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

"RfC: Oppressive editing and page ownership" at Talk:Global warming

Resolved

 – Nothing for admins to do here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that really is the title of the RfC. Yes, the thread is filled with every bit as much good faith and productive discussion as you might think it could be. I just dropped it in an archive box for a second time as part of an attempt to get the editors to focus on improvements to the article there and each other elsewhere if necessary. If somebody could keep an eye on it (or tell me why I am off base on this one), I would appreciate it. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I support global warming 100%, But the tactics of the supporters is heavy handed, receiving multiple negative media accounts, and maybe deserving such RFC title sections.

Rename the section, don't close the section. When editors are not able to speak out and express their frustration the situation gets worse, especially when an admin swoops in and tries to stop all argument on procedural grounds.

I would strongly encourage you to change your mind, reopen the debate, and rename the section. Short term closing RFC is only the easy solution in the short term.

Moderate the debate, don't squelch debate. Ikip 18:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

2/0I would urge you to rethink your position in stopping the RfC. There really is no better venue for this discussion than the article talk page. It is not a matter of individual editors acting wrongly but of a group of editors exerting excessive control over the page content. Any comment on their actions is immediately deleted from the talk page. It is not realistic to expect that this discussion should take place on user talk pages, it is the action of a group of editors that is being questioned here. Arbcom is the final resort and I am prepared to take this matter there if it is necessary but the original indecent has already been escalated out of all proportion by the heavy handed actions of the regulars. My original remark was essentially about an edit summary, with a reversion being wrongly classified as vandalism. Had the discussion on this subject been allowed to continue for a while that would have been the end of the matter but it was immediately deleted and this eventually resulted in my raising an RfC, a standard non-confrontational method of dealing with situation where agreement cannot be reached. Now the RfC has been effectively deleted and no uninvolved editors can now comment. This action supports my assertion that all opposition is being ruthlessly squashed. I have even suggested setting up a 'discussion' or maybe 'dissent' talk page where more general issues about the subject could be discussed, with a longer term objective of improving the page by ensuring that it represents all POVs fairly. This would leave the current talk page for discussion of more immediate improvements. I should add that this proposal does rely on the good faith of both sides to some degree. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If the problem with the RfC is just the title, please feel free to give it another title and reinstate it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[In reply to Ikip ]

If that's the case, why don't you open another RfC, using a more appropriate title for the thread and starting a meaningful discussion on the problem. I've no doubt whatsoever that 2/0 acted in the utmost good faith, if a little too quickly- after all, the point of the RfC is to come up with an acceptable solution and, with a thread title like, it's likely to descend into a dramafest! HJMitchell You rang? 19:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The current RfC title accurately describes the problem, a group of regular editors are attempting to control the page. I fully understand that this page is a FA and that quality must be kept high to retain this status. This does not involve the deletion of dissenting opinions from the talk page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Accurate or not, it shows a complete lack of desire to resolve the issue. You have framed the discussion as a contrarian position - there is no chance for Win/Win ... it's a guranteed Win/Lose. Wikipedia is built on Consensus, and you've removed that chance. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

As someone has already noted this is not really the place for this discussion, it should be on the article talk page or even a sub page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

As 2/0 suggests, there are more appropriate venues for the kind of discussion that was taking place on the thread. Although I supported the initial discussion as a means of airing grievances about talk page management (and in answer to some concerns have myself abated actions for which I was accused of being too aggressive in archiving), I think the discussion has ceased to be useful in that venue, and probably should be pursued through mediation, user RFCs, or arbitration. --TS 19:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion

Ikip, you are so right. The way forward is by reasonable, structured, and civil discussion of the issues involved not by total suppression of dissent. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I welcome someone else from the community to open another appropriate named RFC. Maybe 2over0? Having tried to stay out of this, I only know the general subject, not all the players.

Tony, I have not followed the argument at all, so you would know better, but in my general experience, escalating a situation rarely works, albeit based on all of the drama of the past few years, if any article needs some outside eyes, it is probably this one. Would these parties agree on mediation, or is there already too much bad blood? I guess there is only one way to find out...Ikip 19:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Presumably it would first be ncessary to find out who the parties are, and indeed what the dispute is supposed to be William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Basically, every pro-warming editor assumes that all dissenters' statements and viewpoints are made in bad-faith. Every pro-warming editor assumes that any sources used by dissenters are lousy sources. Every pro-warming editor assumes that debate or edit disputes by dissenters are borderline vandalism to be ended as soon as possible. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF much? I don't suppose this is a subject where any editor is regarded as neutral, in so far that the first (and sometimes only) edit they make is perceived as one or the other - but it would make a refreshing change if some people were to work to a position that NPOV is attainable... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

LessVan heard, thanks very much for your response. I would like to note that your edit summary reads: "Talk:Global warming: pot - kettle - black - the - calling? In this instance only, no opinion on dispute." Would you mind explaining what you meant by that? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I am commenting that by your grouping all "pro-warming" editors as being inflexible and reactionary toward those who do not share their viewpoints in your comments on this page, that you are exhibiting exactly the same mindset - but in reverse. As for the specific matter(s) which gave raise to your complaints, I have not reviewed them and thus cannot offer an opinion on the validity of the concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your reply. however, respectfully, I feel you are incorrect in your statement; a person who identifies a problem and its sources should not automatically be equated with the people causing the problem. One's response should be based on the evidence itself; I appreciate your referring to this in your comment as well. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk), 00:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

aside Does anyone really support global warming? As in "It'd be a grand thing if New Orleans, Venice and the country of Kiribati were all flooded. Let's burn an extra gallon of fossil fuel to help melt the ol' Ross Ice Shelf." befuddled Durova³⁸⁶ 23:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, one of the climate guys of climategate fame stated he wished global warming turned out to be true so the science could be proven correct - so yes, in that respect, some people certain due support global warming. Also, increased temperatures would open up more land for farming/food production, which would be a good thing. Your comments about flooding are also rather inaccurate. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As a newcomer to this page I was staggered to find that all dissent is ruthlessly squashed, even on the talk page any dissenting comment or suggestion seems to be immediately deleted. I fully understand that this article is an FA and this the content should be of the highest quality, supported by reliable sources, thus I would expect to see any poor quality material quickly removed from the article, however I would not expect to see the removal of dissenting material even if it is of poor quality, described as vandalism. Furthermore I would expect a little more leeway on the talk page, non-majority views should be discussed rather than immediately deleted. When I attempted to discuss these issues (which involved several editors) on the talk page this discussion was immediately deleted, I therefore proposed and RfC to attempt to get some uninvolved editors to give their opinions.

It is interesting that the title of this RfC ( Oppressive editing and page ownership) has been questioned but the RfC, the standard way of getting opinions from uninvolved editors, has been deleted. I think this fact rather proves that the RfC was justified. What exactly is the problem with letting it stand, are the current regulars afraid that outside opinion might go against them. It has been suggested that I take this to arbitration and that is exactly what I intend to do if even the RfC process is to be suppressed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Martin Hogbin's concerns, and hope they will be given full attention. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree, and can't believe this is still an issue. Martin restored an edit that was egregious POV-pushing to the article. He was reverted. He started a massive, massive discussion about how upset he was about this. I can't possibly understand why; in his shoes I would probably feel horribly embarrassed and apologize for taking the time of all involved. (You (plural) may be able to tell that after my several comments on this IMO non-issue, my patience is waning. Sorry.) Awickert (talk) 03:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The RFC was valid with guidance support from WP:OWN and Wikipedia:Tag team among others for POV info suppression. Shutting the RFC down early was inappropriate, and does reinforce the original concerns. These concerns are difficult to diagnose and cure. The simple solution would seem to require the folks who may seems to control the range of discourse in a article by excessive negation ... to actuality propose compromises, with good faith that progress will occur. It's simple to say no, and requires great editing skill to work a reasonable compromise. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The RfC was shut down because of concerns over its title and the quality of discussion within it and, going solely by the title and 2/0's word (which I have no reason to doubt), it was entirely appropriate. However, there also seem to be some valid concerns here about the management of the talk page and the way in which content is controlled on the article. Whether they are perceived or genuine, I have no idea. It seems the best way to resolve the issue would be to open a new RfC (under a nice, neutral, drama-free title) and attempt to thrash the issues out there (hopefully once and for all). However ANI is not the place to carry on this dispute. HJMitchell You rang? 00:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

First, a compulsory history lesson

Sm8900 attempts to recruit some Republican divisions of his Armada

Sm8900 attempts to recruit some Conservative divisions of his Armada

Having lost these battles, he now complains about "oppressive editing and page ownership". But all that is going on is that the Global Warming page is editited just like most other scientific Wikipedia articles: Only peer reviewed sources are allowed in for statements about the science. We don't want to have endless debates that go nowhere anyway. We do tolerate editors on this page that would not be tolerated on other pages if they behaved in a similar way. There would have been an Arbcom case and the editors in question would have been topic banned a long time ago. So, I don't see how we can be accused of "oppressive editing and page ownership". Count Iblis (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

nice ad hominem arguments, Count Iblis. that all happened during a huge edit dispute two years ago. Here at Wikipedia, we follow WP:Civil#No_personal_attacks_or_harassment, WP:AGF, and WP:Discussion. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 05:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Give it up. The current editors have carte blanche to do what they want. If someone who disagrees can civilly make their argument, they may have a shot at getting something changed but for the most part, that issue is lost and is best left to the blogs ranting about it not here. Call it systemic bias if you want but it's not going to change. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Want to bet? Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Ricky81682, I'm having trouble understanding your reply. Are you agreeing with us in the substance of our complaint, but simply claiming that nothing here can work? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I know they were said with tongue in cheek but I am challenging 'The current editors have carte blanche to do what they want' and, 'that issue is lost'. This is not how WP works. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it wasn't tongue in cheek. I've seen the talk pages. The current editors have carte blanche. All this discussion about how the talk page discussion is controlled doesn't happen in Wikipedia. It just doesn't. We sit around debating control but until you get to ARBCOM, nobody really cares about how discussions are controlled. Any attempt to discuss how the talk page is organized is inherently an personal attack on the people you claim to be in control. Drop the idea that (even if it exists) you'll be able to beat back the consensus on the page about how the article is framed and how the talk page is run. On its face, the Global Warming article uses scientific sciences only for the science (as people note, while there is debate out there in reliable sources, there is no scientific debate so any argument that it's being debated is ignored), but when discussing the effects, it goes into all reliable sources, scientific and not. Inherently, that looks biased, as some people don't believe there are any effects because they don't believe the science, so any source that minimizes the effects is going to be ignored because it may be minimizing the science. (Let's ignore the blatantly obvious point that, instead of noting the specific criticisms by skeptics in the relevant sections, we'll lump them all of them into one single paragraph, scientists and lay-persons together and say "some people argue"). However, I know when the consensus is set but if you guys want to tilt at windmills, go ahead. When it's a conduct issue, Wikipedia is inherently bad at fixing it (no talk page discussion, no RFC, nothing here works for that issue). Now, is there any reason why this section shouldn't be closed because of Talk:Global_warming#Wikipedia:Administrators.27_noticeboard.2FIncidents? This isn't productive here, this isn't the complaints board, and no administrator here is going to do anything. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, you make good points about the nature of edit consensus. however one thing I have to say in response is that the problem we see here is not the existence or strength of consensus, or the lack thereof; the problem is that even the existence of consensus does not give any editors the right to simply reject any and all further edits which in any way differ from the existing topics and themes. consensus is a way to manage an approach to an existing issue; not to give editors an excuse to reject all new or additional topics or ideas. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This is going nowhere, as usual. And there is nothing requiring admin intervention. To remove one non-issue: Awickert's summary of MH's complaint is correct. LHvU's comments on Sm8900's comments are correct. If we believe Sm, then we have a very odd one-sided problem, with all the evil on one side. Naturally, this is wrong, and all the evil is on the other side :-). D: no: no-one "supports" GW in that sense. As to the substance, it appears to be absent. Who is complaining that they have a valid, scientifically-based addition to the GW pages that they are unable to discuss on the article talk pages? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying that anyone here is evil, nor is anyone else here claiming that. however there is nothing wrong with saying that one set of editors, upholding one approach to the article, currently hold prevailing influence over the article, to the degree that they are excessively shutting out other editors' ideas on how the article should be developed. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Back to the ANI point

This ANI is about faith folks can have in a productive article development, with regards to the RfC that was closed. I see good concerns raised above about defining a "peer reviewed" process for only Scientific content in the article. Well .... this ANI is about the peer review process for the article itself. The RfC was to help resolve a dispute over the article's peer review process. Discussing content would be outside of an ANI. There is significant concern about a POV being owned by eds and specifically how the resolution is proceeding. Expertise would be most appreciated on resolving the perceived balance of power with regards to a suspected owned POV in the article, so that faith may restored and further DR can be avoided. The RfC and this ANI are the correct path to granting faith in wiki to resolve a perceived bias in the content. Restarting and redefining the RFC with reference to specific wiki guidance seems fair to me. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It's been argued many times. The editors there have determined that they aren't biased and there's no POV there. If there's an actual point about the article (not "OMG, you all are BIASED!!!!"), then discuss it on the talk page. Otherwise, unless someone can point to a specific discussion with a particular individual with particular diffs, admins don't deal with "you all are biased" allegations. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ricky is right. Perhaps someone should supply some diffs for the specific edits in question. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Good points, however the ANI was about the RFC, not diffs. Diffs can go into restarting the RfC along with sited guidance. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Two things I could see wrong at Global Warming.

First thing to notice is a deficient article. You can see my protest in talk here: "Who is Dr Will Happer?". Happer (a very well published atomic physicist at Princeton) claims to have been sacked for dissent on the ozone hole by Al Gore back in 1993 - then kept his nose clean for years and eventually came back to say "Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted". I don't care that he has "no publications ... directly related to the physics of climate change", he is notable enough to either get a mention, or at least to be included with other notable dissenters.

I quickly found more notable dissent, here and again, the reasons for excluding it only arouse suspicion. (An exasperated IP editor has thanked me - in case it's not obvious, that is not me, I've not solicited the support and have no idea who it is). And again here, where I've come to defend the complaints (though not the material) of two obviously exasperated IP editors. (Again, absolutely no connection to me in any way). The whole topic is not being treated in a fashion that does credit to the authors, it reeks of bias.

The second thing I found was seriously bad behaviour from the owners of the article. No way should editors be conspiring to remove comments as they blithely tell us they've agreed amongst themselves to do here. Most disturbingly, when I requested to see a listing of these "dispute resolutions previously undertaken" (including the agreement to delete anything in Talk they didn't want recorded), my request was deleted! As I said at the time, a proper shaking up is in order. It is difficult to have confidence in the present crowd producing a good article. Or articles, because I happened to approach this topic again at Snowball Earth after seeing the topic treated as orthodoxy on television. I found owners again simply reverting any mention of notable dissenters. In that case, the discussion I started here eventually had people telling me they didn't really know what they were talking about, I should go ahead and improve the article, but I (presumably) still mustn't do it the way I wanted. Please excuse me for deciding that Wikipedia is censored and I have better use for my time. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:TALK policy is pretty clear: if it's not directly related to the article, it's not appropriate. General discussions about the global warming, commentary about whether certain individuals are controlling the article, rants about bad behavior don't discuss the article itself. If you want to play victim because nobody lets you rant, go ahead. You ask "who is Will Harper", you get a response that he doesn't directly work on climate change and you start ranting about what drew you to this article. Did you have an actual point? Did you want him added, deleted, a mention of him changed? Otherwise, it should be gone because your unsourced BLP-violating name-calling about "paid alarmists" is useless at worst and distracting at best. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

well, glad we could try to get some clarity on this. :-) --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to see a section on "Dissent to GW", as I expected to find and as belongs there. What I got was attempts to personalise all discussions, as I'm seeing again. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a single paragraph. I agree that's pathetic, but from what I see, you aren't helping the discussions. Perhaps if you quit with the "everyone's all biased" arguments, people would take you a little bit seriously. Playing the "I'm not saying your all biased, and don't have any actual specific criticisims, I'm just observing and asking questions" routine (with idiotic section titles) isn't effective either. How about actual being straight-forward saying, "here's what I want, here's the suggested language, here's some reliable sources" and actually working on the article, not wanting another round of discussions about the way you think the discussions should be handled? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

False information in reception section for video game articles?

I just recieved an interesting post to my talk page. This is tied into posts on Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (and again) and Prototype. Honestly, I'm not quite sure exactly what's going on or if it should be reported here or elsewhere (say COIN) or how to describe it (it's 2:20 in the morning, gimme a break), but I thought it could use a couple of hundred other eyes to decide if it's a problem or a slightly odd troll (I've seen weirder around the internet, so I can't say for certain, though I'll assume good faith obviously)... Does this require investigating? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 02:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this is quite interesting. If he is telling the truth, we might have a scandal on hand. I think that this could be a lie by someone who wants to gain favor on this site. The question is, if he worked for a company adding stuff to our pages, why doesn't he have a username? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

didnt Microsoft and other companies pay people to make their wikipedia articles "preferable" a while back?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

They probably did as they are Microsoft. Although, since pretty much everyone owns something of theirs, I wonder why they would do that. I'm just wondering if he is telling the truth. If so, it would be worthy to investigate. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I just came upon a link here that talks about Microsoft's thing. Apparently Jimbo and Bill Gates had a laugh over this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Although I no longer work for the PR company, if I were to use the the username from that time I could be in serious trouble for violating my agreement with them. As a general rule when companies wish to edit Wikipedia and spam forums for marketing purposes they use a PR company, because the IPs will be so easily traced. Take for example the Nestle page here on Wikipedia, where an employee was altering the page for controversy reasons--I know not the specifics of that situation though--or the Monsanto incidents, among others, it tends to be a good idea to use a PR company.

I do not have a goal that would serve any particular corporate faction, or at least not knowingly, but I think something should be done about "reception" sections of Wikipedia. POV writing gets taken care of sometimes quite well by other editors, even with edits from those of us trained to find ways around that. But the fact that Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic (among other template-like patterns of reception sections) are on every single movie or video game page possible make me question the validity of Wikipedia articles.

Call of Duty MW2 was a sample I used to illustrate my point: How many reviews of the game were listed? I think eight or ten or something. How many different companies own those reviews? Well, I am sure you'll get the idea if you just click through the media links.

Let it be known this is mostly openly obtainable information, it is not a grand conspiracy. If you wish to see more media tactics check out FRONTLINE (since Frontline does not have commercials it can at times afford to be less biased abotu this particular issue) news about marketing to kids and the marketing of the future. I hope the WIkipedia community can develop effective ways of avoiding becoming just another marketing tool.

Lastly, I chose TheJadeFalcon's page to write on because I have witnessed his editing style for several months, I feel there is a level of integrity there, and I figured he would know many more people to bring this issue up to.75.214.123.146 (talk) 07:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This whole thing seems pretty fishy if you ask me. Not the IP but the fact that people are getting payed to "edit" wikipedia. Couldnt we just remove the bias if we wanted to?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 16:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well he seems to be telling the truth. I lost the link, but I know there is a page out there where you can plug in the page, and suspicious IPs come up. That might be worth a try, but for now, I wonder if we can get usernames of those who edited, as this has the potential for scandal. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

True. This probably is a scandal (of some sort). Can the IP tell us anything else before we continue?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 17:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

He could also e-mail us his username since this is all anonymous. I can't see any harm in that being done. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

True....perhaps we should notify the IP.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

← Can e-mail me if he wants. Contact information is here. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 02:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If you get anything, share it with an administrator who would likely care about this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Any admins willing to be e-mailed? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 04:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

What is being encountered here is a form of astroturfing: a manufactured opinion that is passed off as a popular one. Lots of corporations & special interest groups do it; Microsoft simply gets caught doing it more often than other computer-related companies. (Not that this makes MS any better than the rest; they simply aren't quite as amoral & skilled as some of the other companies are.) Obviously this specific issue needs to be investigated & fixed, but unfortunately this won't be the last time this kind of stuff will happen here, no matter how this specific incident is handled. --llywrch (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Please understand my need to remain anonymous. The purpose of mentioning MW2 was only for an example. The problem is much greater than that specific issue. I only cited it cause squelching dissent against the game went over very well there. There are hundreds and thousands more examples though. I was trying to make one point in particular about the reviews that are commonly accepted on this system: Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes are on every video game and movie possible. When other reviews are listed, they are merely subsidiaries of the larger companies that own the entire review industry, save for a few independent sources, which is what Wikipedia should have more of. Lacking independent sources is what allows Wikipedia to become a marketing machine. Please consider who owns the newspapers and media companies that "review" the products. I am thinking in far more grand terms than just MW2 investigations: I am attempting to draw debate on the currently accepted practices in the Wikipedia machine. I'll try another example: If you are watching ABC News one evening and a review for a Buena Vista movie (Disney) is on the air, it's full of lies that must be told under contract. If you read the Wall Street Journal and it mentions anything about a FSLP movie, you can bet the same since Fox is owned by the same company. If you see a GE commercial, know that it owns NBC (though perhaps not for long), or if you see a CBS review for an MTV films the same problem occurs. Watch reviews from say Siskel and Ebert from fifteen years ago, then compare some films with changed ratings (on further contemplation he might say) where the opinions of the movie changed. This is primarily due to ownership changes, as you will get fired for refusing to lie. I know this for a fact. The industry is saturated with owned reviews, and Wikipedia has become another outlet to support this system. In the long run my goal here is to bring awareness to the issue and hopefully with consent of the majority of users, eliminate advertising on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.214.180.96 (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

We all agree that Wikipedia is not the place for advertisement. We could go through every article and neuter it completely, but then it will lose half its information. If you could provide us a list or something so that we could further investigate this, it would be a godsend. Otherwise our hands are tied, as we can't figure out who is adding this material to the site. I can see that you are maybe a handful of people out there who has come clean on this, and for that I commend you. I am willing to be sent information on your username because it will greatly help our investigation. Thank you for caring. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, if you e-mail us something, it is utterly confidential. We cannot reveal it in a public area. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Star Wars Kid vs Google

If you search for the Star Wars Kid's real name (which I'm NOT going to put here - WP:BLP absolutely applies) on Google, our article comes up as the first result - despite our ongoing and deliberate omission of it on the article.

1. Why is this?
2. Can we get Google to remove/stop this?

Exxolon (talk) 07:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

See PageRank and, especially, Google bomb. If a lot of pages linking to our article use a particular term (even a term which doesn't appear on our own page), our page may be perceived by Google's PageRank algorithm as a relevant result for that term. If this is done deliberately, it can be described as 'Google bombing'. (A few years ago, Google searches for 'miserable failure' returned George W. Bush's biography as the first hit; a coordinated effort by hundreds of bloggers and website owners created hyperlinks from that term on their own pages to Bush's White House biography page.)

As far as I know, there isn't anything we can do from this end, short of deleting the page outright. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 08:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Might not be a bad idea, but even if there was something else we could do instead I doubt it would have any practical effect when almost all pages one finds when searching for this name do clearly identify him as the “Star Wars Kid”. ⤺ms.⁴⁵ 08:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there no way to request Google to remove that page from the results? Exxolon (talk) 08:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't see how BLP applies here. His name has been reported in the press repeatedly. BLP only applies to things we cannot source well. Many many well known reliable sources have stated what his name is.--Crossmr (talk) 08:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

See Q1 of the talk page FAQ. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not the case - read the policy page - this falls under the "Presumption in favour of privacy" clause of WP:BLP, specifically "This is of profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." Exxolon (talk) 08:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but our BLP is for us not the rest of the internet. Deleting an article because of something that is happening on Google is simply not on in my book. Theresa Knott | token threats 11:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose “prurient epicaricacy” isn′t a good enough delete-reason either. ⤺ms.⁴⁵ 20:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's get this over with. Sign up for a Google Account, and use SearchWiki and click the X on the result. It's just that simple. Problem (temporarily) solved. ConCompS (Talk to me) 16:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If a lot of web sites use his real name and link to us then we cannot help that, not are we responsible, it is not a BLT violation. This is no basis for the deletion of anything. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The only true BLT violation is too much mayo, if you ask me.GJC 16:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Lettuce ketchup on rye puns. ⤺ms.⁴⁵ 20:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If somebody already knows this unfortunate guy's name then the fact that our article turns up on top when they enter it is quite appropriate. If they don't know the name then no harm is done because they won't know to type it. If they hear his name and wonder who he is then hundreds of websites will be returned by the result, but if ours is at the top that's a good thing because our article is written to the highest standards and does not trash him. --TS 17:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

See Q5 of the FAQ, which I just wrote. --TS 17:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If it's written to the highest standards, why is it still Start class? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Written to the "highest standards" means written with respect to the well-being of the article's subject, it doesn't mean making the article perfect (although that's not a bad thing to aspire to either). Unlike many media outlets, Wikipedia doesn't try to be sensationalist or get the "scoop" on a "story", especially not at the expense of a person's privacy. Another thing to keep in mind is that an article's rating on the quality scales of various Wikiprojects depends on what the evaluator thought of the article's quality at the time of the evaluation. The article may have improved since the last time it was evaluated, it may not have, but you can find more details about the rating scales by clicking on the wikilinks associated with the ratings on the article's talk page. -- Atama頭 01:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sock of Alex contributing from LA, much in the same vein

This should be a well-established and benchmark case by now, but I have trouble finding a better venue to address this. The indeffed User:Alex contributing from L.A. (here), who is but one avatar of the same editor, among banned/blocked accounts such as User:Alexander 007, User:Alexandru, User:Winona Gone Shopping etc., has returned yet again as User:Alex '05, and uses his own pages as a venue for attacking me and other users over and over, picking exactly where he left off as Alex contributing from L.A. This man has admitted to having behavioral problems (for one, a drug addiction, which he claims over and over has led him to use seriously mood-altering substances while editing wikipedia), and, in his long disturbing rants, he even went as far as to state that I and several others are part of a giant real-life conspiracy against him. The speculations he makes about me, and the many imaginary issues he takes with me are serious harassment, particularly given that this guy is only enticed by the possibility that I may experience discomfort. It seems he is untouched by the blocks, and simply creates a new account when his older one is compromised, without even bothering much to conceal that he is the same guy. He has probably opened up several new ones as we speak, so I would like to ask admins to make a special note of this.

PS: Please don't tell me to repost this on a more specific subpage; as you can see, there are several very serious issues that relate to more than one specific area. Thank you. Dahn (talk) 11:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"he even went as far as to state that I and several others are part of a giant real-life conspiracy against him."---I never made any such statement. Link the diff where you believe I stated something like that. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to be allowed to edit here in the future. I was harassed by psychopaths at another website, then I developed a situation with editors here. Furthermore I was blocked by free-wheeling individual parties without them considering my case. Alex (talk) 11:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want to edit here then you should probably refrain from calling other editors "stupid pieces of shit" or "use them as punching-bags". --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Some psychopaths attempted to murder me in 2007 and early 2008 at another website, so I have problems I'm clearing away. I was giving back to the world what it tried to do to me. But no, I'm not giving it back to the psychos responsible, one of the psychos responsible is <redacted>, a psychopath wanted for hurting many people. Alex (talk) 12:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Alex, allow me to just say this. If what you say about users on some other forum is true (though, if I got it right, you earlier claimed that those people "tried to murder you" using magic!), you have my sympathy, but wikipedia is not therapy for either this or any of your other problems. Above, you implicitly admit that all of my assessment is true, and, no matter how much any wikipedia could be persuaded to sympathize with you over those problems, this small segment of the many serious ways in which you break rules central to wikipedia has made it impossible for you to continue contributing here. And that fact that you still don't see the problem only adds to the problem. As for your conspiracy accusation against me (one of the many accusations, all for no reason): the diff, if I recall correctly, could only be picked up from the deleted talk page of your earlier account.

That's all I will say to you, and I sincerely hope this is our last encounter. Have a nice life. Dahn (talk) 12:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the account. At least a coupe of his previous accounts have been indefinitely blocked, and he assured me that he would not return.   Will Beback  talk  12:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a disgrace. This Alex guy was nearly murdered for Pete's sake! Cut Alex some slack and unblock them IMMEDIATELY. Was-new-cola-fan-in-early-90s (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The above is obviously yet another sock of Alex. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Highly likely considering the account was created today and yet they already know how to find ANI! HJMitchell You rang? 16:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No I am not a sock of Alice, why does wikipedia always presume that when a User defends a blocked User that the User is a sock of another User? Now yes this is a result of me getting to big for my boots and sticking my nose into Another's business but did'ent the same thing happen with User Mcjakeqcool? I suggest wikipedia stops abusing it's community before it has no more editors. From what I know User Mcjakeqcool acted in good faith, clearly something wikipedia does not know about. Was-new-cola-fan-in-early-90s (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I am confused. Is the person editing as Was-new-cola-fan... the same as Alex 05? Why are their User pages showing them as being socks of different people? Woogee (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Me too. Apparently it was decided further down, but I am clueless as to what evidence that shows it should be that McJackcool something guy and not the Alex user, which Dahn clearly shows to be a master puppeteer as well.--Saddhiyama (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It was because of this edit where the sock continues a discussion started by Mcjakeqcool. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, McJake is not me and I've never encountered him and I'm not familiar with his case, but he says his case was similar to mine in some way. By the way, I was never a sockpuppeteer if you mean I was disguised in some account or other. You've stated that you are "clueless" about this situation Saddhi, if so be careful about believeing User:Dahn

The User:Alexandru situation is from late 2005, and an admin User:Jtkiefer thought I was usurping that account. I didn't mean to, that was my mistake, check the records. Now, User:Alexander 007, that account never got blocked and it was a clean account, no sock stuff, that was my account. Then I changed the username to WGS (see above) mostly because I was harassed by Bonaparte's socks and I was tired of Wiki (check the history). Then while I was WGS I was blocked for erratic edit summaries (check the history) by User:Tony Sidaway in July 2006.

And the psychopaths stalked me and assaulted me in 2007 early 2008, I explained some on User talk:Bogdangiusca, I can link that. 76.208.181.210 (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

My use of the word "clueless" was only referring to which methods that had been applied in establishing who the different accounts was sockpuppets of, not to the general facts of this case. I approve of the indef as per WP:THERAPY. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

One more question and I'm done commenting on this thread: both User talk:Alex '05 and Alex's IP-signed comments above make some quite humiliating and explicit comments about me (not just about me, but I don't want to comment for other users). Normally, I would not discourage editors from expressing themselves freely, but the words he uses and serenely acknowledges to have used for describing me are simple curses, and I have to wonder if there is any point to them being preserved in records and archives (as they look set to be). Would it be asking too much from admins to redact them out, at least once the case is sorted one way or another? Dahn (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Those comments should be removed. Woogee (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

So, how many people read the disgusting personal attacks the IP made here, that sat here for five hours before I finally read them and removed them? Woogee (talk) 08:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The Spammers are back

The spammers cited from the last thread are back with brand new accounts:

• Damueo (talk · contribs)
• Gabrido (talk · contribs)
• Marcduc (talk · contribs)
• Mendiwe (talk · contribs)
• Senxone (talk · contribs)
• Zeninre (talk · contribs)

Since they're only editing a couple of articles:

• Bolivia
• Cable (from the last batch of socks)
• Micro
• Microprocessor
• Spanish language

is it possible for a short term semi-protection to stop the disruption? Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 14:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well if all they're doing is spamming, surely it's preferable to block the accounts rather than to protect the articles, which would affect any new or IP editor making good faith edits. HJMitchell You rang? 14:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is that new accounts are popping up (there may be more) and blocking them doesn't seem to have any effect since they just keep coming back with more sock accounts. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 14:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well they are not having any effect. Why not simply keep reverting them until they learn that they cannot succeed? Theresa Knott | token threats 14:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It's been going on for over a week now and their edits have been reverted during the time period. But sometimes, constantly reverting and blocking doesn't work especially with sockpuppetry and determined users. Also, what I meant by short term semi is like 3 days or something like that. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 15:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The concern is that they will move on to other pages. i think reverting will work as we a clearly far more determined than they are and there are a lot more of us. We can always win in a straight fight like this. A useful tool can be found here to see if the links exist anywhere in Wikipedia. Never the less I will try a 3 day protect for you. Theresa Knott | token threats 15:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

OK I have protected them all for 3 days to give you a bit of a rest from reverting. Theresa Knott | token threats 15:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Hopefully they won't move on to other pages and this will work. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 15:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Should we consider a sockpuppet investigation while we are here so we can find all of the users? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll file one, but I don't know who the sockmaster is or what would be the sockmaster. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 19:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Just look at the one with the earliest creation and go from there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Filed an SPI case under a new name: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Carmendi. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 19:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Both urls have been Blacklisted --Hu12 (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Could some admin who speaks Spanish figure out what he's posted as Menxuo? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 19:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not your man for translation, but based on the presence of recognizable phrases that are unlikely to appear elsewhere, I'd say it is a translation of the page at User:Merlion444. --RL0919 (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That tears it for me. Deleted page, talkblocked. This is starting to look more like harassment of Merlion and another user (based on what was on User talk:Carmendi before I deleted it). -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 23:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppet vandalism again

User:InkHeart (banned for abusing multiple accounts) is back again, this time using the sockpuppet anon Special:Contributions/99.253.86.157 to again remove maintenance templates. Ωphois 04:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

She is back again using Special:Contributions/66.199.237.22, this time reverting to an old version of a page that a consensus of editors on the talk page had disagreed with. Ωphois 03:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

And with Special:Contributions/72.11.138.91 to remove maintenance templates. Ωphois 03:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As part of this, I would like to request that Han Hyo-joo‎, Lee Da Hae‎, and Lee Jun Ki‎ be permanently semi-protected. InkHeart has been a problem for months, and has continuously switched IP addresses to avoid blocks. Ωphois 03:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

And following her MO, InkHeart has repeatedly attempted to remove this report. Ωphois 03:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

User: BQZip01

Hi all. It has come to my attention that BQZip01 (talk · contribs) and Hammersoft (talk · contribs) have been in a dispute over the copyright statuses of files File:West Virginia Flying WV logo.svg and File:WestVirginiaMountaineers.png. As some of you might be aware, this dispute has been going on for some time now; it has resulted in several WP:ANI threads and nearly a year's worth of slow motion edit warring at File:West Virginia Flying WV logo.svg and File:WestVirginiaMountaineers.png. As an uninvolved user, this dispute came to my attention with the posting of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive588#Edit trying to force an image as free of copyright/submitting editor trying to force personal preferences as if they are policy on the Administrator's noticeboard. I looked into it and had to agree with Hammersoft that the files were non-free content. Noting that the on going discussions regarding this topic were producing nothing but more tension and hot air, I marked the most recent relevant ANI discussion and discussion at File talk:West Virginia Flying WV logo.svg as closed. However, this did not settle well with BQZip01 (talk · contribs). He has repeatedly asked to create a WP:RFC to discuss further should he wish to but he has completley ignored those requests. To date, he has been repeatedly reopening the archived discussions [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] to make accusatory statements, distuptive comments, personal attacks, and troll, only to be reverted by other uninvolved users. Since those tactics have been unsuccessful, he has resorted to accusing User:Hammersoft and users who have reverted his reopening of discussions as sockpuppeteers (see [7], [8], [9]). Once again, he was not successful. BQZip01 is now trolling on my talk page here, here, and here, as well as removing/refactoring other users' posts. This disruptive behavior needs to stop. We're here to build an encyclopedia and not drama monger. BQZip01 needs to be reminded that he is not above Wikipedia's policies and free to harass users he disagrees with. I am requesting that another uninvolved sysop review the situation and block/warn BQZip01 as necessary. Thanks for reading. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As a partial aside, should other images that BQZip01 has fought to claim that they are PD-text (several other University sports teams symbols, not limited to those that were added to the userbox templates, all of which are here) be investigated? I know that I had reservations with File:Miami Hurricanes logo.svg being determined as "PD-text", but I only decided to step back because of the way BQZip01 and his supporters handled the matter.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "I only decided to step back because of the way BQZip01 and his supporters handled the matter."

If by that you mean that it was handled in a rational manner with lots of evidence, thank you. If you mean it to demean my contributions and that of others, don't be vague and accuse me of something when, in fact, I did nothing wrong (WP:PROVEIT). — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Your threshhold for originality is much lower than everyone else's. You and your supporters simply said "That is just a U, and because it is just a U it cannot be copyrighted", when the University of Miami "U" symbol can certainly not be emulated in any typeface I am aware of.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll be happy to discuss that issue with you below. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. I have a valid concern and, instead of discussing it, an admin just trusts a new IP ("strangely" well-versed in WP policy, edit summaries, etc) over a user with thousands of edits and assumes I'm to blame for "drama" and accuses me of being a troll without discussing any merits of the issue. The admin then decides my questions aren't worthy of any discussion and deletes them! When I ask about this, he ignores me.

I have a valid, rational point. I provide LOTS of proof that my point is valid. His response is "no" with no explanation and makes reversions. Then he makes these baseless/skewed accusations here twisting normal conversation and requests for clarification into villainy.

I have made no personal attacks of any kind. Accusing me of something while providing no evidence is a bit hostile and misleading.

I have not accused Hammersoft of being a sockpuppeteer.

If you can look at these contributions and not see the sockpuppetry: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15], and not see the similarity between it and User:Grandma Dottie/User:TomPhan, you are being completely unreasonable.

I've never called someone's points "tension and hot air". I've contributed LOTS to this encyclopedia and I find his dismissal of my contributions as being worthless completely baseless!!! It is also quite hostile; not the behavior I'd expect from an admin

Fastily has decided that all of Hammersoft's assettions are 100% true and not worthy of actually checking. For the record HS stated this issue with the WV image was ongoing for a year. This is false: It has been ongoing for three months.

I indeed have been asked "to create an WP:RFC to discuss further" but I have not ignored it. I have stated that the image talk page should be used first as dictated by WP:TALK. If no one is willing to discuss it on the image page or their talk pages, why would I expect them to discuss it in an RfC. I have also asked Hammersoft to start RfCs, but he has also chosen not to do so. This is misleading and demonizing appropriate behavior.

At least three other users agree with me regarding this image, so my point is, at least, not unreasonable and has support. Asking for clarification from and admin and getting a request for a block is completely inappropriate! — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

He is making a new section as asked on the talk page, so I am not sure why his comment is being removed and the archive template is being added back. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The archived template should remain however. It'd be much appreciated if you could restore that. Thanks! -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Why does Fastily just get to decide when discussion is over (we talked about the issue for all of 2 days)? Where is the policy that guides this? — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Dunno, but I added that new section you wrote, so the discussion can continue. Also, Ryulong, come speak to me on IRC about the U of Miami logo. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I find it to be a little disingenuous to discuss things off-wiki. However, as long as it isn't hidden and I can get a copy of the discussion, it's still within the realm of "acceptable" to me. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Everything you are going to hash out below with him is the same I will hash out with him. Also, I will explain my actions on why I am even doing the logos in SVG. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Miami logo

They are not my standards but that of US law:

"Typeface" is a term defined by the House Report of the 1976 revision of the Copyright Act as follows:

"...a set of letters, numbers, or other symbolic characters, whose forms are related by repeating design elements consistently applied in a notational system and are intended to be embodied in articles, whose intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text or other cognizable combinations of characters."

It should be noted that "articles" in this case means "any medium in which it is used".

Eltra Corp. v. Ringer sets forth:

"Under Regulation 202.10(c) it is patent that typeface is an industrial design in which the design cannot exist independently and separately as a work of art. Because of this, typeface has never been considered entitled to copyright under the provisions of §5(g)."

The United States Copyright Office' sets forth:

"...mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring" ... [are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection]"

I concur that, if the artistic element can be separated from the utilitarian, it is copyrightable, however, I do not see how this is the case here. What part of this logo can be separated? What is artistic that is not utilitarian. I certainly agree that there is stylistic design involved, but US courts have ruled that that style alone in a typeface isn't eligible for copyright. Excerpts from [16] (mentioned yesterday in the WP:ANI thread):

The rejection of functional or utilitarian articles from protection as “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works” is found in 17 U.S.C. § 101 (2006). That section states: “...the design of a useful article...shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.

A letter, no matter how elegantly designed, standing alone, is simply a building block for larger units, words, that convey information. In the same way, when we give copyright protection to the design of buildings, we do not protect individual bricks because they are fungible.

Although a typeface may be a work of applied art, copyright protection would only extend to artistic aspects of its form, not its utilitarian attributes. If the artistic attributes are de minimis or not severable from the functional aspects, they will not be copyrightable

if the shape of a utilitarian article incorporates features, such as artistic sculpture, carving, or pictorial representation, which can be identified separately and are capable of existing independently as a work of art, such features will be eligible for registration.

etc. (these are not isolated quotes)

This "U" image is in distinct contrast with the Washington State University logo or this ASCII art in which letters are used as a medium to form other art.

Under these definitions, the "U" is a "U" and cannot be separated from its "intrinsic utilitarian function" of being a "U". Accordingly, it isn't eligible for copyright. Given that Wikipedia chooses not to distinguish between images ineligible for copyright and trademarked images ineligible for copyright, there isn't a different template available and this is the most accurate as it does mention the Wikipedia trademark disclaimer which covers the use of this logo. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There is more than a "U" in question for this image. It consists of two non-standard geometric shapes of two different colors surrounded by a white border that encompasses the "U" shape. The form this takes is not a U in any type face and can certainly not be emulated by any one. The intensive visual identity campaign and guidelines the University has produced (found here) shows that thought and some sort of legal control has gone into effect over this symbol. Just because it is used as the letter U does not mean that some sort of creative thought went into the design of the U symbol, as much as it was into the "WV" for West Virginia. It is not merely a typeface, and it is most certainly unique enough to be more than merely a variation on the English/Latin letter U.

In short, your interpretation of the copyright law is flawed in this instance and the University of Miami's athletic logo, which they never refer to as a "U" in the manual I linked above but as "The University of Miami logo ("U")", is not a mere typeface and cannot be a public domain text logo.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

...by which they do refer to it as a "U". They certainly don't refer to it as two weird shapes that just happen to form a "U". No one is saying that creativity wasn't involved in the logo's creation, but, as mentioned above, that creativity is inextricably linked to the utility of the letter. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It's "utility" is as a logo representing the school, which the school owns "all rights, title, and interest in and to...which includes trademarks, service marks, trade names, designs, logos, seals, and symbols." Just because it is made to resemble the letter U does not automatically remove any possible copyright the school may have on the imagery.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Not once is copyright protection mentioned. Additionally, it doesn't just "resemble" the letter "U", it IS the letter U and is used as such in marketing campaigns:

For my involvement with the U of Miami image, I just changed the colors to what that manual Ryulong points out has. Honestly, while I tend to believe that some element of work has gone into these symbols, a lot of times I went to the Commons and deleted stuff only to have it return again because someone on the Commons called it simple enough. Same with the WVU logo; I took the SVG file from official college documents. I carried over the rationales for fair use to the new image, because I sometimes think a lot of the GIF files for these logos are utter crap. I took the colors from official documents and put it on here. It was BQZ that placed the image into the public domain because of the whole typeface issue. I know there is a lot of colleges that put a lot of work in their images, and these documents say so. I remember looking at the documents today for the University of Alabama (a logo BQZ believes is PD) and the university claims copyright on everything they touch. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the claim of copyright? I'd like to see it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Check your inbox. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Kind of surprised at the language. I'd also be interested in the "redacted" comment unless that is part of the IRC thing. — BQZip01 — ^talk 09:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

While the University of Miami does have a trademarked logo (registration number 1922571), that colored "U" isn't it. The trademarked logo is a completely different design, with the words "University of" above "Miami" in larger letters, with a big black bar below. The University's seal is also trademarked. But the big "U" isn't registered. Probably because it's not unique enough as a standalone graphic. Not that this matters for Wikipedia. It's permissible to use a trademarked logo to refer to the organization or brand using said logo, but not for other purposes, and WP:LOGO reflects this. So what's the problem? --John Nagle (talk) 07:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Us having the logo is not the issue; the logo being either PD or Fair use is the main issue. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Zscout, but I also note that Nagle never once used the word "copyrighted". — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The main reason why too is that after 1978, copyright is automatic and does not have to be asserted as much than in the past. The University, among others, assumes that everyone knows it is copyrighted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

...but that assumes it is eligible for copyright protection in the first place. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I still have the documents User BillTunnel (or Tunell, not sure about his last name) sent about copyright laws and simple designs. I will need to look at it again and see what logos are talked about and figure something out. It is almost 4 am, I need to say おやすみなさい。 User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• This dispute has been going on for a long time and shows no sign of rising above the level of pantomime (oh yes it is / oh no it isn't). One thing that BQZip01 should know is that in matters of copyright it is up to the person claiming public domain to prove it. And yes, logo styles based on letters absolutely can be copyright, the law prevents you from asserting copyright over your company name written in a given typeface but there is more than juta typeface involved in most of these cases, as I believe you've been told before. The threshold of originality is pretty low for copyright and I would be very surprised if File:Miami Hurricanes logo.svg did not qualify as it incorporates elements over and above a simple typeface (two separate colours, the split in the loop of the U). The two halves of the U do not qualify as "simple geometric shapes". So unless you have an independent source that the image is in the public domain you'll need to write a fair use rationale, which will be trivially easy. Guy (Help!) 16:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

  Guy, the "split" is merely the point at which the white begins and the green/orange end and such coloring is explicitly mentioned as something that does NOT make something eligible for copyright protection:

  "...mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring" ... [are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection]"

  — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Something that should be addressed

While looking over this discussion, I clicked on the WVU logo and seen this was linked to this page. That page is ripe with trademarked (as the page rightly says) images the user has uploaded. I did this one and got in big trouble. I have nom'd the page for deletion here. I think User:BQZip01 should be admonished for putting trademarked images on a userpage like that. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

images the user has uploaded. Not quite true; a lot of the images being displayed on that page are not from him, but me taking logos from official college documents. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

And some are hosted on the Commons, like the Texas Tech logo. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, userspace is not where you "display" images. You want to show off what you have uploaded, or a list of images, show them in the [[:Image:NAMEHERE.jpg]] format. Using fair-use and trademarked images on a userpage is not necessary and against the rules. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

And which "rule" might that be? I'm not aware of one. — BQZip01 — ^talk 09:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not appreciating your tone right now, so you can lose it. Right now we are trying to figure out which rule that is, as no one seems to be able to find it (oddly). - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The only rule we have on images is explained at NFCC 9, where copyrighted images are limited to the article space. There is nothing about trademarked images in there; it also said that images must be inlined if they are not free. So, the main solution is to use extra colons and inline all of the images. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Zscout370, I knew someone would finally find the rule I was looking for. If BQZip01 will inline his images, I will gladly withdraw my MfD on the page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#9 applies to non-free/copyrighted images, not these. I am sorry you don't like it, but I see no valid reason to remove them. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Again with the attitude. What do you think a trademark is, it is a copyright. All images we use have a copyright on them. Just because they are on Wikipedia doesn't null and void that copyright. The copyright is owned by the respective university or college. You have a "show off" page of what you and whoever else have uploaded. The excuse that you use them for "ease of use" is bull. Inline, or I will do it for you. See, we both can use attitude. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

A trademark is not a copyright, it's similar but it's not the same. Powergate92Talk 23:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ditto to what powergate said. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The image is still not free.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Not the issue of this subthread, Ryulong. I think you've made your opinion on the other image abundantly clear. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It's still a very important fact. Even if these images cannot be copyrighted, they are still trademarked and essentially non-free.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but that is a different assertion than what you have made in the past. The problem is that trademarks do not ever expire as long as they are maintained. Like patents, they enter the public domain as soon as they are created/registered, but there are still restrictions on their use. I can look up any patent, but I cannot produce any patented device, process, chemical, etc in any way that impinges on their ability to make a profit on it. This is analogous to the use of a trademark and appropriate use is best spelled out in WP:Disclaimers#Trademarks.

I really appreciate the fact you've made the all-important distinction and we should have a policy on such images to reduce the number of problems associated with such images, but simply applying WP:NFCC to them fails to recognize the distinction between copyright and trademark protections. Would you be willing to work on a policy with me to 1) distinguish what is copyrightable and what is not and 2) how to use such images? — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's what Wikimedia Commons says about trademark images "Trademark laws control the commercial use of logos, terms, and names related to products and services. Commons hosts many images of trademarks, and as long as they do not violate any copyright (eg because they are too simple to acquire copyright protection, or are old enough that copyright protection has expired), they are OK here. That applies even though certain commercial use of this material may be trademark infringement." Powergate92Talk 17:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Nebraska ET and NBC

Is anybody aware of Nebraska_Educational_Telecommunications#Television? Woogee (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I am now, but that has nothing to do with the images in question. That case was a logo used by one entity who did not own the rights claiming it was theirs in the first place. Whether the image was copyrighted and/or trademarked is irrelevant as that kind of use is prohibited under both copyright and trademark law. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

NBC claimed to own the logo which they did not own. Woogee (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes they did, though I'm sure the outcome of the agreement was that neither side acknowledged anything. There is no parallel that really seems to apply here, though, or am I missing something? — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Serious BLP problems at Climategate scandal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article was deleted and the deletion is being reviewed in the appropriate place.

---

An editor, Wikidemon (talk · contribs), has created Climategate scandal as a POV fork of Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident in an apparent attempt to do an end-run around BLP and NPOV. The title of the fork is one that has consistently been rejected on NPOV and BLP grounds, and the content uses disallowed sources, such as blogs, that were excluded from the parent article. It is effectively an attempt to create a BLP and NPOV-free zone where Wikidemon and some like-minded editors can create their own POV-laden alternative article.

The fork is currently being AFD'd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climategate scandal. However, I'm concerned that BLP is being quite blatantly flouted by the content of Climategate scandal. What can be done about it while the AFD is underway?

Secondly, a lot of the editing has been driven by external lobbying by right-wing bloggers (see e.g. [17]). I expect to see an influx of sock- and meatpuppets on the AFD. Could people please keep a close eye on the AFD? -- ChrisO (talk) 09:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I might have created this monster with an invitation to the above poster to bring his concerns to AN/I or BLP as an alternative to blanking an article under AfD.[18] They seem to have raised an identical issue at AN/I and BLP,[19] and given that the complaint seems to be a BLP one other than a behavioral one (despite the aspersions that I am part of a climate change denier cabal) I think the BLP question is better raised there. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 10:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You could not get consensus for your preferred article title, which violates NPOV, or for the use of blogs as sources for accusations against living persons, which violates BLP. So you created your own separate version of the article. That is simply not done. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you please just cut it out? If you have some reason to suspect a behavioral violation that needs urgent administrative intervention this is the place. If you just wish to take wild swings at editors for proposing things you disagree with, I don't think there's a place on Wikipedia for that. You disapprove of something about the article or its title? Fine, deal with it. There are venues for that. But don't make unfounded accusations against other editors, okay? - Wikidemon (talk) 10:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've closed the AFD with the summary "Userfied to User:Wikidemon/Climategate scandal to give non-admins access to the page and see how it is a blatant POV fork of Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident: just put the two pages next to each other. Early close to minimise drama resulting from blatant WP:GAMEing." Additionally, I suggest blocking Wikidemon a minimum of 1 week for disruption and WP:GAMEing. It was a blatant POV fork of the entire Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident article, under a previously rejected title, with justification weakly based on the fact that the "reaction" section in Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident may be spun off at some point in WP:SUMMARY style. Such a spun off article would obviously look very different. Rd232 ^talk 11:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: the fork was moved to Climategate controversy just before I userfied it, which I don't quite get how that worked. I userfied the copy too, being identical to the fork. Rd232 ^talk 11:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous proposal; I could equally propose that you are desysopped for a thoughtless and out of process close on such a contentious issue. Please consider that not everyone sees things like you do. Mackan79 (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec - responding to rd232) Wow, that's an extreme misreading of the situation, not to mention an abusive administrative threat in support of a disputed content position. I have patiently explained why I created the article, and it is a careful attempt to organize information based on considerable discussion on article talk pages. Many editors have supported this, either in concept or application. Speedily closing an AfD that is being thoroughly argued on both sides, while calling for the other side to be blocked, is well outside the range of the role of an admin. We haven't even begun to establish whether the article should be deleted, much less whether the very creation of it is a behavioral violation. Rd232 ought to take a break from the subject matter, either as an advocate or an administrator - you can't do both at the same time. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"you can't do both at the same time" - what the hell are you talking about? Rd232 ^talk 11:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That comment, particularly the invective, is unbecoming of an admin. Please take a moment to contemplate the contradiction between using admin tools to enforce a disputed content position and advocating for the other side to be blocked. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm proposing that your clear disruption of the project be sanctioned, having attempted to limit that disruption. I believe this falls under admin duties. Rd232 ^talk 11:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(before ec) Since when has creating an article been disrupting the project? I have explained again and again that I created a new parent / sibling article after considerable discussion and support on the original article talk page for splitting the article into two different subjects. Claiming that article organization is POV disruption, despite my repeated assurances to the contrary, is is off the charts in terms of unfounded accusations. If you believe the article should not exist, opinions to the contrary notwithstanding, you are free to hold that position. That is a content position that you are not supposed to use your tools to enforce. It is unseemly even for a non-admin to come to this board calling for blocking people based on a content disagreement. You really ought to take a step back from this. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"Since when has creating an article been disrupting the project?" - when it's a blatant fork. If you could point me to the talk page support for your actions, I'd be a lot more inclined to let the forking go. As to what I want to happen with the article: I don't care. (The fact that I've never (as far as I remember) edited it might be a clue to this.) Any split should of course follow Wikipedia:Summary style and not be Wikipedia:Content forking, blatant or otherwise. Rd232 ^talk 12:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Give it up already. I can sympathize with being defensive about it, but you made a mistake. If you didn't care you wouldn't have deleted the article out of process and would not be arguing at the DrV for keeping it deleted. The talk page history is in the archives. Figure it out for yourself, and please don't waste any more of my time and patience trying to argue with me that my assurances about why I did things are false or that my edits were not in good faith. We all have better things to do than that. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You're being very evasive, both here and elsewhere on this particular issue. Rd232 ^talk 13:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"invective"! I just had no idea what you were talking about, clearly I should have just assumed that you were assuming bad faith. Rd232 ^talk 11:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Is that a sarcastic response? I can't make heads or tails of it. What I mean by "invective" is that if you're here as an admin, please don't ask me what the "hell" I am talking about in response to my objection to your proposal on an administrative board to have me blocked over a content addition with which you disagree. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not sarcasm, it's confusion and a touch of despair: I can't remember the last time I edited this topic, but your remark implied it was very recent. And of course the issue is what looks like blatant WP:GAMEing behaviour in creating a fork, not whether or not I prefer the original version to yours. Rd232 ^talk 12:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This is clear forum shopping and should be closed immediately. I am appalled by both the submission and the action taken by the "admin". jhe_iv (talk) 11:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Inevitably, it's now at WP:DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_December_28#Climategate_scandal. Rd232 ^talk 11:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Followup?

This blatant POV fork should never have been created; compare User:Wikidemon/Climategate scandal and Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. Wikidemon himself said (at WP:BLPN) "The content and sourcing in the new article are a near-complete overlap with those at Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident‎..." It was a blatant POV fork of the entire Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident article, under a previously rejected POV title, with justification weakly based on the fact that the "reaction" section in Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident may be spun off at some point in WP:SUMMARY style. (Such a spun off article would obviously look very different.) This is blatant disruption and disregard for policy, and were it a less contentious area I would have zero hesitation in blocking Wikidemon for a week (as I suggested above). As it is, I open the the floor to comments as to what, if any, followup would be appropriate. WP:RFC perhaps? Or if Wikidemon agrees to not doing anything like this again, let it go? Rd232 ^talk 17:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• I would suggest: let the DRV run its course and refer disputes about the appropriateness of the AfD close there. Give Wikidemon and any other interested editor a week or two to work on the userfied version of the article to see if anything encyclopedic can be made of it. I don't think blocks or other sanctions are really the way to go here - I think tempers are stretched a bit thin by the constant influx of sockpuppets and externally-recruited ideologues on top of an already contentious topic, but Wikidemon has been around awhile and I'd be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt and a few weeks to work on the article in userspace to see what can be developed. Incidentally, I agree completely with your AfD close and have opined as such at the DRV. MastCell ^Talk 18:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there a seasoned admin who can take RD232 aside and counsel him/her on use of tools? Addressing RD232 - I have asked you more than once to back off. Your repeated calls for blocking me have crossed the line and are at this point just a personal attack. Are you being deliberately obstinate? Please consider WP:BLOCK and get it into your head that you do not block good faith editors either punatively or over their content positions. I've explained my rationale for creating the article several times now, that it was designed to facilitate a parent/child topic organization in response to some support for that on the talk page. You refuse to accept my assurance that this was in good faith, and you're pretty much accusing me of lying. To prove your point you are cherry picking statements out of context to try to make me look bad. That is not the work of a neutral or uninvolved administrator. You need to recuse yourself from this. Please pipe down and let the community weigh in on whether your WP:IAR article deletion was permissible process, or whether it was mistaken to the point of being reversible. Your belligerent tone, unfounded accusations of bad faith, and lobbying to have me blocked over having made a controversial administrative decision, are all creating a hostile and oppressive editing environment for me. Stop threatening to have me blocked unless you want to take this to ArbCom, where I assure you the focus will be on the propriety of your assertion of authority, not my good faith as an editor. Admins are supposed to solve problems, not create them. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

MastCell is the seasoned administrator you are looking for: he has agreed with Rd232's actions. Mathsci (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• What makes it particularly egregious, in my mind, are two things: the title and the content. There had already been numerous demands for the existing article to be renamed "Climategate" or "Climategate scandal". These were all rejected because such a name would be blatant POV (Wikipedia:Naming conventions even lists a -gate title as an example of an unacceptable title). We didn't adopt "Attorneygate" (Dismissal of US attorneys controversy) because Democrats demanded it, nor did we adopt "Rathergate" (Killian documents controversy) to placate Republicans. This has all been explained numerous times on the talk page. Wikidemon chose to ignore that. Second, Wikidemon's fork used sources - blogs - which are simply not allowed under the BLP policy. They had been excluded from the existing article because they failed the BLP sourcing requirements. Again, that had all been discussed on the talk page; Wikidemon again chose to ignore it. The only conclusion one can draw from this is that Wikidemon deliberately and knowingly created the fork to flout NPOV and BLP. The article title demonstrates that it was meant to be a POV article from the outset. Its creation was an act of pure bad faith. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a misstatement of the article content, a misstatement of content policy, a personal attack, and an accusation of bad faith, all in one. You need to knock it off, too. Please a step back, stop lashing out at editors you disagree with, and come back when you can be civil about it. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Review of Rd232's actions in this incident

Yes, I think that there needs to be follow-up in the form of a review of Rd232's closure of an AfD using a decidedly non-neutral result that was wholly unsupported by the state of the discussion there. There was no consensus there for anything, and certainly not for Rd232's obviously preferred position. Please explain for us Rd232 how it is you discerned the closing position you cited from the commentary that existed on the AfD page? --GoRight (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Userfying a blatant fork is not an outcome that requires a week of discussion, or that could possibly be in doubt, as the balance of comments at WP:DRV indicates. The other issues, on the title and content of the existing article, should be discussed, obviously, on the talk page of the original article, not at AFD or DRV. The userfied page can be also be a jumping-off point for discussion, for those as wants. Rd232 ^talk 20:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

What in the ensuing discussion in the AfD led you to conclude that the article was a "blatant POV fork" and that there was "blatant WP:GAMEing" ongoing? (See [20]) Had the discussion reached a consensus on either of these points or are these merely you own subjective determinations based on your own POV? Do you make a habit of injecting such uncivil accusations into your supposedly neutral closings, or was this a special case? --GoRight (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, administrators are not given the tools they have so they can play favorites. WVBluefield (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The usual suspects here, of course, refusing to recognize an obvious fork and making spurious allegations. This presumably will hasten the fairly inevitable RfAr/GW in the New Year. Mathsci (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of the usual suspects, aren't you a member in good standing of the now infamous !Cabal? --GoRight (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Please take this to your talk pages, this section is about Rd232's behavior

It was Wikidemon who said "The content and sourcing in the new article are a near-complete overlap with those at Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident". Given that, how could it not be a clear fork? Dougweller (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC) (ec - responding to Mathsci and Dougweller) It was also I who said that my aim in creating the article is not to fork content, but to create a parent/child article structure that allows for better treatment of at least two distinct subjects, a matter discussed on the article talk page before I made my edits. Whether to have a single article or a parent/child structure is a viable question. The material tentatively added to the fledgling new article is a condensed, cleaned-up version of the material in the child article, for purposes of moving some content to the parent article and providing context about the child article in the parent, which is how you split a page. I'm simultaneously being accused of two contradictory things, creating a poorly sourced new article with bad sources that is a BLP violation, and creating a duplicate of the old article. Neither is the case. I can understand how a bystander would miss this amidst all the fuss, with RD232 quoting me selectively and accusing me of misrepresenting my motives. As far as I know I am not one of the "usual suspects" on climate change. I have done very little editing there, and my content views hardly favor climate change skepticism. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Indeed, and he has yet to answer why he chose to ignore all the previous discussions that pointed out that his preferred article title violated NPOV and BLP and why his fork included content that was rejected in the original article because its sources (blogs) violated BLP's reliable sourcing requirements. All of this was discussed many times at length on the original article's talk page. Why did he choose to ignore all of that? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Or when I stopped beating my wife either, no? ChrisO, you're making stuff up. Please don't keep repeating accusations without diffs. Your battleground mentality here is troubling. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Oh, and what am I making up, pray? The fact that the use of POV article titles was discussed and rejected numerous times? The fact that blog sources were discussed and rejected at least as many times? Are you perhaps now admitting that you didn't bother to see whether any of those issues were discussed previously? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal letter from Behringer

I understand from Wikipedia:No legal threats that editors are supposed to report legal threats on this page. Behringer sent me a legal threat. By mailings directed to my home address and to the addresses of three of my sometime employers, I have received a demand that I cease and desist from editing the Behringer page, except that I immediately remove all negative text from the article. This demand came from Behringer North America Legal Counsel EdatBehringer, dated December 22, 2009. Because of holiday travels, I didn't see the letter until December 27. I understand further that an editor such as EdatBehringer who initiates a legal threat will typically be blocked while the dispute is outstanding. Binksternet (talk) 10:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• If a "cease-and-desist" letter has been sent against a Wikipedia editor with the idea of restricting their normal Wikipedia activity, then that is squarely covered by the WP:NLT policy disallowing editing while the dispute progresses. I will wait a bit for input from other administrators (EdatBehringer has not edited for four weeks, so there is no rush), but if the description of what happened is true, then an indefinitie block is certainly appropriate. I am also disturbed by the fact that the username "EdatBehringer" indicates a connection with the company, and that the account has been used to try to get rid of a section critical of the company, creating a conflict of interest possibility. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • (As a side, how did they get your home address and employer-contacts? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC))
    • This seems to be a WP:OWN issue. Behringer do not own the article about their company. They have no say whatsoever over what goes into the article and what is kept out. There is no "Biography of Living Companies" policy either. If Behringer haven't done anything negative, then we don't put in anything negative. If they have, and it is verifiable by reliable, third-party sources, it can (and should) be included in the article. I see no reason why EdatBehringer (talk · contribs) shouldn't be indeffed now. Mjroots (talk) 12:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• I would caution that, while we should AGF of Binksternet, we must be certain that such a threat has been made before sanctioning the EdatBehringer account. Perhaps if Binksternet could forward the email to another editor for confirmation? I would be such a recipient, but I am about to be unavailable for a few hours. Is there any other editor (or pref an admin, who can then act accordingly when the threat is confirmed) who will act as a reviewer? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Would be better sent to one of the crats IMHO, with an explanation and link to this thread. Mjroots (talk) 13:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

  Why a crat, exactly? ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 15:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• It doesn't need to go to a crat, crats have no special standing in regard to this type of thing, it just needs to be sent to an admin. Binksternet, can you email a copy of it to an admin? If you don't have a trusted admin you can send it to, I'd be willing to receive it and I can also recommend LessHeard as an admin worthy of trust. Also, Binksternet, are you saying the letter was signed with the words "User:EdatBehringer"? Sarah 16:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Certainly NLT remains policy; I see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Behringer -- apparently the section on trademark charges is the issue. As far as i can tell, it is not alleged on the article talk p. that the contents is false, but rather that is is not proportionate weight. DGG ( talk ) 14:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The edit history of EdatBehringer (talk · contribs) is rather curious. As soon as the editor creates the account, they remove the "Trademark claims" section of the article and immediacy file a mediation request against Binksternet (talk · contribs) without even discussing the issue with Binksternet or other editors first. There are also a number of other single purpose accounts that have edited the article, such as Hohan22 (talk · contribs), RyanAtBehringer (talk · contribs), Guitarman987 (talk · contribs), CGspeaks (talk · contribs), Will at BEHRINGER (talk · contribs), and 203.215.73.180 (talk). A couple of these accounts have self-identified themselves as being employed by Behringer. I would suggest that a checkuser may be in order on these SPAs. Eqdynamics (talk · contribs) is another SPA that appears to have attempted to WP:OUT Binksternet. —Farix (t | c) 15:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked at this a bit further and entirely outside the issue of the legal threat, I've blocked some of these accounts for disruptive editing. The accounts I've blocked are EdatBehringer (talk · contribs), RyanAtBehringer (talk · contribs) and Eqdynamics (talk · contribs). Eqdynamics hasn't been used since October but it was being used in a very disruptive way and some of his edits had to be oversighted for attempting to out Binksternet. I'm going to go and leave them notes on their talk pages now, but also of interest is the account Will at BEHRINGER (talk · contribs) whose last edit back in July was to claim that he lost his job at Behringer because he refused to assist in sanitising the article. [21] Regardless of the whole legal threat issue, I think this needs to be dealt with on the basis of disruptive editing as they're clearly trying to control that article. Sarah 16:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Block the accounts and leave a note on their talk pages referring them to info-en-q@wikimedia.org where the volunteers will patiently explain to them why apparently well-sourced material does not get excluded without a pressing reason founded in policy. Legal letters should be referred to the Foundation as well. Editors in receipt of legal letters should email user:Mike Godwin if they are worried, and in general are best advised to walk away and leave it to someone else. We can usually find an editor on another continent who can do the needful. Guy (Help!) 15:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, JzG, I will email Godwin with a scan of the letter, even though one paragraph of it begins "Please be further advised that this letter is copyrighted, and you [sic] not authorized to republish this in any manner."
• Sarah, the letter is not signed "EdatBehringer", it is signed with the first name Ed, last name withheld by me here so that I don't "out" him, and Ed in the letter identifies himself as Behringer North America Legal Counsel. The phrasing and tone of the letter compared to that of EdatBehringer makes me conclude that the two Eds are the same person. I have no other proof.
• Seb az86556, somebody at Behringer dug around online and found out who I am, and tried to out me. It is not very difficult, as my username here relates in a certain way to my email address and business name, and I have plainly stated on my user page and elsewhere what it is that I do for a living—audio engineering. The letter was addressed to a home that I last lived at in 2002, so the people at Behringer were not able to locate me until they gave that old address to United Parcel Service who looked up the name and made an educated (and correct) guess about where I live now. The three sometime employers of mine that they contacted are listed (with others) on my business website.
• Thanks for the discussion and advice, folks. I will contact Godwin now. Binksternet (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

when I see things like this, I always wonder whether the people who try to suppress the material realize that their efforts have now become a matter of permanent record on probably the most prominent possible place on the internet. DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I love the attempt to claim copyright, so it may not be reproduced without permission, on a threat of legal action... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I would take any off-line legal threats seriously. I think disengaging at this point would be wise Bink. Other parties seem to be keeping an eye on it at this point. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Block needed, better done by someone other than me

Resolved

 – Sultaniman (talk · contribs) blocked 31 hours. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I warned Sultaniman (talk · contribs) for attacks on 2 editors, eg [22] and he's come back continuing the attack on another editor and me [23]. Someone want to give him a suitable block please? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. Theresa Knott | token threats 11:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wknight94's deletion of guideline material to sabotage an RFC about compliance with it

I've opened an WP:RFC on a long unresolved (though somewhat dormant) dispute at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people), in an effort to depersonalize the issue and let the community decide. This is a normal (and in fact preferred) means of dispute resolution instead of continued pointless argumentation. (I've been savaged for it anyway, with ad hominem rants and blatant mischaracterizations of my position and of the facts, but oh well, my skin's thick, and Wikipedians will likely come to the proper conclusion at the end of the RFC, or we wouldn't trust RFCs). The problem is that Wknight94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an opposing party in the RFC, is now deleting [24][25], over objection and clearly explained revert, the material in the guideline that the RFC pertains to and he disagrees with. It is a fait accompli action which would render the RFC moot and meaningless, as its very topic is his project's noncompliance with the deleted material! This is guideline wording that has been completely stable, word-for-word, for over a year and should not be deleted without discussion and consensus at all, much less to improperly influence an RFC, regardless of the merits of either major side of the RFC debate. Wknight94 has subsequently struck the main point of the RFC and is seeking to have the RFC closed. This is a farcical sabotaging of dispute resolution and consensus building.

The wording at WP:NCP needs to be restored at least until the RFC is over, and this under-watchlisted guideline should be watched for further changes of this sort. I have not reverted it myself any further, because I would eventually trip over WP:3RR if I keep attempting to deal personally with the double-teaming deletions of Wknight94 and Djsasso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (my other most vocal opponent on the issue, and one who abused his admin authority by threatening me on my talk page with a block if I reverted him again[26]) at both NCP and at the closely related Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople) proposal also at issue in the RFC (and where everything I've done in months[27] has been reverted by one[28] of these two editors or the other[29][30][31][32],[33] including removal of dispute tags to deny any dispute, and reversion of minor edits simply because they're mine). This seems to me an overly proprietary attitude toward the material in question, indeed the entire topic. – SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs.

without any particular view at this point on the actual issue, and no great interest in sportspeople in any case, the removal of a key paragraph with the edit comment "(Remove bit that was unilaterally forced in by SMcCandish back in August/September 2008. The community finally acquiesced to his/her wish to keep the peace, but it's still not necessary.)" and then the repeated removal after it has been restored, does seem inappropriate--BRD can justify the removal, but certainly not a second removal when there is ongoign discussion. DGG ( talk ) 14:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Edit wars over naming conventions are some of the lamest disputes we have, however removing something to gain an advantage in a dispute claiming that it was "unilaterally forced in" a year ago is also clearly unacceptable. Having stood for over a year he will need to get consensus for changing it. A much better use of your time would be merging Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople) back to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), this degree of specificity is hard to see as anything other than process creep. Guy (Help!) 14:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Your edits at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople) have been reverted there because there was consensus on the talk page there for the wording that was being proposed. Don't act like the victim when it is you that is trying to do everything you can to sway an Rfc which has gone against you in the past and seems to be going against you again. If you can't see that you are a one man army trying to fight against consensus you probably never will. -DJSasso (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

the rfc seems to have received relatively little attention--since the position of the current parties seem entrenched, we needs to see what does represent the more general consensus. RFCs are supposed to do thaat, but they seem sometimes not to get the necessary viewing by those oustside the dispute. DGG ( talk ) 14:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, and the page that I referred to is a different page from that which the rfc was on and was being reverted back to the original as per WP:BRD. He was acting out of process by continuing to revert to his preferred version, especially when as you say there is an Rfc going on. -DJSasso (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I flagged particular passages as disputed, and was actively disputing them on the talk page. You tried to deny the dispute then threatened to block me for defying you. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 01:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, it's Process Wonking Day, is it? So be it. There is now a proper proposal at the page in question. Enjoy. Wknight94 ^talk 15:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• And let's not have more process than we need. So, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players). Guy (Help!) 15:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• It's also noteworthy that in both the RFC discussion and the new proposal that Wknight94 clearly states[34]here] that the language being deleted by him from the guideline was "forced" (his word) on me by him and other parties on his side of the dispute. He then turns this on its head, e.g. in the quoted edit summary above, when it suits him. Djsasso: Agreement on the part of one side of a dispute is a given (otherwise they would not be that one side of the dispute). That does not mean that consensus has been reached, except among the people on that half of the debate, whom we all already take to have consensus amongst each other. I also note that Djsasso is making a habit of equating his personal views with "consensus" (cf. the threat, diff'd above, that he posted to my talk page; my reverts against "consensus" that he refers to were actually reverts of him deleting my inline dispute tag from passages I was in fact actively and quite specifically disputing on the talk page). Re: DGG's comment on needing more eyes on the topic: Yep! That was the entire point of the RFC. This debate has not involved much of anyone but the original participants in it, whose opinions on both sides have not budged, in over a year. And almost all are from 2 or 3 projects (baseball and ice hockey, maybe football). Not other sports topics, not non-sports topics. – SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs.

You might want to read the talk page of the page then if you think that this consensus I am referring to is just me. There were numerous editors who endorsed the specific wording used on the page, and no one but yourself opposing it. Please explain to me how that is not consensus? The Rfc currently has many people who aren't active in any of the projects you quote, and are also all endorsing the view opposite of your own. As many people have asked you already, Are you sure this is a quest you want to waste your time on when no one except a lone IP seems to support your views? It would be nice you also would tone down your ad hominem attacks that you keep making on many editors. Discuss the issue not the editors. -DJSasso (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin welcomed at Negroni

It came to my attention that an old and long revert-war on the article about the cocktail named Negroni was revived this month. Editors have been disputing who created the drink:

• 24 Oct 2009 - User:75.69.209.101 says General Pascal created the drink [36];
• 24 Oct 2009 - User:Chromatikoma says Camilo Negroni created it [37];
• 25 Oct 2009 - User:75.69.209.101 reverts to the General Pascal version [38];
• 25 Oct 2009 - User:188.221.168.112 reverts to Camilo Negroni version [39];
• 25 Oct 2009 - User:75.69.209.101 reverts to General Pascal version [40];
• 26 Oct 2009 - User:Marine 69-71 creates a Pascal/Camilo merged version [41];
• 14 Dec 2009 - User:Chromatikoma reverts to General Pascal version [42];
• 15 Dec 2009 - User:Hectorgaspar reverts to the Marine's merged version [43];
• 15 Dec 2009 - User:Chromatikoma reverts to Camilo Negroni version [44];
• 16 Dec 2009 - User:Marine 69-71 reverts to his merged version [45];
• 16 Dec 2009 - User:Chromatikoma reverts to Camilo Negroni version [46];
• 16 Dec 2009 - User:Hanegroni reverts to the Marine's merged version [47];
• 17 Dec 2009 - User:Chromatikoma reverts to Camilo Negroni version [48];
• 23 Dec 2009 - User:71.178.237.197 reverts to the Marine's merged version [49];
• 24 Dec 2009 - User:Chromatikoma reverts to Camilo Negroni version [50];
• 26 Dec 2009 - User:Marine 69-71 reverts to his merged version [51];
• 27 Dec 2009 - User:Chromatikoma reverts to Camilo Negroni version [52];

At this point, Marine reverted to his own version, protected his version and started a discussion on the talk page explaining why he believed his version was the right one.

I'm not sure this was an wise use of his admin bit. Maybe some uninvolved admin should step in and assume the role of neutral arbitrator. --Damiens.rf 16:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The admin that has stepped in here has done everything he can to help out this discussion. He protected the page to avoid another edit war and is waiting concensus. There is no problem with this happening. --MWOAP (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

One could easily make the argument that this admin has used the tools to protect "his" version of the page, but it appears to me (if that list is exhaustive) that he's been a very minor participant in the goings on and is trying to gain consensus without allowing the edit war to descend any further. However, an uninvolved admin should probably review the decision since even the appearance of impropriety could lead to discussion on the talk page deteriorating into a criticism of the action, rather than an attempt to establish consensus on the content of the page itself. HJMitchell You rang? 17:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

NJMitchell is right about which version of the article the admin protected. Admins always protect The Wrong Version. –MuZemike 17:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'll note positively that Marine immediately requested review of his actions on the EW page [53], but has received no response (likely because it wasn't the best place to ask for it.) I would agree that reverting to "his" version before protecting wasn't appropriate, especially as the concern about the reliability of the sources expressed on the talkpage used is quite legitimate.(see also this post-hoc discussion --Slp1 (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to note that the edits in favor of Pascal are being made by three editors, two of which are descendants of Pascal Negroni, and the other is the admin which has protected the page. The admin is involved at the direct request of one of the descendants, and the admin is also the creator of the article for Pascal Olivier Count de Negroni as well as one of the two brothers Héctor Andrés Negroni that are editing the article. The admin denies COI. Thanks for taking a look at this, I just want to bring the quality of the article up to speed. - Chromatikoma (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There was no need to revert to his preferred version before "protecting to avoid another edit war". Again, as said, I have no opinion about which version is better (if any), what is not material to this thread. --Damiens.rf 18:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I think Marine was exactly right in what he did. The dispute was over "Fact A" versus "Fact B". Marine's so-called "version" did not take a stance, it merely made equal mention of both theories A and B, along with the accompanying citations. This is the best and only way to avoid protecting "The Wrong Version". Whether one of the editors requested admin intervention, and whatever relationship that editor has with the subject matter, is irrelevant. Me Three (talk to me) 19:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This is what I have been trying to say. The admin that protected it could not revert it back to a version that had not been part of this edit war because there was new information between those revisions. --MWOAP (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Marine's version, although arguably the most diplomatic one, was proposed on October 26, and had been reverted back and forth seven times at the time he reverted it back to his own version and protected. You may agree his version is better or worse, but this should not imply agreeing with his using of adming tool in the case.

To lessen the drama, I recall you all I just asked for an outside admin overview/arbitration to avoid the decision being made by an involved admin. --Damiens.rf 19:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that it would be best for another admin to review the decision, but I don't think that his revision was necessarily bad, and I think that he did the sensible thing. If he had protected a revision which presented only one viewpoint, someone would complain about him being biased.  fetchcomms☛ 19:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As of my understanding, protections should be done blindly. Choosing one version before protecting is a bad decision even for an uninvolved admin (let alone for the author of the version). Being an admin does not imply you can not start a request for page protection. --Damiens.rf 20:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you have stated multiple times that you are requesting arbitration, if you want this, please file it at WP:ArbReq. This decision could not have been made blindly. The admin went back, found the issue, made a neutral viewpoint and protected it. As a general rule, yes i could see it. But this case is the exception. --MWOAP (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe this is not the place, but I wonder if Damiens knows about WP:WIKIHOUNDING? After mass nominating several images from Tony the Marine, where some of the discussions turned personal 1, he suddenly appears here, Tony created an article and guess who shows in the article? Damiens (he also nominated the image for deletion}, today he started this discussion and also nominated one of Tony's article for deletion Somebody should closely monitor Damiens contributions. --Jmundo (talk) 02:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - From the very beginning I had requested the help and opinions of administrators and uninvolved parties here. This is not about who invented the drink. What I want is for an uninvolved administrator to determine in case such as this, where there are allegations of two reputed inventors of the drink, if it is proper to post the names of the two in the article or not, that is all. I will abide by whatever is determined by an administrator knowledgeable in the subject. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought that you wanted for an admin to review the protection, not the info.  fetchcomms☛ 03:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I've been attempting to resolve this from the beginning. My one sticking point, I just want reliable sources WP:V WP:RS for the claim. I would like to push the Negroni article to a point where it might be considered for a FA. Without reliable sources, this will never happen. I posted some comments on the talk page in November [54] and mentioned in the change comment [55] questioning the reliability of the sources that you and the two brothers Negroni insist on pushing. Then I posted a RfC [56], which has also gotten zero response. I also asked the various wikiprojects involved to take a look at it. I would love for a uninvolved party to take a look at this! Moreover, I would request that Tony unprotect the page and provide a reliable source for the claim he has made. - Chromatikoma (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that both the protection and the content need to be reviewed. Should we take this to arbitration since there is no neutral admin to take this, that way we also get community concensus? --MWOAP (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we need reliable sources, but I'm confused now as to what this thread is for. Is it for verification of info, in which case a non-admin could easily find, or is it for another admin to review whether the protection was correct? It now seems that the request is for an admin to review the info and for the page to be unprotected to add the sources, both which cases can be resolved without arbitration. If the topic isn't about whether the protection was correct, this thread could be closed pretty fast.  fetchcomms☛ 03:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment-User:Chromatikoma, made a request that I unprotect the page. To which I answered the following:

"Look Chromatikoma, you know that I honestly do not have anything against you. The problem is that I believe that the unprotection of the article will escalate into an edit war, but tell you what, if another admin. does not determine the proper course to take in 24 hours, then I will take it upon myself to unprotect the article and stay out of the situation, even if there is an edit war. Does that sound reasonable?"

A quick search in google (disregard Wiki) Pascal Olivier Count de Negroni as one of the possible inventors of the drink. Any comments? Tony the Marine (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes -- here's a comment: if you can identify any of those web results as satisfying WP:RS, then go ahead and use them. Otherwise you have no business restoring poorly sourced material and using admin tools to protect the version you appear to favor. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Forked and back to the original ANI topic, please? Protecting a version you personally have created will raise eyebrows, but in and of itself isn't a violation of anything. Neither is a page being protected after it has been put back to a "pre-war" state... this is good. Combine all of it together? I can't think of policy that points to this, but I don't think anyone will deny it was a mysteriously convenient use of admin tools at that very moment for some reason. We always assume good faith, and if the admin's version was actually the last one without significant contention for a length of time it might well be the right call. A conflict of interest? Well, yes, which would be why an admin-minded person would go out of his/her way to pick just some different version as some proof that there's no WP:OWN to be concerned with. Actually, incidents like this are one of the more common "misuse" examples. If an admin is even remotely involved in a disputed article or editor discussion (or any user, for that matter)... even if they feel compelled to act that very instant it's encouraged they go seek an ex post facto justification just as confirmation. There's scant a day that goes by without at least a few requests on pretty much every noticeboard of an admin saying "need admin to check... xxxxxx" because it's the ethical thing to do. There are reasonable exceptions (not saying either way, in this case), but even on non-controversial self-protections I've seen some admins come in and apologize for just that... even, say, vandalism on his/her userpage. cont.

HOWEVER, the fact the admin originally came in as a third-party helper for the article as they say above? We're picking on a good faith editor doing a random cleanup request? Good grief. These would be editors that rank extremely low on any "risk level" scale-- I mean they're choosing to spend their free time cleaning up a random edit war mess. That makes 95% of this entirely moot. imo, just open the article and have future civility, warring, NPA and RPP issues sent through the normal channels now. No more rouge vibes from anyone, please. I could ask questions all night, but an ANI should stay on topic. ANI is not for content disputes like sources like have been dug into recently above... generic review and application of policy to odd situations is a more reasonable scope (which is how this started). Oh-- for a comparison, an example of my hacking away at an article to find "neutral" as a base for people to start editing from equally would be this page history, having spotted the article as listed for a rewrite with concerns for a corporate COI and advert tone vs CSD or PROD. I even point out in an edit summary which version I consider to be my "done" on cleanup and a reference version if things start off on the wrong foot (erm, again?). In theory, a parallel universe me would have done the exact same thing on that article of reverting to my own edit having been "clean" after a specific request to have it looked over for corporate cruft. Parallel me would still have gone to RPP unless the warring was violent and continuous at the same, but that being the only difference. I started out questioning the matter, but seeing as it was someone trying to help solve article dispute by suggesting neutral ground I find it highly unlikely that this didn't start as a WP:AGF line of actions by the admin here. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we could say it was neutral if and only if there were WP:RS to back up the claim. As it stands, the shady references that he has continually provided even after I questioned them, has shown he has a POV in this article. Also, the Pascal Olivier Count de Negroni prominently proclaims that he is the reputed inventor of the cocktail, using even more unreliable references. I was chided [57] for removing the poorly sourced material there as well. This seems to signal an agenda to me, not neutrality. - Chromatikoma (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

My final opinion is that we unprotect the page and let everyone start edit-warring again, because that seems to resolve the arguments that:

• the content is incorrect or badly sourced

  the protection was incorrect

There's no way any of the issues will be fixed if the protection is not lifted.  fetchcomms☛ 19:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ian Plimer

• Ian Plimer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are repeated insertions of blog-sourced accusations of criminal activity made by Plimer against identifiable third parties, against BLP concerns expressed by multiple editors. I think administrator intervention might be in order. --TS 19:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Pajamas Media is a notable media source which is independent of Plimer himself. Plimer wrote an editorial that was published in this media source. Plimer himself is notable for being skeptical of the whole AGW position. Climategate is a notable event in the whole public debate over the AGW position. As such, Plimer's opinion on Climategate is notable in it's own right. The opinion in question is critical of the CRU as an organization and mentions no one by name. BLP restrictions apply to living PEOPLE not ORGANIZATIONS. But even IF the BLP restrictions were applicable in this instance they still DO NOT restrict the inclusion of a notable individual's opinion on a notable topic when attributed as such and when publish by a third party media outlet. --GoRight (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"This behavior is that of criminals" is a comment about individuals, not an organisation. Behaviour applies to people. Saying that certain people are acting like criminals is a comment on people. Guettarda (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

See this discussion on BLP noticeboard in which it seems that the consensus is that this material doesn't belong here. --TS 20:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There is NO such consensus. Future commentary should be made there, however. --GoRight (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering at least half-a-dozen editors in that discussion believe it should be removed, and you are the only one arguing to keep, how is there no consensus? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Returning sock vandal causing trouble

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely by MastCell. Jeffrey Mall (talk • be merry) - 19:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Dr. Starscream is a sockpuppet of banned user E-d-itor X-XV. He has recently created two new accounts, and an LTA page for himself.

--Dr. Starscream (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

And filed an SPI to thwack the rest of this clown's socks. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 20:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Need to Close RfC/U

Could an uninvolved editor please close Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Logicus 2. The discussion at the RfC/U led to an AN that was resolved with a siteban. Thanks, SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done Beeblebrox (talk) 08:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

WATerian (talk · contribs)

I'm wondering if an uninvolved admin could have a word with WATerian (talk · contribs). This editor is on a bit of a crusade with regard to Hulda Regehr Clark. They've been pushing material that has universally been rejected on the talk page. Most recently, they have persisted in adding links at Talk:Hulda Regehr Clark which violate WP:BLP - blogs which make objectionable claims about living people (e.g. [58], [59], [60], etc).

I've removed these links per WP:BLP, but they are continually re-added despite detailed warnings. I'm about 10 minutes away from blocking myself on the basis of BLP, but it's probably better to ask uninvolved admins to have a look, so here I am. MastCell ^Talk 20:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I don't see how blocking yourself is going to help matters... Seriously, although I admit to not being up to speed on BLP, I do not see the BLP issue; the subject is dead, and the noting that a prominent oncologist cast doubt on the cause of death does not - in my view - provide sufficient detail to invoke BLP as regards that person (and, if true, would not matter). I'm sorry if I come across as dense, but what precisely is the BLP issue? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I had in mind this link, which is continually being reinserted and which does contain inappropriate negative claims about a living person (not the article subject). Maybe I'm being oversensitive about the BLP angle, and I'm just tired of seeing this editor plaster the talk page with links that have no remote chance of ever forming part of any Wikipedia article. And I am not above blocking myself... MastCell ^Talk 21:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The BLP violation is on the oncologist/blogger. Diff of re-insertion following second final warning. (Note: I am also involved at this article, though not lately). - 2/0 (cont.) 21:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours with a comment on the editors talkpage that further transgressions of the like will result in longer sanctions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

User:John254 socks question

Sir Arthur Williams was indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. -- Atama頭 22:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC) I posted this at User:MBisanz's talk page, also.[61] However, the User:Sir Arthur Williams appears impatient with the matter.

Based on prior AN/I and on contributions of this user and prior sock puppet User:Kristen Eriksen and the behavior of prior sock puppet User:Andrea105 and her edit history compared to User:Sir Arthur Williams edit history, in particular how both started with the same monobook edit, moved quickly to fighting vandalism, then advanced rapidly to bot requests (Sir's, Andrea's) I suspect sock puppetry.

I'm not clear on whether a check user is necessary. The instructions on SPI's are designed for experienced users only. I'm tired of dealing with AfDs and RFBAs filed by sock puppets. It's a waste of user time. I'd rather just ABF and deal with the matter up front, then not waste my time on the AfD or RFBA and watch it all amount to nothing as the nominator is banned as a sock puppet.

--IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If you suspect and have good enough reason, file an SPI. It's actually not too difficult - Simply go tp WP:SPI, replace "SOCKMASTER" in the right-hand box with the name of the sockmaster, and follow the instructions on the edit page. I'm not sure how successful an abuse filter would be at this. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 20:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You may think that following the instructions at SPI is possible if you have never done it before, but it's not. Most wikipedia instructions for filling in templates are not followable, these being no exception. I tried. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Total nonsense in any case. Lots of users register accounts to fight vandalism, giving themselves appropriate tools to do. Lots of users file BRFAs too soon. Actually, many BRFAs are rejected simply because they are filed by users with almost no edits. Sir Arthur Williams (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

So, whose alternate account are you? Not only are you very quick to edit your monobook (something I have never done - although incompetence struggles with laziness on my part), and are very familiar with WP acronyms, you speak authoritatively of the habits of new users for a few days old account. I would comment that an account seemingly as familiar with process as you should not fear SPI since it can exonerate as simply as it can condemn. When the SPI is filed you could offer to contact the CU with information on who you are/previously were; I'm sure that any innocent pushing at the boundaries of alternate account policy will be not sanctioned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You should read Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet. Sir Arthur Williams (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice essay, and not one I have seen in my four years here. Anyway, I have not said you were a sockpuppet (an abusive alternate account) but only a new contributor with knowledge of the environment that is very possibly the result of already editing within it. That is Wikipedia:Assume good faith, a policy, that it is. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you never used the word "sockpuppet", but you've been dancing around it. Editors certainly need to be warned against excessive displays of Wikipedia proficiency too soon after account registration, it seems. Sir Arthur Williams (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Another sock puppet investigation of a User:John254 sock is already in the works. As the Sir Arthur Williams sock points out, his edits are very much like the pattern of editing in the User:Alison22 sock. John254 is on Christmas vacation! The Alison22 sock is busy, like other John254 socks, with AfD, but did start out with template edits, bot requests, the usual monobook edit (LessHeard vanU, monobook editing is useful, you might look into some of the John254 monobook edits for yourself), vandalism. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but have any of the accounts you're accusing of being sockpuppets actually engaged in disruption or done anything else untoward? There is no policy against the use of multiple accounts, as long as they are not used abusively if my somewhat hazy recollection of policy is correct... HJMitchell You rang? 22:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's called evading a community ban. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

PS You can find this information on the SPI, supplied by the clerk. If there is no such reason existing the clerk's at SPI reject the request. "Checkuser request - code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion)" --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thanks. I'll have a gander at that (more for interest than having anything useful to contribute to it). HJMitchell You rang? 22:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

John254 is back

Kudos to Alison and J.delanoy for their huge, immensely damaging rangeblock of all at&t DSL IPs in the entire San Francisco Bay Area [62] [63]. What was never considered at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John254, however, was that I can edit right through their rangeblock. Nice try :) StephenBrown167 (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

And you're courteous, not making me do the AN/I post. Can we consider this notification, also? Lol. Thank you! --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The pity is...

That John254 was originally a good faith and worthwhile editor, who eventually found themselves unable to accept consensus on a few matters and was tempted to sock discussions to get their viewpoint incorporated. They now seem to be lodged firmly into a bad faith mode, taunting that they can sock through attempts to block them. Like the man said, now new accounts who show more than usual familiarity with WP process are treated with suspicion - yet seem unable to comprehend that it is by their actions, and not the reaction it precipitates, that this is so. Sad, really. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Need a policy-based decision for WrestleMania 23

Resolved

 – Atama stated options for this content dispute. ArcAngel (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a content dispute taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#IP opinion pushing on Wrestlemania 23. Essentially, the majority of reliable sources (many of which are almost identical) give the attendance figure for the event as 80,103. The Wrestling Observer Newsletter, accepted as a reliable source per Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide#Sources, gives a different figure for the attendance, however. One side would like both number mentioned in a neutral manner ("The majority of sources give the attendance as xx,xxx. Wrestling Observer Newsletter editor Dave Meltzer states that the correct attendance was xx,xxx, however."). The other side wants only the 80,103 figure mentioned, as they believe that having more sources makes the information correct and the opposing viewpoint not worth mentioning. During the course of this discussion, several policies and guidelines have been broken: WP:V, which states that publication in a reliable source, not the pursuit of truth, is the standard for inclusion; WP:NPOV, which indicates that favoring one number and dismissing the other would be point of view; WP:OWN and WP:AGF, which were violated when warnings were given to an editor ordering him to "Leave Wrestlemania 23 alone" ([64]); WP:VANDAL, which indicates that good-faith contributions should not be classified as vandalism (and that a level 3 warning for adding information with a reliable source is inappropriate); WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, which were broken when a user stated that "only a fool" [65] would want to add the alternative number and that the problem centers on me being my "usual stubborn self" [66]; and WP:TPG, which was violated when one side intentionally misrepresented the other side's argument (explained at [67]).

I proposed that people give ideas for dispute resolution processes. Third Opinion is not possible, as there are numerous parties involved. Request for Comment has not worked with this group before, as it led to the same people making the same arguments under a different heading on the same page. I am not seeking blocks or warnings, but I gave the information above to help show that the discussion is breaking down and needs to come to an end. I am hoping that an administrator can just make a decision one way or the other: should it be noted that one attendance figure is supported by the majority of sources and that one source disputes that number, or should the dissenting reliable source simply be dismissed altogether? Thank you, GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously you should use sources representing both figures. I don't think this is a decision for administrators to make, it is up to editors to achieve consensus and assume good faith. WP:RSN may be able to help. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately administrators don't have the kind of authority you seem to think they do (they don't have any real "authority" at all, just extra tools). Admins have no more say over content than an anonymous IP editor making his first edit. And this board specifically says that it's not for content disputes.

Personal attacks and incivility can result in administrator action, however, and this can be a good place to get help with such misbehavior. Ironically, what you're specifically not asking for (blocks and warnings) might ultimately be the kind of help this board can provide.

There are a number of steps to be used for dispute resolution. 3rd opinions and RfCs are only a couple of tools. Mediation might help (and I might be able to help with that myself) but it is 100% voluntary and everyone involved has to agree to it, agree to the result of the mediation, and then voluntarily abide by the decision (it's non-binding). -- Atama頭 01:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I was hoping someone could point me in the right direction, so this has been useful. I'll give WP:RSN a try. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"This article is trash" template?

Resolved

 – "Template" deleted. Pcap ping 12:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what if anything should be done, but seeking a second opinion. Anyway, an IP has added the following to some articles: [68] and [69]. The template reads: "This article is trash. You can help Wikipedia by deleting it." These were added shortly after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiger Woods (dog) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The London Eye in popular culture (2nd nomination) both closed as keep. Two possible concerns: 1) is this someone from the AfDs? and 2) is it an appropriate template? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You messed up one diff. I'll go and find it. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 01:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Also, hell no, it's not an appropriate template. The AfDs also have no common users voting delete. I'm guessing it's just a moron. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 01:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously that is not appropriate wording for a template, and nothing exists in the template namespace with that wording. However, the box that the IP editor was inserting does exist on several user subpages, and was probably copied from one of those or inserted using substitution. It's not familiar to me, but from the dates on the user subpages I would guess that it is something that was supposed to be funny that circulated back in 2005. --RL0919 (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like ED-style trolling to me... Pcap ping 03:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know whether perchance this was brought over from Uncyclopedia? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter where it came from, it is way out of line with our policies here and it should not be used on articles. If anyone sees it used on an article they should remove it as vandalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Article mess space: user bio, COI, possible sock puppet

The Stephen J. Press article is the kind of badly written schlock that needs serious editing. However, editing this article is difficult because of the tag-teaming by a so-called buddy of the subject and the subject himself who both want to own the article.

When I looked at the user page of the primary contributor, User:Platinumphotographer I saw it was created by User:Drsjpdc, the subject of the Stephen J. Press article. Drsjpdc added information that platinum, too, just like the doctor, loves coffee, uses Mozilla firefox and a google searches.[70]

• The doctor's contributions.[71]
• Platinum's.[72]
• Platinum's user page.[73]

They also edited another article one after the other.[74]

IMO, it matters when users use sock accounts to avoid scrutiny for COI and when they use it them to bully other editors into not editing articles.

So, BLP, COI, Sock-puppetry, where to start? The article is a BLP problem because it is badly written and looks like the insulting fluff piece it is and editing it will be hard with the "team" interfering. It's a COI problem because the subject is interfering with other editors either directly, if it's sock puppetry, or indirectly by bullying other editors. The sock-puppetry is a problem if it's being used to conceal the COI.

Would it be possible for someone, admin or editor, to look into this and see what is going on? I would like to write some insect articles for featured pictures without good places to sit, instead of seeing sock puppets everywhere any more.

--IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone should file an SPI investigation on the two accounts since someone editing an article about themself with sockpuppets is an obvious COI. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Lingering AfD

Resolved

 – Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bicycle_Thieves_(2010_film) relisted. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This AfD was opened a couple of months ago and forgotten about. It looks like neither received the afd1 template; I just added it to the articles. Suggest marking it as "relisted" today and doing the normal routine. --EEMIV (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done. In all fairness, it should be closed 7 days from today. –MuZemike 02:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Freedatingservice

Resolved

 – indeffed by User:Fran Rogers. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Freedatingservice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is misusing his or her new account. This user:

• Started the user's talk page with the announcement that the user is "looking to date a transsexual person in Vancouver British Columbia". I deleted that statement.
• Posted at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources, of all places, that the user is "writing a best seller book and would like to hear from individuals who have a story to tell", under the heading "Transvestites,shemales and kathoies". The post was unsigned, which make one wonder how the user expected responses to be addressed. Another editor deleted that post.

This account is being used exclusively for What Wikipedia is not. In addition, the user name sounds like the name of a commercial business, and therefore appears to violate the Username policy. As soon as I post this, I will notify the user of this AN/I.—Finell 03:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

They were blocked by Fran Rogers. All is well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked user user:Nrcprm2026 editing again

Resolved

 – taken to SPI. Any other allegations should be taken to the respective noticeboards. tedder (talk) 07:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Although I haven’t requested a IP check, I believe that user user:Nrcprm2026 is editing articles, specifically Gulf War Syndrome, in violation of his block under the following IP’s.

• 99.27.201.92 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 99.191.74.146 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 99.34.78.67 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 99.60.1.84 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

I am not going to begin an edit war over this and am asking an administrator to special protect the article and monitor articles that the IP is frequenting. WVBluefield (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe WVBluefield is banned User:Hempbilly a/k/a User:TDC. He and Nrcprm2026 have a long history of conflict on Gulf War syndrome and are both banned. However, WVBluefield is removing several peer reviewed secondary sources and the dispute tag, while Nrcprm2026 is the only banned user to have ever taken an article to featured status while banned. 99.27.201.92 (talk) 05:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

IP, does that mean you are Nrcprm2026? As I said on both your talk pages, take sock issues to WP:SPI, don't throw them around on various noticeboards and talk pages. tedder (talk) 05:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't, but I'm familiar with the situation. And now, WVbluefield has broken 3RR. I will try to make the appropriate reports. 99.27.201.92 (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nrcprm2026 tedder (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sudden burst of foreign language articles

Resolved

 – Handsnext89 (talk · contribs) & Centermana (talk · contribs) warned. Please report to WP:AIV if behavior continues. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

On WP:NPP, I've noticed a crop of articles written entirely in (I think) Korean showing up. Exx.: 유객(誘客), 거울 앞의 娼婦, 놋그릇을 씻는 여인 (there are a few more). They are not coming from the same account – at least Handsnext89 (talk · contribs) and Centermana (talk · contribs) are involved. Given that two accounts are involved, I get a sneaking suspicion that this may be a test run for some sort of spambot. Perhaps someone who knows stuff about stuff should look into it? — æk^Talk 05:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note - the articles are either nonsense or copies of existing English articles such as Paul Gauguin. NawlinWiki (talk) 06:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Na'vi language‎

I withdrew my nomination for the article but I am afraid more !votes may come (two have). Could somebody please close it as speedy keep? Thanks. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 05:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Done: [75] — æk^Talk 05:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There is another delete (Edison), so it's not technically a speedy keep, but I don't see any point in reopening it. Flatscan (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

On WP:SK: No one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and the nominator fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging—or withdraws the nomination. So, being the only delete !vote is not a necessary requisite. I think it does fall under speedy keep. I still think the article should be deleted, but consensus beats personal opinion/several policies/royal straight flush. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 07:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That's obviously not the case when a clear delete consensus has developed and then the nominator withdraws. In this case though, with only the one other delete vote, closing the discussion seems fine.--Atlan (talk) 08:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Academy 2009 01

This has probably come up before, so don't think I am dumb (I couldn't find it in the archives). What is with the users Academy 2009 01, Academy 2009 02, Academy 2009 03, etc.? Socks? Why are they all confirmed? Btilm_{Happy Holidays!} 05:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure on this case, but they may all be students taking a class who are editing Wikipedia as part of that class. There are lots of Wikipedia:School and university projects using Wikipedia editing as part of their coursework. I'd WP:AGF on these pending proof that they are being used disruptively. Indeed, having a bunch of similarly named accounts is sort of a public declaration of connecting them anyways, which is all WP:SOCK requires to be compliant; publicly declared multiple accounts run by the same person are, in most cases, perfectly fine. --Jayron32 06:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Should we block a few so that some kids will get an A and some will flunk having to say the modern version of "dog ate homework" which is "admin blocked me as a sock". :p JB50000 (talk) 06:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess we could, but we would get some unblock requests like "tnx winkapieda, my mum groundd me bcoz i fialed my clas so nao im bloc from u n da outside". > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 07:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If I came across an unblock request like that, I would decline and inform the user to utilize the English language to formulate his/her unblock request. (Otherwise, the English Wikipedia is not the right Wikipedia for this user, assuming that AGF is universal across all Wikipedias.) –MuZemike 08:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Then again, if it is formulated that way it was probably the English class he failed. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 09:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that this happened in a university class recently. Curse those role accounts! (in the end, there were some decent article created, and it was interesting to see the reactions to the users, especially compared to WP:NEWT) tedder (talk) 07:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocking to impact grades? Wouldn't that be a bit of a reverse pointy move?  ;) Ultimately, unless they start disrupting- or ballot-stuffing- I'm in favour of letting them be. Class projects will edit for a few days, get through, and by-and-large never think about us again until Google sends them here. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• This was part of Wikipedia:Academy/NIH 2009. And it is not funny to consider blocking users just to get amusement from the damage you will cause them in the real world. NW (Talk) 14:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

  To be fair, as long as it's only being considered, I think it could be perfectly funny ;) ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 14:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

  You are right! Idle threats aren't funny at all. To be truly hilarious, they have to be followed through! Resolute 14:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I've seen in a real life talk page edit where someone seems to have purposely vandalized so that the whole school was autoblocked for 24 hours. Therefore, we have to be very careful to block carefully, thinking of all consequences. This doesn't mean that we don't block but it has to be done with much thought, even if it appears routine. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You know what? I have recently come across some js code that will freeze your browser if you visit wikipedia. Wanna put that in their monobook page?  ;) Btilm 18:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and de-confirm these users if the Academy is over. –xeno^talk 18:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Tsadaqbmein going on adding Bad links

This user is continuously adding Amazon.com in the Lady Gaga related articles like LoveGame, Paparazzi and Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say) inspite of being warned not to. Most of them are GA quality articles and Amazon.com is considered hightly unreliable to be placed in such articles. The user is not only adding such links, but deleting sourced reliable sources and leaving spam links in between. I won't revert the articles should the user continues to vandalise like this, in fear of 3RR, but I hope that an administrater may come and intervene in the matter. Regards --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of vandalism will not put you in conflict wit WP:3RR. Mjroots (talk) 12:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I can understand Legolas concern over 3RR ... is the addition of non-RS links considered vandalism? Or, are we merely AGF-ing ourselves to death? A lot of the links that Tsadaqbmein add seem ok, it is apparently only a few that are problematic. I see only a mere attempt to discuss on his talkpage, without real specifics about Amazon not being a RS. Perhaps this needs discussion with him, not an ANI? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have previously been blocked repeatedly for removing, in good faith, unsourced drivel from articles, including unreliable sources etc., as such actions are apparently (and illogically) not exempt from the 3RR. I wouldn't trust admins' common sense over this issue, watch your own back instead. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 13:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Repeated accusations of personal attack over a period of nine months by User:Binarygal

On Talk:Information Technology Infrastructure Library starting in April 2009 (see Removed external links), Binarygal (talk · contribs) (at times using an anonymous IP, see WQA) has made repeated accusations of being bullied and the victim of personal attacks as well as making vague accusations against other editors being involved in a conspiracy. The recommended WQA process has been followed twice with no resulting change in behaviour or acceptance that this behaviour is a problem. Repeated passive-aggressive style claims of being a victim of personal attack can be considered a personal attack against those accused and in this case is disrupting the normal consensus process. Binarygal has become a WP:SPA, only editing this talk page since the beginning of 2009. In the most recent RfC discussion, Binarygal has made references to my previous account name which was changed for professional privacy reasons and prior issues with Binarygal making assumptions and statements about the professional associations of other editors that may be considered infringements of the guidance of WP:OUTING (see example diff). If she/he wished to substantiate these claims of attack, Binarygal has been advised many times of the dispute resolution processes available by several editors over this period on the talk page itself as well as during the associated WQA discussions.

As advised in the last WQA (see WQA), rather than raising this issue for a third time on that forum, I am raising this notice for assistance with these repeated accusations against me of bullying, conspiracy and harassment which are disrupting potential consensus on this talk page and I believe constitute a personal attack due to being repeated consistently over such an extended period.—Ash (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I am a simple topic editor. That is all. I know little about Wikipedia procedures, but I do know about the topic I edit and related issues.

Some months ago, prior to the date mentioned above, it became evident that there was a concerted attempt to misrepresent the reality of the topic in question, ITIL. It became clear that there was an issue regarding the Open ITIL movement, and a fairly clear attempt to marginalize it in terms of documenting its very existence.

I correctly resisted this in the article, but the reaction by the editor above in particular was almost unbelievable from my perspective. He launched what I can only describe as a campaign of attrition against all references to the open movement, and simultaneously against myself.

This continued beyond a point which anyone could consider reasonable, nor should have to tolerate. Votes on links came and went, but were repeated if they went the 'wrong' way. The determination to remove all such links is self evident to anyone who reads the history.

That is what I invite everyone to do. Please, please read the full history, because I am sick of this. He has used his knowledge of the Wikipedia procedures as one of a number of sticks with which to bully me, including outright abuse.

You will see that I have consistently requested a full investigation by Wikipedia. This has never been forthcoming.

On the specifics above: no, I have never 'outed' anyone. Please read the history. No, I am not a conspiracy nutcase as he tries to imply. Please read the history.

Yes, I stopped editing other articles when this campaign and the associated abuse began. He destroyed my enthusiasm and I lost my faith in Wikipedia. Please read the history.

It is all there to be seen. My colleagues are appalled, and I have often felt sick having read his diatribes, innuendos and false accusation. This HAS to be stopped.

Even here he is using his knowledge of Wikipedia procedures as a pseudo-bullying technique. I have no idea how this page differs from the others he has placed his abuse and false allegations on, but it is yet another attack upon myself.

Nothing is going to stop him: he will continue to seek to remove the last of the Open ITIL links come what may. The countless hours and thousands of words he has invested in his pursuit of a single link tells a tale of its own. This is not normal, and I feel very uncomfortable: yet all I have done is try to defend the integrity of an article!

Please could someone finally investigate? Read all the history, and then try to tell me that this is acceptable, that his behavior is ok, and that the assault on the link(s) is that of someone merely trying to improve the quality of the article. Please also look at those other places he made his false allegations against me.

Please, this time, research this edit campaign and what has been happening with respect to the abuse of myself. Please check everything. All I ever wanted to do was use my knowledge to improve articles, yet this has become impossible to do.

BinaryGal (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

71.239.23.70

I've attempted to report this to WP:AIV, but the bot immediately removed it do to an ongoing block. Yesterday, Tedder (talk · contribs) blocked 71.239.23.70 (talk) and sockpuppet account 75.22.138.39 (talk) for continued disruption, harassment, and trolling over Piccolo (Dragon Ball) (previous ANI report) Do to ranting at User talk:75.22.138.39, that account lost its privilege to edit it's own talk page. Now the editor as switch back to 71.239.23.70 (talk) and has been altering comments left by other editors at User talk:71.239.23.70. When these alterations have been reverted, the editor restores the alterations with increasingly uncivil edit summaries.[76][77][78][79] —Farix (t | c) 15:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Contested IP edits

• 209.244.43.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - On Jesus Franco;. Disruptive editing (deconstruction of article), no discussion or response to multiple warnings. — TAnthony^Talk 15:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Just posted a 4im Vandal note. If it continues, report to WP:AIV --MWOAP (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Getting around page protection by creating a new article

When Najib Tun Razak was protected, Scandals of Najib Tun Razak was created, probably in order to get around the page protection. Much of the material from the 2nd article has recently been added to the first article. The 'scandals' article is now at AfD. I don't know if this is just coincidence or a new trend, but it's not good for the project. Dougweller (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scandals of Najib Tun Razak, the creator of the fork says "This article is not meant to be permanent but an area where we can put all the information that was inadvertently deleted and whitewashed from the main article by a certain individual. The main article was temporarily frozen after I reported the individual of edit warring and whitewashing whole sections of the main article. The information from the current article will now be moved to the main article once we have gain consensus. But apparently that individual did not take any opportunity to gain consensus from other contributors or editors before whitewashing, putting us back in square one." This is pretty clear. Dougweller (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably the editor should be advised to put any such creation in his own userspace. But I don't see any need for administrative action. Suggest we close. AfD is taking care of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)They should userfy the page until the matter is resolved (consensus established, etc.), then - without Cats and anything that makes it appear to be a legit WP article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Seeing that there is an interest in the discussion about this article, I would like to bring to your attention a pattern of abuse whereby a serial vandal who continually whitewashes articles, Monkeyassault such as Najib Tun Razak and Scandals of Najib Tun Razak, it would be better for you to look at this discussion topic Talk:Najib_Tun_Razak#Over-protectionism_though_abuse_of_COATRACK.2FWP:BLP_claims. There were no particular instant that this individual made an effort to seek consensus. He continued to whitewash and conduct edit-warring at the Najib Tun Razak article, which let to the article being frozen for a few weeks. The Scandals of Najib Tun Razak article was created in the interim to put all the whitewashed information done by this individual that would later be reinstated in the main article. It would be a better solution to freeze the main article Najib Tun Razak from further edits until consensus has been achieved, provided if one of you have admin priveleges. Otherwise this problem will continue to prolonged itself. Roman888 (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Problem editing a user's talk page

Resolved

Fixed by MWOAP.

I can't edit the talk page of Piotrus (talk · contribs). There seems to be something wrong with the formatting of his page. I have some info which answers a request he made some two years ago at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007_December_23#SS_Tobruk_-_fictional_ship_or_real_one.3F. It is possible that he has some info on the ship which I don't that could be incorporated into the article when it is written. Anyone know what the problem is or how to fix it? Mjroots (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it is in the javascript of the page, I managed to squeeze in my tech issue template. If you go to the right and a bit below the end of the image, you can still click. Otherwise, don't know what is up. BTW, with userpage too. Going to mention this on IRC wiki-en-help. --MWOAP (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Solved it. User:Piotrus/Top is what whas covering the page. I don't know if admins want to clear the page or not. But it has been removed from the affected areas. --MWOAP (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've managed to leave him a message. Mjroots (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Problematic IP edits

On the Akmal Shaikh page by User:91.103.41.50. He keeps reinserting material about the BBC 'Have Your Say' forum, which is not a reliable source. I think he has done more than three reverts and won't discuss it. 86.150.96.115 (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

He's also attacking me personally in his edit summaries. This article is attracting a lot of attention as it is on the front page and is about a contraversial execution. 86.150.96.115 (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours for the personal attack - previous edits by this ip seem to be both disruptive and to a strong Sino POV. Nothing wrong with the latter, providing they abide by consensus. Therein lies the problem. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope he'll use the time to find a source to back up what he wants to say ... 86.150.96.115 (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, the user did break 3RR in the past 24hrs also. --MWOAP (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Kralizecl

Resolved

 – Blocked by Willking1979 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) SoWhy 18:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Undoubtedly created to impersonate User:Kralizec!. Tripped me off for a second. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing dispute in Template:Seventh generation game consoles

Hi there. I've been watching an ongoing dispute in Template:Seventh generation game consoles, in which two users have been consistently removing one game console (Zeebo) from the list on the grounds that it's "not" a 7th-gen console. These users have not once provided a reason backed up by reliable sources - reasons have ranged simply from "It's not" to "People are saying it's not", but no reason considered valid by WP policies has been given. At this point, I'm asking for advice on how to handle the situation if it continues - I've sent a final warning to one of the users involved, and as of yet I haven't seen him repeat his behavior (it's only been a half-hour or so). I am not requesting direct intervention at this time. (I am an admin, and I'm not directly involved in the dispute, so I believe I can handle the situation if necessary - just asking for advice on appropriate block length, etc.)

Users involved:

• Guinea pig warrior (talk · contribs) - currently removing "Zeebo" from the template.
• Vahid83 (talk · contribs) - Was also seen removing the entry as recently as October, same behavior.
• Wgungfu (talk · contribs) (Marty) - Established editor in video games project, been reverting edits by Guinea Pig Warrior and Vahid83 as "vandalism".
• KieferSkunk (talk · contribs) - I've been trying to facilitate discussion on this matter and asking GPW to provide reliable sources that back up his opinion. GPW has not been cooperating.

Relevant diffs:

• Example of Vahid83 removing "Zeebo"
• Marty reverts that edit
• Example of GPW doing the same thing
• Most recent removal by GPW (as of this writing) with an edit summary.
  • Current version of discussion page - minimal to no factual response from GPW or other editors.
• My final warning to GPW regarding the matter. Maybe a bit strongly worded, but this has been going on for months and it's getting tiresome.

There were also similar edit wars in the main Zeebo article (possibly still going on - haven't watched that page in a while) where its designation as a 7th-gen console was repeatedly removed and re-added.

Thanks for any help you can provide. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps drop a note at WT:VG seeking more opinions on the content dispute aspect of this situation. –xeno^talk 18:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe most of the VGProj is already aware of the issue - we had a discussion there a while back about this, and most of the editors there chose not to get involved due to lack of domain knowledge about the console in question. I can bring it up again if you feel that would help. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

AFAICT The word "zeebo" only occured once in the archives - as an aside in a discussion about OnLive. The meta-issue as to what exactly constitutes a 7th gen console seems particular suited for WT:VG. –xeno^talk 18:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I started a topic there, then. There was some discussion about this issue in Talk:Zeebo as well, but near as I can tell, GPW is the only registered user who seems to believe that this console doesn't qualify as a 7th-gen console, while Marty has provided numerous sources that categorize it as such. Lacking wider discussion on the matter, I believe Marty's actions have been in line with general policies and guidelines, and established consensus on how to categorize such a thing. (Namely, that a console's generation is not determined solely by its technical specs, but also its release date and target markets.)

In any event, I'm not trying to resolve the content portion of the dispute here. My point is that it's become a protracted edit war, the user in question is not cooperating and is continuing to push what looks like a single-user agenda, and that we're beyond the point of assuming good faith. We can deal with the content issue in the VGProj. I mainly want some advice on how to deal with the ongoing disruption from a procedural standpoint. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that as Marty has provided reliable sources to support the inclusion of Zeebo as a 7th gen console, if someone continues to disruptively remove the item based on personal opinion they should be blocked for disruptive editing. As this would be their first block, a suitable length would be no more than 24 hours. However, with more eyes and opinions on it, hopefully this will not be required. –xeno^talk 18:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual personal names (5th nomination)

Resolved

This AFD was incorrectly relisted by the nominating user. I have !voted in it, so I will not take any administrative actions regarding it, but could an uninvolved admin handle this (i.e. probably close it since there was enough discussion and tell the user that they should not do something like this)? Regards SoWhy 18:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed the relist template as unecessary; the discussion has only been open 6 days and is not scheduled to end until tomorrow. Shereth 18:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have also moved the listing back to the proper day (23rd) and am marking this as resolved. Shereth 19:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it. Regards SoWhy 19:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Harrassment by scjessey

This user has made up his mind that I am a sockpuppet and is chasing me around the wiki deleting my posts ad hassling me. He ignores reasonable warnings [80] and is clearly frustrated that he can't have his way on a talk page we are both editing. Please help. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)