Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive744

I need some administrative help. This user

Bit

pointy from Abhijay if you ask me, considering he's under an interaction ban with one other editor. I have no further remarks to make, for I don't believe I've done anything wrong. I'd invite Floquenbeam (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to mediate if necessary, as he's dealt with Abhijay before, but I see this as mere point-scoring by Abhijay and an attempt to evade scrutiny from others. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont

) 10:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

☎

11:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've had previous interaction with Abhijay, including blocking him (and his nemesis) in the past, and SP asked me to comment, for what that's worth.

  The boundary between harrassing a user and checking an editor's edits if they have been previously problematic can be a grey one, but I don't see it as out of line here. I've had to revert some of Abhijay's edits myself in the past, and when I have a few free minutes, I do ocasionally check his contributions to make sure nothing needs fixing (for example, placing indef-blocked notices on talk pages of users who aren't, in fact, indef blocked). I would certainly disagree I'm stalking or pestering or harrassing. There's a guideline or essay or something somewhere about this; it's not harrassment to watch the edits of an editor who has had problems in the past to make sure they don't recur.

  While I haven't checked all the interactions between SP and Abhijay, I don't see any diffs presented above of SP doing anything that could be called harrassment. If there's more to it than this, the diffs should be presented. For example, I'm a little puzzled about Abhijay's autoconfirmed status myself. I don't know anything about the ITN discussion, but editors are not immune from people asking if they're causing problems.

  You can't keep finding new people who have to leave you alone. I think if an editor has a relatively large number of problems, they cannot expect their contributions not to be checked. I'd ask Abhijay to consider his own conflict-to-productivity ratio, and consider that the problem is not that other people are keeping an eye on him. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, I guess I just blew my head off with this. I guess I misunderstood the situation. It turns out that SP was actually helping me do the right thing, not go against you. But still, I would like him to stop accusing me of being too incompetent to edit Wikipedia.
  ☎
  13:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Clarifying Floquenbeam's question regarding autoconfirmed as I added the privilege. Have had no interaction with User:Abhijay in the past. Added the right when reviewing WP:PERM after seeing he had it before. Another user reviewed in the interim that it took me to do that (took me several hours as I was editing at work. I am a gastroenterologist and was editing between emergency procedures at the hospital) and did not approve. I didn't see that until after, added the right in the meantime. SP and Kingpin13 came to clarify, both rightfully so in my opinion given the above. I would not view this event as wikistalking. If a discussion is to be held regarding whether Abhijay should have this right, please feel free to do so. If another admin thinks otherwise, I am happy to have this decision reverted. -- Samir 17:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, it appears that

How can he have taken the photo himself and thus own the copyright? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If he paid someone to take promotional shots of himself, they are his to do with as he likes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.205.198 (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I suppose he could have used a timer lol! More likely, its the common mistake that people think that snaps taken of them belong to them. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep, it seems unlikely he'd be attending an awards event with a tripod and using a timer, so I've PUFed it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The photographer may have assigned the rights to him. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That wouldn't fit with "I Bruno Bouchet created this work entirely by myself", which is what it says. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Doh! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I have a photo of myself, taken by myself, in one of those photo-booth machines. Y'know, the ones where you can get driving licence and passport photos? Pesky (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It would have to have been a bloody big machine in this case :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hehe! The mind boggles ... having said that, I could also quite easily Photoshop my pic to have a background of almost anywhere that I can snaffle a pic of ... ;P Pesky (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Now there's a thought. Maybe in the original he was standing outside the toilet holding a plunger.....Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• At the risk of igniting a wholly different debate... this wort of lawyering over images is really aggravating to me. I mean, you're assuming that someone else took the picture and didn't give him the right to reuse it (if he has a digital copy, I feel fairly confident that the "original" was given to him). Of course, that's open to challenge (and that's partially what OTRS is for), but this sort of... assumption of bad faith (to use Wikipedia parlance) bothers me. That and the hoops that everyone has to jump though to post any images on Wikipedia any longer.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

  No, it's clearly labeled "I Bruno Bouchet created this work entirely by myself", which is quite plainly incompatible with someone else having taken it and having given him the rights to it. And I'm simply saying that the copyright information is inadequate, which may well be an entirely innocent mistake through not understanding copyright - nowhere have I suggested anyone is deliberately doing anything wrong. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

  This is obviously not the best venue for an in depth discussion about this, but... my point is basically that we're guided (especially by that convoluted "wizard") to use the template that says "I <whoever> created this work entirely by myself", so to then accuse people of being deceitful after they do use it isn't very cool. Not that you're screaming at him that he's a liar or anything, but consider the situation from his perspective is my only point.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Did anyone say he was being deceitful? He could have made a mistake with the template quite easily. But it's pretty certain it's wrong, and only he knows what the answer is. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Could an administrator please review this edit, and this response, and advise as to what can be done here? It started as a personal attack and trolling, which I removed as inappropriate for an article talk page (or anywhere on Wikipedia, for that matter), but now the editor is tendentiously warring to keep his attacks on the article talk page as well. Help would be appreciated. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not harassing you. I do not know you. A user,

Wikipedia:OWN#Single-editor_ownership. That is not harassment by any stretch. Warmtoast (talk

) 11:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Per the Wikipedia policy cited by you, "Always avoid accusations, attacks, and speculations concerning the motivation of any editor" -- you did just the opposite. Also per the policy cited by you, "it is important to make a good attempt to communicate with the editor" -- you have not done this, and have instead said, "So rather than discuss it I await mediation." Mediation doesn't come looking for you, Warmtoast, you must

request it

. I am removing your highly inappropriate post from the article talk page.

(Administrators can consider this matter closed, unless Warmtoast resumes his repeated posting of harassment on article talk pages.) Xenophrenic (talk) 06:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Update: He's still edit warring to keep his uncivil comments about editors on an article Talk page. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This has been an ongoing issue with this user since 2006 and apparently Wikipedia removed her page per her representative's request and redirected it to the Playboy Centerfold list with her bio. Now this user has recently started trying to remove any information about her (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fasttimes68) and seems to be overly obsessed with her. Regardless, the vandalism, obstruction of information and pure silliness should stop here. MikeHasIssues (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Just looked at old notes from past edits he made and saw that he was told by Wikipedia editors to STOP making edits about her, due to his personal conflict of interest, even though he doesn't know her. MikeHasIssues (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you closely related to the subject in question? It appears that Fasttimes68 has made many edits on similar topics to this particular bio, indicating more an interest in that particular field rather than vandalism/obsession. I'm not sure though, but since your account has been registered today and you already know your way around here, I think perhaps you know more than you purport to know. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since you've been here since 20 minutes ago, and not 2006, could you perhaps link this account to your prior accounts so that we can know what your history is in this matter? This doesn't make Fasttimes68 right or wrong, but when you display precocious knowledge of Wikipedia with a brand-spanking new account, it raises eyebrows. Wikipedia allows multiple accounts, but it doesn't generally allow one to mask one's identity in doing so.--Jayron32 17:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I've watched this one user as a non-user for 6 years and am not linked to any other name on here. Rambling Man also sounds familiar and there seems to be some sort of animosity towards this one particular Playboy model. MikeHasIssues (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I "sound familiar"? Perhaps. I've been here with a single account (apart from my travel account) since May 2005. How about you? You waited 6 years to make this complaint? Really? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You've been on here since May 2005, but seem to edit on here often. You probably see clearly that this matter is an ongoing issue with user Fasttimes68 religiously editing this subject with ill intent. The subject of the article has a web site listed here and her web site has a (somewhat hidden) contact page. I wonder if she looks at Wikipedia. By the way, I noticed he once had a blog that was blanked on a page that called this subject a "c`^t". Just look up the pages where he was editing/arguing with other Wikipedia editors. Definitely conflict of interest here. MikeHasIssues (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I edit often, mea culpa. So, are you prepared to admit that you are editing under a number of different accounts? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You sound like a lawyer, but then aqgain you'd probably be in court now. This is my only account. I edited a few times before creating an account, but this is my only one. Now, back to the issue. Your thoughts about this user? MikeHasIssues (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you certain that what you call vandalism is not more accurately described as "edits to a subject which you don't agree with"? Have you discussed it with the user in question? Or on the talk page? If so, what was the outcome? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

And can I suggest in the mean time that someone speedy closes/voids Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Fasttimes68 as an inappropriate overreaction/forum shop. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Going for the Grand Slam of forum shopping. ANI, LTA, AIV, and now AE. Favonian (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Gah... deleted the LTA page and reverted the AE request. One location (here) is enough, I think. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, you commented prior to reading this user's edit history on the subject matter since 2006. I might sign off here soon and go to visit the subject's web sites. MikeHasIssues (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Per

WP:NOTFISHING, I've opened an SPI on this. There has to be a master out there somewhere. Calabe1992

19:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've watched this one user as a non-user for 6 years - sounds like
  WP:BOOMERANG inbound. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}
  20:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

There are clearly two related, but separate, issues here. On the one hand we have a sockpuppeteer who appears to have some direct involvement with Stephanie Adams. That issue appears to be being dealt with at SPI. On the other hand, we have an editor (user:Fasttimes68) who has been on a multi-year campaign against Adams, on and off Wikipedia. It is discussed in more detail than anyone cares about here, and here and quite likely here. Several editors (including admins) warned the user to stay away from editing related to Adams, but they appear to have continued. Now that the sockpuppetry is out of the way, can we deal with the other issue, please? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I closed this discussion on the basis of a careful study of those questions which had been raised here. Delicious carbuncle is quite right to point out that there are other relevant issues, and other relevant discussions, so I am reverting my closure. It seems that MikeHasIssues may have legitimate concerns. If so, it is unfortunate that, instead of expressing those concerns in a constructive way, has been obstructive and combative, which led to attention focussing on his behaviour, rather than on the problems he was trying to call attention to. It looks to me as though there are, in fact, problems with both editors. Also, I realise that I used unsuitable wording above when I referred to removing mentions of a subject which, a community discussion had decided was non-notable was "a perfectly reasonable thing to do". The discussion had decided that the subject was not notable enough to have an entire article about it, not that it should not be mentioned at all. Removing mentions of someone of low notability is not entirely unreasonable, but "perfectly reasonable" was overstating the point, for which I apologise.

talk

) 08:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Copied from above: Domer48 is in breach of his probation. Here [12] which falls under The Troubles sanctions. Under probation, Domer is only allowed to make 1 edit per page per week but under WP:Adam_Carroll, he/she has made 4 edits in 2 weeks regarding the persons nationality. This is surely in breach of their probation outlined here [13].

This user is very aware of Troubles related pages and should know better. Gravyring (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Provide the diff's which violate any of the remedies of Troubles arbcom? --Domer48_'fenian' 22:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the link to the article edit history page has already been provided showing 4 edits in 2 weeks. Try reading other users comments first. Obviously in breach of your probation, and not your first probationary period. Something wrong with the wiki system if an innocent user like yourself Domer can found guilty so many times.Hackneyhound (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I think a check on Graveyring & Hackneyhound might be in order. These two seem to work as a tag team, both forget to inform about ANI and both forget to sign their comments from time to time. Bjmullan (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Ironic that Bjmullan turns up 5 mins after Domer to accuse other users of "tag teaming". Give me a chuckle.Also as a new user I was not aware that notification was needed especially if the notice was raised against a stalker. I've learned my lessonHackneyhound (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Unless someone thinks it a horrible idea, I'm about to block Gravyring indef for being a trouble-making, POV-pushing SPA in the Troubles subject area, who has now tried to game the system and get an opponent blocked for something they did in October of last year, and who misrepresented the situation too. Also, if he isn't a sock of a previously blocked editor, I'll eat my hat, although I don't know the players in the whole Troubles Drama well enough to identify which blocked editor. Any reason not to indef? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

  Gravyring blocked indef; I don't know enough about Hackneyhound to say whether a check is called for or not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I object. No grounds for block, unless requesting an RFC, and trying to find a compromise on a page that is covered in pov and years edit warring. Something not right here.

I would have thought that with one SPA account being blocked for making a frivolous report, that the other SPA would have thought twice before they decided to keep it up but apperently not. First off, this was back in October 2011. Secondly, there was no violation and no supporting diff provided to suggest otherwise. Now having been put on notice already today of possible sanctions against you this is not a very good move on your part and this post is very unwise. I suggest you stop now.--Domer48_'fenian' 10:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

a link was provided to edit history of the page. That is enough evidence and is easier to read than 4 diffs. The page is troubles related as almost all Northern Ireland related articles fall under sanctions. You knew this yet continued to edit on a person's nationality while under probation. Hackneyhound (talk) 11:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Any passing admins: Domer brought this up on my talk page, but I have no time to deal with it. Just a quick note to point out that I blocked Gravyring indef for behavior that looks remarkably similar to what Hackneyhound is doing here (frivolous gamesmanship about a 5 month old issue (plus the 3rd edit was an immediate revert of 2nd edit, so no violation anyway)), and the editing histories of Gravyring and Hackneyhound look remarkably similar on a quick glance. I just don't have time to look at Hackneyhound the way I did with Gravyring, but I think a Checkuser might be in order, or even a final warning or indef block for intentionally causing trouble in a contentious area, sock or not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not here to argue Gravy/Hackney's case, but it wouldn't be hard to see how they might feel aggrieved when they get maligned and even punished for doing things that are not much different to that which Domer/BJMullen seem to routinely engage in. It only took me 5 minutes to find out that BJMullen's one and only block is for "deliberately gaming 1RR restriction at Carlingford Lough." as recently as last month. Domer's block log is huge, and includes several similar violations. Working as a team just like Gravy/Hackney, the pairing of Domer/BJMullen appears to me to be just as much a single purpose entity as Gravy/Hackney are being painted as, unless you can find any non-Troubles related edits in their history? I certainly couldn't. And even if Gravy/Hackney are one person, that obviously doesn't warrant harsher treatment than what two people working as a team warrant. The activities of Domer/BJMullen at articles like Carlingford Lough should not be overlooked just because they are more experienced than their opponents at any particular venue. All of them are POV pushing warriors from where I'm standing, they all have multiple reverts on that one article alone, yet the only justification for Gravyring's first and only block being indef is apparently that he hasn't been smart enough to spread his interests around the Troubles area first; instead he just objected to what was going on in relation to one issue, and has seemingly paid for it. Looks to me like a just a 'win' for the Domer/BJMullen camp more than anything preventing the sort of ongoing brush fires that arise out of the continued tolerance of POV editing camps. I was quite disgusted to see an admin calling what has gone on at the Carlingford Lough talk page as an example of Wikipedia type consensus building. It's nowhere near it, as the claim about how the article title dictates what it should be referred to in the article shows - can you imagine the disputes that would be unleashed if this line of reasoning was allowed in subjects like Derry/Londonderry? It's a clearly bogus argument, presented as nothing more than as a way of getting out of the obligation of having to consider the other side's position. Truly neutral content is not arrived at this way. Neetandtidy (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Neetandtidy you have inicated you have edited on wiki before, "But who knows, maybe things have changed since I last editted" under what user name? Just as you know from the articles talkpage, the area is littered with socks, even if you would care to e-mail an admin in private about your previous account, they could say you're cool and that would be fine by everyone. Murry1975 (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Having a past account is not the same as having a sock. I'll not be emailing anyone - if someone wants to make unfounded allegations against me, that's fine, I'll just retire this one too and go about my business. Do I need to highlight that your first edits are pretty much the textbook signs of a returning user too? I only re-registered to get the island included in the opening of the loch artice, and then to try to ensure this situation is investigated properly, appearing as it does to me to be pretty one sided and ham-fisted way of going about stopping POV editting disputes. If people are less bothered about that, and more interested in maligning me as well, well, I guess that's just how it will have to be. Neetandtidy (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I know its not the same as having a sock account, but for clarity e-mail an admin. My first edits? I tried to intervine in a dispute and made a b@@@@ of it. I created my account in May last with the idea of learning before being invovled, and not making any mistakes, it didnt work I have to say, but all in good faith and I would be willing to e-mail an admin to prve who I am, even pertaining to my "real life" person. Its odd that you want this to be investigated properly yet are hiding your previous account, and the pattern of misrepresenting what I am bothered in, is familar too, but lets AGF. Your call on e-mailing an admin, but as socking is active in this area it would be for your benefit. Murry1975 (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The blocking admin has sided with Domer48 in this case, a user with a history of blocking offences and as of yesterday had just completed a 6 month probation on The Troubles related articles. Looking at past discussions on Carlingford Lough page, Gravyring was the first user in all the recent years of edit warring to raise a DR and RFC. This can hardly be considered dusruptive? It certainly does not deserve an indefinite block if Domer can continue to edit given his past decressions. From what I fan see Domer and Bjmullan have been tag teaming a lot longer than anyone on NI related issues.Hackneyhound (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Is that you TR or perhaps MMN? Bjmullan (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

*Any reading admin please note requests for disclosure of User:Neetandtidy to disclose his previous account have been rebuffed and met with threats of blocks and abusive language [[14]]. Murry1975 (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Note, I took up Floquenbeam's suggestion and have now indeff'd User:Hackneyhound as being the same person as User:Greyring. I have a strong suspicion both are User:Factocop who recently had an appeal to have his ban lifted turned down. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a user, Arzel, who has a pattern of deleting sourced content over and over with weak arguments. Most of the deletes appear WP:IDONTLIKEIT. He has contributed very little content (maybe a comment or two), and that content poorly sourced (didn't bother to include a full reference description). A few editors have confronted him about the deletions, and discussed it at length, including myself, but without much result. He has been most disruptive on the hydraulic fracturing pages, but recently followed me to another page I was working on. Discussions of behavior can be found on

The editor Smm201'0 seems to think that it is his/Her duty to destroy the Hydraulic Fracking industry by inserting every negative story or complaint about the industry into related articles. He/She then added unrelated fracking information into the Philadelphis Water Department article here. Is it sourced? Sure, does it have anything to do with the Philadelphis Water Departtment? No. The previous edit follows a clear

WP:COAT model. The article is about the PWD, and there have been some water quality issues, he/she then adds in a bunch of information unrelated to the PWD talking about Hydraulic Fracking because of concerns regarding Fracking and ground water. Use of Wikipedia for environmental activism should not be tollerated. Arzel (talk

) 00:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The editor also put most (maybe the whole thing) of this article into the

Hydraulic fracking article and has yet to adress why the all of the anti-fracking information needs to be so many places. Arzel (talk

) 01:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have had similiar problems with Arzel. If you look at the page

Talk: Seamus (dog), editors have repeatedly asked Arzel not to remove infomation that is relevant and sourced to mainstream media sites. We have tried to talk to Arzel, but he continues to remove material that his doesn't like.Debbie W.

15:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does look like a similar issue. Also, to clarify a remark above, the environmental page was split off from HF without discussion, so I brought it back and started a discussion. There were also other attempts to remove negative environmental info from HF page. I agreed to condense the environmental info on the main page and have been working at that. Disruptions delay that work.Smm201`0 (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, this article was flagged at BLPN as Pemilligan (talk · contribs) was encountering regular deletion of sourced, notable information (i.e. the guy was famous for being a sports heckler), so I had a look and weighed in on the talk page, along with two other editors, that makes 4 in consensus that this information is correct.

Well,

• Trainhead (talk · contribs)

• Msin147 (talk · contribs)

are both SPAs, and could well be one and the same, as the second account was created the same day as the first stopped editing the article, and Msin147 took over the job of only removing this specific material. Trainhead's last edit followed by Msin147's first edit.

I have also requested page protection here as there is an army of IPs, that all curiously remove just this info or blank the whole section, and nearly all geolocate to Area code 301, Maryland, which just happens to correspond to where the subject of the article lives.

• 108.18.138.138 (talk · contribs) geolocation
• 216.164.60.209 (talk · contribs) geolocation
• 216.164.59.229 (talk · contribs) geolocation
• 96.255.126.238 (talk · contribs) geolocation
• 129.6.180.141 (talk · contribs) geolocation
• 68.82.117.6 (talk · contribs) geolocation

Okay so the last one geolocates to Philadelphia, just up the road, and has made the same changes to the article four times so far, since Sunday, and is an SPA, who I have warned twice today about their disruptive editing. (See contribs and talk).

For the IPs I only went back as far as November 2011 but there is a clear pattern of persistent disruptive editing and the possible Trainhead/Msin147 sock. An experienced editor's intervention would be appreciated. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
* By the way, I have informed the named users about this discussion but not the IPs, is that right? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• That is a mess, yes. What about the edits on
  Bahrani people? You know the content of those edits--if they continue to insert the same stuff, that's edit warring and can be reported. Of course, you might be edit-warring yourself... ;) And what about their latest edit to the infobox? I haven't dealt with references in infoboxes much, and my Arabic is terrible. If the sources are not reliable, if the formatting is not correct, etc., then there is reason to revert and to question competence. As for linguistic competence, yes, there is a deficiency there, no doubt. Drmies (talk
  ) 18:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Socked to 'em, whoever 'em are. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – MickMacNee was stale and SPI believes it is a

Joe Job by an unrelated troll. However, may other socks of Neetandtidy found and blocked. - Burpelson AFB ✈

16:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

A new user registered yesterday, Neetandtidy (talk · contribs) and immediately has become involved in heated discussions at articles which has seen another editor (Gravyring (talk · contribs)) blocked. The user has already confirmed that they have previously edited here using a different account. On seeing that this new user was spelling my username incorrectly some alarm bells starting ringing and after a quick search I came across this edit of one of the very few people who has gotten my username wrong. I then had a look at this new users contribution today for other signs of MMN MO (policy and swearing) and it wasn't hard to come up with...

Mention of policy: TPO OSE

Swearing: [15] [16]

Of course I may be wrong but I would request that admin action is taken immediately to investigate this user. Question for all; do we really need a editor who is not only abusive to other users but has displayed a battlefield mentality from day one? Bjmullan (talk) 06:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Clearly the same guy. I suggest that you take it to

WP:SPI so that a checkuser can have a look at it; there may be other sockpuppets lurking on that IP address. Prioryman (talk

) 07:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a little bit "too clear" or "too Neet and tidy". It's possible that this may be a Joe job. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have now opened the case at SPI as requested. Bjmullan (talk) 08:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello,

On Wikipedia's following webpage, the seventh heading down is entitled, "By infinite repetition of bisection".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_trisection

Over the last year or so, user(s) have added this heading to this webpage and contributed to its contents.

Using Wikipedia's VIEW HISTORY, I notified the following users of employing proprietary information contained in United States Copyright (TXu 636 519), dated 7-17-1995 and entitled, "Trisection, an Exact Solution -- Revision A".

Joel B. Lewis -- grad. student AND

D.Lazard

At first, I simply corrected their unknowing infraction by attempting to give the user(s) full credit for their portion of contribution(s) to the article and maintaining them under same heading.

User(s), just deleted my input several times and effectively told me to "get lost".

Thereafter, user(s) asked what my basis was for my input and I informed them of:

a) The US copyright information noted above AND

b) http://truescans.com/Trisection.htm webpage which contains full disclosure, rationale and proof.

After then being deleted AGAIN, I informed user(s) that they had no basis, claim, or proof for their their own portions of contribution.

After again being deleted, user(s) continued to re-enter his/their information. I then notified user(s) of POTENTIAL COPYRIGHT VIOLATION.

After a further repeat of this, I notified user(s) of PARTICIPATING IN COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT by means knowingly publishing information on Wikipedia that is considered to be in conflict with a cited United States Copyright; and further refusing to render substantiation for their own claim(s).

Lastly, I notified user(s) of Wikipedia copyright policy and informed they could be BARRED from future editing rights on Wikipedia by continuing their same course of action.

After all of this, the user(s) again DELETED my input; which is where we presently stand. — Preceding

There's no merit to this; I'll leave a note on the editor's talk page about

WP:NPLT, and ways to avoid getting blocked from editing. --Floquenbeam (talk

) 20:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I've already reported this to

WP:AN3 William M. Connolley (talk

) 20:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I am having trouble finding where the material in Wikipedia's article (angle trisection#By infinite repetition of bisection) infringes the copyright of the outside document. While copyright does protect an author's written description of an algorithm, it does not protect the algorithm itself. In other words, copyright covers a particular description, but not the method described; any other author is free to describe the same method in their own words.

That said, any assertion that the algorithm in question was discovered in 1995 is laughable. I suspect it is centuries old, and trivial searching demonstrates that high school mathematics teachers were talking about it with their students at least as early as 1963: [17]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if the original poster had some sort of connection with the true-scans website. Observe this addition to Around the World in Eighty Days and these to Jules Verne and the remarkably similar editing style (use of underlining and html code and always bolding the website title) of this editor who has added it to Daniel Defoe, Palisot de Beauvois, and er.. Gettysburg Address. The website is so off the radar that google doesn't even pick it up. Voceditenore (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason WIKI-1-PIDEA and Joel B. Lewis should not have tried discussing with each other on Talk:Angle trisection instead of continuing to edit war and yell at each other via edit summaries. Both users blocked 24 hours for the edit war. --MuZemike 21:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – IP rangeblocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

85.210.187.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
88.109.31.145 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
(WHOIS indicates it could be the same person, I didn't ask)
Both have been giving/reverting back a Level 4 warning on User:Alison Buchanan's talk page about being a vandal and a sockpuppet. No Level 1-3 were given. There was a CU requested for Alison, and refused at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alison Buchanan. I have reverted twice and left notices on their talk pages informing them they can't just make accusations without providing diffs and/or other proof, and decided it should just go here instead of getting into battle after they keep adding it back. The only diffs they have provided are on Alison's talk page (they finally put them there), with most being IPs and none of them being obvious vandalism, and instead being a content dispute. Making claims of vandalism on user talk page as well as being a sockpuppet without substantiation. I have no idea if there are merits to their claims, but this is a disruptive and improper way for these IPs to handle the situation. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• IP:88.109.31.145 just deleted this ANI report at [18], so I'm thinking a short term block may be needed. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Look, when I reported the other IPs, which made the EXACT same disruptive edits, in exactly the same style, nobody complained, and they were blocked, instantly. I reported them each and every time, and every time, someone responded in the appropriate manner. Why can't you? This edit here [[19]] is EXACTLY the same as this edit here [[20]] and that IP was banned as a sockpuppet....in fact, it was discovered that that IP WAS in fact a sockpuppet, right here [[21]]. Look at these IPs edits. They are EXACTLY the same. Alison is the same person. And stop preventing me from defending myself! 88.109.31.145 (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The way you are going about it is disruptive, calling someone's edits vandalism without providing evidence, starting out with a level 4 warning. The IPs were blocked based on WP:DUCK, but nothing has been done to the USER, and it is the USER to whom you kept reverting the tag. I didn't say I disagree (or agree) with your assessment of socking, but there is a proper process to follow, and posting a level 4 warning with no diffs, no explanation, just claims, is NOT the right process. And furthermore, you deleted THIS report on ANI, which is enough reason (imho) to block you for 24 hours to allow others to review the situation, for the purpose of preventing you from being even more disruptive. You never gave me a chance to agree with you because you were too busy going about it wrong, and you still fail to see that now. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to agree or disagree with me. I'm asking you to open your eyes. Anyone else who has seen this sockpuppet before KNOWS exactly what they're dealing with. Don't believe me? Ask the guys who blocked the last IP account, or blocked the other IP accounts. In my book, they received their warnings in previous accounts, which means that they are STILL valid. When it is painfully obvious that the user is not only a sockpuppet but has no intention other than to vandalise, then I think it's pretty clear that they don't deserve to be given warnings, when they can leave their account before the crucial warning and create a new one. No one else who I have reported this user and their many IPs to has had an issue with me reporting them. It is only you. 88.109.23.136 (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked 88.109.31.145 for 24 hours for repeating the disruption after Dennis made his last revert. Nyttend (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Stop disrupting my replies!! I'm sick of this, every time!! 88.109.23.136 (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

And don't you dare accuse me of being a sockpuppet. My IP changes every time, I can't help it. 88.109.23.136 (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

But to use a new IP address, knowing that your previous IP address has been blocked, DOES make you a block-evading sockpuppet, so you are rather destroying what credibility you may have had in making such accusations about others. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

88.109.16.0/20 has now been blocked for 31 hours. --MuZemike 21:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Manveer-ampm (talk · contribs)

• In this diff the user named above makes a somewhat confusing series of comments, among them commenting that "the police are the next stage" - does this rise to the
  WP:NLT level? I'd say yes but the rest of the context is (at least to my decaffinated mind) as I said confusing, so I thought I'd ask before doing, or not doing, anything. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}
  18:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, it's a threat.
  Nobody Ent
  18:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Well, then, NLT blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Image deleted per CSD-F7 -- Dianna (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

File:EvanchoPresSanta.jpg was nominated for deletion a few days ago, with discussion proceeding. Last night, I discovered that the file's uploader had mistakenly identified the file as a publicity photograph; it is in fact a news photo controlled by Getty Images. It is therefore required to be deleted under our nonfree content policy (there is no question that the "sourced commentary" exception is inapplicable). I placed the appropriate speedy deletion tag on the file page, Shortly thereafter, User:Hekerui, in good faith, removed the tag from the file page, citing the ongoing FFD discussion. While an ongoing XfD with arguments on both sides is ordinarily enough to forestall speedy deletion, my understanding of practice is that in a few cases, like the undisputed copyright/NFCC problem here, the speedy tag should not be removed unless the copyright/NFCC issues are themselves subject to dispute. (Otherwise, the existence of an FFD on other matters would delay the removal of such copyvios, which we pretty much want expunged as quickly as possible.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The user is apparently a huge fan of Alka Yagnik, and that is why he keeps turning her page into a fansite of sorts. I had made a short cleanup on the page, and since then the user has been reverting the page to the same version - which goes in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:WEASEL, WP:PEACOCK, WP:CITE (with some bombastic claims, really, which must be sourced). Their argument is that the info is true, and they keep doing that in spite of having been warned and despite seeing other users reverting them as well.

Another instance is the Screen Award for Best Female Playback article, where they change the winner of the 2002 award to, as expected, Alka Yagnik. I cited a reliable source (The Tribune) to prove them wrong, but they keep changing it to their own version, citing some very poor sources (clearly unreliable). I started a talk page discussion where the user, instead of trying to discuss the matter, just removed my message from the section (!).

I request that something be done as soon as possible - this is becoming insufferable. Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This User:Shshshsh is trying to repeatedly delete my hardwork done on page of Alka Yagnik. All info added by me was verifiable ! Further Screen Award for Best Female Playback was won by Alka Yagnik thrice whereas this user insisting on Asha Bhosle winning the award although 2 of the 3 available sources sight Alka Yagnik as winner of the award in 2002. Further the user is repeatedly threatening to block me though I've committed no offence !! It is user Shshshsh who should be blocked !!! ANKMALI (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC).

You say that all of your work was verifiable. That may be, but content really needs to be verified, not just verifiable. Please don't add content without a solidly

disruptive. Nyttend (talk

) 11:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I've used extremely reliable sources for everything. As per rules of wikipedia content must be verifiable which I've always complied with. Definition of reliable can be subjective. ANKMALI (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

No,

BWilkins ←track

) 13:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources cited by me are well within the purview of reliable sources as stated by wikipedia. Infact I've added a live video as the source ! ANKMALI (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Read

WP:BLP. Rules for articles about living persons are much more strict. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

00:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I have do nothing wrong or nothing which is against wikipedia rules. Each & every info added by me is evidenced & from reliable sources . Nobody can prove what I've written on Alka Yagnik page is false. It is this User:Shshshsh who does not have reliable sources . ANKMALI (talk) 07:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not reliable just because you say they are reliable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Shshshsh

The user has been constantly editing my immense hardwork put in page of Alka Yagnik. Infact he has not cared about pages of other singers which are more like fan-pages. Each & every info added by me is verifiable & through very reliable sources. Further the user is threatening to block me since a while though I am haven't done anything wrong. Infact the info added by the user about Alka Yagnik has far less reliabilty in comparison to info provided by me. Would request action to be taken against the user. ANKMALI (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The existence of other problematic pages

is not a problem per our policies — we're all volunteers, so the fact that he's not worked with other singers' articles is not a problem. As I told you above, verifiable and verified are two very different things. Moreover, your user talk page has at least one message (20,000 songs) discussing a situation in which a reliable source contradicts your writing, and the bit about the 2002 award is the same thing. Finally, did you read the message just below the "save page" button? "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here" — it's not a problem that someone or someones edit your writing. Overall, Shshshsh has been editing your hard work because your hard work is reducing the quality of our articles; his edits are necessary and helpful. Nyttend (talk

) 15:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

20000 songs of Alka Yagnik is supported by the live video of Screen Awards. Further User:Shshshsh has no reliable source to prove his claim. He is just a huge fan of Asha Bhosle . My hard work is enhancing the quality of the article & it is Shshshsh who's reducing the quality of the article !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANKMALI (talk • contribs) 02:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – User has been indefinitely blocked by

foxj

03:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Stefan2 (talk

) 00:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I've left a warning - I thought about just blocking, but I've given him the old "last chance". If he repeats the comment or the upload or any other nonsense, a block will be necessary.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine. I would personally say that I care more about blanking and copyright policies than about the Nazi and Gestapo comments. --

Stefan2 (talk

) 00:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You people need to get a life. Seriously. Redcorreces (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

A couple of things are concerning aside from the apparent Naziphilia the user possesses:

• Our photos strikes a concern that this may not be just one person under this account, but it's possible that I could be taking this out of context.

• By our photos, I was referring to myself and all the other people whom Stefan2 has had the pleasure of intimidating. Is that much clearer now? Does that no longer "strike a concern"? Get a life. Redcorreces (talk) 02:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• The message in ALL CAPS here and at the bottom of
  ownership
  (which, ironically, is also "in disagreement of Wikipedia's purpose")

--MuZemike 01:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Well, your nonsense policing of a supposedly FREE, NON-PROFIT and EDUCATIONAL website is reminiscent of such. Let's also not forget FAIR USE. Whatever it is I forgot to note during my upload has been addressed via discussions, etc. because I kept getting pestered in what I thought was a community. If I'm not earning a single penny from those photos, then leave them alone. OK? Redcorreces (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• • We're supposed to police vandalism, not reasonable contributions that improve the appearance of articles. But sadly, you're turning Wikipedia into playground of immature people on ambitious power trips. Grow up. Redcorreces (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Redcorreces, your remarks show a deep misunderstanding of how seriously we take copyright concerns here at Wikipedia. For example, one of the pictures shows a statue, which is not covered by WP:Freedom of panorama under U. S. law, and it is therefore a copyright violation on the work of art itself. If you could please read WP:Copyright violations that would be great. The onus is on you, the uploader, to provide a source for each picture in the montage and prove to us that the pics are in the public domain or licensed under a license compatible with the way Wikipedia works. Yelling people who are trying to explain these polices, and engaging in name-calling, will not prevent an image in violation of copyright law from being deleted. -- Dianna (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

And Diannaa, your remarks show a deep misunderstanding of how seriously I take the freedom that Wikipedia stands for. I wasn't yelling at people; I was merely pointing out how those people's actions are preventing that freedom. Redcorreces (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to make a social statment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

@Redcorreces, your antagonistic attitude does you no good. Diannaa is correct about Freedom of Panorama under American copyright law, and Wikipedia policy is actually more stringent than American Fair Use standards (unnecesarily so, in my opinion, but that comes from the Wikimedia Foundation and is not something we can change). However, it's still possible that the statue you show in the montage of Omaha is not under copyright if it was created earlier than 1921. I can't tell what statue the image is of, but you could do a bit of research and find out when it was made. If it's before 1921, then you can upload the montage as a free image. If not, it can only be uploaded as a non-free image and must fulfill the requirements of

WP:NFCC, and must be used in an article.

Copyright law is complicated, and Wikipedia's image policies are complex as well. You'd do better to lay off the polemics and reach out to work with the people who are counseling you. Beyond My Ken (talk

) 03:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Also, Redcorreces, please read
  WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}
  02:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

And also, The Bushranger, policing an otherwise reasonable improvement to a page isn't civil. Maybe you all should read that first. Redcorreces (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Please stop changing the title of the section. Referring to people as "immature" and that they need to "get a life" is not maintaining a civil atmosphere. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

How about Please delete this nonsense attack on me section?

Group think must be fun! Redcorreces (talk

) 02:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not an attack, nor is it nonsense; your continued

refusal to understand this does not bode well for your continued participation in the project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

03:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed; Redcourreces, if you are unable to maintain a level of decorum appropriate for a collaborative project, you will be blocked.

a/c

) 03:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, Hersfold, I have maintained a level of decorum. I have not used any

group think. Redcorreces (talk

) 03:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

There are more ways to be incivil than swearing at people. Name-calling, failure to

a/c

) 03:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Redcorreces, you clearly have little understanding of Wikipedia copyright policy, which - whether you like it or not - is necessary for legal reasons, regardless of its other merits. Nobody was attacking you - we were pointing out that your montage may violate our policies. Your response seems to be the only 'attack' evident - and I'd suggest that if you think being told you can't post something on Wikipedia is on a level with Nazism, you clearly don't have a clue about history, either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, AndyTheGrump, join in the

group think fun. If I was not being attacked, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But I am, so we are. Again, making accusations about my contribution is not civil, either. I'm just defending my contribution, and I am not being profane about it. Redcorreces (talk

) 03:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, point proven. Soapbox? Yes. Clue? No. Not wanted here... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

And as such I've blocked Redcorreces indefinitely, with a note that he can be unblocked once he can show he understands the concerns originally raised and can work with other editors.

a/c

) 03:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.