Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive372

I've reported this twice already, but as of yet, nothing has been done and the user continues to cause issues

These two edits on the same day seem extremely questionable. In one article he tries to introduce improper formatting [1], and yet in another article he removes it [2]--

Crossmr (talk

) 03:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I speak neither Korean nor French, but I wanted to suggest that we might find somebody who does at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea. I have previously had to hunt down translators to help with editors who do not speak English, and I've found the WikiProjects a helpful way to do so. Elsewhere, I see these individuals are listed as willing translators from Korean. Most active among them seem to be User:Styrofoam1994 and User:PC78. Perhaps if we approached one of them, they might be able to help you open a dialog with this user to clear up questions about his image use. I'd be happy to approach one of them about it, if you'd like, or you can try it yourself. Alternatively, perhaps a French/Korean speaking administrator will come along who can handle things without the need of a go-between. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like PC78 just has a page for holding templates, I'm not sure he actually speaks korean. The other fellow has a notice up about being tied up for a couple weeks. I'll try asking to get started though.--

Crossmr (talk

) 15:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw the notice on the other fellow's page, but his contribution history suggests he's doing stuff anyway. I hope he has the time to help out. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a Korean editor and don't see any big problem on the mentioned user. The format looks not good, but I think he intended to put more contents in the spaces. Some of his pictures don't look like professional photos. Admin,

talk

) 16:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue with the formatting is that he's changing it away from what's recommended in the MOS as well as what is already established in the article. The problem with the image in question is he claims it as his own work, but the logos from the lines are way too perfect to be his own creation, and he keeps uploading it, both in complete form and cropped sections of it. The bigger issue is that he can't or won't communicate and just continues to insert these things over and over even though they're being removed with explanation.--

Crossmr (talk

) 20:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In addition when a map he uploaded as his own was deleted as a copyvio

Crossmr (talk

) 20:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'am just asking him, in french, to be more precise on the origins of his pictures. Wait and see .... Yves-Laurent (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Its specifically the images in this section. My second post outlines all the various copies and crop jobs on this one questionable image he's claiming as his own work:

Crossmr (talk

) 20:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I translated Crossmr's comment on his talk page to Korean. I hope that works. I'll keep an eye on his talk page. --Memming (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I know enough french to see he says he made them in illustrator and photoshop. Exactly how did he make them? Did he just cut the logos from another source, or did he perfectly reproduce them? There is still an issue here whether they're cut and pasted or whether or not he perfectly reproduced them by hand, it amounts to the same thing. There is also a formatting issue with the image he keeps trying to insert in to the article. Someone may want to kindly suggest to him that he remove English from his user page as its becoming very apparent at this point that he doesn't speak enough English to communicate effectively in it.--

Crossmr (talk

) 01:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

For the moment, i'am askink him for the pictures. Each thing in its time. Yves-Laurent (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you possibly tell him to relax on adding the image to the article? There are more issues than just copyright here. This is where the problem comes in. He can't communicate in english, another editor has an obvious issue with what he's doing, but he just keeps doing it over and over.--

Crossmr (talk

) 14:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've stumbled through some french to try and get through to him again. Even though you were explaining what the problem was, and it appears asked him for further detail he just kind of ignored what you said and added the image yet again.--

Crossmr (talk

) 19:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I add a message to him wich explain that the wiki syntax has to be prefered to HTML and that he have to speak with other user instead of always make the same modifications without explanation. I haven't got a lot of free time this week, and four days ago i present an article to FA election in the french wiki. So i think that was my last message with this kid. Yves-Laurent (talk) 11:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I really appreciate the help. As you can imagine its quite frustrating dealing with someone who keeps doing stuff over and over that you can't communicate with.--

Crossmr (talk

) 14:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

He told me that he will use the wiki syntax for his next edit. A vous les studios Yves-Laurent (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As well does anyone know if there is an equivalent section for the MOS in french or Korean which explains how to properly format section headers so we can also get him to stop trying to format them with HTML?--

Crossmr (talk

) 01:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Have a look to the interwiki : fr:Wikipédia:Conventions de style#Comment structurer un article ? give the basic structure of an article and fr:Projet:Aide/Recommandation/Code HTML told that it's better to use the wiki syntax but it's not an official rule. Yves-Laurent (talk) 07:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No but we have the same encouragement here, and really its a standard. And its already set up with wikiformatting in every article.--

Crossmr (talk

) 14:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments on the Article

(this was posted by Griot as an additional subsection, originally copied from comments on User talk:Griot#Looks like you've been set up) —Random832 16:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I was disappointed to read the article, having talked with her by phone and e-mail. I had nothing to tell her about you at all, nor any of the articles that she was interested in. —Whig (talk) 06:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

We talked for awhile but she did not use anything that we discussed. I don't want to publish details inasmuch as I asked her to maintain the privacy of my real name and she has honored that. I have had no involvement in editing articles pertaining to Ralph Nader nor have I had any prior dealings with you. —Whig (talk) 06:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I exchanged some correspondence with her, but she lost interest when I wouldn't discuss any individual editors (in particular, Griot.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Original post

Marynega (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Submitted by: User:Griot

Last week, I was the subject of a tabloid article in the SF Weekly called "Wikipedia Idiots: The Edit Wars of San Francisco" in which author Mary Spicuzza (Wikiname: Marynega) tried to “out” me and obtain my real name. The article explains how she employed her newspaper’s IT systems manager “to work some of his computer nerd magic,” presumably to link my IP address with my name. She then, on the basis of information from the IT manager, “hung out in Griot’s neighborhood” hoping to locate me. Was she trolling with a WIFI detection device looking for my IP address and home location? It’s hard to believe she would just walk around at random looking for me, because of course she doesn’t know what I look like.

Using the resources of a newspaper to unmask a person’s online identity is unconscionable, but there is even more to this tawdry episode. Mary Spicuzza subtitled her story “The Edit Wars of San Francisco.” However, Mary Spicuzza was moved to write her article not by disagreements at Wikipedia about San Francisco topics, but by something altogether more personal, as I will explain.

The cyber-vendetta. Mary Spicuzza wrote, “I first learned about (Griot) during a conversation with my sister, Jeanne... (He) seemed to be on a no-holds-barred campaign to delete her page after he blamed her for making dubious edits to Ralph Nader's page.” Mary Spicuzza doesn’t say that the “page” in question was in fact a Wikipedia article about Jeanne Marie Spicuzza. Another editor nominated this article for deletion on notability grounds; I was one of 16 editors (out of 19) who voted to remove the article from Wikipedia. An article about Spicuzza’s company, Seasons & a Muse, Inc., was also removed. Mary Spicuzza also doesn’t mention that her sister Jeanne was banned on two occasions from Wikipedia for sock-puppeteering at Ralph Nader articles, each time for six months.

After Jeanne Marie Spicuzza’s “page” was removed from Wikipedia, another Spicuzza family member — she describes herself as “21 year old female,” where Jeanne Marie is nearly 40 — began keeping a MySpace blog about me. In her latest entry, she describes herself as “Accomplished,” gives a link to her aunt’s (sister’s?) SF Weekly article, and pronounces it “Awesome!” (The Wikip spamblock feature does not allow My Space links, but trust me.)

(In fairness to Jeanne Marie Spicuzza, author Mary Spicuzza’s sister, it should be noted that Jeanne Marie claims to be unacquainted with Wikipedia. In the Comments section to her sister’s SF Weekly article she wrote, “I do not participate on Wikipedia, nor do I use it as a source” (see comment #10, dated Feb. 13, 2008). However, this statement contradicts author Mary Spicuzza’s claim to have heard about me first from her sister Jeanne; moreover, the quotes Mary Spicuzza used in her article show an understanding of my Wikipedia dealings with Jeanne Marie that Mary could not have acquired on her own.)

The hit is in. On Jan. 23 of this year, Mary Spicuzza joined Wikipedia under the name Marynega and wrote this invitation on my Talk page: “My name is Mary Spicuzza and I’m a reporter with the SF Weekly. I’m working on an article about Wikipedia and I’d love to speak with you. May I give you a call?” Given my history with the Spicuzza family, I let it slide. Next day, Mary Spicuzza wrote invitations to other Wikipedia editors, several of whom, I noticed, had had disagreements with me. She wrote six more times to my Talk page asking for an interview, five more than she wrote anyone else. Never did she mention her connection to Jeanne Marie Spicuzza. She was counting on me not recognizing her name. She only wanted my perspective, she said, “on how San Francisco is represented in the encyclopedia.”

The author clearly misrepresented herself, and it was easy to see why. Mary Spicuzza wanted to make me the subject of a tabloid article, something along the lines of: "At last I tracked down Griot. But should I tell him that I was Jeanne's sister? I pitied him, I really did. Still, he deserved what was coming to him. And I had tracked him this far. It would be a shame not to let him have it. But still, maybe I should wait a bit longer..." The author has trouble distinguishing between investigative journalism and theater.

False portrait of the encyclopedia. Wikipedia editors who manage to slog through “Wikipedia Idiots: The Edit Wars of San Francisco” will not recognize the encyclopedia. In Mary Spicuzza’s rendering, Wikipedia is a free-for-all of constant edit wars, where editors try to embarrass one another and “violations of Wikiquette are rampant.” She holds these views because she sees Wikipedia through her sister’s eyes and because she deliberately sought out people like her sister who had had run-ins with me. If Mary Spicuzza had looked objectively at my work on Wikipedia, she would have seen that 99 percent of what I’ve done here consists of copy editing to make articles easier to read. But Mary Spicuzza had a cyber-vendetta to pursue; her sister’s cyber-honor was at stake.

It gets even weirder. In a very odd twist, Mary Spicuzza’s article quotes her own niece (sister?) SeeknDistroi, who wrote her by e-mail, "Yeah, Griot. ... You disagree with him, he harasses you, you get blocked." I know that SeeknDistroi is a Spicuzza because her Oct. 17 entry at the Matt Gonzalez Talk page is identical to her Oct. 17 entry on her MySpace blog (“Investigation of edit history and User:Griot contributions reveal bad faith. Documentary to follow (how's that for a B-movie, Griot? Or should I say Matt?”). Mary Spicuzza quoted SeeknDistroi, her own niece (sister?), for her tabloid article about me, the evil Griot. How’s that for keeping to journalism ethics and standards?

Right about the time Mary Spicuzza was “hanging out in my neighborhood” looking for me, she wrote my Talk page to tell me what I suspected all along: “Hey Griot, I just wanted to give you a heads up — my editor and I have decided to make you the main focus of my newspaper article. Best, Mary.” We exchanged several messages after that, with me asking “Why me?” I wanted her to come clean about her connection to Jeanne-Marie Spicuzza and the Spicuzza blogger who have been harassing me for six months, but she didn’t do it. Finally, I wrote her a longer message by e-mail explaining that I knew who she was. I copied this message to her editor and managing editor, believing they should know the true motive behind her story. I told her, “Next Christmas Santa Claus is going to put a large lump of coal in your cyberstalking.”

Now a disclosure: Last week I was banned for one week for sock-puppeteering. I would like to apologize to the Wikipedia community for this. I can tell you with complete certainty that it will never happen again because I am not going to edit at Wikipedia anymore. This place makes me tired.

Where to now? I don’t think it matters to user Marynega (Mary Spicuzza) if she is punished at Wikipedia; she joined only to research her article. It doesn’t matter to me either whether she is punished or banned. For me, the larger questions that remained to be answered are:

1. Mary Spicuzza mentions interviewing members of the Wikimedia Foundation (she doesn't, of course, report what they said, as Wikipedia wasn't the real subject of her article). Did they talk about me with her? And if they did, do they have some kind of policy for talking about editors?
2. How safe is a Wikipedian's online identity? Does Mary Spicuzza's "magical computer nerd" have a chance of finding anyone's identity?
3. What are the ethics of a journalist or anyone else pursuing an edit war off Wikipedia, in this case onto the pages of a print newspaper?
4. What are the ethics of a journalist or anyone else misrepresenting themselves on Wikipedia for their own purposes? For example, should someone researching a topic be discouraged from registering if his/her only goal is to conduct private research by interviewing editors?

Documents of interest to this matter:

• The article: "Wikipedia Idiots: The Edit Wars of San Francisco"
• Petition to delete the Jeanne Marie Spicuzza article from Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeanne Marie Spicuzza
• My Talk page (I'd like to get people's take on this): Griot's User Talk
• Tom Walsh and Will Harper: SF Weekly editors

Ummm - I'm not sure how this ties in here, but I just completed

this checkuser request tonight - Alison ^❤

07:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia editors ...will not recognize the encyclopedia. In Mary Spicuzza’s rendering, Wikipedia is a free-for-all of constant edit wars, where editors try to embarrass one another and “violations of Wikiquette are rampant.”" Very recognisable. Sounds like accurate reporting to me. Relata refero (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Only if you have an axe to grind. did you actually read this hatchet-job, or are you simply projecting? --Calton | Talk 09:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I did. What's your point? Relata refero (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

While I find the account above a little overheated, its basic facts are true and disturbing: a journalist decided to use her position and the resources of her paper to carry on an on-Wiki battle -- by stalking, personal attacks, and, in effect, the real-life equivalent of sockpuppeting by the quoting of a phony and misrepresented witness -- on behalf of her own sister. And it's hard to avoid the conclusion that it was done deliberately and with malice aforethought. This is a textbook lapse of basic journalistic ethics and conflict-of-interest guidelines, and her editors, perhaps looking for yet another gotcha story, fell for it.

In fairness to Jeanne Marie Spicuzza, author Mary Spicuzza’s sister... You don't need to bend over backwards to do that, given her long track regard of sockpuppetry -- which she's denied even when caught red-handed -- and ban evasions. Besides, given that she's posted at SF Weekly's website, she's left behind her IP number with them, and they can compare -- if the paper's management and editors have the slightest shred of intellectual honesty -- that IP number with edits made by the same IP number on Wikipedia. For their covenience, if they're reading this, they can just replace "XXX" with the IP number and see where it leads.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/XXX
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:XXX

Betcha I know what they find. --Calton | Talk 09:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to think that they'll care that their "investigative journalist" used a couple of sockpuppets to get a good story. Sometimes I wonder what happens to people's memories of RW ethical judgments once they spend enough time on here. Relata refero (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Having actual real-world experience of journalism, yeah, I do know that they'll care -- at least about the appearance -- of ethics, especially when the evidence in shoved in their faces, and I can easily dig up examples to back me up. Other than your content-free cynical affect of "the real world", what else do you wonder about? --Calton | Talk 10:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You missed the point, of course. The point was that standard journalistic ethics hardly cover the avoidance of sockpuppetry in order to get a story. (I can dig up examples of deception that are considerably worse. So much for "content-free".) Ours do, but we have different aims.

Other things I wonder about are available elsewhere on this board, particularly the persistence of incivility among some of our longer-term accounts. Relata refero (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue of whether the Foundation has a policy on talking about editors is worth asking them about. We've had a couple of cases that suggest they don't have one, and I think it's needed, not only when it comes to talking about editors but article subjects too. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've said it before and i'll say it again, Outing is highly dangerous and will get a wikipedian killed or seriously injured. Also the foundation has a moral duty to protect its editors and atleast in Europe a legal duty to do just that. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Killed? [citation needed] Natalie (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think "killed" is a condition somewhere in between "deleted" and "redacted"(?) Boodlesthecat (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

For reference see

Fascinating. Ex-user Griot writes "In Mary Spicuzza’s rendering, Wikipedia is a free-for-all of constant edit wars, where editors try to embarrass one another and “violations of Wikiquette are rampant.”" Which pretty accurately sums up what Griot and his dozen or more sock puppets' contribution to the project has been in the course of his residence here. Read through his talk page--he was playing the Mary Spicuzza bit for all he could, blowing it into a major drama, writing volumes when a simple "I don't wish to speak with you" message to Spicuzzacould have ended it nicely. But noooooooooo, he has to turn his user page into an extended onanistic rant, providing ample fuel for Spicuzzi's fires all by himself. All the while lashing out at others rather than take responsibility for what his own bad behavior brought upon his own self. Outed? He outed himself. Well at least we won't be hearing his misogynistic rants anymore; "tawdry journalist"--how mid-20th century! Although in his latest email to me he informed me "It's been a long time since you got laid" and was kind enough to call me "a dried up [bleep]" (ohh, I'm sorry, is that "outing the poor little fella?") Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"Outed? He outed himself" No he didn't, but again i to am not going to defend his appalling behavior. What i want you and this journalist to understand that not every wikipedia editor lives in a nice safe western democracy. Other editors like me edit very controversial topics like Terrorism or Democracy, both which could lead an editor getting hurt if shes in the wrong part of the world. I'm glad this Griot is perm banned, sounds like hes been very disruptive, but there is a bigger issue at stake here. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hypno, I agree entirely with your sentiment. However, I don't think it applies to this case, in which the purported victim is just a boy behaving badly crying wolf and hiding behind a charge of "outing." In fact, from what I recall of the article, all of the info about Griot was gleaned from the public Wiki archives of Griot's own seemingly uncontrollable compulsion to engage in bombast; and I assume the SFN's own bombastic claim of sleuthery via IP address was itself gleaned from Wiki edit histories. Yes of course there are important issues here, but in this case, methinks the "outed" [sic] editor protesteth too much. Was it an unethical use of journalistic resources? I'll leave that for the paper to worry over; the article provided full disclosure in the article itself, and the authors trickiness in getting griot's attention is as old as the journalism game and pretty tame. Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of anything he did, I read that article, and it was hardly worthy of making the news. I mean come on, it was just a load of information regarding different Wikipedia policies and Mary's grudge against the user Griot. Griot shouldn't have acted the way he did, and Mary shouldn't be allowed to continue a career in journalism unless she decides to stop acting childish. Sandwiches99 (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm hardly going to stick my neck out to defend Griot as a constructive encylopedist, given his recently uncovered farm of sockpuppets and his long history of combativeness. Still, the most rational explanation of events here is that someone carried a Wikipedia-based grudge against him to the point of using the resources of a major publication to try to belittle and "out" him. Does anyone, anywhere, still have a sense of perspective? The fact that the editors of SF Weekly went along with this is puzzling, at best. Two conclusions: while anyone is free to say anything to the press, it might be worthwhile to have some sort of common-sense policy about what the Foundation will say about specific editors. Secondly, I used to wonder which was the lamer free paper:

Bay Guardian (formerly a neck-in-neck race). Now there's a clear winner. MastCell ^Talk

18:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Can someone other than myself deal with this? As a result of this AE report I placed

Well, the comment certainly was uncalled for, but I'm having a hard time distinguishing whether it's incivility, or just minor disgruntlement. He should certainly be warned about it, though, if he keeps it up, a block might be warranted.

(Gmail?)_(u)

17:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think an accusation of abuse of admin tools is incivil, and someone on ArbCom civility parole ought to be more careful. Is WP:AE backed up, or should this report be directed there?

^T

17:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly an assumption of bad faith. Read the terms of the civility supervision - you'll see those aren't permitted. ArbCom restrictions are supposed to be enforced fairly stringently. I brought this here, as opposed to AE, to get a fast response.. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to give him a one-time pass to vent his frustration about being called on his disruptive editing, which he's just expended; and no more leniency from here on. But a block would certainly not be out of place, either, under the circumstances. The tactic of accusing an admin enforcing policy of being motivated by anti-[Israeli/Palestinian] bias says alot about the accuser, and it's really tired on this particular set of articles. MastCell ^Talk 18:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it's not a "tactic" if the admin really does happen to be biased. (And I'm not talking about Moreschi, who I don't know from anything.) 6SJ7 (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Then why are you commenting here? MastCell ^Talk 01:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I was responding to your second sentence, which went beyond the scope of this particular incident. 6SJ7 (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It might be a fine line, but saying something "not nice" isn't the same as being uncivil or what some might consider rude. It's an unfavorable opinion, and a mild one at that. -- Ned Scott 06:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Pls take a look here, is the reason the barnstar was given tolerable?

Just found out

talk

) 20:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no barnstar on that page, there is a barnstar on this page

Crossmr (talk

) 23:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's that one, Dodona had it on display on his user page for a while but was kind enough to remove it when asked. See duplicate thread further below, #User:Dodona. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Latha P Nair (talk · contribs) has been adding a link to Comparison of office suites into dozens of articles on application software and technologies. In many cases, the link seems of questionable relevance, since the comparison deals only with current office suites. For example, the addition of the link to the article on the long-defunct CEO (Data General) doesn't seem helpful, nor does it seem useful in Pivot table. The editor is not responsive to concerns raised on their talk page, and has re-added the links after their removal in some cases.

This is a relatively minor matter, so would I be overreacting if I issue a block for say 24 hours to try to force the user to discuss their edits? What other options are available when the editor does not respond to talk page queries?-gadfium 22:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

They have continued to place the link in many more articles. I have rolled back the edits and blocked indefinately until they are willing to discuss their edits.-gadfium 08:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI regular

Uh, it's at ArbCom. I think we'll just have to let them deal with this trash. I'm pretty sure they can see this for what it is. --Haemo (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with Eusebeus that this appears very inappropriate and that this aggressive behaviour is also typical for White Cat. Incidentally, I had posted to AN regarding the same issue, to little response. User:
  Dorftrottel 22:50, February 19, 2008
• What sort of admin action are you looking for? White Cat will not be blocked on ANI for actions on an ArbCom evidence page or workshop without a fight because this is a dangerous precedent. ArbCom can, will and has before considered all behaviour including behaviour during a case. Think the Badlydrawnjeff case. Just leave this to ArbCom because it causes more drama than good to do otherwise.
  talk
  ) 06:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Some form of oversighting might be needed, but so far no one has requested it. -- Ned Scott 06:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    • True but the arbitrators are more than well-equipped to deal with that themselves. Leave it to them.
      talk
      ) 06:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Beyond his sock allegation, he is accusing just about all the editors he disagrees with of meatpuppetry;

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence#Common editing behaviour of some users (Meatpuppetry)

I suppose this is primarily the ArbCom's remit, but more eyes are welcome. There are only a few ArbCom members and they are busy. ANI regular? He's only edited an/i 880 times;^[3] a bit over 2% of his edits — this is his most edited page after his user and talk pages. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that this user (Jack Merridew) is part of the

m

23:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone is using template transclusion to vandalize

Related to Higher vandalism I reported above...I've reported him to

chatter

) 22:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but he had assistance from User:Ruddigger. Sockpuppet, probably. Anyway, this has been solved for now. --Agüeybaná 22:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked that one too. There's definitely some socking going on here... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Related to User:Poloris's vandalism on Bobby Robson yesterday? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Why should we "obey" this . Because Mr.

USA. Wikipedia cannot censor me. Its a violation of the First Ammendent. Rio de oro (talk

) 22:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a private website, and we are neutral; that means that we neither support nor oppose these people or their actions in their respective articles. You have no right to free speech here. Get used to it. --Agüeybaná 23:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

See

WP:FREE. It gives a good explanation of why you have no right to free speech over here. The article about Castro is supposed to be written neutrally, meaning that a person who will read it will not be influenced positively or negatively about Castro-they'll form their own opinion. Having access to unbiased information is one of the best things about democracy. Puchiko (Talk-email

) 23:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism was to a template:

Template:Cleanup-rewrite which effects potentially hundreds of Wikipedia articles. It just happened that the Fidel Castro article was the most visible. Silly rabbit (talk

) 22:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It was probably less to do with Castro's politics than someone obtaining lulz from getting large, floating, difficult to remove pictures of wangs on as many WP articles as possible. It's not a new idea by any means... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous, Rio de oro. Exactly how does adding a penis template to an article constitute fighting for freedom? JuJube (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

My toughts exactly, our goal here is to present a neutral biography, not push our own pov because we disagree with the actions of a certain politician. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well you guys techinally wrong, the servers are in the USA. So its USA law. Get it right you Cubans. --Rio de oro (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Two things, number one I'm not Cuban and I hold no particular POV over the country's political status, and two your last comment can be considered a personal attack, I recommend that you stop your pov-pushing and political trolling before you get blocked for personal attacks. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where the servers are, the US constitution says that congress shall not pass laws that restrict the right to free speech; it says nothing about private websites like Wikipedia. Get it right you gringo. --Agüeybaná 00:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You really are an idiot, Rio de oro. Fire in a crowded theatre mean anything to you? Can we just block this obvious troll already? JuJube (talk) 08:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Archtransit's short career as a sysop included killing a number of suspected sock reports. In at least one case he deemed a SSP "counterproductive" which another admin later closed as an obvious sock.

Suspected sock closes to be reopened

• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rohit tripathi60 reclosed - Mr.Z-man 01:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Deanrules reclosed - Mr.Z-man 01:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/124.185.79.125 reclosed - Mr.Z-man 01:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nationmaster reclosed - Mr.Z-man 01:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Note this does not presume a different conclusion will be met. It is merely appropriate cleanup after the actions of the user in question. Whoever reviews the last of these four, please note there is evidence examined by Arbcom that suggests at least one of the comments made to it was influenced by Archtransit, and therefore all comments should be set aside in re-evaluating the case.

Good thing these where re-opened, as Archtransit's actions have just proven to be wrong. Tiptoety ^talk 01:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Other actions

I have reopened the above sock closes; someone else needs to review his ANI and other project space actions since January 9 - 10, when his RFA passed and he ceased being scrutinized by the community.

Can a note be posted below when this is done, and any dubious matters noted and reopened or fixed?

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

 Doing...Tiptoety ^talk 00:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done, all looks okay, as there really is not much project space contributions during that period of time. There are two AfD's that where closed by him during that time though, those being Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madiun Stadium (which had a clear consensus), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obadiah Newcomb Bush (which had a somewhat clear consensus). I do not see the need to re-open them though. Tiptoety ^talk 00:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

New concern,

Its looking strongly like Congolese fufu was a sockpuppet of Archtransit. Investigating further, I noticed that one of the accounts in

talk · contribs). FT2 has confirmed that Wikipeace2008 is a match for Archtransit so it would appear all the accounts confirmed as socks by Alison in that check were also Archtransit. WjBscribe

00:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Also take a look at this:

talk · contribs). After Jehochman (talk · contribs) blocked profg (talk · contribs), Archtransit blocked Jehochman. Tiptoety ^talk

01:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah -- I've been looking at

talk · contribs · logs). Further evidence tieing the two sockfarms together. Tvoz |talk

01:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we need to start reviewing all of their contributions.....*sigh* Tiptoety ^talk 01:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Can someone point me at a list or a category that summarizes all of these? I need to go through a lot of contribs and old FACs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, the list of socks identified so far can be found at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dereks1x and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Archtransit. Should the two groups be merged under the Dereks1x moniker since Dereks1x is the older of the accounts? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Bobblehead. What about the similarity between this and the recent posts to you and Wasted Time R? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There's also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Archtransit for the other possible socks. WjBscribe 01:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you're talking about Zzalzzal (talk · contribs) and this comment[5], SandyGeorgia? He certainly has the woe is me personality and tenacity that is common with Dereks1x when he get's caught breaking the rules. The most striking similarity is the unsupported accusation of Wasted Time R and I being in collusion together. The accusations of collusion and sockpuppetry against anyone that doesn't agree with him is something that Dereks1x socks frequently make. There is a lot of similarities between Fairchoice's unblock request[6] and Zzalzzal's unblock request[7] as an example. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It probably would be a good idea to consolidate all the socks into a single sock category, though, to allow for an easier time finding any characteristics which may have been displayed earlier in one or more of the accounts used. John Carter (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

And the answer from Thatcher is that Zzalzzal is unrelated but peculiar.[8] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Irony.
  ^T
  03:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Are we sure that the Dereks1x and Archtransit sock farms are related beyond the coincidental Peace2008/Wikipeace2008 connection? Is there any checkuser evidence? For example, the contribs histories of the socks don't look at ALL alike... Dereks1x's socks mostly edit American political articles (like Obama, Romney, Clinton, etc.) while Archtransit's socks mostly edits Aviation articles. And I am pretty sure Archtransit is British; he worked rather a lot on the Manchester article, for example. Now, aren't we giving ARchtransit a LOT of credit to be able to maintain two separate sock farms that each edit their own completely unrelated sets of articles, one of which appears to be familiar with only American topics, and the other British? I just don't see the connection... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • LIkewise, Congolese Fufu does not appear to be among the Archtransit camp. I don't see the connection looking at the contribs history again. Congolesefufu, in terms of geographic articles, edits mostly articles on northeastern US schools (Dartmouth, Seton Hall). Also, the contribs history is quite full, and seems to overlap the contribs history of Archtransit in such a way as to preclude one person using both accounts, unless he was literally swapping between the two for each edit, and keeping each account editing its own topics. Nope, still don't see that one. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Looking at Profg, other than the fact that Fairchoice, a now confirmed Archtransit sock, commented on his checkuser case, appears to edit mostly junk science and snake-oil articles. For a geographic connection, he edited extensively on an obscure Georgia 10th district special election: [9], which doesn't seem to match Archtranit's farm at all. There's just no connection in the edit histories, and again, check how that on September 1, while profg was editing some articles[10], archtransit was busy spamming welcome notices to new members [11]. Again, no connection seems to exist. We really need to check these carefully before labeling them as Archtransit socks. It is easy to go overboard, and find his socks hiding everywhere, but we need to take time and really investigate these. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Dereks1x also has a history of editing aviation related articles. See confirmed sock TL500 (talk · contribs). The connection is also based on Thatcher's response to Jersyko noting a similarity between Archtransit and Dereks1x.[12] You should also be aware that Dereks1x socks have previously indicated they live in/are from various non-US countries. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 07:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Its one thing to claim on a talk page that you are from/not from a certain country. However, when you look at editing patterns, it becomes harder to hide. Editors always "come home" and most, if not all, editors tend to edit articles in their geographic comfort zone. Its isn't about what the editors claimed; Archtransit's edits of the articles relating to Manchester show a familiarity of someone who knows the city well; likewise Profg familiarity with obscure American elections or Dereks1x's many socks that show close ties to American politics. The aviation connection is likely coincidental. Since there is no actual geographic connection among the aviation articles, and there are likely airplane fans or aviation engineers from many places, its hard to pin a real connection on that coincidence. Also, look at the contribs and editing times. The assumed sockmaster in each of these cases (Dereks1x, Archtransit, and Profg) were often editing at the same minute and in ways that seem to preclude that they are infact the same human at the keys. I've linked some evidence that precludes Archtransit and Profg being the same person, as far as the Dereks1x and Archtransit, while they don't directly overlap, consider that Archtransit edited almost exclusively in the time window of 17:00-23:00, while Dereks1x and all of his socks edit almost exclusively in the 01:00-05:00 window. Are you going to tell me that Dereks1x was blocked, and came back as Archtransit 3 months later, and was careful to edit 5 hours earlier consistantly so no one would notice, and keep it up that way for months? I mean, even if this guy is a total asshole, he still has a job and other things in his life, right? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
          • I would say that Profg is unrelated. The different editing times of Archtransit and Congolese fufu can be most easily explained as one editing exclusively from work and one editing exclusively from home. (And in fact, there is evidence of parallel work and home sock farms here.) There are other compelling and technical reasons to consider them as confirmed sockpuppets of each other. It seems very likely that Dereks1x is ultimately behind it all, although it is not necessary to prove that to know that this user is a problem. Thatcher 15:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The mesage I left on Congolese Fufu's page was after a RFCU (You know, the one where Archtransit blocked Jehochman for doing a short block). I guess that if Archtransit appeared in the check, considering what happened, a checkuser would have put 1 and 1 together at that time. So my guess is that both know each other but are not the same. -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
      • • • The time difference could be explained if a user's work shift, school schedule changed or if impacted by another when their schedule changed, assuming their timing has remain stable might be in error.
            boi
            11:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Since there is some question on the subject, I merely wanted to note that as someone familiar with Dereks1x and company, I am 100% certain that the Dereks1x sock farm and Archtransit are related. I'm not sure where Jayron32 got the "3 months later" mark. Archtransit began editing in earnest quite soon after User:VK35 was indefinitely blocked. · jersyko talk 13:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Jayron32 should also compare

talk · contribs)'s edit times to VK35 (talk · contribs)'s edit times. VK35 edited between 15:00 and 01:00, which, aside from starting 2 hours earlier, conveniently overlaps Archtransit's editing times. Granted, that doesn't show anything more than a possible timezone relationship, but it does show that there was a change in Dereks1x's editing times from when he first started up to Archtransit's creation. As far as the "coming home", if Archtransit wanted to become an admin in order to "protect" his other sockpuppets, he would have been stupid to return to American politics. The editors in the American politics area have picked off 60 of his sockpuppets, there is no way he would have lasted more than a few days if he had edited in that area. --Bobblehead ^(rants)

15:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

AH! The VK35 account does appear to be a bridge, both temporally and in editing style between the two sock farms. Of particular note, from my point of view, is the new user talk page welcome spam. Look at the July 8 contribs of VK35 [13] and the September 1 contribs of Archtransit [14]. Almost a dead match. Also, looking at the talk-page comments at User talk:VK35 it is clear that VK35 is also a Dereks1x sock. Wow. Has checkuser connected the two sockfarms yet? Do we atleast have a geographic connection (do Dereks1x and Archtransit and/or their sockfarms at least edit from the same country?). That would be the clincher on that one, and it would seem we have probable cause to at least check into that. Any checkusers out there want to look into it? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

VK35 is currently too old to check. I have been informed by Dmcdevit who checked him that he edited from the same range as the current accounts. Thatcher 17:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Something else I was thinking of. Since both Archtransit and VK35 spent some time "welcoming" new users on a few occasions early in their careers, is it worth looking into to see if these "new users" that they welcomed were in fact part of this sock farm, and not new users at all? Just an idea to keep an eye on. They may have been legitimate, but also they may have been a way to "mark" the sock accounts by the sockmaster... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[out] Jayron, there are many overlaps in style and focus that illuminate the connection between the ongoing Dereks1x farm - not just Dereks1x himself - and the Archtransit farm: too many for mere coincidence. And it is not just article edits, it is also talk space and various WP pages where he comments and actions in which he participates, like this one. As for the "coming home" issue - this is a dedicated impostor who carefully, and sometimes not so carefully, constructs personas that would appear to be internally consistent and unrelated to the traditional Derek edit areas and one another, but then sometimes one sock would edit the area that another sock specialized in, or one would comment on a particular matter in a certain way that was unmistakable to those of us unlucky enough to be dealing with him. He does research and always labors to create an edit story, but sooner or later one or another edit will catch someone's attention. It rarely has been as obvious as returning to the American politics articles, but is nonetheless easily spotted. At least for the 60 or so Derek socks we've found. As I said before, I am completely sure that there are some lurking in the wings waiting to be activated (I have also thought of the "welcome" edits as possible flags although he hasn't seemed to need that), and others quietly editing away making their histories and friends on various projects, maneuvering toward adminship, and likely one or more that already have become admins. Probably some more editors who have been blocked are part of this too but they weren't checked for the overlaps. Tvoz |talk 21:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I got all of that. We're already well past that, but thanks for explaining it all again. What we need to do is look into possible other outlets of this sock farm; to stop it in the future. That is why I was attempting to steer the direction of the investigation into the welcome spam. It could be an attempt to flag his own sockfarm for future uses; most of these welcomed accounts have not edited since being welcomed; which is kinda suspicious, like they are lying dormant. It gives us a list to work from to keep an eye out for future abuse. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Not much we can do.

Is there anything we can do about vandals vandalizing articles while recording it, and then posting the video on YouTube? After running a search, I was able to find a couple of said videos, such as here (and nice comment at the top), here, and here. Though, two claim to "test" Wikipedia's vandalism detection, so I'm not sure whether to

What could we do? We can revert the vandalism... and possibly block the accounts, if we think they're not here to contribute. Beyond that... --Haemo (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've found that online as well. You know, it's just vandalism. People just decided to turn a camera on during the process. The most we can do is just fight as we normally do.

(Gmail?)_(u)

03:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(double ec)I'd say no there's nothing we can or should do. People can videotape themselves vandalizing anything, like graffitiing a street sign. It doesn't really show some kind of weakness on Wikipedia's part, it just shows that the author is an asshole. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:15, 20 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no affiliation with youtube or any other public website for that matter and therefore there is nothing that could, or should be done. There are plenty of websites that disparage or criticize Wikipedia - take conservapedia for example. The best we can do is to function normally. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh, not an issue really. Vandalism is always around. Jmlk17 03:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Boring videos are boring. I'd be more worried if it was funny. -- Ned Scott 06:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest you create a video of yourself reverting the vandalism and blocking the vandal, and post it on YouTube. MastCell ^Talk 06:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If it helps, the first video is of this edit: [15] AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I like this comment for the first video: "You are sad and pathetic. Instead of investing your time in making a constructive contribution to humanity, you prefer to destruct other people's work. And then make a video about it like it's something cool to brag about. I've seen a similar intellectual level... on a rock. You are nothing but a waste of Earth's natural resources." ·

What is going on here? One bot (User:Roboto de Ajvol) is going around removing all instances of lmo interwiki [16]. But another bot (User:AlleborgoBot) is going around and re-adding it. [17]. ??? Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Domo oregato Equazcion •✗/C • 03:31, 20 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Damn you!!!! I've been on a roll tonight! You broke my roll! :)

(Gmail?)_(u)

03:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the Imo Wikipedia closed or something? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Justin:On a roll? I don't get it Equazcion •✗/C • 04:01, 20 Feb 2008 (UTC)

No, It's kind of an in joke. Me and

(Gmail?)_(u)

04:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

About a year ago, or a little more, I saw one of the anti-vandal-bots going at one of the archive bots, and back and forth. I wish I could find the diffs; it was hilarious. Didn't last long though. Antandrus (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have notified each bot owner of this section on their home wiki user talk pages. —Random832 05:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. It was standard pywikipedia interwiki bot. I will try to understand the problem. --ajvol (talk) 10:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I had asked about the same thing, after I saw a slew of lmo.wikipedia links removed from articles on my watchlist. I talked to User:Snowolf, who is an admin over there, and he told me that they decided to remove about 100K bot-generated sub-stubs, many of which were in English or Catalan (as opposed to Lombard). Not sure why another bot is adding the links back, though. Horologium (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, I update my bot twice a day to the last svn version of pywikipedia bot and seems to work correctly. The article lmo:Algèria exists and there's no reason (imho) to remove its interwiki links. Seems to be an error generated by Roboto de Ajvol. :-/ So, I'm still running my bot. Please keep me updated with this discussion if I have to stop it or if the problem is mine. Thank you all. --Alleborgo (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Actually, this might qualify as

WP:TROLL. Second of all, it absolutely is against the rules to keep creating inappropriate pages. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C}

) 05:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

And he keeps going [28]. Ridernyc (talk) 05:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I offended

Dai Shi his own article. I opened up a discussion to see if there is consensus to delete. Grounded into a double play (talk

) 05:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to directly comment, I've said what I have to say and will let your actions speak for themselves. I would however encourage you to stop editing until a conclusion is made here. You have an opportunity here to learn from the advice of others. it's up to you if you listen. Ridernyc (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't

Tally-ho!

05:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• (edit conflicted about 500 times) I second Ridernyc's comments that this user is a disruptive editor indeed. I first caught note of him in his disruptive AfD, and gave him a warning (which he, of course, blanked). After that, I tried to undo his user page, which was a cross-space redirect to double play (it's my understanding that user pages can't redirect to article space). A couple of his edits do seem to be in good faith, but for the most part, this user seems to be quite disruptive. I don't think he would quite warrant a block yet, but should he keep it up, I'd endorse one. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I gave him that final warning for a combination of vandalism and unconstructive edits. Since then he has been avoiding vandalism, but the editing pattern continues to be unconstructive. I tend to be sympathetic to articles about video characters, but he has been trying to write really impossible stubs about them. I think he knows better, and is trying to game us. I dont see how we can block without something more specific to block about, however. DGG (talk) 06:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It does seem that there are some questionable edits, for example — the

Dai Shi article that is currently on AfD was created earlier by this editor, who twice removed the db tag him/herself. It would seem to be beneficial to the editor to take a break from editing and do some reading about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as suggested. — ERcheck (talk

) 06:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

While I know the ArbCom injunction is currently in effect, I've been bold and closed the AFD early and redirected (that was what most were saying, other than the user who said "The ArbCom says keep for now"). My reasons are mentioned at the AFD, but to put it here, the show started on Monday. There is no way we can gauge whether or not articles are necessary, particularly when the content is the same. If I am to be lynched for merging an article on a television character, so be it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case it seems your actions are unrelated to notability, so I can't see arbcom getting mad about it. -- Ned Scott 06:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In a related note, I have had to delete various other pages belonging to this new TV series because of copyright violations.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In another related note, Grounded into a double play has been discovered to be a sockpuppet of long-time banned user EddieSegoura. Thank you Alison :3—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed - sock of banned editor, User:EddieSegoura - Alison ^❤ 07:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I had a feeling something like this was going on, the 10 month break in editing hinted at this. Ridernyc (talk) 07:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

My word, that's a name from the past. Eddie Segoura, the exicornt vandal. I thought he'd given up? Guy (Help!) 19:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

He has a very easy to identify MO.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If unresponsive to your warnings/messages on the talk page, go to

WP:SOCK concerns on the user/talk pages. If it keeps up, an admin could try a string a very short string IP block. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C}

) 07:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[29] User has already been warned numerous times and knows.

Blocked; 24 hours now, but it should go to at least 3 days the next time in my opinion. We don't need any more of this incivility in the atmosphere. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 10:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

These reports should go to

Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement so they can all be addressed and archived in one place. As ever, more administrator eyes on that page would be very welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk

) 17:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! I'll put them there from now on; this was out of force of habit.

t/e

21:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Again and again, Zackyusoff (talk · contribs · logs) seems ignoring whatever my advice, warning, he seems did not change his editing style by BOLD the headings. Sometimes, make too much empty space between one heading to another.

This his editing: [30] [31] [32]

So, i hope someone can deal with this situation. Thank you. --Aleenf1 06:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You've already done your part - you've asked civily, and pointed the user in the direction of

WP:AIV after a final warning. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C}

) 07:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wisdom. Your conversations with him on his editing style look completely civil. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 14:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

See his latest editing: [33] [34] He did the same thing again! --Aleenf1 04:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, I'd say some of the wording is in poor taste - and does not really reflect what that particular barnstar is supposed to signify. Asking for a rephrase would have been my suggestion. Although, I don't think one can actually officially object to another's receipt of a barnstar. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing doing here. Taulant's currently sitting out a block, and has announced his intention to quit. Dodona is a separate case. Looks like he's removed the barnstar, though. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 09:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This site [http://wikipedia.cas.ilstu.edu illegally replicated my old user page from Jun 2005, which I had deleted from Wikipedia later in October 2005. I have not linked my user page, but if I do you will see that there is no notification, attribution, or license reproduced whatsoever. I don't know how to contact the owner of that website but I will take legal action if I have to. The site also illegally replicated most of Wikipedia as it was in Jun 2005. When I began editing Wikipedia I did not agree to this kind of replication, unatributed, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.190.96 (talk) 10:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, All of Wikipedia's text is licenced under

GDFL

which allows the copying, redistribution, and modification of all text found on wikipedia as stated in the preamble of the licence text

The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other functional and useful document "free" in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially. Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others.This License is a kind of "copyleft", which means that derivative works of the document must themselves be free in the same sense. It complements the GNU General Public License, which is a copyleft license designed for free software.We have designed this License in order to use it for manuals for free software, because free software needs free documentation: a free program should come with manuals providing the same freedoms that the software does. But this License is not limited to software manuals; it can be used for any textual work, regardless of subject matter or whether it is published as a printed book. We recommend this License principally for works whose purpose is instruction or reference.

— GDLF, Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License

nat.utoronto 10:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

While that is true, the mirror requires a list of editors of that article, or possibly at the very least a link here so the history can be seen. The history in the pages on the mirror do not contain editor names, and I can't see any link back here. I easily could be mistaken here though. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 10:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes the GFDL requires that the authors be attributed (which that site does not). Therefore they are violating the license and legal action can be taken. James086^{Talk | Email} 10:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

James and Crustacean are correct. That site is illegal. See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. It has to be properly attributed with the license or a link to the original source or else it is illegal. I wanted to bring this site to peoples' attention. 76.208.190.96 (talk) 10:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking from the RC on that site, no changes have been made since 2005, so someone will have to contact Illinois State University to shut down the site. nat.utoronto 10:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that we provide dumps for mirroring that don't contain full edit histories. Those need to be downloaded seperately and may not be in sync with the dump. To get around that they need to link back to us but that presents a new problem as shown here if the page has since been deleted and the edit history isn't visible anymore. That said, I've never quite understood why someone would put up a mirror of Wikipedia only to let it sit there without updated content. It defeats the whole purpose of having an encyclopedia as a wiki.

Indeed, our dumps are far from correct, GFDL wise. We are asking for a stick to get beaten, here. 76xx, why don't you simply contact them to ask if they could remove (please) your userpage? Civility and good will can go a long way, on the Internet. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

the motivation is usually gaining money from the ads on the site.:) Merkinsmum 10:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If you look closely, you'll see that this (ad-free) mirror is hosted by the Illinois State University :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to contact the owner(s) of the site if I can. I don't know how yet. I'll look through Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. I want to bring this site to the attention of some more admins. Yes, show it to Jimbo Wales, why not. And I know so many users are not aware that their old user pages are duplicated there. 76.208.190.96 (talk) 11:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

We can't really do anything for you besides offer advice. We don't have any involvement in the copyright status of the page (unless it's one we edited ourselves); nor does Jimbo or the Foundation. We could complain on your behalf, but only the copyright holder (presumably you) can legally enforce the copyright. I'd say the best way to go would be to write a nice email requesting that the page be removed from the database. If you lean on a somewhat trivial (and likely indefensible) copyright claim they could easily tweak the page to conform to the GFDL (i.e. by adding an appropriate attribution notice). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 00:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

An anonymous editor keeps removing the birth date from this article: 11 times since 11 February. Examples: [35], [36], [37]. I've tried establishing communication through edit summaries and the user's talk page, but to no avail. Can anyone turn their attention to this? Bondegezou (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you filed a report at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection? Seems a short-term semi-protect could probably take care of this. --jonny-mt 12:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Have done so now—thanks for the suggestion. Bondegezou (talk) 13:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've declined the request: that qualifies as vandalism, so the editor should receive a warning. Skip straight to a level 3 warning, and report to AIV after the fourth. ·

AndonicO ^Hail!

14:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I warned already. ·

AndonicO ^Hail!

14:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoa there, fellas. An anon IP removing an unreferenced date of birth from a BLP is emphatically not vandalism. Please familiarize yourselves with these two sections of WP:BLP before doing anything ill-advised. If an anon IP is removing an unsourced birthday, that birthday needs to stay removed until properly sourced, and perhaps even then. Mike R (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ack, there I go again editing articles about musicians... Got confused with the removing of birth name (forget stage names exist), and the adding of "LUNATICA" (forget that albums/songs sometimes have vandalism-like names, and sometimes are in CAPS). I'll strike out the warning and apologize... Thanks for noticing Mike. ·

AndonicO ^Hail!

15:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I'd read the section about anonymous content deletion, but I hadn't read the note on birthdays. Good to know--thanks for the sharp eye! --jonny-mt 17:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying on that point. I'll look out for appropriate citations. Bondegezou (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The talk page for this is getting ugly and they are edit-warring over the talk page now, let alone the article. The edit history for the talk page contains, for example, a recent change comment of Please fuck off which is clearly uncivil.

The background seems to be that the meaning and usage of the word hacker is heavily disputed per

Colonel Warden (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Administrative scrutiny would be welcome; the talk page has been unusable for several weeks (my reaction when I read Colonel Warden's description was "getting ugly?" :-). Note, however, that one of the parties has filed an arbitration case. Nandesuka (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user Bamford (

Seems like a solid case for

WP:SSP. The evidence is there in black and white (black & white diffs that is). That would be my suggestion. However, the semi-protection would only be appropriate if multiple IPs (one IP or two could just be blocked for repeated abuse) began vandalizing said pages fairly heavily. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C}

) 14:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've extended the block on the named account to indefinite for block evasion and disruption, and blocked the active IP for 31 hours. If he switches IP's and continues, let me know or go to

WP:RFPP and the page can be temporarily semi-protected. MastCell ^Talk

17:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree, lets hope this is the end. If not, a range block would be a viable option. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Please could an administrator get the user BanRay to quit harrassing me. He keeps reverting my edits to the Maria Sharapova page, I think just because my vision for the article conflicts with his, and has even tried complaining to others about how my edits are "vandalism", even though they are just simple edits that I think improve the page! Obviously, I could understand him editing PARTS of the page if he disagrees, but reverting the whole thing is uncalled for imo. He has also implied that I am another user, Musiclover565 (see my discussion page) simply because me and him share similar visions for the article. I would really appreciate being able to edit in peace, without having to fear BanRay reverting them. Thank you. 92.1.182.171 (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

92.1.182.171's edits to the Maria Sharapova article are unencyclopedic, full of uncited commentary and opinion, and, most importantly, against consensus. BanRay is not "harrassing" this user, merely enforcing Wikipedia policy. Tennis expert (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Seeing that the user has followed my advice and took the case here, I will take a minute to explain the situation. Last month User:Musiclover565 started an edit war with User:Tennis expert over the Maria Sharapova article, when he reverted his edits to the page (Tennis expert's edits were initially proposed on the talk page). Musiclover565 was then approached by several established editors, but continued his disruptive behavior and was eventually blocked.

On February 20, User:92.1.182.171, restored Musiclover565's version of the article, reverting a total of 64 edits. The user has also accused me of complaining to other editors, namely User:Milk's Favorite Cookie, who has also left him a warning, but I have never even been in touch with the user, let alone complaining about edits from an anonymous IP.

Oh, It might also be worth mentioning that the whole situation

smells funny, to put it mildly, as Musiclover565 was using a very similar IP (92.3.230.33

to sign comments on my talk page a month ago. Both IP addresses are allocated to the same internet provider and the same town.

I was gonna wait until tomorrow to give you a chance to revert your own disruptive edits, but seeing that another editor has already done that, I will now leave you a level 4 warning and I really hope this will be the last time I will have to address this issue. Take care. BanRay 21:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

To add to an earlier complaint (which I don't think got an official admin response), I am now feeling I am being utterly victimised, persecuted and bullied by the user BanRay. He keeps reverting my edits to the Maria Sharapova page, and I just don't think it's fair - my edits are genuinely constructive. He claims I reverted 64 edits, but this is simply untrue - I ONLY edited the Career section, in which edits had only made to the 2008 part - and the only edits there were Fed Cup results which I moved to a different section. Therefore, I reverted no edits, and merely (I believe) improved the Career section. He also keeps claiming I come from the same town as Musiclover565. If this is true (and I highly doubt it is) then it is surely not my fault? Please can this victimising be stopped? Thank you. 92.1.182.171 (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The user is talking about this complain against me. BanRay 23:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment And I would also appreciate it if you stopped lying about constant revisions from my side. So far I have only once reverted your edits, the other revisions were carried out by other members. How many people do you need to tell you you're wrong in order to stop?

I also believe it might be better to merge this section into the original section above. I'm not gonna do that myself, as an involved party though. Thanks. BanRay 23:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for saying it was you who reverted all my edits, I admit I had not looked at the edit logs properly, and was merely going off the comments you've repeatedly left on my page. Nevertheless, I still feel I am persecuted by you (you issued me a warning because I'd apparently reverted 64 edits, which we've since established is untrue) so therefore, my complaint still stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.182.171 (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That is true though and the diff posted by me in the original section proves that. BanRay 23:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This dispute is now resolved. As it has now been established, BanRay was mistaken in issuing me a warning, as I did not revert 64 edits. I only removed information from 2003-2007, a category that none of the 64 edits he speaks of falls under. Therefore, unless he provides another basis for which my edits are unacceptable (and I'm presuming he won't, because I have asked him several times and he haven't provided one), his warning is therefore voided by default, and my edits are thus allowed. No hard feelings about your mistake. He can feel free to make any edits to my edits if he so wishes!

Thanks. 92.1.182.171 (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Established by whom? BanRay 23:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not been established by any person, it's been established by the edit logs which clearly show that none of the 64 edits affected the 2003-2007 sections (the only parts I edited). Do you dispute this? 92.1.182.171 (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I do. But I'll get back to this tomorrow. It's 2 am here and I don't feel like going through the edit log just to prove an obvious fact. BanRay 00:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: 92.1.182.171 is blocked for three days for trolling, disruption and vandalism. BanRay 00:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Have a look. [38], He's also reverting the templates on his old User:Saintrotter account. Someone should block the IP and protect the Saintrotter user page. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're convinced, mark the user page with a sock template and open a case at

WP:AIV with an elaboration on the matter so the admins are aware of deceit. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C}

) 21:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I am tired of composing lengthy arguments on

Admins are on line, and this has been dealt with. The article has been protected for a week. Reach consensus on the talk page, and respond to Dbachmann's concerns as outlined there. If the protection expires and the conflict continues, blocks will be handed out for edit warring. Good day. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It'll probably be unprotected like the last two times. 20:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

My friendly non-admin word of advice would be to at least try

I've been working on it a bit. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – pending further action by User:Megistias and User:PANONIAN to resolve this in a different venue

[39]

User:PANONIANCalling me an idiot and reinserting an unsourced map when one sourced is already there.Megistias (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That's it? Perhaps you could work this out on your or his/her talk page or the article's talkpage? Seems a bit early for an ANI report. What admin intervention are you hoping for? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

His map has no sources and the other one is already there.Megistias (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disputing your claim. Didn't even look into it, to be honest. Did you post anything at the user's talkpage? Did you post anything at the article's talkpage? ANI comes after other attempts to resolve what is clearly a content dispute. I agree the other user shouldn't have called you an idiot, but still, there are easier ways to clear this up and both go about your business building the best encyclopedia in the world. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I initiated a discussion in the map page that it has no sources [40] Megistias (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

And that was the right thing to do. However, it was only a half hour before posting here. Pleae be

more patient. I don't see what admin intervention you are seeking, nor do I see any reason to intervene at this point. Keep editing, perhaps to other articles? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer

21:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

you are right,i rushed inMegistias (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

On February 5,

Earlier today, when I found Image:ÉDCL.jpg I re-tagged the image as fair use, and also tagged it as missing a fair use rationale [41] and informed Alex of the problem [42]. Alex removed the warning tag [43] without fixing the problem. I reverted him [44] and explained on his talk page that this was highly improper and gave him a final warning.

So what does he do? He uploads

He's had many opportunities to correct his behavior, and has been previously blocked on these issues. He's been warned repeatedly, told where to go to get more information, and still the behavior persists. I'm formally requesting this user be blocked until such time as he agrees to abide by our image use policies, especially with regards to copyright and fair use guidelines. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I support a longer block. The first was for 31 hours, and by behavior it seems that he does not want to change his ways, so I propose an indefinite block. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

He has uploaded genuinely free pics (see Image:Lovely Himalayan cat.jpg), so there is a small amount of hope that he can be made to understand the difference. I suspect this may be a younger user not getting what people are telling him. See what his reponse was last time. I suggest a week-long or month-long block to get the message through. If he continues after that, then indefinite block. Carcharoth (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'll talk to them a bit later and try to educate them about copyrights. east.718 at 02:59, February 21, 2008

Resolved

 – Walice is indefinitely blocked per discussion; implemented by Rodhullandemu.

talk

) 22:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else feel that Walice111 (talk · contribs) is treating Wikipedia as MySpace or another various free webhost? This user has a userpage that promotes a non-notable wrestling organization started by himself and then he has a ton of wrestling information transcluded on the page. That in itself was questionable, but when I looked at his contributions it was more troubling.

• He has 557 edits
• 61 edits are to the article, project and user talk spaces (other than his own)
• The remaining 496 edits are to his userpage and his talk page.
• His last edit to anything other than his userspace was October 2, 2007.
• Of his 61 edits outside his userspace, 2 of those are a result of an inappropriate pagemove [47], another is page blanking [48] and incivil behavior [49].

All of this behavior seems troubling, especially the extensive userpage that I would prefer be deleted as inappropriate. Is this someone who needs to be informed of policy or someone here to cause trouble? —

I could drop him a line, but I might not be the best bearer of bad news. Bearian (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears

†

22:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Some more information about this user is that he has been blocked 5 times now. [50] The first time for vandalism, 31 hours. The other 4 times were repeated copyright violations, the first for 48 hours, escalating to a week, then to a month, and then three months. I feel this user is not going to be productive here at all. —

Actually his first edit on my talk page seemed like he was asking me to protect the WWE's page due to vandalism or something of the sorts, not sure what it was about. However I have blocked this user several times for violating

WP:FU several times after being warned about it (first he deribelately restored several images on his user space after these were removed and the relevant policy was explained to him, then after receiving the first block he began uploading FU images under a false copyright claim and lastly he repeated the same pattern but modifying the images) all that I can say is that this user has a tendency to completely ignore warnings and even good faith policy explanation. - Caribbean~H.Q.

22:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indef for disruptive editing. The day a three-month block expires, he's back with the same behaviour, not a single useful edit to article space, and overall, just not getting the message. He's welcome to appeal, of course, but meanwhile I will blank his user page as an improper use of WMF resources. I won't wheel-war if anyone thinks this is too much, but he shows no sign of reforming. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably not relevant to the block above but it should be noted that the three-month one expired on February 12 and he continued to only edit within user space. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I took that into account when imposing the block, and have told him so. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I endorse Rodhullandemu's block—this user is clearly having a negative effect on the project, and removing their editing privileges is, unfortunately, the only feasible course of action. I'm tagging this as resolved, on the basis that the issue with the individual editor has been handled, and discussion exhausted; whether Save Us, who initially started the thread, would wish to continue the discussion regarding general misuse of Wikipedia as a "MySpace imitation", I will leave to him—however, I suspect ANI is not the most suitable medium for such a discussion.

talk

) 22:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)