Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive580

Resolved

 – solid block, unblock declined Toddst1 (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed a series of what is clearly anit-American soapboxing by

Blocked. In the future, you may want to report them to

AIV. TNXMan

14:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Now he is going off about how I'm racist for reverting his anit-American soapboxing and POV pushing. I must say, I'm somewhat amused. —Farix (t | c) 14:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The user has requested to be unblocked. The talk page is here, if there is anyone who would care to take a look. TNXMan 14:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

There really is a long history of disruption from that obviously static IP. Toddst1 (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Because of ongoing childish name-calling, I've reblocked the IP, adjusting the block settings so the editor can no longer edit the talk page. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should contact an administrator from CalTech about these series of edits. I'm sure that these edits are in violation of CalTech's internet usage policies. —Farix (t | c) 15:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that if his classmates found out what he's been writing, he would become the laughingstock of his school. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – 16:02, 22 November 2009 Juliancolton blocked IslandersZweiSieben (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Vandalism-only account)

Please see these. Thanks! Majorly talk 15:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

User blocked, see above. Exxolon (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok so here's the deal.

When i questioned the user's lack of willingness to discuss the issue he/she replied "I'm french, I know what I say about french albums chart". Now im sorry and correct me if im wrong but is this not just a complete disregard for wikipedia rules and concensus? I've never come accross an album page that lists the two charts seperately. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

That's not true, french digital albums chart is not a component of the main french chart, albums chart = just physical, that stupid but tell it to the SNEP (this is the same thing for french singles chart)

Example : French Digital albums chart, week 41, Renan Luce was number one (2 050 copies sold) but when you watch the Top 200 french albums chart he's not in the chart. I can not be clearer (talk • contribs) 21:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

If a chart can indicate a No.1 position for the sale of 2,050 copies then that chart is inappropriate for WP - anyone buying 100 copies of a track can materially alter chart positions - as being insufficiently authoritative or independent. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That is my point exactly. The digital chart is not approved for use on wikipedia but said user above will not conform to consensus. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

I'm sorry but this is not a valid argument, for example in the french singles chart it is also possible by selling 100 copies to be in the top 100, yet it is an official chart! (talk • contribs) 21:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:GOODCHARTS does not say that any chart not placed there shouldn't be used. In this case, since the album charted at #1 on the digital albums chart, why not mention it in the chart positions section, along with the main chart. Dt¹²⁸ let's talk

14:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Note the discussion has been moved to the content notice board: Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#She Wolf / Shakira / Digital vs Top 200 Singles Chart. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC))

Answer(Kevin Harte) - I don't agree,I believe I've learned how to use the site relatively well.What facts are you basing this on all of a sudden? The issues you raised were about a year ago and I've had no problems until now.I was trying to save an article from deletion as it was too biased.The user I had a editing debate with seems to think he owns the article (Ireland vs france)--Kevinharte (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The edits Kevin Harte made, consisting of removing pieces of the article, should have been discussed on the talk page, no question about it. I hope the user has learned that. Having said that, the article is strongly biased and I agree with the user that MickMacKnee acts as if he owns the article and he actively bites those disagreeing with him, as other users have also remarked upon in the last days. Kevin, please use talk pages in the future to discuss removing material, especially if it's sourced.Jeppiz (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Not so, it's

WP:BRD. An editor makes a bold edit, which gets reverted, and then is discussed on the talk page. There is nothing intrinsically wrong in making a good faith removal of material from an article, even if it is eventually overturned by collective consensus. Mjroots (talk

) 09:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a bigger issue with this Jeppiz than I do with Kevin, who was just basically blanking whole sections of an article, for which I warned him here Jeppiz however has continully made assumptions about me and my motives, and is making snide little comments here there and everywhere, presumably as a replacement for providing a single shred of proof for his many personal opinions on the article. MickMacNee (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Answer(Kevin Harte) thanks Jeppiz. I'll learn how to do that next time I'm going to edit an article.--Kevinharte (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can take a look at Mick's long history of blocks for disruptive and uncivil behaviour, and his repeated personal abuse of editors disagreeing with him in the last few days. I'm not making "snide" comments about Mick, I'm openly pointing out that he is a disruptive user who appears to be unable to comment on content rather than other editors. Several other users have made the same observations in the last 2-3 days.Jeppiz (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can look at Jeppiz long history of evasion, obfuscation, interuption and intentional deafness on the Afd, to make his appeal now for people to comment on content appear utterly ridiculous, and only designed to provoke. If anybody thinks that he keeps his comments on content, I seem to recall in about his fifth edit on the Afd he accused me of being a bitter Irishman, and he has continuously positioned this Afd as being about the British Isles in some way or another. MickMacNee (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm starting to get upset now by all the personal attacks and the lies now. First, I welcome anyone looking into my history, I don't have a single block in contrast to Mick. What he calls "evasion, obfuscation, interuption and intentional deafness" is his way of saying that I don't agree with him, and I consider it to be a personal attack. I have not called him "a bitter Irishman", so unless Mick provides a diff backing that up, I take it as a lie and another personal attack. His third comment is also I lie, I've merely pointed out in the debate about the France-Ireland soccer game that it's not the first team there's a controvery when British teams exit a tournament. Could some administrator please look into Mick's behaviour, both he and Wikipedia would benefit from him taking a few days to cool off.Jeppiz (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Mick's comments were meant in a horrid way, he may well be a bit upset about the footie and just needs treating gently.

Off2riorob (talk

) 23:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Despite what Jeppiz has claimed numerous times, I am not upset about the football, and I'm not even an Irish fan, which is why none of his supposed conclusions about other things, like who's been doing what in that Afd, should be taken as read. It's a long read, but the evidence is all there in the Afd, and because of it, I have absolutely no problem calling Jeppiz an editor who consistently and purposely evades and ignores others, and is now pretty much intent on provoking me into an easy civility block. MickMacNee (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Well that was just a waste of everyone's time.--Kevinharte (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Mishk'vei ishah is turning into a religious trainwreck and I request that we either close this AfD or get someone to watch over it. ☭Pickbothmanlol☭ 17:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Since when do we close contentious Afd's? Simply stating "it's a religious trainwreck" (which I don't see) is not reason enough.--Atlan (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Some watching might be useful. I see e.g. that one involved user has added a batch of comments together with a reislt premature relist at todays log.[12][13]. The AfD is from November 18 only. That should be reverted. --

Tikiwont (talk

) 21:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Which I've undone (together with some signature fixing) as not warranted in substance and way too early anyways. Still some new editors will have joined the discussion because of today's relist. I'll inform Newman Luke accordingly. As per above there is no reason to close this now. --

Tikiwont (talk

) 21:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

User:86.136.78.170 and User:Mcjakeqcool2 are both editing User talk:Mcjakeqcool claiming that McJ has been unblocked [14][15] . Obvious sock is obvious, could someone do the honours please.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk will need some protection ASAP (

BWilkins ←track

) 13:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

is that the same IP as before? I wonder if it would be worth sending an email to the institution.--

Crossmr (talk

) 14:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Username indef blocked, IP blocked for a day. TNXMan 14:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This blocked user is blocked but still editing??? Check contributions - he's just edited McJ's userpage AGAIN! --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Can that. He's editing his own userpage with McJakeqcool spam. Anyone want to protect it? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- llywrch (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Already blocked as a sock of Produde94--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 23:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Speaks for itself. Dlohcierekim 20:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Does it? Maybe I don't speak its language :-) --Deskana (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Never mind old news. Already blocked, reverted etc. Dlohcierekim 20:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

HA. Might say he's been nuked. Dlohcierekim 20:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Indef'd by MuZemike Singularity42 (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

IrgoraJew has been notified of this discussion. Singularity42 (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

not quite a vandal-only account--at least his first edit was a useful reversion of vandalism. I do not quite see that he is clearly an anti-Semite, but his edits are remarkably unhelpful--so much so, that I wouldn't realistically say he could have any hope of getting in under the radar. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The blanking of Stormfront (website) ([16]) is convincing enough for me, amongst all the other edits. Indefinitely blocked. MuZemike 00:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A number of IPs, plus new account User:Lrn2troll, have put the same offensive message on User talk:194.144.74.14. The subject line is "Hello, you degenerate imbecile." Is this a known vandal or pattern? The targeted IP has not been active editing in a while, so this feels like somebody's playing with a bot/botnet/proxy/IP abuse and picked what they thought was an off-the-beaten-path target. I'm tempted to protect the page but afraid that will drive them to a new target. Opinions? —C.Fred (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Another account, Ukronian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is now participating in the attacks, which have evolved. —C.Fred (talk) 03:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I protected it. This smells of either one user using a rash of open proxies, or a 4chan distributed attack. If it is the former, then they are wiley enough to jump anyways; actually, they are probably checking this noticeboard and will jump anyways. If it is the latter, then protection will likely stop it for a while. Either way, lets keep an eye on recent change and see what happens. --Jayron32 03:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Indef'd for vandalism by Kuru. Singularity42 (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Ilovemassachusetts84 posted a legal threat at [edit]. Eeekster (talk) 04:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Clearly not serious, there is no need to take any action. I would prefer it not be reverted from the talk page, since admins are supposed to review any comments the page creator (or other editors) may have left on the talk page before deciding to speedy delete a page. Prodego ^talk 04:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter how serious. Legal threats are always treated the same: indef'd until they retract. In any event, user has been indef'd for vandalism. Singularity42 (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No, no no no no, no two situations are ever treated exactly the same way, every situation is different. Wikipedia has no hard and fast rules, only guidelines by which community consensus is carried out. Therefore, to say that all legal threats are dealt with the same way misses the point of

WP:NLT, which is intended to both discourage legal action, and ensure any legal situations are resolved without any further entanglement of Wikipedia. Spurious 'legal threats' such as this one are not to be dealt with as a true legal threat would be. Prodego ^talk

04:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine, then he's a troll who isn't here to edit an encyclopedia, but is instead only interested in stirring up trouble. Either way, the block seems fine to me. --Jayron32 04:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That comment, and all the rest should be evaluated in determining whether to block him. I would not call that a legal threat, as it clearly is not serious. However, it as well as other edits the user made, such as this one, and the long history of warnings, mean that a block for disruption and/or vandalism looks justified to me. However, that comment alone would not justify anything. Prodego ^talk 04:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

As the editor (or second editor, maybe) who Prodego was originally replying to, I don't mind pointing out that Prodego makes a fair point. Singularity42 (talk)

I know this is closed out as resolved, but I'd like to also point out that Prodego is absolutely correct about policies and "enforcement".

I saw that parts of the article

Resolved

 – Editors are kindly reminded to please try to be civil and as respectful and collegial as possible so that disputes can be kept to a minimum and resolved amicably among friends.

MickMacNee, an editor with a long history of block for disruptive behaviour [17], seems to have gone out of line in the last days. I don't mind him being defensive of an article he has written the major part about, and several users in the AfD discussion have been very much engaged in it, including myself. However, I object to the repated personal attacks and uncivil behaviour by the editor. His history is rather long, so I provide just a few selected diffs of uncivil comment and direct personal attacks during the last days [[18]], [19], [20], [21]. In the discussion on this page about a third user, he calls my arguments for not agreeing with him ""evasion, obfuscation, interuption and intentional deafness". That is rather typical of his attitude in the AfD discussion where he agressively drives that everybody disagreeing with him are wrong. I've tried to point it out to him, [22] but with hindsight (given our infected history) it might have been better not to as I should have predicted how he would respond.[23] However, I'm far from alone in having that opinion. In the last days, several other editors have also commented on his behaviour [24], [25], [26], [27].Jeppiz (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That block log looks like something out of a Wiki-horror story...why has he not been given long blocks in the past? I would go for a longer-term block. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

A users block log is not (generally) an excuse to throw the book at him, this looks a bit silly if you ask me, a bit of a tit for tat heated discussion over a article for deletion discussion that is split down the middle, and nothing will come of it, I can't find a really uncivil comment, perhaps if you guys just edit different articles for a few days.

Off2riorob (talk

) 23:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It goes without saying that everybody has different opinions, but I do think that "one of the nastiest and most repugnant editors", "Either your comment was simply ignorant of the facts (like you characterisation of my POV), or you are simply trolling, either way, you are all out of credit here tbh", "I've got no idea what crappy papers you read", "It's up to you if you want to parrot everybody's delete opinion as if it makes you look like you know what you are on about, but it really doesn't." are not particularly civil. Neither is "I have had it with your crap.". In any case, I won't interact with the user again, I rather leave Wikipedia. As I pointed out, I'm far from alone in having made these observations.Jeppiz (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob, I tried your suggestion, in fact I didn't think I'd need to try, I didn't think I'd cross paths with Mick after

talk

) 23:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a bit of a rant, he is clearly very upset about the footie, and I am sorry you have been upset Jeppiz, he has gone now, probably off to bed, I'm sure one of the admins will have a strong word in his ear when he shows his face again. I myself have had a run in with him but he has grown on me, what can I say.

Off2riorob (talk

) 00:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Seeing the diffs Alastairward provided, I cannot agree, even though I see that you stood up for him that time as well. This is a user who seems unable to deal with conflicting views and routinely resorts to personal abuse.Jeppiz (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Nothing routine about it. Your behaviour and Alistair's are pretty similar, which is why they provoked similar responses eventually. If either of you wish me to lay out the full package of evidence for either of your extraordinarily sustained campaigns of tendentious behaviours, I am only too willing to oblige. MickMacNee (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• First of all, Alistair and I are not the only editors you've attacked and insulted, there are at least Grsz [28] and Kevin McE [29] just in the last few days.
• While I have definitely argued with you, I have not called you one of "the most repugnant editors" [30], called your contributions "crap",[31] called you a "lying hypocritical cunt" [32] or told you to "fuck off" [33], [34].
• Every time someone brings your behaviour to the attention of administrators, you come up with these vague and unsupported accusations that ones you've argued with have behaved in the same way. It is not a defense (then both should be blocked), and it's not true either, just a dishonest way for you to try to talk you out of it. I'm getting tired of having that same accusation thrown at me all the time and I take it as yet another personal attack. Either you provide diffs where I call you (or anyone else) anything even remotely similar to "fuck off", "lying hypocritical cunt", and "crap" or you stand exposed as a liar on top of everything else.Jeppiz (talk) 05:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I think with the many many examples of MM's long-term incivility including this, this, and especially this, MM needs to take a break from Wikipedia. Are there any admins on the Admins' noticeboard? Reywas92^Talk 02:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved? MickMacNee (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I have not made any previous comments about any of the other participating users. Reywas92^Talk 03:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

But you are involved in the current Afd debate. MickMacNee (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant. That was simply listing an opinion and I don't care how it ends, likely no consensus. The point is it is obvious you are very disruptive with your incessant personal attacks and cursing. Reywas92^Talk 00:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'm uninvolved in the current dispute, but have

WP:CIVIL. I know the pain of having an article deleted, so can sympathise somewhat with MickMacNee's defence of the article at all costs in the AfD debate, but it is not the right way to go about it. Mjroots (talk

) 07:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but Wikipedia:Harassment has a very defined meaning, and it does not apply to replying to too many people in an Afd. Do not even suggest I have done anything so bad as harass others. If you want examples of harassment, examine Alistair's growing list of unrelated interactions with me, or how many times Jeppiz has mentioned my name in various forums and people's talk pages. MickMacNee (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

MickMacNee, please do not twist my words. I was not talking about Wikipedia Harassment, but harassment in the general sense of the word. Please let the AfD debate run its course. Should it be deleted you are free to take the issue to

WP:DRV. Cease your disruptive behaviour or an admin with less GF and patience that I have will block you. Mjroots (talk

) 20:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I repeat my question in case you missed it "I'm getting tired of having that same accusation thrown at me all the time and I take it as yet another personal attack. Either you provide diffs where I call you (or anyone else) anything even remotely similar to "fuck off", "lying hypocritical cunt", and "crap" or you stand exposed as a liar on top of everything else."Jeppiz (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I've no probs with Mick at the Afd-in-question, as he hasn't been causing vandalism there (deleting or changing 'delete' votes). GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

He's definitely not a vandal, that is why I reported him for disruptive behaviour and not for vandalism.Jeppiz (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

"If you want examples of harassment, examine Alistair's growing list of unrelated interactions with me". I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean to be honest. Perhaps Mick you might provide some diffs. If I am genuinely harrassing you, why not report me for it?

talk

) 22:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Very relevant question, and I asked the same question. Then he went very quiet. It seems as if he just throws all accusations back as a routine to defend himself. The difference is that we have a very long list of highly insulting diffs from him ("fuck off", "cunt", "crap" etc.) while he has not provided a single diff of me using anything remotely like that. He said I did, and I certainly never have, and he still has not provided a single diff after 24 hours. In other words, these accusations of his are just yet another examples of his disruptive behaviour. Given his long history of very uncivil behaviour and repeated personal attacks, I'm surprised no action has been taken.Jeppiz (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"He said I did". Where exactly? MickMacNee (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a few rows up, [35].Jeppiz (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No excuse for that sort of language. Significant response would be appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You do realise none of these diffs are current, or have anything to do with Jeppiz's current complaint of my supposed disruption (a.k.a asking him to prove his various claims in an Afd). MickMacNee (talk) 15:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That is not true either, the diff with you telling me that you've had it with my "crap" is very recent, as is the diff with you commenting on how another editor reads "crappy papers" as well as the diff where you call a third editor one of "the most repugnant editors". All of them are from the last few days.Jeppiz (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Aside: Without passing any judgment on whether your arguments are right or wrong (you could be right), when I see your user ID, this logo comes to mind: [36] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, come on. We've had an absolute bout of administrators leaving because of people like MMN, it's quite obvious that whilst his intentions may be good he has no intentions to improve upon his frankly appalling behaviour and insults. Just block the guy already and stop sitting around on your damn hands. 78.148.72.124 (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been looking at MickMacNee's recent interaction on other editors talk pages. Seems that recently there have not been any uncivil communications. The only problem recently is the AfD debate, but so far he's not challenged any oppose votes since I posted yesterday. MickMacNee should be in no doubt that there are probably a large number of editors who are watching his editing. Further incivility is likely to lead to a lengthy block. Mjroots (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The vandal from Indonesia who has vandalized several movie studio, anime (especially Digimon-related), video game (specifically Street Fighter ones), and now, even ABS-CBN-related articles (some archived reports on the guy: [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]) has persistently returned time and did his misinformation thing without any sources and repeatedly ignored all warnings. Here are the addresses he used for the past two months (bold ones are the ones he used in the past four days):

• 114.59.177.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 114.59.191.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 125.161.137.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 125.161.135.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 202.70.50.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 202.70.50.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 202.70.50.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 125.161.151.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 125.166.74.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 125.165.82.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 202.70.50.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 202.70.50.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Here is a partial list of the articles he had vandalized:

• Digimon Tamers
• Digimon Frontier
• Digimon Adventure 02
• The Filipino Channel
• Digimon Adventure
• Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer
• Digimon Data Squad
• Maalaala Mo Kaya
• DWWX-TV
• List of Disney television series
• Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All-Stars
• ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
• List of MGM Television shows
• Capcom vs. SNK: Millennium Fight 2000
• Sony Pictures Television
• List of MGM Television shows

While I'm more leaning toward rangeblocks against the guy (202.70.50.0/24 is currently blocked, while another range he frequently used, 118.137.0.0/16, is also blocked), Nja247 has also suggested an edit filter. But any more ideas against this vandal? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

We could hardblock. ☭Pickbothmanlol☭ 17:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked (in the past) the 114.59 range on a few occasions for a maximum of 48 hours. Seems to stop the vandal for a while after a rangeblock. I suppose they realise they've been found out, but they are persistent and do eventually return. An edit filter is a good idea, but I too would like ideas from seasoned editors and/or admins who deal with persistent vandals more regularly than myself.

247

07:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Closed as keep.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This AfD has been open since 6th November, and remains open - yet hasn't been relisted or anything. It also appears to have been removed from the AfD categories...can admin take a quick look please? Thanks, GiantSnowman 14:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Closed as keep, since there was discussion even after the templates got messed up.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated! GiantSnowman 15:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

KDP is currently engaged in an edit war over inclusion of material in the

I have notified KimDabelsteinPetersen of this discussion; however, I think the best place to disucss this would probably be Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. GiantSnowman 16:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Nagara373 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been persistently adding unsourced and incorrect information to automotive articles. I felt this was probably deliberate, since a few of the edits were very blatant, and reported it to

I've notified the user of this thread. Basket of Puppies 16:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Transclusion issue

There's an odd case of vandalism at

I looked at the article from a different browser (not logged in) and everything seemed normal. Have you purged your cache? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about this, is it worth flagging up at

WP:VPT? Mjroots (talk

) 16:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've responded at the article's talk page; I used a different browser with clean cache. At the moment, it looks like the vandalism's gone. Must've been some template (or..?) vandalism I overlooked, that was fixed before I posted here. --Jashiin (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I also reported it on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Vandalism_on_article_Maya_civilization I checked history. It is weird that I am not seeing it now even though no one has corrected it. This is really weird. Thanks! 117.98.81.127 (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Templates display their contents on pages, and can be changed separately from changes to the page. So vandalism of a template will show up on a page, without showing up in the page's history. To find/fix the vandalism, you have to figure out which template was vandalized. In a case like this, where the vandalized template is already fixed, it can be even more tricky, since you would need to check the history of each template on the page, and each template on the templates on the page, and.... etc. Likely far more effort than it is worth for an already reverted vandalism.  :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Article protected for one month by SarekOfVulcan — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Susan Hutchison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Chimes in SF (talk · contribs)

As I am no longer completely uninvolved, I'd like to invite review of the contributions of

I have checked the article edit history, and I fully endorse Mooriddengirl's work on it. Given that there was similar POV edits by at least one other editor, I am not sure whether it would be better to protect the page in the version MRG reverted to, as well as deal with the editor. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

And it has happened again. I think some kind of tool use is required here. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Although I probably count as "involved", I agree completely with Moonriddengirl. I saw a request for eyes on this article on the BLP noticeboard, so placed it on watch. The edits to change the lead are unusual to say the least (I wonder what the subject really gains from it? I digress..), but the addition of unsourced content as well as the removal of solid references is of course worrying. A couple of changes which appeared to be constructive were made by the user, but the intention of these was probably to act as "decoys", deflecting attention from the obvious POV restructuring of the article. Quite a clear-cut case really, but still fascinating to watch over the course of the past.. two weeks? (I think?) SMC (talk) 05:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I recommend that the Susan Hutchison article be semi-protected for a good long period. This pattern of blanket reversions, sockpuppetry and refusal to discuss has persisted since August. User:Chimes in SF is probably the newest sock after User:OMG oh my gosh was blocked for the same editing problems as the many other socks. This is the third time for this article at ANI here and here. It appears a lengthy semi-protection will be the only method to draw collaborative editors into discussion on the talk page. (I am the first admin who became involved in editing the article, so naturally,I am will not protect it myself.) — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

{{unresolved}}Help, please. We need an uninvolved admin to consider the appropriate use of tools here. :) Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)}}:I was hesitant to protect on the face of it, but since this is apparently a case of serial block evasion, fully protected for one month. Semi will only help until the next sock is autoconfirmed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for your input. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to you and to User:NuclearWarfare both for pitching in. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Flegelpuss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) looks very much like a Scibaby sleeper sockpuppet which has recently been reactivated to disrupt climate change-related articles and BLPs. There is an (as yet unresolved) SPI outstanding on this and three other user accounts which appear to be sockpuppets either of Scibaby or another recently blocked sockpuppeteer, Tinpac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby. Could someone with more familiarity of Scibaby's MO take a look at Flegelpuss's history to see if my suspicions hold water? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made Flegelpuss aware of this discussion. GiantSnowman 02:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies in advance if my comments may seem rude, but Shulz on the flimsiest of evidence is trying to ban innocent and productive editors, so our bluntness in our own defense is warranted. These accusations have made me waste my time to go read up on "scibaby" to see what all that hubub is about. Apparently scibaby has been a big problem, but there are over a billion global warming skeptics in the world, and indeed in the U.S. there are more skeptics than believers. Over the last two days it shouldn't be surprising that many people with this widely shared skeptical POV, which is quite different from the dominant editors' believer POV, have started editing articles related to the CRU scandal. I've been editing articles on Wikipedia for many months, as a perusal of my contributions log will show, and I got interested in editing about the CRU scandal because I've seen a great deal of highly biased editing going on to try to prevent the facts about the CRU scandal from being documented for posterity by Wikipedia. Since I want to put very well sourced and highly notable facts on Wikipedia that contradict the dominant editors' preconceived opinions, I guess that means I get banned too, because this apparently makes me "quack like a duck"? Please, let's stop the paranoia -- there are over a hundred million global warming skeptics in the U.S. alone who are not scibaby sockpuppets, and neither am I.Flegelpuss (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Highly publicized and politicized episodes like this tend to attract both a large influx of new editors and a handful of abusive sockpuppets. Perhaps you could help by educating these new editors about Wikipedia's policies and standards, so that they don't run afoul of them. As an aside, if your goal is to "document this episode for posterity", then surely the rational approach is to wait for the dust to settle and for a coherent picture to emerge, rather than fighting about minute-to-minute swings in our coverage while the topic is hot off the presses? MastCell ^Talk 03:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Flegelpuss should be banned just for his outright lies about what the majority of Americans believe. As a poli sci grad student- they are FAR past "exagerations" about global warming. Read Fiorina's Culture War? They myth of a polarized America; standard reading for even freshman and encouraged to be read by just about any poli sci professor you'll meet. This isnt Kansas, this is an encyclopedia. Fringe theories are treated as that. Sorry, Flegelpuss, you are in the minority and this is a fringe theory. Even if the fringe theory was held by a majority of people it would still be a fringe because science considers it to be. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, Iraq didnt have anything to do with al-Qaeda or 9-11, and evolution really happens (but not in Kansas, inbreding stops it I guess); those are just three more things you can learn from Wikipedia if you have an open mind. Which is why Wikipedia bases itself on published sources that are reliable not what the majority thinks.Camelbinky (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Camelbinky reveals the real motivation behind this witch hunt.Flegelpuss (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the real motivation is for Wikipedia to be a legitimate encyclopedia based on reliable published sources... you caught the conspiracy. Good work. Or were you saying I'm part of the liberal bias inherent in the US university system? I'm a grad student at MU (University of Missouri-Columbia) the dean of the poli sci department (whom technically I "work" for) is a good friend of Karl Rove and a big shot in the Republican Party; so I wouldnt go with that whole "colleges are a liberal bastion" argument against me. Read Fiorina's book and learn what the majority of Americans TRULY think before you talk about "hundreds of millions" of Americans believing things. College textbooks trump Fox News.Camelbinky (talk) 04:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The majority of Americans are moderates, in the center, neither left nor right. The polarization process is directed by special interest groups to win votes for one side representing their viewpoint. It occurs, because both the American educational system and the media is unable to do their job. As Higgins & Sussman write, "The business of news distorts its public and community character and the institutional responsibility of news organizations to inform and educate, free of commercial or government imperatives, and improve the quality of a democratic civil society." Viriditas (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Camelbinky, you are painfully unfamiliar with my edits, which were (A) about the CRU e-mail leak, not about the science, and (B) were based on reliable sources such as the BBC and the New York Times. The contents of some of these e-mails have become quite (in)famous and that makes true believers like you uncomfortable, and your natural reaction is to strike back at the bearers of bad news with a witch hunt. Those who value science, OTOH, should be happy to see how the most important science currently being conducted on our planet is being done, albeit obviously it would have been far preferable to get the information as a matter of course, or at least as a FOI request, instead of having to wait until it was leaked. Flegelpuss (talk) 05:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we avoid discussing what we think about Americans believe, think, and so on, on

WP:ANI please?--Tznkai (talk

) 05:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The point I was making, which Camelbinky completely missed and took on a wild tangent, was that climate skeptics are not rare, they are extremely common. They look the same to a true believer, because they have very different PsOV. When a big event like the CRU e-mail leak happens a large number of skeptics can be expected to show up and start editing, apparently with a similar POV to "scibaby". To suspect that they are scibaby is an understandable psychological bias, but unfortunately it has turned into a paranoid witch-hunt that threatens to have me banned. Excuse me for defending myself, and the rights of all innocent and productive Wikipedia editors to be free from this kind of attack.Flegelpuss (talk) 06:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a strong consensus that your edits are problematic, Flegelpuss. Have you bothered to take a look at your own contribution history and talk page? Do you acknowledge that you may have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia? BTW, WikiProject Physics accused you of using sockpuppets in this thread. Viriditas (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, since the fate of entire companies can depend on whether politicians take draconian measures against the projected climate change sooner or later, I guess it's not too absurd to expect Wikipedia to be hit by a certain degree of astroturfing; e.g. editing paid for by oil companies or more likely by front organisations of such. I am not surprised that people are suspicious in that area and think it's a good thing in principle. Hans Adler 09:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser is in [45]. We now have 2-3 unconnected (or not yet connected) sock farms. Flegelpuss is the sockmaster of

Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident until the sock was blocked (independently of the sock issue) by User:Tom harrison. I'll update the sock block to indef. What do we do with the sock master? --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 16:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Have the two suspected puppets of this been checked? DVdm (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No, they were not part of the SPI request. I suggest you add them at the article linked above - before the case is archived. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The person behind the Flegelpuss/EggheadNoir accounts used the Flegelpuss account to evade a block on the EggheadNoir account, which suggests prima facie bad faith to me - certainly block evasion at the very least. The sockmaster appears to have used EggheadNoir to make controversial edits to one particular article while using the Flegelpuss account to edit talk pages and other related articles while the other account was blocked. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Socking is a non starter. My preference is to throw the book, but I understand the tradition is to do something less drastic for reasons not totally clear to me.--Tznkai (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Add edit warring to the list, since that's why the EggheadNoir sock was blocked in the first place - repeatedly deleting reliably sourced content that the Scibaby sockpuppet Twyla8 (talk · contribs) had previously been repeatedly deleting. That's what made me think EggheadNoir/Flegelpuss was also a Scibaby sock, but evidently socks of a feather flock together. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, Scibaby has used widely varying IP addresses over time. While there seems to be no positive CU evidence linking the Flegelpuss family and the Scibaby family so far, that does not preclude that such a link is found in the future. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

← I've reviewed and closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby. There does not appear to be a clear link to Scibaby. On the other hand, there is strong behavioral and technical evidence that Flegelpuss (talk · contribs) has operated a number of socks abusively to evade blocks and press their viewpoint on content disputes. I've blocked the relevant socks, and blocked Flegelpuss for 1 week. I think this probably errs on the side of the benefit-of-the-doubt - there's ample evidence of blatantly abusive and repeated socking - so I would recommend a fairly low threshold to escalate the block if the Flegelpuss account engages in further disruptive editing after the block expires. MastCell ^Talk 18:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There are more likely socks coming in, e.g. User:Bigred58 with a classical sleeper sock pattern. Do we need to assign a permanent checkuser to these articles? Can we? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Bigred58 is almost certainly another Scibaby sock. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Guys, you need to be awfully careful here. Wikipedia clearly has a "House POV" on climate articles--this is in part a natural consequence of the demand for reliable third party sources, which means that Wikipedia will always lag behind breaking news and shifts in scientific paradigms. (If Wikipedia had existed in 1975, it would have defended global cooling and the ending of the current interglacial period, and anthropogenic global warming would have been fringe.) However, please take care that you do not abuse editors or the core NPOV policy. This incident has attracted a lot of attention, and it is not unreasonable that casual and infrequent editors will come over to wikipedia to see what's up. Bigred58 (talk · contribs) is completely and unequivocally unrelated to anyone else under recent investigation, and furthermore he has a thoroughly valid point. WMC has a clear conflict of interest in this matter (among other things, a few of his emails are in the stolen or leaked archive). I do not understand the removal of Bigred58's posts from the Talk page, and I feel confident that if the checkuser information had suggested that Bigred was associated with, for example, McIntyre, McKittrick or Watts, that you folks would be all over him with COI warnings. Step back and take in the wider perspective, please. Thatcher 19:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Has this sockmaster ever made any constructive, non-disruptive edits? Jehochman ^Talk 19:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If you mean Flegelpuss, the editor's contributions in article space appear to have been rather limited. The contribs list shows edit warring over fringe viewpoints on relativity in September 2009 and, more recently, altering BLPs to add rather tendentious statements about the

Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. -- ChrisO (talk

) 19:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A request to semi-protect the page was auto-archived, with a comment by J Greb suggesting that due to other articles also being affected, that perhaps a small range block may be a better solution. Is this the right page to request consideration of a range block, or is there another page for those types of requests? 67.183.232.99 (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

And now the most recent sock IP involved has again restored the material - despite clear consensus on the talk page, and the talk page archives, and the talk pages of the blocked user that it's original research being sourced with fan-forums. The user is unable to provide reliable sources for the content, which is the reason for overwhelming consensus against the material. --67.183.232.99 (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The user has returned to past practice of vandalizing user pages of those who revert his insertion of the non-consensus material (see example). This is the same behavior as the previously blocked user account Krlzh (talk · contribs), providing still more evidence of the IP sockpuppetry (fairly evident already, but this just adds to the behavioral evidence). 67.183.232.99 (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a number of related discussions on

I'm British. The file page claims that his accent is a northern accent. I'm also northern, and that is definitely not a northern accent. It does seem like a bit of a joke, really. --Deskana (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm also British, and also northern, and the accent is definitely put on. I have a feeling that it is a (rather poor) attempt to do a British-Yiddish accent; if so, it is almost certainly meant in an offensive way. Oh, and I have also made ThuranX aware of this discussion. GiantSnowman 19:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't take a native speaker to notice that this accent is fake. Not at all. In case anyone really has doubts about whether this is a joke or not, just listen to the last 30 seconds. It's suspicious that the sockpuppet of a banned user who uploaded this has chosen this particular articles. I didn't have the patience to listen to the entire recording, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were some more or less subtle manipulations of the text as well. Hans Adler 20:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the accent is evidently fake, and gets progressively sillier as the thing goes on. At best it's someone having a joke. We'd be better off without it. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Jayjg beat me to it by a few seconds, and his edit summary was better than mine was going to be. Black Kite 20:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

One of the giveaways that the accent is fake is that the speaker uses a long 'A' in "circumstances" - anyone from north of the Watford Gap would use a short 'A'. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It's either

Four Yorkshiremen sketch. I'm British, and cannot place the accent to any place in the United Kingdom. LessHeard vanU (talk

) 20:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Should the file on Commons (w:Commons:File:WhoIsAJew2.ogg) be deleted? Just curious. 72.94.164.21 (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If it was on enwiki, then I'd delete it. It depends how Commons does stuff, though. --Deskana (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Originally I thought it wouldn't hurt to keep it, linked from some page of Wikipedia humour perhaps. However, because of the sensitivity of the subject matter, and the potential for this mickey-taking to cause real offence, I now believe that the source audio file should be permanently deleted. 86.133.245.40 (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC).

I agree, but the file isn't hosted here but on Commons, so this must be discussed there. They have a slightly different culture, and I believe they are generally a bit more reluctant to delete things than we are.

Perhaps an editor with more experience with Commons than I have can start whatever is the appropriate process there? Hans Adler 23:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done I don't think this file does us any credit, even as a parody for ostensible humorous purposes (the evidence of which is persuasive). My opinion might have been different had it been some other articles, but even so, that was the least of my concerns. Rodhullandemu 01:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I restored the file repeatedly because no one who has objected so far is a linguist or otherwise specifically qualified to determine the origins of the speaker. I find it dubious that someone would instead create a 20 minute long audio file in a consistent faux accent without laughing or joking at all. However, the audio was a perfect read-through of the article as it was when read and created. As such, it's better than no audio at all. Given that the only reason ever given for removal was blatant IDONTLIKEIT, and that no complaining editor ever offered to actually take the time to do it better, I restored it. That I'm being attacked here for preserving a greater quality, not a lesser, is a travesty of good sense. ThuranX (talk) 04:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You were not attacked. Infact, your name was only mentioned twice in this thread; once saying that you were "[constantly] reverting the deletion of the file", and another saying that they've informed you about the thread. We just disagree with you, that's all. --Deskana (talk) 10:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You once commented that you had only listened to the first few minutes, but perhaps that has changed? If you haven't done it yet I really suggest that you listen to the last 30 seconds now. It doesn't take a Brit, it doesn't take a native speaker of English, and very likely it doesn't take any familiarity with the English language at all to realise that the pronunciation of the copyright notice isn't meant seriously. The article itself is just a little more subtle. Hans Adler 12:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Come to think of it, it reminds me of the fake English accent that Ross did in Friends to keep his students entertained. --Deskana (talk) 12:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I am American, but I think I notice a few inconsistencies in the speaker's accent ... sometimes he says CON-tro-ver-sy and sometimes con-TRO-ver-sy; at one point he says "pee'ul" for people and "exam'l" for example, omitting the /p/, whereas other places he only leaves out /t/ sounds... and in some parts of the recording it is hard not to think he's deliberately exaggerating his accent (see around 4:30, 9:30, 14:45, 16:20, and 20:00-21:13). In any case, for people unfamiliar with British accents it could be hard to understand this even if it is "real" ... so it could be replaced. I've gone ahead and !voted Delete in the discussion, though Id be willing to change my !vote if I can become convinced that I'm wrong about the accent. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 05:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, it doesn't seem to get all the way through to the end of the article. Assuming that the version of the article the speaker was reading is this one, it stops about 2/3 of the way down. Were there more of these? User:Gypsy Eyes only made that one upload. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I wonder if it wouldn't have taken a shorter time to simply record a better version, which would have left us with a spoken article. Unomi (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I would do it, but I am not sure that a version with traces of a German accent would be a real improvement for this topic. More of a job for a native speaker of English, anyway. Hans Adler 12:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment > delete the file. It doesn't portray us well. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 11:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A new version, fine, but the old one doesn't belong on Commons in any case.

talk

) 11:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This user page appears to violate copyright by reproducing the lyrics of a 1929 song. I have tried asking the editor to remove the violation, but have been told in response that I had "an aggressive tone" and that the owner of the page would not change it, and get the impression that he or she will only listen to an administrator. Could someone please have a word with this editor and sort this out?

If you could provide evidence that the song is under copyright, that would make it easier to follow up on this. —C.Fred (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the burden is on the contributor who wants to include the material, but according to [46], copyright was renewed in 1956. Accordingly, it is under copyright until 2023. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the lyrics and explained. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, all.

Wikipedia:Userpage#Images_on_user_pages says one cannot have images that are copyrighted (non-free). It seems obvious to me that a free content encyclopedia could not allow (non-free)text as well. Do we need to add a mention about non-free text to the things one cannot have on a userpage? Cheers, Dlohcierekim

23:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point. How's this. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary really. It's common sense,

WP:COPYVIO do not limit themselves to article space either. 89.101.82.246 (talk

) 02:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Someguy1221 is going to contact authorities - thanks, all.

a/c

) 05:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

See diff on Godinez Fundamental High School. In my humble opinion this is childish vandalism rather than a credible threat of violence, but am noting it just the same. FlyingToaster 04:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on what it probably is, although this is something that police might actually investigate if reported, as opposed to the majority of childish threats posted to Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey Someguy - I'm guessing you say so because the tone is neutral rather than silly? I'm happy to report to local authorities if that's roughly the consensus. FlyingToaster 04:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much that the tone is neutral, but rather that there's a clearly identified target. In such a case, especially when that target is a school, the local police are usually very interested in knowing who made the threat. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I just realized I'm not all that far from the school at the moment. I would be happy to contact the local authorities myself, if a checkuser could provide the IP beforehand. Acutally, it might be worth it for a checkuser to see if the user is proximal to the school (it may not be as worth a report if the user was editing from Singapore, or something). Someguy1221 (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree - requesting checkuser via SPI here, feel free to comment. FlyingToaster 04:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that most schools themselves are very interested in such postings even if it is not serious, ESPECIALLY if it is from one of their own school computers. Some schools even take disciplinary action even over little things like what we call "vandalism" if done on Wikipedia from their own school computers. Making even a "silly" or "not serious" threat would definitely be dealt with, I'm sure the school would like to be contacted right after the police.Camelbinky (talk) 04:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've emailed Someguy1221 with the user's IP address, which he can give to local authorities for help in dealing with this. For anyone concerned, such releases are permitted under the privacy policy: "It is the policy of Wikimedia that personally identifiable data collected [...] through records in the database via the CheckUser feature [...] may be released by Wikimedia volunteers or staff, in any of the following situations [...] Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public." As a specific target was identified here, and for the reasons pointed out above by Someguy and Camelbinky, a call to authorities is not unreasonable, especially if there's someone in the area. Someguy, any updates you can provide would be appreciated.

a/c

) 05:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've contacted the local police, as well as the school, and provided the necessary information. They asked me to contact the local FBI field office with the same information, as apparently that's where jurisdiction lies in this case. I'll be doing that when the field office opens tomorrow morning. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this FBI page might be useful for alerting them of the situation. Basket of Puppies 05:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If you were planning a terrorist bombing at your local school, would you post about it on Wikipedia and use your real name as your username? Didn't think so.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Given that school kids are known to post provocative photos of themselves on websites, which is a stupid enough thing to do, it's reasonable to suppose that they might post their own names in connection with threats of violence also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

So what? I'm guessing the feds will have more powers of persuasion to stop people posting nonsense on WP than anyone at WP will. See also the many hoax death threats against us president sent by school children an d investigated by the feds. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's also a good civics lesson, as it teaches that crying wolf is not appreciated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Imagine the look on the kids face when his mum calls him downstairs because the FBI want to talk to him :D--Jac16888^Talk 19:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You know, I don't know why I had to be born in 1995. My generation is toxic, stupid, wreckless, and primal. Oh, and could someone please videotape that kid's reaction when the FBI comes knocking on his door? I'll treasure it forever.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Why were you born in 1995? Well, you'd have to take that up with your parents. I'm guessing you were conceived during the baseball strike of 1994. And thanks to youtube, if the FBI's visit to that guy's house gets taped, it could be shared with everyone - maybe even included on the "no threats of violence" page, as a "scared straight" kind of thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Why me? Why did I have to be born in 1995? Why do I have to live in this confused, savage generation of braindead idiots who care about nothing other than their own primal, barbaric lusts? Why do I have to be alive to see people murdering each other for fun and posting it on YouTube? Why me?--66.177.73.86 (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Things could be worse. At least you weren't the one in that youtube video. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The FBI has no been informed. Cheers. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, is "no" a typo for "now" or "not"? Dendodge _T\^C 21:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – content dispute, page now protected

An editor,

The above posting from

Beeblebrox. Talk page discussions have failed because of the gross incivility and personal attacks perpetrated by Sift&Winnow. But thanks, that's how to get the bottom line problem of incivility and attacks off the AN/I page. Wildhartlivie (talk

) 22:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I was going to try to discuss things with this but I guess I am not here enough. The complaint is filed, page is protected, complaint is closed. What happened to giving editors involved a chance to make a comment before making a decision? This wasn't just an edit war like is stated. This was about uncivil behavior that I don't see addressed. Sorry, I'm disappointed that this was handled this way. Please allow editors to have time to make at least a comment before a rush is made like this. Sorry to have bothered anyone, --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)