Misplaced Pages

To be honest, I had always assumed that Johnny was Mantanmoreland et al since I put a couple of things together here and here. I doubt I was alone. I didn't send anything to ArbCom (or anyone else) about it. The problem is, what happens when Johnny starts over again as a new set of accounts? I kind of felt like it was easier with him sticking to that account. Not that he wouldn't use others, but at least with that account you knew what was going on. The whole thing is so dysfunctional, it's too bad. Mackan79 (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I am recused from this matter for obvious reasons, but I would like to say that ArbCom is certainly aware of this matter. Inquiries about the block from JohnnyB256 (or information from anyone else) should be sent to arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. As this has been turned into an ArbCom matter, further public speculation is not likely to help anyone. I think it would be appropriate to box this heading, but I leave that decision to others. Cool Hand Luke 10:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

False information in reception section for video game articles?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

True....perhaps we should notify the IP.--Coldplay Expért 00:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Any admins willing to be e-mailed? --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 04:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Emergency disruption help needed

JB50000 (again) and reopening of AfD hours after I closed it

Star Wars Kid vs Google

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Undo Page Move

Can an admin undo the mess made by cutting and pasting Kesha (singer) to Ke$ha? The undiscussed move was done here against the consensus achieved last month and has lost page history. --NeilN 08:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. The diff of the cut-and-paste move was actually here; note that the newer edit of those two was previously at the title "Ke$ha". Graham87 11:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --NeilN 16:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sock / spam needs investigation & stopping

There is a pattern emerging with at least three (I suspect more) accounts. A new account is created, an existing user's userpage is copied to the new user's talk page and user page, then the same spam link is added to a Misplaced Pages article. Perhaps someone here has seen this before and knows who is behind it (i.e. who the original sock is) or whether this is simply a spammer abusing multiple accounts. Either way I suspect someone here has the time/skill to stop it.

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

--Biker Biker (talk) 11:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the same case discussed below and also previously. Whoever the puppetmaster is, they are very intent on placing their links. --RL0919 (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

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

This should be a well-established and benchmark case by now, but I have trouble finding a better venue to address this. The indeffed User:Alex contributing from L.A. (here), who is but one avatar of the same editor, among banned/blocked accounts such as User:Alexander 007, User:Alexandru, User:Winona Gone Shopping etc., has returned yet again as User:Alex '05, and uses his own pages as a venue for attacking me and other users over and over, picking exactly where he left off as Alex contributing from L.A. This man has admitted to having behavioral problems (for one, a drug addiction, which he claims over and over has led him to use seriously mood-altering substances while editing wikipedia), and, in his long disturbing rants, he called me a cocksucker for which he was indef blocked in July 2009 at User talk:Alex contributing. The speculations he makes about me, and the many imaginary issues he takes with me are serious harassment, particularly given that this guy is only enticed by the possibility that I may experience discomfort. It seems he is untouched by the blocks, and simply creates a new account when his older one is compromised, without even bothering much to conceal that he is the same guy. He has probably opened up several new ones as we speak, so I would like to ask admins to make a special note of this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Years later, I came back as User:Alex contributing. You can check the talk page, User talk:Alex contributing for what happened with the last block in July 2009. It started because of a User:William Allen Simpson or something, my mind was as it was because of those psychopaths from myspace, and I had a short fuse. I insulted Simpson and others. Then Dahn appeared on my talk page then and started going into an argument about categorizing, and I wasn't in the mood for such a discussion; as it happened then I accidentally inhaled some Fixing Spray and I got aggravated, went to my talk page, and called Dahn a cocksucker. And I also told him "don't be a faggot". This was in July 2009. I never said anything about him being part of a conspiracy, that's stupid shit he just made up, check User talk:Alex contributing. Who would he be conspiring with, Bogdangiusca? I know Bogdan well enough to know that he acts very independently in Wiki. No, I never said anything about a conspiracy in Dahn's case. I did call him a cocksucker, and on my new talk page by implication I called him a piece of shit and a retard. I want my case reviewed well, Dahn is spreading way too much disinformation and slander. 76.208.181.210 (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The Spammers are back

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

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

Since they're only editing a couple of articles:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Comparison between Roman and Han Empires (2nd nomination) outside opinion

I would like to get an outsider opinion on the way this AFD was closed. The current way it is closed, is a userification which is only used for material that is inappropriate for the encyclopedia, which the article clearly wasn't (there were more keeps than deletes, and several strong delete editors had switched to keep). Since the majority of the content was moved to article incubator, which has a poor track record of being a place where articles never leave, I consider this a de facto deletion.

Userfication is usually performed because material is added in article space that is inappropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia, but not objectionable as content in a user page or a subpage thereof. This can be a satisfactory result for new users unfamiliar with the boundaries of Misplaced Pages content, and for users who inadvertently create personal templates in the main template space.

This is clearly not applicable to this case. Therefore, I request an outside opinion on whether this AFD was properly closed, or should it be overturned to keep . I had previously sought help at WP:DRV, but they said this was out of their scope.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure I see the nature of your concern. Why do you disagree with this close? Chillum 15:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Having had a very brief look and nothing more, it seems to me that many of the delete votes were because of the poor quality of the article. Is that correct? So why not spend an intensive week or so improving the quality? Then ask the closing admin to move it back into the main space. If that doesn't work, then come here and ask for outside opinions. Theresa Knott | token threats 15:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I thought the normal procedure for AFD's was to keep if a large portion of the editors voted/argued to keep and to delete/userify if the majority thought the article was unencyclopedic. In this case, the majority of editors voted to keep and even the nom clearly thought the article was encyclopedic; so why was it userified? That basically amounts to a deletion. Also the way the closing admin put it, the article won't be moved back into userspace until both sides of the dispute think it is good, which is a blank cheque; people who's been agitating for a year to delete the article no matter what won't be moving it back to mainspace anytime soon.see this link when they argued that not being able to insert Pro roman OR was a reason to delete the article.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Very well put, Theresa. If the article sees significant improvement, I'm sure the closing admin or any other would be willing to move the article back to mainspace, or, not wanting to encourage edit warring or wheel warring, if there's nothing at the target page, you could just move it back yourself once the improvements have been made. It's not doing any harm where it is atm and to argue against it on procedural grounds is a little pointy. HJMitchell You rang? 16:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't exactly move it back considering it is protected.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries, ask the closing admin to do it for you. But the first step has surely got to be addressing the concerns of those who voted delete. Theresa Knott | token threats 16:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Then I'd respectfully suggest you make the improvements required to the article then ask the closing admin nicely to move it back to mainspace when you're done. At least where it is, you can make them in your own time ratger than having the threat of another AfD hanging over you- think of it as the same kind of thing that happens at AfC. HJMitchell You rang? 16:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, first of all. But if you read the AFD, most of the delete voters who were strong deleters have already switched to keep (the article was overhauled massively during the AFD), while the ones that remain were the ones that have been agitating for nearly a year to delete this article. see this link when they argued that not being able to insert Pro roman OR was a reason to delete the article. They're not giving me any advice cause they don't have concerns; they just want the article deleted. The way it is now, is perfect for them (an AFD where keep exceeds delete results in delete). I'll try to work on the article for a week, but unfortunately I think I'll be back at ANI soon.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

And those !voters wanted an article without original research which drew on sources that actually made the comparison, not an article stitching together various sources on the two empires separately. Gunpowder Ma, by the way, is not 'they'. There were a lot of legitimate concerns about the article. Please remember that although you started the article it is not your article. Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you point out one example of "original research" in the article?Teeninvestor (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

An RFC has been filed for this topic.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Block requested I am the closing admin and teeninvestor did not notofy me of this thread. The close is currently sitting at DRV with a clear consensus to support the close. Teeninvestor then brings it here because he doesn't like that and not getting his way promprtly files an RFC. This appears to be blatently disruptive forum shopping. I'm too involved now to block myself but I would be grateful if someone could review teenivestor's recent edits and dish out the appropriate block for disrupting the project. Spartaz 20:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I was about ready to comment that the article is currently at WP:DRV and the consensus there is to endorse the closing. It very much seems that Teeninvestor (talk · contribs) is going around forum shopping the outcome of the AfD. —Farix (t | c) 20:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I've left a warning on his talk page. There's definitely forum shopping occurring and if he continues this crusade, any administrator should probably issue a block. AniMate 21:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning Animate. I also see that they have been warned for canvassing the RFC. Priceless. Spartaz 21:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It's my opinion that it is this sort of behaviour that has made it difficult to improve the article and led to the present situation. He's persistent, I'll give him that. Dougweller (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm pleased to say, and impressed, that Teeninvestor has apologised for some of his behaviour and has told me he is taking a Wikibreak and after that will not be editing the incubator article. Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

userification is properly employed for material which is not currently suitable for the encyclopedia but which might become suitable if sufficient work were done on it--normally finding additional evidence of notability. It is not properly employed for material which which would never be suitable, or which violates the basic rules such as WP:NOT. This was a suitable case: the material was considered incomplete and not sufficiently representative and NPOV. These are correctable faults, bnd working on it in userspace is a suitable option, complaining about the results is,just as Spartaz says, not the appropriate response--the proper response is to take the opportunity to work on the article. Now, I supported keeping the article in mainspace, but I certainly thought it needed improvement. The goal of AfD is to =help people make acceptable articles.and where top do it is secondary. Userifying an article shoudl be seen as an expression of confidence--confidence that the article could become a suitable article if dealt with properly. It's almost a varianty of keep, not delete. ` DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Block-evading "Dakota Fanning" vandal

There's an active IP-hopping block-evading vandal vandalising articles, often (but not always) making references to Dakota Fanning in their edit summaries. They seem to particularly like editing the Ron Guenther and Iron Man (film) articles, although they have also edited many others. They are very actively evading blocks at the moment.

Some sample IPs:

• 201.43.149.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 201.92.135.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 201.42.212.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 201.92.134.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 201.13.197.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The address ranges 201.13/16, 201.42/15 and 201.92/15 are all listed by WHOIS as being assigned to "TELECOMUNICACOES DE SAO PAULO S.A. - TELESP"

-- The Anome (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well 201.43.149.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is in violation of 3RR at Iron Man, everything else aside, IMO that and the personal attack in the edit summary are blockworthy. I'll check the rest out unless an admin beats me to it and blocks them. HJMitchell You rang? 16:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sad case. It appears that the IP originally tried to discuss this issue with Crotchety Old Man (talk · contribs) but was so frustrated by COM's rude response, has reverted to uncivil interaction, block evasion and WP:TE. Toddst1 (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

He was banned long before he and I had ever interacted. Learn the facts before wasting our time. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Pé de Chinelo; and also note that 200.158.192/18 is also listed by WHOIS as being assigned to "TELECOMUNICACOES DE SAO PAULO S.A. - TELESP" -- The Anome (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Their edits are getting more and more aggressive: see the edits of 201.43.34.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and they've range-hopped again to 189.46.27.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), on the same ISP, address range 189.46/15. -- The Anome (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting: reverse DNS addresses are of the form:

189-46-27-93.dsl.telesp.net.br.

201-43-149-157.dsl.telesp.net.br.

201-92-134-193.dsl.telesp.net.br.

It looks like telesp.net.br are either giving out very short address leases, or this user has access to a large number of DSL lines. -- The Anome (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

See also 201.68.111.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), address range 201.68/15, WHOIS details as before. Note the use of Unicode obfuscation to hide rude words in edit comments, which looks like an attempt to evade countermeasures. -- The Anome (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the usual targets of this editor. I'll let someone more familiar with rangeblocks take care of the broader question. Toddst1 (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite tempted to do a short rangeblock across all these blocks, but they are very wide, and the collateral damage seems excessive at the moment, if they are kept under control for now by other means. However, if anyone else thinks it's necessary, I'll gladly do it: a softblock would seem appropriate. -- The Anome (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I came to the same conclusion. See if they stop, otherwise a very short soft block might do the trick. Theresa Knott | token threats 16:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No, that didn't stop them: see 201.68.111.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): applying softblocks now. -- The Anome (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Multiple /16 softblocks now applied. -- The Anome (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Here's another one. 201.95.48.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Not sure if it is covered by the softblock or not. --Slp1 (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

201.95/16 now also softblocked. Please let me know if this vandalism/block evasion pattern resumes, and I'll re-block the appropriate ranges for longer. -- The Anome (talk) 00:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

SPI page for these IPs here. ConCompS (Talk to me) 17:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

User Off2riorob: Bad faith

Archiving as clearly nothing to answer. Off2riorob (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I am making a allegation of bad faith against User Off2riorob. However it would only be fair to inform ANI before I edit his/her talk page. Was-new-cola-fan-in-early-90s (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This report should be ignored. The reporting editer only joined Misplaced Pages -today-. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, please provide diffs to support your unfounded allegations. Off2riorob (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Doesn't mean it should be ignored. The lack of diffs, or any evidence whatsoever, mean it should be ignored. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 17:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

+1 Prodego 17:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You should talk to the person first, and only if that is not productive and administrator attention is needed should you come here. Chillum 17:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at the total of all Was-new-cola-fan-in-early-90s edits I have blocked as a disruption only account. Theresa Knott | token threats 17:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? (There are no diffs but he may be telling some-sort-of-truth)--Coldplay Expért 17:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Just look at his edits yourself, and I'm sure you will be satisfied. Prodego 17:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. OK nevermind.--Coldplay Expért 17:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

How could an editor (less then a day old), know about the ANI page? GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

← Many reasons. They may have been an IP address previously, they may have just read through policies and everything before signing up and a lot of other reasons, some of which assume good faith, others bad faith. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 18:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well he was blocked, so the drama is all over. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• User:Was-new-cola-fan-in-early-90s opening this thread has been blocked indefinitely and was a sock puppet.Off2riorob (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

block evasion?

I came across an issue with this unregistered user ; he/she has been blanking sections in the Lebanon article and was blocked following a number of warnings, the block includes account creation (i guess), yet this person managed to bypass or outpace the block and created this account and has made what seem to me like an attack on a veteran editor (here), which was later reverted by the same editor. I'm concerned that this petty bickering may not stop here, is there no way to prevent this kind of mishaps ? Eli+ 18:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The account was created prior to the ip being blocked, as were the noted edits by the account - technically thus not block evading. Under the circumstances, even on the basis that ip and the account are the same editor, a softblock on the ip would not stop the account from being able to edit. I think attention should be given to the purpose and good faith of the accounts edits, rather than making a case that editing at all was in violation of policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

We have no TFP

Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#We have no TFP. J Milburn (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by IP in Subaru Sumeragi

An IP has been repetedly inserting content which at first seems an honest mistake (describing manga instead of anime plot and inserting a pairing bias), but has re-inserted their addition again and again after multiple reverts (e. g. here, here, here, here and here). He/she does not react either to messages left on their or on the article's talk page. I'm at a loss what to do. --KagamiNoMiko (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Subaru Sumeragi protected for a week. -FASTILY 00:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppet vandalism again

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

User: BQZip01

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have not accused Hammersoft of being a sockpuppeteer.

If you can look at these contributions and not see the sockpuppetry: , and not see the similarity between it and User:Grandma Dottie/User:TomPhan, you are being completely unreasonable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Done. User:Zscout370 06:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Miami logo

They are not my standards but that of US law:

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

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

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

"...mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring" ... "

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

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

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

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

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

etc. (these are not isolated quotes)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Check your inbox. User:Zscout370 08:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Something that should be addressed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Serious BLP problems at Climategate scandal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Soviet Russian Kamrad

This user has been messing with me because I removed his comments on the Modern Warfare 2 talk page due to running afoul of WP:FORUM. He has vandalized my talk page and userpage. Please block him. thank you.--Eaglestorm (talk) 09:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Warned user. -FASTILY 09:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Not an admin, but I have some problems with this and maybe I am missing something here but I believe this is biting the newcomers. Although Soviet's comments might be considered running afould of WP:FORUM, why was the whole discussion deleted from the page considering it is a semi-protected article and an anon editor felt there was a problem with the plot section. Then when Soviet tries to ask why his edits were deleted, , that question was deleted with an edit summary of "i dont accept vandals in my midst, nice try." . This is weird since neither the article talk page addition nor the user talk page edition should be considered vandalism. After this second discussion deletion, Soviet then vandlized User:Eaglestorm, , and should have received a first level vandalism warning then. Soviet then reverted (added back) his comments to Eaglestorm's talk page only to have them deleted again with no edit summary. Eaglestorm brought the discussion here without discussing the issue with Soviet or letting Soviet even know about this discussion. Then Eaglestorm added a warning to Soviet's talk page, , about deleting/editing legitimate talk page comments which was in fact what Eaglestorm was doing and not Soviet. Also Eaglestorm added this to the template "If you don't want your talk page to be messed the way you did mine, bugger off." which is not being very civil.

Soviet was rightly concerned about why another editor removed his comments from an article talk page and tried to communicate with the deleting editor. If Eaglestorm would have simply replied to the comments explaining why they were deleted this whole mess could have been avoided. I am off to leave a message on Soviet's talk page telling him about this discussion. Aspects (talk) 12:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

He should have read the FORUM policy first before even attempting to talk to me, and his rants to me are borne out of his failure to understand that the deleted thread did not discuss anything on how to improve the article - it was just some jabbering about language use on one part of the story. I cannot and will not deal with anyone who comes to WP and fails to understand the project's policy one bit. Aspect, his messages on my talk page and their revision warranted a TPV2 warning and I will not have such nonsense stuff (peppered with Cyrillic lettering, if I may add) on my talk page, and SRK has no right to revert anything on my pages as he please...even my user page. Now if this Russian guy is now done yanking my leg, I got better stuff to do. Oh and BTW, sign after you post instead of the signature being first on your responses. Jeez. --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

2 Eaglestorm: Roger, wilco.

Thank you, Aspects. I am not guilty, Eaglestorm is guilty. He could just tell me where I did wrong. Instead, he just deleted my comment(with the entire discussion "PLOT") without explaining. Also he did not respond to my message, just deleted it. That made me angry. Well, I am sorry if I did something wrong.Soviet Russian Kamrad (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Eaglestorm says "I cannot and will not deal with anyone who comes to WP and fails to understand the project's policy one bit." which is a bit funny really seeing as Eaglestorm does not seem to understand Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks as per this (the only place I could see where WP:FORUM was mentioned). If an editor is new then try explaining the problem rather than getting upset because others don't have your vast experience of Misplaced Pages policy. All of this could have been avoided if you had left a message at Soviet Russian Kamrad explaining the problem. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 15:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Legal letter from Behringer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Block needed, better done by someone other than me

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to handle a certain user name issue?

I'm coming here because I'm uncertain of the proper procedure: we have a new editor, Leigh711 (talk · contribs), who claims that she is Cecilia Timpany, and that the account Timpanycecelia (talk · contribs) is spurious, and that she can prove it. Since the Timpanycecelia account has edited the Lester Coleman article and talk page in the same way as a series of socks who have repeatedly attempted to insert misinformation, there is a high probability that she is correct. My question is, should this be handled here or at UAA, and does she need to provide proof via OTRS or is the assertion enough to justify a block? Looie496 (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If Timpanycecelia is claiming to be Cecelia Timpany, it's up to her to prove it. Impostors making credible but false claims have always been blocked in the past. I think bringing it up here was the right decision, because this is where the largest number of people will see it, though I don't know where to go from here so I'll have to wait for someone else to give further advice. -- Soap /_{Contributions} 16:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the policy is pretty clear at WP:REALNAME (I've bolded the most relevant parts):

Do not edit under the name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that well-known person or you make it clear that you are not. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution.

If you have been blocked for using your real name, please don't take offense; we're trying to prevent somebody from impersonating you! You are welcome to use your real name, but in some cases, you will need to prove you are who you say you are. You can do this by sending an e-mail to info-en@wikimedia.org; be aware that the volunteer response team that handles e-mail is operated entirely by volunteers, and an immediate reply may not be possible.

Although not well-known, there is enough evidence to be concerned that there may be an impersonation of a living person going on. Therefore, block the account as a precaution and only unblock if proof is emailed. Singularity42 (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I agree that both ANI and ORTS are correct forums for these type of requests. UAA is for blatant breaches of username policy, which this isn't necessarily the case. Singularity42 (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin welcomed at Negroni

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

• 24 Oct 2009 - User:75.69.209.101 says General Pascal created the drink ;
• 24 Oct 2009 - User:Chromatikoma says Camilo Negroni created it ;
• 25 Oct 2009 - User:75.69.209.101 reverts to the General Pascal version ;
• 25 Oct 2009 - User:188.221.168.112 reverts to Camilo Negroni version ;
• 25 Oct 2009 - User:75.69.209.101 reverts to General Pascal version ;
• 26 Oct 2009 - User:Marine 69-71 creates a Pascal/Camilo merged version ;
• 14 Dec 2009 - User:Chromatikoma reverts to General Pascal version ;
• 15 Dec 2009 - User:Hectorgaspar reverts to the Marine's merged version ;
• 15 Dec 2009 - User:Chromatikoma reverts to Camilo Negroni version ;
• 16 Dec 2009 - User:Marine 69-71 reverts to his merged version ;
• 16 Dec 2009 - User:Chromatikoma reverts to Camilo Negroni version ;
• 16 Dec 2009 - User:Hanegroni reverts to the Marine's merged version ;
• 17 Dec 2009 - User:Chromatikoma reverts to Camilo Negroni version ;
• 23 Dec 2009 - User:71.178.237.197 reverts to the Marine's merged version ;
• 24 Dec 2009 - User:Chromatikoma reverts to Camilo Negroni version ;
• 26 Dec 2009 - User:Marine 69-71 reverts to his merged version ;
• 27 Dec 2009 - User:Chromatikoma reverts to Camilo Negroni version ;

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

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

1. U.S. Code Congr. & Admn. News, 94th Congress, 2d Sess. (1976) at 5668
2. Eltra Corp. v. Ringer, 579 F.2d 294, 298 (4th Cir. 1978)
3. United States Copyright Office: What Is Not Protected by Copyright?