Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive612

I just noticed an edit summary by

Just a note, the IP has been blocked...

Talk // Contribs

06:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Obviously the anon is question thinks people will be arrested for "corruption and misconduct" like "Governor Blagojevich" for posting sock template. Not a legal threat, but definitely disruptive. Recommend the anon be blocked for 24 (longer if their block log requires it) and laughed at for the silliest threat possibly in awhile. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

...like Blagojevich, "and for the same reason". Yes, we've had several wikipedians who tried to sell Senate appointments. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That comment seems to be more out of rage than anything, but is clearly against NPA at the least. Might be a legal threat, but seems more like inflammatory personal attacking, in my opinion. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 06:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

At

On the other end, I've warned Rogueslade about making personal attacks,[7] which he has since apologized for.[8]

What is needed is an admin to come in and start laying down the law about assumptions of bad faith accusations others of sock/meet puppetry without any evidence and to lay off the personal attacks on other editors. I've already attempted to move some of the comments about other editors to the AfD's talk page earlier, but things are still out of hand. —Farix (t | c) 21:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Even though I know I may be biased, as I am one of the "victims" of these users and this unusual suspect behavior, I must concur with Farix. I am a member on several other wikis, and in one case, an administrator. This is my first time attempting the "Big leagues" of Wikipedia.org, and I have been VERY surprised at the seeming amount of conspiracy-jockying that MuZemike and Milowent have brought to the table. They seem to assume Bad Faith, and have not slowed down since the beginning. Milowent has recently started to contribute to the discussion on the aforementioned AfD. This behavior has cause the discussion on the AfD in question to become somewhat diluted. Much of the discussion (contributed by these users) has seemed to be in attempt to draw attention away from the articles AfD, or at least to hinder the discussion. If possible, it would be nice to see an Admin clean up the AfD so that discussion can continue smoothly and on track.Biohazard388 (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Also, when the sockpuppet case WAS opened, the users seemingly protected the page, which did not allow the accused parties to add their defensive arguments and comments. This may be the norm, but not as far as I know. This seems to point to more Bad Faith. It might be nothing, but thought I'd add the idea for consideration.Biohazard388 (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
• Come on people. Yes I was suspicious (and am still though without evidence, but I shall hold my personal opinions henceforth), but you are making a mountain out of a molehill. However, I pledge to cease and desist the use of any insinuations humorous or otherwise any further in that AfD. Boba Phat will have to fend for himself. Biohazard388 et al, I apologize for any offense I have caused, I suggest you do not became a regular editor on Encyclopedia Dramatica or whatever its called.--Milowent (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Accusing a nominator and several persons in an AFD of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, even after they have been conclusively demonstrated to be innocent of these charges, is poisoning the well. Nor did it even cross my mind that you were attempting to merely be "humorous." I think your initial suspicions were well-founded, certainly, but don't poison an AfD with these accusations, and know to drop them once they've been shown to be unfounded. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't see how they have been conclusively proven innocent, they just haven't been proven guilty. Though I stand by all my edits, I have also apologized to Bioh. and I seem to think we can all move on now.--Milowent (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Milowent, I graciously accept your apologize. Please make sure to note that I had mentioned your coming around in a previous post here in this section. I agree that things seem to be going more smoothly since the Sockpuppet case ended. However, I must also agree that Admin intervention to clean up the AfD would be a good idea. I agree with both Farix and Ginsengbomb that the discussion has been harmed by several users. The discussion has suffered so far, due in part to users continuing discussion where it maybe shouldn't have been. An official cleanup from the staff would be a much appreciated effort, as far as I'm concerned. I'm completely on the side of being fair to the article's creator and the community at large. I'd like to see the discussion cleaned up and focused so that a clear consensus can be reached.Biohazard388 (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

In their defense Bio, we did suspect something weird when you came and immediately nominated something for deletion. Although it is an odd first edit, there has been a sockpuppeter who has done exactly that. If you had mentioned that you are an admin on another Wikipedia, I'm sure we would have supported you. The page was protected because there was an attack by another user there and no one removed it because they didn't want to risk another attack. Personally, I was rooting for more socks to be bagged, and the checkuser actually changed the sockmaster of some of them to another user. All is well now and I'm sorry if we ever hurt you.

Biohazard388 did not say he was an admin on another "Wikipedia", but on another "wiki", a generic term for any site which uses wiki software. If he's an admin on another Wikipedia, I'd suggest he should say what it is, because it's certainly not under this name, which is active only on en.wikipedia. [9]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Kevin, I completely understand where you are coming from. I realize the situation seemed fishy at the time, and probably would have taken similar action. However, the discussion should have been kept consolidated at the Sockpuppet case's page, instead of overflowing into the AfD page. It also should have ended when the case was closed. Instead, it continued most thoroughly. As an example,MuZemike posted this post-sockpuppet case on the AfD discussion page: "Speedy keep – This is a clear bad-faith nomination by User:Biohazard388. If this isn't sock puppetry by those involved in the SPI, then this is clear meatpuppetry orchestrated by someone on the outside who is recruiting someone to propose deletion on Star Wars-related material on the behalf of Dalejenkins. –MuZemike {timestamp removed to prevent confusion}" This comment can be found on the aforementioned AfD. This is why I feel an admin should clear the page up a bit and try and make sure that the conspiracy theories end so discussion can continue unhindered. I don't have any harsh feelings towards anyone. I just want to make sure that the policies are followed and that we can have a concise discussion in the appropriate section.Biohazard388 (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment – The SPI page was protected due to persistent vandalism by socks of GEORGIEGIBBONS (talk · contribs) who was recently causing massive SPI disruption. I have nothing else to say about this matter other than that I still reserve my suspicions as stated; nobody learns how to set up an AFD flawlessly upon their very first edits. –MuZemike 22:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: The reasoning behind the SPI lock makes sense. Concerning the AFD suspicions, I'd like to make it a point to say again, that I am a member of other Wikimedia projects and am fluent in Wiki coding. I also am able to venture forth on the site and find articles such as
    Assume Good Faith.Biohazard388 (talk
    ) 22:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, you're right. There's AGF, and then there's not not making AGF into a suicide pact. That being said, I'm not infallible, and perhaps I have erred and was a bit biased since I thought I was so convinced since there were socks of this user up to two weeks ago who were still trying to nominate Star Wars-related stuff for deletion. Perhaps you came on at the wrong place at the wrong time, but that couldn't be helped. I'll just drop this right here and carry on. –MuZemike 22:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Comment: Thank you for your understanding, MuZemike. Would you be "for" having an admin come in and clean up the AfD so that we can proceed in discussing it thoroughly?Biohazard388 (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Go ahead and have said admin hack away. I consider myself recused from the remainder of the deletion discussio here. –MuZemike 22:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment above stricken as there's a little more background, now. –MuZemike 22:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It's good to see that both editors have now appologize. However, I think it is imperative that they strike all sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry accusations as well as bad faith assumptions from their AfD comments. —Farix (t | c) 02:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be very good, especially since people are making more accusations based on those prior comments, and this bad faith toward the nominator seems to be influencing the deletion discussion, as they are suggesting that the article be kept solely because they don't trust the nominator, not on the merits of the article itself. -- Atama頭 16:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't understand why the SPI page was protected. I know MuZemike said it was because of vandalism by GEORGIEGIBBONS (talk · contribs), but if you click that user's contribs you'll see it last edited January 4, 2010. Why is mike still concerned about vandalism?? The page was protected April 25, 2010, with no sign of vandalism in the history. I would hope that the protection wasn't to stifle the accused's ability to defend itself, but unless there's more to the story, that's how it looks. I guess I didn't look closely:there's vandalism of an odd sort (copying back archives). II | (t - c) 05:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Biting, Assumption of Bad Faith and othe assorted nonsense at ANI

This thread is nonsense. there were clear reasons that allowed for a sockpuppetry case. There are three great reasons to file a sock puppet case, One the names and MO matched Dale Jenkins. Two neither of these accounts have done anything other then vote delete, [[10]] [[11]]. Yes in the end a couple weren't socks of Dale Jenkins. That leaves meat-puppetry or truly uninvolved editors that created a account just to vote delete in an afd. I would ask how many votes in the last ten actually allude to sockpuppetry concerns? 90 percent of all delete opinions have been issues with the sourcing or lack thereof of notability. Either way none of this required a report at ANI.

• As one of the editors in question, I feel that there was indeed ample reason for this thread in the ANI. Yes, there was ample evidence for an investigation into sockpuppetry. I don't contend that, but after the case was closed and decided that none of us have anything to do with this Dale Jenkins character, individuals continued to attack us. Perhaps you missed the comments that were deleted, but they continued to make every effort to have the AfD pulled, not because of evidence supporting the article, but by making direct attacks on the original nominator and a couple others, myself included. I can't speak for the others, but I have in fact made several prior edits as an anonymous user. Unless you possess the capability to track edits by IP address, you'll have to take my word on that. It was only when I saw the article in question, and chose to support the decision to delete it, that I felt it prudent to create a user account. I don't know if it is possible to vote in an AfD anonymously, but even if it is, I don't believe it would carry as much weight as from a registered user. My having a new user name, and indeed the nominator and any others having new user names, was no reason for the other editors, a specific two or three, to continually attack us and make repeated Bad Faith accusations after we were proven to have nothing to do with Dale Jenkins or one another. Rogueslade (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Based on the editing pattern it makes perfect sense. Like I said you weren't proved to be his sosck, that leaves two other choices Meatpuppet or uninvolved, either way this thread is a monstrous waste of community time and effort.

talk

) 14:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying you condone their continual slanderous comments? The only waste of time was the numerous accusations of bad faith and continued comments on meatpuppetry. If they were so concerned, it should have been brought up to an admin, not reiterated over and over again in the AfD discussion.Rogueslade (talk) 04:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Well if you look they only spoke their suspicions. I am the one who actually filed a sockpuppet case and as I said the sockpuppet investigation only conclusively proves you aren't Dale Jenkins. I am actaully glad the turn that afd is taking though, i thought that article should've been deleted a while ago

talk

) 15:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Pizzashoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is already blocked, but they are exhibiting sock-like behavior. I realize SPI is

Anyone?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't ring any bells for me, sorry. You could check the page history of the articles which they edited and see if any blocked users jump out as related. TNXMan 14:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

Could you not wait patiently like 170 other people? ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate

─╢ 13:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the talk page because it's a blatant misrepresentation of those comments, which were posted t Talk:Miley Cyrus. I'd rather leave the article itself to another admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. Additionally, the creator has been blocked, and the userpage which formed the original source of this article has been deleted. —Soap— 13:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Page deleted as an obvious hoax, each "cast billing" was proved by the article on the program to be bogus, the photograph was of Miley Cyrus. User who created the article had the same content on their userpage, which I have deleted as promotional material, and account indef blocked as a clear violation of

WP:U (spam/promotional + disruptive). SGGH ^ping!

13:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Salting might be in order. Stonemason89 (talk

) 00:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Kuebie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing up to the 3RR limit at the Goguryeo article.

• 1st revert: [17]
• 2nd revert: [18]
• 3rd revert: [19]
• 4th revert: [20]

He has a long history of reverting objective edits unfavorable to his nationalist views. Editing wikipedia required neutral point of view, for example, different nationalist views. A domination of edits and reverts by a number of Korean accounts to some Chinese-Korean and Japanese-Korean dispute pages over a few years they become biased. During past two months,

It appears to be a content dispute, so that means you have both broken

WP:3RR, each party has reverted the article 4-5 times... SGGH ^ping!

15:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I have left a 3RR reminder on both accounts, however it is clear that Kuebie has a history of edit warring and the changes he has made to the above article are fringey and weighted POV. I've also notified the other party. SGGH ^ping! 16:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I've simply reverted the 115.42.156.50 IP's (comical) initial edit. The sort of catalyst of the whole edit-warring. Clearly an SPA, although it's odd Sammyy85 is keen to favor the IP's version. The Goguryeo article is extensively sourced and cited, with dozens of editors participating on its content since 2005. Sammyy85 claims that the Chinese scholar is not named in the source, and because of that it somehow makes it unreliable (the name IS given, hence the reason why I reverted his deceptive edit). Interestingly enough, Sammyy85 has used this exact report on the edit-warring noticeboard (result was stale). Which leads me to believe he's trying to silence me or have me blocked through various channels, instead of admitting to his obvious deceptive editing. And no Sam, wikipedia should not be home to some nationalist chest-thumping contest. One of the reasons why wikipedia advocates the use of credible sources, to circumvent any nationalist slant. Akkies (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

This is because Kuebie, Historiographer and myself are using same old account where as these Chinese and Japanese trolls are using multiple accounts to edits popular Korean articles under their POV. Sammyy85 is not providing reputable sources for his edits therefore his another troll.--Korsentry 04:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Crat note

Ok, I renamed him to something new that seems appropriate. Lesson to take away from this is that sometimes if a user seems to be acting in good faith, we should extend it to them and try to AGF. I'm known as being very tough on username enforcement, but many times we need to remember that new users aren't as experienced as us and as long as they aren't breaking stuff (spam, etc), we should try to play nice. MBisanz ^talk 20:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I hate to continue a resolved thread, but I want to stick up for the users involved because they did try to be nice, over about two dozen posts (some only in the history now) it wasn't a case of talk, confuse, block. SGGH ^ping! 20:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

As this issue is not specifically covered under the username policy, I've raised it at

talk

) 05:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

In my role as a user, I clicked on a reference in the article

The first link was inserted by Ceyockey. [21] I have notified Ceyockey of this discussion. The second link was inserted by IP address 92.104.196.163. [22] I tried to notify 92.104.196.163 that I was discussing him/her/it, but there's no talk page for that address.

I'm a fairly infrequent Wikipedia editor, so am not sure whether this incident is worthy of reporting, or whether this noticeboard is the place to report the incident if so. If I've made any errors, please pardon me.

Languorous Lass (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

For some reason, it looks like whoever added the links linked directly to the software's download page. That's obviously not ideal, and you did the right thing by removing the links. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC).

Thanks! I was amazed when I realized that the earlier of the two links has been there since September 2008, and that people have been updating the software version numbers and dates on both links since then.

Surely there must be a Wikipedia policy against automatic downloads, but I couldn't find one anywhere on the site -- the topic didn't seem to fit under vandalism, unless the program is malware, and it didn't seem to be that. Lankvei, can you -- or can anyone else -- direct me to the right policy? Languorous Lass (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:EL may have something. I did notify the IP in the end, whether it is still active or not I didn't check. SGGH ^ping!

00:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:EL discusses such stuff. Yeah, just remove the link and put a comment in the edit summary and maybe the article talk page. I wouldn't bother notifying the editor who put the link there of the removal since if they still care about it they can check what happened on the article page. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Some time last year, I was contacted by an acquaintance who goes by the handle "Shougo B'stard" online concerning the fact that the English Wikipedia article Dengeki Sentai Changeman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) extensively copied information from his personal fan site on the series. I checked the article, and removed and rewrote most of it while devolving into heated discussion, mostly because the information was copied and his website was not being used as a source. I tried to work on removing the copyright violations, and the discussion ended.

Yesterday,

Ohnoitsjamie provided a third opinion (Delaluz went to

Can an admin please fix List of film production companies. A editor moved it some three to four times and it is all borked up. It was moved from its original name to List of Film Distribution Companies, then to List of Hollywood and Independent Film Distribution Companies then to List of Theatrical Film Distributors then to List of Theatrical Film Companies. Then they

None of the new names are correct and it really needs to be moved back, but because of all the moving and a bot corrected the first double redirect already, it can't be done by a regular editor. --

• Would an admin also add indefinite move protection to List of film production companies (currently located at List of Theatrical Film Distributors) to prevent further disruption? Cunard (talk) 06:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Moved back, redirects deleted, and move protected for one week.

talk

) 07:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone might want to inform the editor that his numerous messages asking for help now link to two red links. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The same editor,

talk · contribs

) 06:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced list of names with no reliable source. The creator of the article is not only reverting my prod blp tag in violation of the rules for unsourced blps, he's also repeatedly restoring a fair use image for which there is no rationale for us in that page. Woogee (talk) 05:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

What part of "I am working on the article right now, and if you'll just hold your horses all your concerns will be addressed" don't you understand? --JonBroxton (talk) 05:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

What part of "Don't remove the prod tag until you provide a reliable source" do you not understand? Woogee (talk) 05:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The link provided is a reliable source as it links to the league's official archive of historical statistical data. More sources will be added shortly, if you leave me alone and let me get on with working on the article, instead of dragging me into pointless arguments like this. --JonBroxton (talk) 05:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It links to a main page of the league's website, but not to any page which proves that any of those names were ever on that team. And you still haven't addressed the illegal use of the fair use image. Woogee (talk) 05:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Woogee, let the man complete the page. Jumping the gun and nom'ing it for deletion as soon as it is made is kinda
  WP:N it will be deleted, if it does, then it will remain. Deleting conversations, bringing things to ANI, and just starting conversations everywhere is, as JonBroxton said, preventing him from getting his work done. Relax. It gets done, it gets done. Give the dude an hour. - NeutralHomer • Talk
  • 05:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't nom it for deletion, I listed it for prod, which gives several days to provide reliable sources. What's the point of the PROD BLP tag if not to use it to make sure that BLPs are sourced properly? Woogee (talk) 05:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

A PROD tag can be removed by anyone, anytime. I made it very clear to JonBroxton on his talk page that he doesn't get a ton of time. He needs to get his work done tonight. I also told him that if he feels the page isn't mainspace worthy yet, it can always be moved back. Relax, Rome wasn't built in a day. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. As you can see, I have now added five additional source references, and altered the licensing of the image. I would have done this earlier but, well, you know... --JonBroxton (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The

BLP PROD never should have been applied to this article. It is for unsourced biographies. It is not for articles or lists that mention living people. It is not for pages with inadequate referencing. Maurreen (talk

) 06:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I've started a discussion about clarifying the scope of BLP Prods here. Maurreen (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

@Neutral Homer, what you say is true regarding generic PROD tags. The BLP PROD tag can be removed only upon the insertion of a

Wikipedia:STICKY#Objecting. Not that I'm saying that the BLP PROD tag belonged on the article, I'm just being overly fastidious... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}

) 11:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Surely there could have been some good faith shown to an editor with 35,000 edits and a large number of well sourced articles created. Articles don't have to be perfect the moment they are published, and if they aren't, part of being a collaborative project means you could just as easily pitch in and help get something up to scratch rather than wasting time bringing things here. Camw (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• I have removed Woogee's rollback rights, which have been misused [27], [28], and this happened two weeks after being blocked for edit-warring (with rollback). The BLP PROD can only be used on articles which are biographies of living people, so not for list of people. As Camw mentions,
  WP:AGF. Cenarium (talk
  ) 17:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy applies to anything "...anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, images, and categories." then the PROD tag must as well. The highly esteemed CBW presents the Talk Page! 19:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The

BLP PROD process was created to deal with unsourced biographies of living people, the consensus which led to its adoption was that it would be used on unsourced biographies of living people and the policy reflects it. There is no question on this; and any extension of its scope would require community consensus. Cenarium (talk

) 20:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

(out) Question: Woogee's user page says:

I am not a new user. In fact, I am a former admin who felt it would be best if I left Wikipedia for a while. I am back to try to start over again. I don't feel the need to reveal my past Username, though I might be willing to provide it if people email me, but don't consider this an obligation on my part. I'm going to start over as a basic user, and let's see how things go.

NOTE: I was not blocked or banned, I left voluntarily, several years ago.

I noticed this statement a while ago, when Woogee first began to participate on the noticeboards, but did not consider it pertinent at the time to dig further into it. Considering, however, the sum total of the editor's behavior since re-appearing, is it now legitimate to ask what Woogee's previous identity was and why they gave up the admin bit - i.e. was it voluntary or "under a cloud"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently BLP does not matter any more. Thanks for letting me know. Woogee (talk) 02:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that Woogee has left the room. I'm just wondering, in general, a couple of things: (1) How would erroneously listing someone on a soccer team roster count as a "BLP violation"? It's not like the article says "List of known perverts" or something. (2) How can an article be built without the sources already being known? I've often seen this argument: "I'll add sources later." How can you be posting unsourced information? Would it kill the author to include the sources while adding the information? I'm not arguing for overzealous deletion. I'm just curious how it's possible to build an article with sources apparently to be looked up later? "Putting the cart before the horse"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it wasn't a case of "I'll add the sources later" being days later... Woogee tagged my article literally 90 seconds after I published it, while I was in the process of adding the additional sources, checking disambig links, and doing my post-publish cleanup. If he had waited 30 minutes, even 15 minutes, there would have been nothing for him to complain about and all this unpleasantness could have been avoided. --JonBroxton (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Woogee left with a FU to one editor [29] and a whining FU to everybody [30][31][32] and that prompts me to ask again: who is this person who claims to be an ex-admin and under what circumstance did he lose or drop the bit and leave Wikipedia? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Does it really matter? If Woogee truly left, then there shouldn't be a problem. If they return in the future, under that account or another, then it would be worth investigating. I admit to some personal curiosity but I think that everyone's time would be better spent on something more productive. -- Atama頭 17:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That's sensible. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I see neither legal threat nor BLP violation. (At least not in these diffs...) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

How in the heck is that a

talk

) 23:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The content in the talk page is irrelevant unless it's a personal attack or vandalism. Biographies of a Living Person violations are not included. Sorry. --

(mailbox)

True. Let's just trout'em both. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Just ignore each other for the time being. Thanks for being stellar editors! --

(mailbox)

23:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

My mistake was the legal warning. It was in jest because I thought the BLP warning was absurd. I can't believe it was serious. Still, the use of rollback by Saturn is a violation. Anyway, sorry for this.

talk

) 23:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Re A3RO: not sure about the present case (haven't reviewed it); but your statement that the BLP policy does not apply to talkpages is shockingly inaccurate. –

xeno^talk

23:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Hang on a minute here. First, the remark about this Farah guy could be interpreted as a BLP violation, as it suggests he's not in his right mind. As BLP violations go, though, it's pretty lame. Second, the "legal threat" was a good-faith but mistaken interpretation. Third, and most importantly, the statement that BLP violations are allowed on talk pages is flat-out, dead wrong. BLP violations are not allowed anywhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

What Bugs said. Yes, BLP applies on talk pages. Yes, that was a pretty mild BLP issue, but still not helpful to building an encyclopedia, and probably violated NOTFORUM as well. No, there's no legal threat. If we can all just act civil and professional, the issue goes away, no? Jclemens (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• For the record, I knew that
  talk
  ) 00:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • That's true, but even knowing that, I took it as a euphemism along the lines of "the elevator doesn't go all the way to the top floor", and the like. Thanks for the explanation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Where was it said that BLP vios are allowed? When I said it was not included I meant that there was never one in the first place provided in the diffs. Some people like to beat dead horses. --

(mailbox)

01:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

"The content in the talk page is irrelevant unless it's a personal attack or vandalism. Biographies of a Living Person violations are not included." Two or three of us, at least, read that as implying BLP vios are OK on the talk page. And it still looks like that's what you're saying. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please block this disruptive editor? All they do is change "mother" to "woman" on Christianity and abortion, claiming consensus while they have zero edits to the talk page. Seems like a sock of User:CarolineWH to me, who made exactly the same edits to Christianity and abortion a few months back, but I won't bother with a checkuser request for this.--Atlan (talk) 07:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

12 hour for edit warring and vandalism. The SOCK possibility may be confirmed with a

WP:DUCK test but I'm a tad busy packing! :) SGGH ^ping!

08:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

There is also CharlieC24 (talk · contribs · logs) per this edit. SGGH ^ping! 08:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done Blocked per

WP:SPI before realizing there was a note here). --Shirik (Questions or Comments?

) 17:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spotfixer - I had the time, please stop by if you can. - Schrandit (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I jumped in to state the obvious duckiness, but am not familiar with Spotfixer. SGGH ^ping! 16:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

And I just looked at the SPI archive - quite a rap sheet. SGGH ^ping! 16:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

He is also adding references to the entirely unattested (not to say fictitious) "Gallaic language": [35], [36], [37]. +

gr

20:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

And using his IP address to edit/revert/replace stuff he's edited with his account. What do we do about this? Shall I warn him to stop and block if he continues?

talk

) 20:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

My rather cursory look at this makes me think he should be blocked as a hoax-only account, though I'll have to dig a little more before blocking myself.

96

20:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The langauge is certainly not true, and the attribution of everything Iberian to the Roman province seems a little too much. SGGH ^ping! 20:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

After doing some more digging, I've indefblocked him. Virtually his entire history is dedicated to promoting this nonexistent language. The level of hoaxing is such that to my mind, we can't allow him to edit.

96

19:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The 3rr board is now 12 hours backlogged. Hipocrite (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Now 17 hours backlogged. Hipocrite (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

A number of editors have worked to make

Here's the diff for the version I support, and the version he supports; I argue the version he supports is just not NPOV. Stability Information East 2 (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

A disruptive user, Craigcobbcreativitypractitioner (who apparently is Craig Cobb) has been posting legal threats on other users' talk pages. For example, see [this diff], which includes the quote

I do understand how you people do not desire any mentions whatsoever of the tenured Prof Macdonald on my page, and that hateful, controlling "choke point" fact against NawlinWiki and Wikipedia will be in any future litigation in event of my assassination by ARA as well.

This is a deeply paranoid, deluded man who believes he will be targeted by an imminent assassination and is threatening to have Wikipedia sued. He is also threatening to "expose" various Wikipedia editors by making

I've blocked the account for the legal threat. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Went to block, but was beaten to it. Fairly textbook application of

WP:REALNAME, as well, at least until we confirmed whether it was the real Craig Cobb. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me}

) 00:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC).

That would have been a nonsensical use of a username block. It would say "Please change your username before you resume making legal threats". NLT was the correct reason to block. rspεεr (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – minor mistake, followed by an (understandable) panic-mode reaction. No issue. Amalthea 16:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

MC10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sometime today, near the morning UTC, MC10 (talk · contribs) decided to replace all instances of {{subst}} with <includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>.

This broke hundreds of the user warning templates.

I, along with a few admins, mainly Tim Song, managed to clean up this mess... At least to my knowledge. I may have missed a couple. To this end, I request, along with the below, to test every twinkle enabled user warning message on Example (talk · contribs)'s user talk page.

What do I want this thread to do? I would personally like an edit filter to prevent the above from ever happening again, or a note to never replace {{subst}} with what was noted above. If anything, I would like an admin to at least warn MC10 to not do this again.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The user has been notified.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That was a bit overeager. From the few I checked, only {{

Welcome-anon}} was actually broken, since the use of safesubst broke the substitution check here and always displayed the error message. The changes to {{Uw-create1}} and all others I spot-checked were perfectly good, and a clear improvement.
I for one am happy that MC10 went through the uw- templates and made that change, I've made the same change to a couple dozen templates myself last week. So no, we need not prevent usage of safesubst, and not really need to test all messages since the warning templates will all have survived the change unless other mistakes were made, and as far as I can tell only the one welcome template was touched.
Amalthea

09:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, what does safesubst actually do? SGGH ^ping! 10:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Safesubst works the same as subst during substitution, but is simply ignored during transclusion. Previously, many templates (e.g. almost all user warning templates) that were supposed to be transcludable and (cleanly) substitutable had to be called with an additional parameter like {{

WT:WikiProject Template#Safesubst or meta:Help:Safesubst for more.
That doesn't mean that all previous uses of subst should now be replaced with safesubst, or that all templates should now be built to allow both. But for most meta templates and talk page templates it's very useful.
Amalthea

11:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)