted to be sure that I wasn't about to wrongfully accuse a decent editor of something very, very bad. I'll have a little chat with him. – ClockworkSoul 05:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, his talk page has been reverted and I've just blanked his user page per WP:Vandalism - Sneaky and "Changing other people's comments". (→Netscott) 05:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It occured to me that they could be Khoikhoi (talk · contribs) thinking that this is the way to change their user name but I concluded that this was extremely unlikely, really, given that the areas of editing are completely different, the level of experience Khoikhoi seems to have and that they were editing at the same time. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I too considered that and came to the same conclusion as yourself. This is why I was hesitant to act on my "should" suggestion earlier. (→Netscott) 06:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just done a bit or restoring of content (ie: versions) that didn't fall under the "Sneaky" and "Changing people's comments" types of vandalism. This should be settled now. (→Netscott) 06:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This user has removed the warnings about this so this story may in fact not be settled. (→Netscott) 06:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I reverted his removals and dropped him a gentle reminder not to remove warnings from his talk page. Now he can't plead ignorance. – ClockworkSoul 06:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've given him a three-hour vacation. That may have been premature; if you think so, please cancel it. -- Hoary 06:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

He's now acknowleged what he's done, apologized and asked for forgiveness so the 3 hour vacation is likely not necessary at this point. (→Netscott) 06:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I unblocked him. I say we consider this "situation" a very stern warning. – ClockworkSoul 06:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the result of this has turned out for the best. This user's comments now are positive. Good inital spotting on your part ClockworkSoul. (→Netscott) 06:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Netscott. Maybe I'll go and give myself a dozen or so barnstars. Do you know anybody with a nice userpage? ;) All's well that ends well. – ClockworkSoul 06:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Do I hear the makings of a "Barnstar patrol"?? LOL... I was essentially thinking your exact reponse here actually as I made my last comment. (→Netscott) 06:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep this up, and y'all are going to fall off the right side of the screen. Geogre 15:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

User:NBGPWS

NBGPWS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made disruptive edits to Protest Warrior. He reverts all other editors. He leaves vandalism warnings on other editors talk pages for content disputes. He uses persoanl attacks on numerous editors. He has been warned numerous times to no effect. He has "exhausted the communities patience" and needs an indefinite block. See his User_talk:NBGPWS talk page, Talk:Protest_Warrior, his contributions (single purpose account), his sock puppet and Wikipedia:Personal_attack_intervention_noticeboard#NBGPWS --Tbeatty 06:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I requested formal mediation from a disinterested politically-neutral Wiki mediator days ago. I contend that the 3 active Protest Warriors, and their conservatively biased supporters have used Wikilawyering (and violations of WP) EXTENSIVELY and inconsistantly to exclude information that they consider unfavorable, and to INCLUDE info they think favorable. They even talked about it on Protest Warrior, where they discussed their sordid, unscrupulous plans to skew this article in their effort to make what many feel is a hate-filled Islamophobic organization look good. I'm new to Wiki, but learning more about WP every day. I also publicly apologized for wrongly accusing other editors of vandalism as I didn't know WP as well as I should. I EAGERLY AWAIT FORMAL MEDIATION OF THE PROTEST WARRIOR ENTRY FROM A DISINTERESTED, POLITICALLY-NEUTRAL WIKI MEDIATOR!

NBGPWS

This user (whose name stands for Neocons Be Gone Protest Warrior Sucks, by the way) came to disrupt the article. One of his first edits was to add a Nazi slogan under the "PW slogans" section. Once he learned this would get him banned, he began trying to subtily undermine the article. He has violated WP:OR, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:V, and WP:RS repeatedly. He created a sockpuppet to continue an edit war after being blocked for violating WP:3RR. He continually makes major edits and marks them as minor. He is now reverting typo corrections by users who did not fill in the edit summaries of minor typo correcting edits. I believe he is just trying to slowly frustrate the community away so he can have his way with the article. I strongly agree with Tbeatty's deduction of exhausting the community's patience and his request. --Neverborn 07:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Neverborn is an active Protest Warrior member who is not unbiased. I believe his accusation of me using a sock puppet is a violation of WP until it is proven. I've never used a sock puppet on Wiki and never would. I EAGERLY AWAIT FORMAL MEDIATION OF THE PROTEST WARRIOR ENTRY FROM A DISINTERESTED, POLITICALLY-NEUTRAL WIKI MEDIATOR!

NBGPWS 07:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly concur with Tbeatty's initial statement as well as Neverborn's. I am in the process of filing a 3RR complaint as well, and will have that completed just as soon as I figure out that most confusing of formats. TheKaplan 07:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend that the folks disputing here attempt to employ one of the solutions found on Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. (→Netscott) 08:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe this requires immediate intervention. As the RfC process requests not to file both ANI and RfC at the same time, we are requesting relief here first. "Exhausting the communities patience" is a legitimate reason for a block. While NBGPWS has a content dispute, the rest of the community has to fight through his violations of policy including sock puppets, 3RR, Personal Attacks, etc, etc. The community is tired of fighting those battles. --Tbeatty 08:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Tbeatty, "Exhausting the community's patience" does not apply here given NBGPWS has one block to their record. In this light using such language will not tend to encourage admins to take your concerns seriously. (→Netscott) 08:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, perhaps this will help. For all my time on wikipedia I've adhered to wikipolicy thinking it was actually taken seriously; in light of how administrators have handled User:NBGPWS's behavior, I am becoming disabused of that notion. Lawyer2b 17:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not Neverborn is "unbiased" with respect to Protest Warrior is immaterial to this discussion.

He has not used his power to edit in order to insert false, misleading, inaccurate, or simply defamatory information into the body of that article.

You-on the other hand-who are just as biased-if not more so-in the opposite direction have repeatedly vandalized the article, and attempted to frustrate efforts at achieving consensus.

Yes, you have been accused of using a sock puppet account in order to avert a sanction for violating the 3RR.

And an administrator has passed judgment on that, affirming that he also believes it to be a sock puppet account.

Ruthfulbarbarity 08:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The only thing that might warrant adminstrator action on this report is that the User:NBGPWS account is a "single purpose account" and likely sockpuppet that has been created to edit solely on Protest Warrior. (→Netscott) 08:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a single purpose account, and I've demanded proof over that bogus accusation of socking. I've contributed on Democratic Underground Sept 11 memorial protests, and a few more. I'm about to start my own article on the US military sponsored pro war demonstrations called the 'Freedom Walk's too!

NBGPWS

Your contributions say otherwise. Your very first edit was to Protest Warrior and since then about 95-97% of your edits have been related to that article. (→Netscott) 09:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't a 'single pupose user' have 100% of their edits on one subject? (I don't know) I just started a new Wiki article... 'Freedom Walk'!

NBGPWS 10:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

One hundred percent of your edits were to that article, and its accompanying talk page, before I began to consistently point this out to you.

Perhaps you realized how odd it looked that you registration with this site had one very specific, deleterious purpose, and decided to cover your tracks a bit.

Regardless, your involvement in the other articles is just as pernicious, if not as obvious.

Ruthfulbarbarity 17:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yankees vs. Red Sox vandal

Recently, there has been spats of vandalism from a user obsessed with the New York Yankees/Boston Red Sox. Several of this user's socks have attacked me, but he appears to be operating out of a fairly large AOL IP range (205.188.116.0/23) as seen by extremely similar edits, including vandalism similar to Eddie Segoura/The Exicornt Vandal. There needs to be a greater knowledge of this situation, rather than just conversations in IRC channels. Ryūlóng 06:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What has this user been doing to you? Give us examples. Nobugs 12:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Smells like Eddie. AOL-based yankees/red sox vandalism edits to power-ranger pages? Yeah, that's him. There was a bit of exicornt vandalism in the last couple days, too: he's active. Another long-time Eddie habit, come to think of it, is making it personal by asking questions like "What has this user been doing to you?" —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

After a closer look at Nobougs' contributions, based on areas of interest, editing style, and disruptivity, I have blocked the account as an EddieSegoura reincarnation. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

And based on this I've just blocked Centrix. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful, he now appears to be operating out of 64.12.116.0/23 today. He recently reverted a reversion I made due to unexplained blanking of several sections in an article. Ryūlóng 21:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I just warned 64.12.117.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for removing an EddieSegoura sockpuppet tag. --TheM62Manchester 21:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to get in the way of this conversation or anything, but you people know that AOL is used by quite a bit more than one person at a time, and giving someone the impression that all of AOL is used by one single vandal isn't a great idea. --64.12.116.65 21:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I realize that AOL is used by more than one person, but several vandalous edits from this range show that a certain vandal is editting within the range right now. Ryūlóng 21:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Then don't treat the entire range like it's one person--172.135.126.126 22:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

He isn't. He is making the statement that a particular vandal is operating out of an AOL range right now. He is basing that on the editing style of the vandalism in question, not on the IP address it is coming from. Yes, EddieSegoura's vandalism sprees effectively become a Denial of Service attack on AOL. We are all very sorry for that. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I am stating that there is a unique user editting from a dynamic AOL proxy range, which appears to change on a day to day basis. Ryūlóng 23:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Per comments posted at WP:AIV, I believe this guy is now editting out of 152.163.100.0/24, perhaps /23. Ryūlóng 02:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

User 210.9.186.185

Recently changed the entire page on God to simply state "Santa." While I think it's funny, it doesn't appear to be the first time. He also changed the Art page. Please block him ASAP. Terry 08:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Page-blanking is a very common form of vandalism. The usual way of handling such a thing is to:

1. Revert the page to its former form.
2. Warn the user not to do it again.
3. Report the user at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.

Blocks of warned users are handled from the page above; see the instructions on that page for more info. In this case, the user in question was already blocked. -- SCZenz 09:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Vodafone page moves/deletions

This morning, User:58.69.2.44 appears to have made some fairly major edits and restructuring work on Vodafone articles, including a copy/paste page move of the main Vodafone article to Vodafone Group and made Vodafone a redirect to a category page. I don't think this is inteded as vandalism but I am unsure as to which edits to revert. Thanks. QmunkE 10:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll history merge and eliminate the cross namespace redirect -- Samir धर्म 11:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

User:PANONIAN and Croatian War of Independence

When article Croatian War of Independence was created, there was a rather broad discussion about the name of the article (broad meaning I invited native speakers of English and people who have nothing to do with the war to help us decide which name is the best). A peaceful consensus was reached, and the article got it's current name. Several users have contested this name since, and that's just fine, there exists a procedure for such cases. What's not fine is that User:PANONIAN started doing a bunch of edits like this one to bypass the discussion on Talk:Croatian War of Independence (the article is locked for moving, so he can't just move the article). I reverted his edits and warned him that I find this to be a disruption of Wikipedia. He did it again. Before any constructive discussion even started. To me, it is clear that User:PANONIAN deserves to be warned, and then blocked if he does that again after I warned him. The only problem is that I'm not NPOV. He's from Serbia, I'm from Croatia, so I'm not the best person to judge if he is to be blocked. Therefore, I ask you, fellow administrators, to voice your oppinion if you feel that User:PANONIAN should not be blocked and that what he is doing is perfectly legitimate. I will now warn the user, and if:

• he does the same thing again
• no admin disagrees with my intention to block the guy in next 24 hours

I will block him for 24 hours for disruption of Wikipedia. --Dijxtra 11:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Dijxtra, this is ridiculous, I hope that you know that blocking me would be abuse of your adminship. My edits are certainly not a "disruption of Wikipedia". I will ask some neutral admin whether you have right to block me simply because I follow NPOV policy of Wikipedia. I will not change name of the war again, but discussion about your adminship abuse will just start. Have a nice day. PANONIAN (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. I wrote that I'm not NPOV and that I won't block you if an admin disagrees. And this is where admins hang out. Therefore, I already did what you sugested: I not only asked some neutral admin whether I have the right to block you, I asked all of them. Please, realise that I'm doing all that I can not to abuse my powers. And I ask you not threaten me. I asked for advice here before doing any admin action. I acted in good faith. You are threaten me with discussion about my adminship abuse?? Which admin actions did I take that you don't like? Your actions don't look like good faith actions to me. I kindly ask you not to threaten me. --Dijxtra 11:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It is you who threatened me that you will block me because of edits like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pag_%28town%29&diff=prev&oldid=71492707 Now please tell me which of the rules of Wikipedia I violated with this edit? And if I did not violated any of these rules, who gave you right to threat me that you will block me. I ask here that some other admin say do you have right to block me because of that edit. PANONIAN (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You did violate rules against being an interruption. You willfully replaced a perfectly good link with text that the community has found consensus against. Violating community consensus is breaking a Wikipedia rule. Dijxtra, I do not oppose your blocking of this user if such edits continue. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 13:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the argument about "replacing a perfectly good link" might stand, thus it perhaps would be better that I replaced it with this: war in Croatia (That would not replace link, only its description). Second thing, the consensus you speak about was about name of the article itself, not about description of the link that we should use is other articles. PANONIAN (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

To echo what RyanGerbil said, the appropriate policy is: WP:POV. You are attempting to push your own point of view about this matter against consensus. Dijxtra has done the right thing bringing this matter here rather than blocking you himself, since he's an interested party. However if you continue to insert your POV into articles instead of reaching consensus on the appropriate talk page its likely that a neutral admin will block you. Gwernol 13:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me how name "war in Croatia" could be POV? It is completelly neutral name that does not imply the character of this war (Not to mention google hits with this name: http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=FP-pull-web-t&ei=UTF-8&p=war+in+croatia ) It is highly disputed whether this war was a war for independence or civil war. The current title clearly propagate only one point of view and completelly ignore another. My change was simply in favor of the title that will not propagate any of these two points of view. Now, please tell me what is wrong with that? PANONIAN (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that PANONIAN is behaving wrongly, I feel that Djixtra shouldn't block him personally, for nothing good can come from such an action. I advice to inform the admins ChrisO or Jkelly or FrancisTyers, all active in the area. Believe me Dijxtra, nothing is worse for an admin than the suspect, even when utterly unjustified, of acting as part of a faction.--Aldux 13:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, to conclude this case: if we suppose that my edits are not POV (the POV nature of the name "war in Croatia" still should be proved here) and if we suppose that I do not change links but only their descriptions (not in the article about war itself, but in another articles), could then my edits to be a reason for block or not? And if they could, according to which Wikipedia rule? PANONIAN (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, disruption and WP:POINT, and I'll do it (I tend to start at about a month for persistent nationalist POV-pushers). Is that clear enough? --ajn (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Which I will support. Gwernol 16:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

As would I. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 17:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course the Croatian POV-pushers are an exception from this. How nice... PANONIAN (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If you have any specific concerns about Croatian POV-pushing then please do bring them to the attention of admins (use my talk page if you want). I would be sorry to see you blocked, because you've made some good contributions and you clearly do want to improve Wikipedia. However, trying to impose your own version of a name when the matter has already been decided by a consensus of editors isn't the right way to do this. If you feel that the name should be changed, I suggest that you look at Wikipedia:Naming conflict and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and then do what you can to build a consensus for your preferred name. -- ChrisO 19:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that PANONIAN has raised what he considers perfectly valid points. Nonetheless this needs to be discussed in the talk page before going ahead with unilateral changes. I brought this to PANONIAN'S attention and he duely started a straw poll on the subject. Yes, he made a mistake and his actions could have been understood as disruption but he is a veteran user and showed the willingness to debate the issue. I have to say I am personally very discouraged by the uncivil response and namecalling that he has received from some people at the talk page. This is utterly deplorable. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 23:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is my last comment on this page, but I suggest to you all to imagine that you live in Serbia and than from that perspective to read these two articles: Bosnian war and Croatian War of Independence. After reading them (starting from the title of the second one) you could not escape from the impression that these two articles are written with the single purpose to blame Serbia for everything, with no single intention to show any guilt of other side. I am not trying to say that Serb side was not guilty, but that the other sides involved in war were no angels too, despite the fact that they trying to present themselves as such. As User:Thewanderer nicely said here that "the name War in Croatia (1991-1995) is an attempt to downplay the role of certain other nations in the conflict" clearly show that intention of the current name (Croatian War of Independence) is "to magnify the role of certain other nations in the conflict". Finally, I do not want to waste my time and energy on this question any more, and not only that I will not change name of this war in other articles, but I will not any more participate in any discussion anywhere about this issue. If Croatian editors wanted (with threats and sockpuppets) to remove me from this question, they succeded. I have nothing else to say. PANONIAN (talk) 01:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Chunt@euromoney.com == SPAM account

It appears that Chunt@euromoney.com (talk · contribs) is nothing but a spam account. A quick check of the edit history shows that every edit has been to add or change an external link relating to the "usermoney.com" website. Would a rollback be inappropriate being that most of his/her edits are still the top edit on articles? --StuffOfInterest 15:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, spammer. And he's been adding some sort of referral markers to the urls to identify from which article is the site redirected. For instance [27] and [28] (wikiBM, wikiCahsman, etc) -- Drini 15:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

User IDs with email addresses or URLs in them should be blocked on sight. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

jennifer Lopez discography

Can we semi-protect J.Lo's discography page. Someone is inflating her sales withut any proof. It is an IP user. Compare his/her page to mine. IP user's Page=[29] My page=[30]

Please take this to WP:RFP--Doc 16:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

New anti-Semitism and WP:NPOV concerns

SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is threatening me with a block for 3RR when she's involved with a content dispute with me surrounding a copyright violating image that has been included in the article to demonstrate "Anti-Semitism". Review of the New anti-Semitism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) will show that I've not violated 3RR and have been editing in good faith. Would a non-involved party take a look at this. Please review the talk page of the article and the image's talk page. Thanks. (→Netscott) 16:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

She's blanket reverted my good faith edits and that of another user with a false "rvv" edit summary as well. (→Netscott) 16:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What nonsense; she hasn't threatened to block you, she's informed you that you have violated 3RR. Your "copyright" issues are bogus, as you've never given them as a reason for reverting. Please revert yourself before I have to report you, and please don't waste the time of this board with content issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit the article any further today but please be aware that another involved admin Jayjg (talk · contribs) is threatening me with a block as well. (→Netscott) 16:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop making false claims; I haven't threatened to block you either. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine threatening to have me blocked. (→Netscott) 16:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't even threatened that. I've told you that if you don't revert yourself I'm taking this to WP:AN/3RR. And if you don't, I indeed will do so. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the problem with abiding by neutral point of view regarding that image wherein we add, "X says Y about Z"? I'm not the only editor discussing it as an example of Anti-Zionism see Image_talk:NewASAnti-Semiticposter.jpg (→Netscott) 16:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not up to you to decide what the image depicts. Just leave it alone and let people decide for themselves. And this is not the page to discuss content disputes or 3RR violations. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

When there are editors who are not abiding by neutral point of view and are talking about another editor being blocked for 3RR and those editors are admins there's cause for concern. (→Netscott) 16:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Your claim that other editors are not abiding by WP:NPOV is interesting and all, but this is a simple content dispute. Please discuss it there, rather than misusing this noticeboard for that purpose. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Julie Gould

The first eight edits to this article are blatant copyvios and should be purged, leaving only the latest four. exolon 18:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: This was done, and the matter is closed. —Centrx→talk • 21:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Another Editor is making me feel EXTREMELY uncomfortable can someone take a look?

The Editor in question is Nikkicraft and I ran into her when I made a minor change on Melissa Farley. She is clearly a rather abrupt person, who holds very strong opinions and is also obviously trying to be a loyal defender of her friend and colleague, (in real life she herself is Notable and has an extensive article on her activities here).

What I am unclear on is if she is being deliberately abusive (& homophobic) or if she is just a newbie who is particularly clueless about what Wikipedia is (IMHO it's an Encyclopedia) and the difference between a User Page, a User's "My Talk" page, an Article and the Discussion Page attached to it.

I had tried to get an opinion on what should be done on the 20th whe my attempt to follow Wikipedia:Resolving disputes did not get positive results by posting to the Admin page on the 20th: 02:07, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (in re: article on Melissa Farley an editor seems to be a bit confused) -- but never got any reply.

If your opinion is that it's just life on Wikipedia and I should get over it I will bow to your superior knowledge.

It's just that even with other intellectually heated controversies I've been involved in when editing, nothing like THIS has ever happened to me here. This woman worries me (especially give her history of violent confrontations in real life). I do not think the article is at all accurate, but I am now afraid to edit it since I don't want to get any more of these personal attacks and even it seems, accusations that because I'm an LGBT person that I'm somehow trying to get be inappropriately "cozy" with her. Thank you CyntWorkStuff 21:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression the dispute was resolved. Did anything new happen since August 20? El_C 21:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conf) This diff would seem to suggest the conflict is being resolved by the parties. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh NO not at all.

I never got a reply to my original query (that I knew of, was it put somewhere that I don't know of?).

Since you have just brought her new comments to my attention and reading what she has now written, I'm still not at all comfortable. Especially since she seems to be "forgiving" me for the insult of not agreeing with her, not passively allowing her odd behavior/remarks and also blaming me for her homophobic remarks. So I'm still and seeking guidance as to what to do. She is in real life a colleague and (sometimes violent) partisan of the subject of the article's philosophical movement, so I am worried.

Also I really do want to know if it was it correct for her to take my enquiries from the "User Talk" page and post them onto the article discussion page with a provocative title, etc.? Should that/can that be removed?

I do NOT ask you comment on the content or correctness, I just seek guidance on what constitute reasonable behavior and what to do. I'll look here for a reply. Thank you CyntWorkStuff 22:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how her saying "I'll start out by apologizing" counts as her forgiving you. Try collaborating with the her if there are entries of interest. No threats were issued at any time, and at any rate, if someone is threatening you, or stalking you and you fear physical harm, contact law enforcement in your area, we are not the police. El_C 23:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. Well I guess I'll file this under "it's just life on Wikipedia get over it". Thanks for clarifying things. CyntWorkStuff 23:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the refractored material from the talk page on Aug 20. It's difficult to see what you want done in an immediate sense, as there does not seem to be an ongoing incident at this time. The user made some mistakes and apologized. El_C 23:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to interject here. My main complaint with CyntWorkStuff was because she has posted on several wiki pages false accusations about me. (I'll document them if anyone wants them [yawn].) And now she is posting some more here. She writes that I'm "sometimes violent" and that I have a "history of violent confrontations in real life"? This is such a lie. Ask her to document one instance of it. She says I've made homophobic comments? Ask her for documentation. The only thing I've ever said to her was I don't care what her sexual preference is in connection with discussions about differences on the Melissa Farley page. In fact I couldn't care less. That's not homophobia and also I think it was highly inappropriate for her to even bring up her sexual preference to me in connection with editing a wiki article. --Nikkicraft 09:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Phoenix V indef block for sockpuppetry

In response to a call at WP:AIV about the above user being incivil and "vandalizing", I noticed a post stating that s/he is User:Prof. MagneStormix, who was blocked by User:Tyrenius for NPA. I indef-blocked Phoenix and blocked Prof. for a week for using the account to evade a block (since its first edit was made about 4 hours before Prof.'s block expired). Tyenius notified me on my talk page that I may have been incorrect about the blocks. I'm putting this up here for review by any other admins. --LBMixPro ^{<Speak|on|it!>} 23:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

First let me say I have no criticism of Lbmixpro and have told him his actions are fine by me (he'd put this up here before I managed to type my message). If anyone's interested, it is really a technical matter. User:Phoenix V has publicly stated that he has adopted the new user name.[31] He lasted edited as User:Prof. MagneStormix on August 8. [32] He began to edit as User:Phoenix V on August 9. [33] There is no overlap between the accounts. He is entitled to edit under a new name. I suggested it might be better to delete the former account, which is now defunct, and to deal with Phoenix V for whatever sins he has committed, which as far as I can see to date are primarily leaving a nonsense message on User talk:I'll bring the food. When I communicated with Lbmixpro initially I hadn't noticed the evasion of 4 hours of the block (which I suspect Phoenix V may not have done deliberately but inadvertently), so it is technically the creation of a sockpuppet account to evade a block, although the user has been using it properly apart from those first 4 hours. Tyrenius 23:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Tyrenius. S/he sounds remorseful (& young), some leniency would'nt hurt. El_C 23:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not quite agreeing with me, as I'm saying there's not a problem, and what LBMixPro did is OK. This only got posted here because of an overlap in messaging. Don't feel too sorry for Phoenix V.[34] Tyrenius 00:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just indef blocked ACB Mutant, a new sockpuppet of his. Tyrenius 18:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Kingdom hearts III adding false information

Kingdom hearts lll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has for the past few weeks been adding false information to Naruto Uzumaki. Last week, this user was blocked for edit warring on the article. The user has stayed quiet until now, when they began again putting in false information in the article ([35], [36]) as well as trying to insert the same false info behind an anonymous IP ([37]). –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 01:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Content dispute, albiet unpleseant one. --InShaneee 01:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

How so? This user knows what he's adding is false and misleading, and he's still adding it to the article despite previous warnings not to. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 02:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF. --InShaneee 02:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Which I think stops applying once you point out the incorrectness of what someone is doing. AGF doesn't mean blindly accept everything everyone is doing. If the user has been told the information is incorrect and inserts it over and over, all assumptions of good faith are gone.--Crossmr 02:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Saying that it's wrong doesn't make it so...hence, content dispute. --InShaneee 02:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Constant stubbornness from an anon editor

24.121.73.22 (talk · contribs) has been constantly posting to a single article's talk page about edits he had done that have been proven to be a false spelling of a cartoon character's name. I had reverted it the first times, as well as given him an actual {{verror}} warning for repeating his edits. He has been posting to Talk:List of Xiaolin Showdown characters for the past few weeks saying that the spelling (that I have provided proof of being correct) is incorrect, and the one that he saw in Closed Captioning/heard is the correct one. He has recently been blocked for unrelated edits, but I am frankly getting tired of having to answer this anon's questions without him thinking he's right/won. Ryūlóng 02:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This user's edits to this single page have hit 50, and he constantly signs his posts so that his local time is shown instead of UTC, which I have also been telling him is wrong. Ryūlóng 02:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Give him a good sized block for trolling. The user has a strong disregard for all things wiki policy. --InShaneee 02:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to direct you here for your suggestion, unless that is directed to another reader. Ryūlóng 02:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. I'll take care of it. --InShaneee 02:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. This guy just won't give up. He's constantly made his timestamps Pacific Time, despite all of my statements, and now he's still being an ass at the talk page. Ryūlóng 02:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

And he complained at Talk:Coordinated Universal Time, too, right before the block. Ryūlóng 02:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the archive I made of his ridiculous demands, for any future inquiries. Ryūlóng 03:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

User page mistaken edits by Cydebot

So far, Cydebot has destroyed the layout of one of my user pages three times. That bot has also done the same to many other users, as evidenced by its talk page, and Cyde has ignored every single complaint. Furthermore, it has come to light that Cydebot has not been approved to muck with categories, which is what's causing the layout breaks [38]. I am suggesting that Cydebot be blocked ASAP until Cyde modifies it to not muck with categories. jgp ^T_C 05:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Others, please feel free to review. I'm going to bed now, I won't be around for a while. Grandmasterka 05:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. jgp ^T_C 05:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks, also.  DDS  ^talk 11:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The world of bots is a mystery to me, but I'd have presumed that the bot approval process was strict for a reason, contrary to Cyde's contentions in the discussion linked above. Do we generaly restrict bots to what for which they have explicit approval? If not, why not? - brenneman ^{L} 06:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Having just been through the approval process myself, I can report that you're right, it is strict. Furthermore, when deciding whether or not a bot should be blocked we can be much more aggressive than when deciding whether or not to block a human. If folks feel the bot isn't doing the job it's meant to, or isn't doing it well, it's perfectly appropriate to block it until the owner shows up, and I support that. --kingboyk 07:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what to title this, something about personal attacks I guess

Ok. So, on RC patrol, I stumbled upon Khalistan. Apparently it's an edit war heavy topic. Anyway, a user named Syiem was tipping my radar. I'm a little too lazy to go back and see what it was, but he had made comments like "I will never let <insert name here> make edits" and other ownership style phrases. He was very definitely pushing a POV. I was about to report him for 3RR, when I noticed he had already been reported. I weighed in my two cents there, in favor of the block for 3RR. My next login, I noticed a message on my talk page, very confrontational, lots of attitude etc:

"Please mind your own damn business. You don't own wikipedia and niether does Zafarnamah. I will edit the article as and when I so desire and will never let Zafarnamah ruin the article with his communal, pro Khalistan edits. Regards! Syiem "

I responded on his talk page with this:

"I'm not sure what you're getting at coming to my talk page with that attitude. You are not above the policies of Wikipedia regarding the WP:3RR and WP:CIVIL. Our editing here is a privilege, not a right. You'd do well to remember that.⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 05:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)"

I assumed the exchange was over and nothing of it. Then, just today I notice this:

"Please mind your own damn business and stop behaving as if you own Wikipedia. Before referring other users of civility I suggest you have a look at it again yourself. All of you a sudden you appear from your shithole and term other users' edits as Vandalism. ArjunSingh 23:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)"

It's the users only edit. My suspicion was that it was Syiem. I clicked on Syiem's user page, and noticed he'd been blocked as a sockpuppet. Now I'm not entirely sure what to do next. I suppose I could RFCU to see if ArjunSingh and Syiem are the same person. But that'd be pointless, because Syiem is already blocked. So... I thought I'd drop a note here and let you all know, should that editor make anymore abusive comments. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's the link to the appropriate 3RR warning Syiem received, which apparently started this. My only contact with him/her was on our respective talk pages, and the 3rr page [39]

Mmm... quite simple I'd have thought :) New account pops up and posts a nasty message, clearly not a newbie - it gets an indef block. User:Blnguyen has already beaten us both to it, however! :) --kingboyk 07:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

R Lopez

Another Ray Lopez outbreak, violating the ban on similar user name (again). [40]. As a side note, the individual behind the Ray Lopez handle has been making harrassing phone calls to my personal phone number, and should be treated with due caution. Stirling Newberry 05:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Following it up with personal attacks and lying about identity. [41] Stirling Newberry 14:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Ase500 - Verbose rants and unsourced images

I came across this user from a listing on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. I've just blocked them for 24 hours for personal attacks against other users and general long-winded rants, but then I noticed their images. They've uploaded 15 images, all of which were unsourced (although they look like they are probably self-taken shots). They've been around since September 2004, although only very intermittently; 3 edits in one day in 2004, 49 edits in 2005, on about 10 days spread pretty evenly through the year, have only edited Wal-Mart this year. I'm recomending an indef block, possibly by doubling block lengths until a year is reached. Comments, thoughts, all appreciated. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:51, 25 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)

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)

User:203.125.101.130 - repeated vandalism

The entire contribution of this user has been vulgarity, spam, & redirecting off-site links to pornographic sites. As far as I can tell, not a single genuine contribution has ever been made from this user. To top it off, when the user's vandalism is reverted, the user often returns to the page to edit in bad faith once again. mordicai. 12:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Minors revealing personal information

I just noticed an IP edit to Image talk:CheetahGirls12345.jpg. It caught my attention because the edit summary was "Hi, Cheetah Girls", so I checked it out and noticed that two minors (one eight year old girl and one ten year old girl) were the only contributors to the image's talk page and both had revealed their addresses and first names. I blanked the talk page out of concern for their safety and was wondering if an admin could delete the page as it's unnecessary and the only information it contains is the personal information of two young girls. Thanks! Srose (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is no town listed but it would be safer if a complete blank (i.e. removing history) is performed. If this happens again, maybe even semiprotecting the talk page. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 13:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Haha, I edit-conflicted with you to add just that. :) Srose (talk) 13:49, 25 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)

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)

"surrealism" article & talk page

Please take a look at the "Surrealism" talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Surrealism There is a particular user: ClassicJupiter2 and possible sock-puppets who continually interfere with the development of this article (edit-warring with other users). Lately, ClassicJupiter2 has been using offensive language, such as continually describing certain people involved with the article as being "full of shit". Please do something about this problem. Thanks. --Waterfallz 17:19, 25 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)