Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Terra Novus topic banned. Further discussion should take place in a new thread. --Dougweller (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Resolved

 – See Topicban section The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terra Novus is a creationist editor who has been topic banned form broadly defined "Young Earth Creationism topic ban" Terra Novus has recently created an WP:SYNTH/WP:NOR article called Interpretive science where the entire thesis is

"Though it (Interpretive science) originated in the field of Sociology, applications in the natural sciences can yield insight into the process of forming a scientific theory, and some of the fallacies that persist in consensus ideas.[9] Interpretive science calls into question the ability of an individual to accurately assess all of the data that is processed, without first making a value judgement.[9]"

This pretty obviously once you see the context of his past editing in creationism its a pretty meant to be a round about attack on "Normal Scientific consensus of a 4.3 billion year earth."

Given his past ANI visits in topic area after a [1] [2][3] and misuse of retirement and Clean start. We need to have another talk The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided absolutely no connection with how Interpretive science is related to my Young Earth Creationism topic ban. When it comes to the WP:SYNTH issue with the above article I have actively requested and approved the proposals for merging and removing the problematic content. I believe that my recent editing history will show that I have complied with the topic ban while focusing my contributions on editing and improving the article in question.--Novus Orator 00:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

indeed even more explicit evidence of the article purpose from the FAQ on the talk page "Yes, Interpretive Science is the study of how preexisting philosophy influences the development of certain scientific models to the exclusion of alternatives." The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add wikilinks to the statement to make it more clear what i am reading " "Yes, Interpretive Science is the study of how preexisting philosophy influences the development of certain scientific models to the exclusion of alternatives." The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that you are extrapolating without sufficient data.--Novus Orator 02:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also surprised that ResidentAnthropologist instantly elevated this conflict to an ANI without going through the proper dispute resolution process. Perhaps his edit history would yield some insight into this odd behavior...--Novus Orator

This is not content issue its a violation of your topic ban. Please Specify an accusation rather than make vague statements The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My original question remains unanswered.--Novus Orator 02:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with Terra

(ec-od) I am not aware that a formal topic ban was ever enacted. There have been various agreements, all of which Terra Novus has not really adhered to. The discussion of the article Interpretive science started on WP:FTN; at present Terra Novus is disrupting the merge/deletion discussion on the talk page of that article. He is equally well being disruptive by not recognizing criticisms from multiple editors. Personalizing this as a dispute with ResidentAnthroplogist is a completely unhelpful strategy and just more disruption. There are several other issues. He declared himself a co-organiser of WP:WikiProject Cryptozoology.[4] when he made a WP:CLEANSTART. Just recently he has been active with that WikiProject.[5] And he has made several abortive attempts at starting Wikiproject Jupiter. He himself does not seem to have edited any articles related to Jupiter, so the many structures he has put in place for Taskforce Jupiter are perplexing. Mathsci (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. I read the archived material, and I noted several supports for a topic ban, but no formal discussion of one was started (e.g., under that heading), nor did any administrator conclude that a topic ban proposal had reached consensus. Jclemens (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He does not seem to have disengaged from the article Cryptozoology as this edit in support of an edit-warring IP shows [6]. The IP 68.224.206.14 (talk · contribs) has broken 3RR on the article and the normal reaction would be a request for semiprotection and/or a report at WP:AN3. Instead he requested Dougweller to impose a sanctions template. Mathsci (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In support? No, I merely requested that all of the editors involved seek a more collaborative solution.--Novus Orator 02:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat predictably, as on each other occasion when he's caused disruption, he has now diseppeared for a while, hoping that matters will settle. This is the fourth time this has happened. Isn't it time to say "enough is enough"? Mathsci (talk) 07:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disappeared? I am right here if anyone wants to comment.--Novus Orator 02:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed that is frustrating, on a side note I have a hard time seeing how Speedy deletion under Blatant Hoax should not be used on Interpretive science. It seems pretty clear with the from my interpretation of his FAQ that its merely that... a WP:SYNTH Hoax to push a POV The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because you have still not provided evidence for the original reason of this ANI.--Novus Orator 02:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After an absence from the discussion, I looked into things again when I bumped into Terra Novus on other science-related pages, including Climate Change Denial. I had quite a history with his editing a few months ago (under User:Gniniv), but specifically chose not to participate in the ANI threads under this new account name. Having looked at the archives, particularly the one Jclemens alludes to, I've seen several instances where either a topic ban or outright block reached near-unanimous support, but nothing was enacted. Is there a reason for that which I've been unable to track down?

As I've mentioned before, I have no issues with the idea of Terra working collaboratively, or having a 2nd chance, but I've become fully convinced that's not possible after he blew through his 10th+ chance some time ago. Unfortunately, it is still the case that the overwhelming majority of his edits to mainspace are reverted for POV issues, and he seems to be increasingly encroaching on his self sanction by creating YEC wikiprojects and contributing to physics and pseudoscience articles. These issues have been going on for 7 1/2 months, and the only dent in WP I see that he's made is to frustrate and waste the time of other respectable editors. One of the reasons I took a wikibreak some months ago was due to frustration stemming from this issue. From the responses of other editors I've seen, I'm undoubtedly not alone. Is it appropriate that we lose editor time, or editors all-together, in order to salvage some hope Terra will finally turn around and work constructively despite mountains of evidence to the contrary? I know we all want to assume good faith - I did it working with him every day for months - but good faith or not I'm having a hard time finding value in this user's history.

This discussion is fully warranted, and I think it's about time we act on what appears to be consensus support. Jess_talk|_edits 20:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above assessment seems reasonable. Terra Novus has been given umpteen second chances but despite that has shown little sign of changing his attitude to the project. He appears to be somebody not cut out for editing wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the problematic article he created, Interpretive science, is being discussed here, on WP:FTN, at its own AfD [7] and at a merge discussion on its own talk page. I'm not sure that spreading round like discussions in this way was the best procedure. Mathsci (talk) 07:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Topic Ban

Resolved

 – Terra Novus is indefinitely banned from all articles and discussions relation to the topics of Creationism or Pseudoscience broadly construed. Ban logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions Dougweller (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After the above discussion and past discussions on Giniv/Terra Novus and any future identities from editing articles or participating in discussions involving the topic of Creationism or Pseudoscience broadly defined.

• Support as proposer The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Unfortunately I think an indefinite community ban is more appropriate, considering his conduct and past attempts to impose topic bans of this kind. There seem to be hardly any redeeming features in his editing. Mathsci (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont blame you an indefinite community ban is jumping the gun. We have never formally given out a topic ban as the ANI threads have shown. Lets give him WP:ROPE, I hate to say but I think he will hang himself with the rope. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Requests of this type have been started before, as Jclemens correctly commented. If anybody can point to a body of useful edits, that might be helpful. Mathsci (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thats why the community imposed ban rather than one he agrees to. bottom line he break the one we are imposing right now we will adress the next step.
• Support and Comment I think his long history of self-imposing topic bans and breaking them makes a strong case against another one being effective. I also think his history of editing other topics to include wording which relates to, but doesn't directly involve, creationism or pseudoscience makes the case for casting a wider net than those two topics alone. Therefore, I (very unfortunately) think a community ban is preferable to wasting more editor time reviewing contributions and inevitably discussing this again later. However, I would change my position if someone can find a string of useful edits he's made in the year he's been editing which we'd be remiss for losing. If they exist, I would encourage changing the topic ban to also include Science, generally. Jess_talk|_edits 21:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought of that but thats far too broad to be reasonable. His only issues in Science are when brings in Creationism or Pseudoscience into play... at least that I have observed The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support expanded topic ban per Jess, at least. If a formally imposed ban is ineffective, as seems very possible, then a community ban would be appropriate to consider. This needs to be truly his or her last chance to contribute productively, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the original proposal, with a caveat that if Terra Novus is unable to abide by the topic ban and contribute to other areas of the encyclopedia, any further disruption will result in a full community ban. —Torchiest ^talk/_edits 22:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I thought I was abiding by a topic ban on the above subject already. I am surprised that Interpretive science is considered to be under that umbrella, but I will stop contributing to this area of Wikipedia if my behavior is viewed as disruptive. Taskforce Jupiter keeps me pretty busy anyways. I would leave with the note that perhaps some of the editors involved in this ANI are going on a wild goose chase without substance.--Novus Orator 02:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Note: since Terra Novus has added support for the ban would someone do the formality of offically closing this? As the last topic ban discussion went the archive with support but no formal topic ban was implementedThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Query Can I close this although I've been involved in the past? Dougweller (talk) 13:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think so. (Note there is a duplicate earliet version in the archive, I'm not quite sure why.) Mathsci (talk) 13:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think so, Terra Novus added his support to his own topic ban so I dont think you could be grilled for being involved at this point The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unresolved

 – Split ~70kb thread to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Pmanderson and Byzantine names --slakr^\ talk /

• Could an admin willing to do so please review the above thread that was split to a subpage? It has received only a few comments over the past few days, likely due to a combination of the holiday season and being split off to a subpage (where the visibility is lower). Could I also suggest that when long threads that include some form of proposed sanction are split off, that the notice left here explicitly mentions that sanction (or that the urge to subpage is resisted), as it is important that threads like that get full visibility and are not just subpaged without ensuring that traffic to the thread does not drop off. If any admin feels that more discussion is needed before closing, then please unsubpage it. If anyone does review that subpage, could they leave a note here and on Pmanderson's talk page? Also, this subpage pointer will not archive before midnight on 31 December 2010 (I've used the process described at User:DoNotArchiveUntil), so hopefully someone will deal with this before then. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is resolved as a sanction, I would appreciate a time limit on it, whether a month or a year; to do otherwise is an incentive to abuse. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone put an end to this? A user keeps somehow thwarting Xlinkbot by throwing an unnecessary YouTube link on I'm So Happy I Can't Stop Crying. It's nothing but spam. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That aggravation is the price you pay for being a deletionist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What?! Corvus cornix_talk 19:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was commenting on his deletion, today, of an image I had posted 3 years ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is that relevant to this discussion? Corvus cornix_talk 19:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Council45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(edit conflict) The user in question is Council45 (talk · contribs). This user has made only about seven edits since January 2010, all of them edits to add a link to the video on that same article TenPoundHammer mentions above, so it looks like this could be called a single purpose account. The user has a red-linked user page, and the entire contents of his/her talk page are notices about the link he/she has been trying to add to that article. Who knows, this may even be the person who made that video, and wants to put a link to it on Wikipedia. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 04:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blockable or no? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know. However, considering the number of reverts he made on the article within the past few months to get his link back on there, he may well be violating WP:3RR.

Note: The user under discussion here had not been notified yet, so I just notified him/her a few minutes ago. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 04:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't violated 3RR, but he's an SPA who's waging a slow-speed edit war. If he reverts once more he should be dispatched. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might be that Council45 is also user:Rossdv. In the talk archive: Talk:Sting_(musician)/Archive_1#Invited_fans_on_stage, and in the mediation archive:Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-11-15_Sting_(musician)_trivia. It looks like simple self promotion to me. HumphreyW (talk) 10:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a WP:LINKVIO. Taping musicians in concert may be common, but that doesn't make it legal. I'll explain. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube will take down copyrighted stuff if the violated copyright holder complains. Instead of fighting this character directly, would it work to report that violation to the folks who run Youtube? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the responsibility of a Wikipedia editor to patrol YouTube. It is the responsibility of Wikipedia editors to patrol copyright violating links on Wikipedia. Corvus cornix_talk 19:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it's our responsibility; I asked, "Would that work?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if YouTube will respond to any John Doe off the Net with copyright concerns, I think the copyright holder would have to be the one to make the first move, and that doesn't address the problem that as long as the copyvio is there, it should not be linked to from here. Corvus cornix_talk 19:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, some artists are fine with people sharing audio and video of their concerts, but I'm willing to bet that Sting isn't one of them. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked both youtube and Sting's own site, and I didn't see anything about "how to contact", so I reckon they're on their own. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So are we gonna keep beating around the bush or do something? I'm hearing lots of blah blah blah but I'm not seeing any action. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Action has been taken. I explained the copyright situation to him yesterday. He hasn't edited since the 16th of December. So far as I am concerned, nothing else is necessary or appropriate at this time. If he doesn't restore the link, there's no more problem. (I've put this thread back in sequence. There's no reason to move it.)--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier this year, User:SqueakBox answered an advertisement on www.freelancer.com (advert & response) to create an article on an artist. The article was deemed non-notable and later deleted as an A7 speedy. There was an ANI thread on the matter at the time which can be seen here which was scathing of SqueakBox's activity.

Now, the same user has created Beber Silverstein Group in answer to an advert on the same website - advert & response. The article claims no real notability and was sourced to primary and non-RS sources and so I have redirected it back to the (possibly) notable owner.

Previously, SqueakBox said "I am happy to say I wont use this or other accounts to do work for payment now or in the future without being transparent about what I am doing." (here), which is clearly now a lie, because he's denied actually creating this article for money - see his responses at User_talk:SqueakBox#Beber_Silverstein_Group. Opening it up to the community - any action required? Black Kite (t) (c) 19:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If he were being honest about it and following COI guidelines, I wouldn't think it is worth taking action. However, since he blatantly lied bout the clear evidence and demanded that the accusation be retracted, it seems that some sort of sanction is needed. I'm not sure exactly what would be effective,, but it should be more than a warning (or admonishment) and less than an indefnite siteban. Perhaps a community sanction prohibiting him from editing BLPs or articles related to corporations (broadly construed)? Also a restriction to one account seems prudent, though I do not believe he has socked. The Wordsmith^Communicate 19:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's generally agreed that User:SqueakBox (normally) contributes productively to the project, why beat around the bush and implement these sorts of topic bans? Why not simply bar him from editing the project for pay? jæs (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a big if; I've been unimpressed by my interactions with him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I wouldn't say SqueakBox has a huge conflict of interest here, as he has no relation to the subject of the article; his main goal is to prevent it from getting deleted. I'd just say if any more articles that don't follow notability guidelines are created, just delete them. -download ׀ sign! 19:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that what we normally do to articles that are inherently not notable? In all honesty though, I think that he should be restricted from editing anything to do with paid editing and be restricted to one account (which is also something we kind of already do). I feel as though he should also alert us if he is approached to edit or create an article in a way that will involve reimbursement of some kind. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLPs and corporations are the most common types of paid articles. The Wordsmith^Communicate 20:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His conflict of interest is between his loyalty to Wikipedia and the $250 he seems to have been paid to write this article. $250 would be enough to pay my car insurance and gas for a month, so even if it wouldn't win out, even I would be tempted (and thus the interests would be conflicting). The Wordsmith^Communicate 19:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find the very concept of paid editing to be a bit of a terrifying Pandora's box, but the fact remains that the mere existence of a conflict ought not disqualify anyone from editing. If they can't balance that conflict and our policies and guidelines, then it becomes an issue requiring intervention. Does the repeated pattern of creating non-notable articles for pay qualify as such a problem? Seems so. jæs (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - creating NN articles with useless sources (i.e. both the articles mentioned above) is a clear violation of COI - "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor.". Black Kite (t) (c) 20:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Note here the contrast between Squeakbox's apparently successful $250 bid and the apparently-unsuccessful $250 from Sequoyah who made the contract explicitly conditional on the subject meeting WP:N and on declaring the contract at WP:COIN. I would have no objection at all the a contract like that which Sequoyah proposed, but am also unsurprised that Squeakbox's unconditional bid was preferred by the advertiser. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

This is not what I thought wikipedia was all about. I must say that I'm surprised and not a little disappointed that editors can be paid to write articles, of note or otherwise. Quite a business. Fred DeSoya (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some people will do anything for a few dollars. Is that really the kind of editor we want on Wikipedia, knowing that future COI problems may not be as easily detected? Chester Markel (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not the money in itself; the problem is what Squeakbox did to try to get paid. The problems are that: a) Squeakbox suspended hir judgement on notability and primary sources used in the article zie created; and b) that Squeakbox did not declare the COI, which would have drawn the attention of other editors to scrutinise the article. If squeakbox had acted openly (by declaring the full terms of the contract) and had followed editing policies (by telling the client "sorry, I cannot find evidence that you meet WP:N"), then there would be nothing to discuss here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Squeakbox's disruptive behavior is seeking financial compensation without any moral scruples. This suggests that the community cannot trust the user in the future. Chester Markel (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that Squeakbox ripped off his client by writing a crappy article. Beber Silverstein is notable.[8] If Squeakbox had made any effort to create a good article that met Wikipedia standards, there wouldn't have been a problem. I don't know who the A7'd artist is. THF (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"It's is a women owned Florida Certified Minority Business Enterprise,..." Ouch! I'd be pissed if I paid for that: he should have at least mentioned that it was notable for its time as a business owned by women, which is in the NYT reference. Since he is so open about who he is on the pay-for-edit site, and seeing the reaction from other WIkipedians generated by his writing-for hire projects, I would think that others would be less likely to hire him for this sort of thing in the future. You don't get the "bang for your buck", and others will seek reasons to delete it anyway. Caveat emptor Doc talk 22:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A three month involuntary wikibreak may be sufficient to convince SqueakBox not to violate WP:COI and lie to us about it again. This certainly isn't the first time SqueakBox has caused trouble on Wikipedia. Chester Markel (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is necessary; this would be very punitive and SqueakBox is known to be a solid content contributor elsewhere. See above for my proposal of an editing restriction preventing him from writing articles on living people or companies, which account for nearly all paid editing. The Wordsmith^Communicate 21:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support a lengthy block; I'd prefer one month, but would oppose anything less than that. Squeakbox has clearly breached COI, twice, despite a promise not to do so again after the first time, and has also lied about the second instance when specifically challenged on it. A month is long enough for Squeakbox to reflect on the nature of trust and the fragility of reputation, and to figure out to apologise to his client for making a fool of her.

I am aware that SqueakBox has made many other good contribs, so despite the seriousnes of this abuse I would have supported a warning if it wasn't for the lie. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps a restriction on writing articles on "living people or organisations, or any edits for which SqueakBox has or has agreed to accept payment (or payment in kind) for". Reword as appropriate, IANAL. That way, it also covers any edits which aren't BLP or ORG-related, but which are still discovered as 'paid'. At present I don't have an opinion about blocks. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support that restriction, and the wording looks fine by me. As above, I'd like to see a block as well. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Support any restriction, the stronger the better, as I've always found him ... difficult. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

Proposed restrictions

"SqueakBox is banned for an indefinite period from editing articles about living people or organisations, or any articles where there is a reasonable suspicion that SqueakBox has or has agreed to accept payment (or payment in kind) in exchange for editing. If an editor has concerns that this restriction has been broken, further sanctions, including a block, may be administered after a discussion at an appropriate noticeboard." - Sound good? No blocks just yet, but this is a good starting point. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why put up with this at all? Permaban, and revert everything in sight that could possibly be affected by such COI. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Permaban on what grounds? He'll just make another account, and we'd lose someone who's otherwise a good editor. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Permaban on grounds of spamming and falsifying sources, with reasonable openness towards unbanning on appeal after 6 months (or 3 if you must) on the usual sorts of terms. 3 months and automatic unblock doesn't seem like enough. I don't see likely heavy COI in SqueakBox's top 35 edited articles by edit count: Cannabis (drug): 507 edits, Javier Solana: 480, Rastafari movement: 479, Honduras: 268, Pedophile movement: 253, Haile Selassie I: 240, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero: 188, Bob Marley: 168, Spanish language: 157, Fidel Castro: 140, List of Internet television providers: 139, 420 (cannabis culture): 134, Giovanni Di Stefano (businessman): 119, Manuel Zelaya: 116, Jimmy Wales: 108, Child pornography: 107, Ted Kaczynski: 106, Gary Glitter: 97, Pedophilia: 89, List of European television stations: 89, Deaths in 2008: 85, Augusto Pinochet: 84, Deaths in 2007: 82, Tony Blair: 80, La Ceiba: 73, Video clip: 73, Crack cocaine: 72, Hashish: 72, Child sexual abuse: 70, Hippie: 69, Saddam Hussein: 67, North American Man/Boy Love Association: 64, Cannabis smoking: 63, IP address: 63, Efraín Ríos Montt: 62. On the other hand they don't seem like really tasteful choices, and it continues in about the same way. "There's no point banning that person since s/he'll just sock anyway" is usually a really bad reason to not ban someone. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Though given his previous deception, if he's determined to carry on his paid editing antics I suppose he could sock round the restriction as well. Still, it's a start. Black Kite (t) (c) 04:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Something needs to be done about this since nothing has changed since I first brought this issue up over half a year ago. I've uncovered several of these paid editing articles that have bit the dust through AfD and SqueakBox has always assured me that he would be more open about this pratice in the future. He has not been open about it, calling the suggestion that he wrote his latest piece a "rash lie" despite being totally open about his connection to the SqueakBox account on freelancer.com. This would be a feasible solution to this ethically problematic practice. ThemFromSpace 13:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should of course establish that the Freelancer account is not lying about being SqueakBox. Rich Farmbrough, 18:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

It isn't - SqueakBox admitted that the same account was him during the previous ANI (see link in my first post). Black Kite (t) (c) 19:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also can't find any link which conforms this that squeakbox was the owner of the please-make-fake-sources account. It's kinda crucial, so please can you re-post the evidence? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For background info, this particular incident was regarding the J-sKy article and was discussed on ANI here. I don't think SqueakBox was related to this case, although my memory might not be serving me correctly. ThemFromSpace 18:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Here's the link: squeakbox confirms that zie did bid on the fake-sources job, but says zie withdrew the bid. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THF above is right - the two previous articles created early this year were fairly obviously non-notable at the time, which was bad enough, but this is almost worse - if this company is notable then he's clearly just tossing out any old crap in a few minutes to earn his cash. I looked at what he's created since March, and it includes Global listings (deleted as an A7), Diamond Ranch Academy (looks possibly notable), Pressure (reggae musician) (one line BLP stub with one source), and Alacan (probably notable). I have no idea whether any of these were paid for (and asking SqueakBox is pointless if he lied about the last one) but it does seem like an odd range of interests. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for the others, but Reggae music is within Squeakbox's previous interests.   Will Beback  talk  02:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before we close this, we should take note of the fact that the last time SqueakBox created an article for money ([Mario Zampedroni]) he went to that freelancer site asking someone to create fake sources he could use in the article. Here is the AN/I thread on the subject, and here is the request he made for the fake sources, mentioning that he is writing an "artist biography". This is the bid he placed to write the Zampedroni article, which was accepted. So, to recap:
1. A little less than a year ago SqueakBox creates an article on a non-notable Italian artist for pay.
2. On 23 March 2010, in and effort to have the article kept, he openly solicits "fake sources" for the article on freelancer.com.
3. On 25 March, he promises never to create another article for pay without being completely transparent about what he's doing.
4. On 21 July, an AN/I thread appears when someone notices his solicitation of fake sources, a thread to which SqueakBox never sees fit to respond.
5. On 3 November he creates another paid article, violating his previous pledge.
6. On 20 December he is confronted about this on his talk page. His response? "Stop talking rubbish." When shown detailed evidence, he replies "that is complete rubbish and I advise you to withdraw your rash lie. I havent received a penny for doing that article or any edits in connection with this subject." All clearly false statements. Although he continues to edit, SqueakBox has not seen fit to reply further, either at his talk page or on this thread. Apparently he thinks if he just keeps quiet it will all blow over like it did before.
I will also note that SqueakBox accepted at least one other project on freelancer.com, the nature of which is not available to non-logged in users.[9]
Conclusion: Nothing that SqueakBox says or does can be taken on trust. He should be banned. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I see no insuperable reason against honest paid editing, or honest declared COI editing of any other sort: COI is inevitable, for few people would work on a subject they did not care about. The COI from payment is no worse than the multiple other forms of coi that are in escapable at Wikipedia, and is, arguably, not as disruptive as some sorts of ideological commitment. Since we cannot avoid it, better declared than undeclared, for it can be judged more visibly and openly. I think we have a right and a responsibility to insist upon such disclosure . I think that those who knowingly & repeatedly introduce bad articles for any reason need to be prevented from continuing, and have therefore agree with the earlier suggestion for a block; though there have been many blocks for edit warring, the earlier ones were for other matters, and there have been none since 2008. therefore, a month seems appropriate. I suggest that any attempt to evade this, or to again construct equally poor articles, will be met by a discussion about a permanent ban. Additionally, any further article writing for pay must be declared; if there is evidence otherwise, we should similarly proceed to a permanent ban. The only reason I do not do the block immediately, is that this discussion has lasted for only a few hours, and at the end of a major holiday weekend; there is a tendency here at AN/I to be over-precipitate; in the absence of major harm, we need some time for consideration . For fairness, we also need some time for a response. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are talking about flat-out spamming. There's a big progression between "I get paid to work with computers, and sometimes edit computer-related articles (e.g. about algorithm theory)" (not much of a COI), through "I sometimes edit about products that I have used at work" (arguable COI), to "I write advocacy/spam promoting the products of the company where I work" (seriously bad COI). 67.117.130.143 (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • i think the creation of fake newspapers and other fakedsources is as erious issues. i have seen many articles in my area of expersietise (science and medicine and health) where a "source" was a link to someones blog or to a Google search of random terms; i think that this is a serious issue which is being ignored in favor of teh sexier and more effervescent paid editing issue. are you allowed to solicit someone to create fake sources for you to cite, regardles of whether or not you are a paid editor or not? User:Smith Jones 05:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, obviously this is the real issue here, the open solicitation of fake sources and bald-faced mendacity about editing for pay after promising not to without full disclosure. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thanks for explicitly noting this, Steven J. Anderson. Writing poorly sourced articles for financial gain is a problem; soliciting fraud to accomplish it is a problem of a different magnitude. I agree with DGG above both that some action should be taken and that we need due time to consider that action, the end goal of which should be both to prevent further misuse of Wikipedia and to impress upon the contributor the need to adjust his approach to the project. This can't continue. Deliberately attempting to insert fraudulent sources into the project undermines everything we stand for in the worst possible way. It is about as explicit a demonstration of "bad faith" as I can imagine. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Banning isn't yet the answer since he still makes constructive contributions when acting as a volunteer. The articles he hasn't been paid to write are generally of high quality, as are his non-COI contributions. I think the proposal above by Moonriddengirl is good first step. Of course if he violates this things may escalate, but we shouldn't go this far this soon. ThemFromSpace 13:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really know that "The articles he hasn't been paid to write are generally of high quality, as are his non-COI contributions"? In the absence of auditing every assertion and claim in SqueakBox's edits to ensure that the sources they purport to cite are legitimate, and fairly represented, a definitive assessment of his contributions would be quite difficult. While such matters are usually taken on faith, the assumption no longer applies when refuted by definitive evidence of malice. SqueakBox has shown himself to be a thoroughly dishonest and unscrupulous editor who would violate WP:COI, solicit fake sources for sneaky vandalism, and who knows what else, all for a few dollars. The only appropriate response to such an immoral user is to be rid of them. Chester Markel (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not take a look for yourself? His account has been registered on wikipedia for five and a half years. He has about 53,000 non-deleted edits of which 28,000 are to articles. Mathsci (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because I would be looking for a needle in a haystack. I assume that he wouldn't have gotten away with editing for this long if he routinely misrepresented or faked sources. If any fraudulent sourcing occurred, it would have been camouflaged within legitimate edits, much like he hoped to conceal his WP:COI violations. SqueakBox knows full well that we can't audit everything he's contributed. Chester Markel (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I will say something heretical, but I think if it is a needle, then it is not such a big drama. It's not like the rest of Wikipedia is perfectly sourced or something. - BorisG (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at maybe 100 diffs by now, mostly in icky subjects (checking out a socking theory that didn't hold up). I see some mildly tendentious editing in distasteful subjects,[10] some random gnoming (not always well-considered, e.g. [11] bypasses a redirect but slightly changes the connotation of the source), some reasonable vandalism reversion,[12] occasional addition of sourced info (TMI?), some well-meaning but clumsy removals,[13][14] etc. All of his editing is in a somewhat inarticulate style[15][16] (non-native English speaker? Spanish-language ref added: [17]). I haven't seen anything I'd consider to be a substantial contribution of quality content, but there's an awful lot of edits that I haven't looked at. I agree with Chester Merkel that evaluating a history this large is quite difficult. But my basic impression is we're dealing with (among other things) someone with a borderline WP:COMPETENCE problem everywhere he edits. Turning Wikipedia into a work-at-home scam for editors of this sort is the last thing we want. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really know that "The articles he hasn't been paid to write are generally of high quality, as are his non-COI contributions"? I've edited around him for years, and I would disagree with that premise; he is a tendentious and contentious editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so maybe his edit history is more spotty than I first thought. Should anything be done about this? I for one still support moonriddengirl's proposal above. I think it's a good first step, although others may think its too lenient. ThemFromSpace 17:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really qualified to answer that: Wiki seems to have an unhelpfully high tolerance for disruptive editors along with a tendency to indef the wrong editors, and our standards for indeffing, blocking and banning are increasingly unclear to me. I'm just adding background for others to decide how to handle the current dilemma. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment My path has crossed SqueakBox's from time to time over the years, & while I wouldn't say I'm a friend of his -- just look at our interaction at Talk:Shashamane, which led me to take this article off my watch list (although I try to monitor all Ethiopia-related articles) & ignore any problems it might have -- I find his latest emphasis of activities not only troubling, but bewildering. SqueakBox is a self-described white Rastafarian, whose previous mentions on WP:AN/I involved his crusade against pedophiles/child molesters -- not the profile of someone I'd expect to decide one day to use his Wikipedia account to make money writing crappy articles. It would be just like, if I may make the analogy, finding THF brought before WP:AN/I for being paid to write deletion-fodder articles on Marijuana-related topics (e.g., "Joe Blow is an influential political consultant who was responsible for successful ballot referenda legalizing marijuana in 37 states.") IMHO, SqueakBox's recent freelancing is a cynical act to make some money from Wikipedia -- a symptom of WikiBurnout. And if I am correct about this, there really isn't anything we can do about him other than to indefinitely block him; he doesn't want to play nice with others here any more. But before we seriously consider this, I'd like to give him a chance to tell his side of the story; I've been known to make mistakes, but I don't want banning someone from Wikipedia to be one of them. -- llywrch (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

actually I had the same speculation about motivation as you, and for the same reasons. and, like you, I do not want to do an indefinite ban on speculation. Even if we are right, people have burnout, stay away a while ,either voluntarily or because we enforce it, and some return and do OK after the break. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from very strange defence of Giovanni Di Stefano on the article's talk page - and this perhaps illustrates one of the downsides of paid editing, one naturally wonders if the defence was paid for - I remember SqueakBox as a positive contributor. Paid editing, as I have commented before, is far from the worst form of COI, and the comment that we should somehow be concerned from his customers' perspective if he produced sub-standard material is laughable. The only matters that need attention here are (minor) it would be good if paid contributors acknowledge their potential COI and (major) the request for fake sources - and unless these were actually used there is nothing we should be worrying about. Rich Farmbrough, 18:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not suggesting sanctions on Squeakbox based on "his customers' perspective." I'm pointing out that, even with a COI, nothing stopped Squeakbox from writing a decent article, and that had he done so, I don't think we would have anything to complain about, even if he never disclosed his payment: a gap in the encyclopedia would have been filled, and we'd all be better off. It's because Squeakbox wrote a bad stub that was indistinguishable from spam that there's now a lot of hullaballoo. (This is entirely separate from the new, and much more serious, allegation of attempting to falsify sources.) COI is only a reason to scrutinize edits closely for NPOV and new articles for N/V/RS. There's nothing inherently wrong with editing with a COI, or even an undisclosed COI, so long as the edits comply with Wikipedia policy--edits that don't comply with Wikipedia policy are problematic even when there is no COI. And if the consensus is otherwise, we need to modify what WP:COI says. THF (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we're doing speculation, I'll go for "economic necessity" rather than burnout. I can sympathize: the economy sucks, decent jobs are hard to find, and lots of people have to do what they can to make ends meet. For reasons similar to NOTTHERAPY, we should sympathize with anyone in such a plight, but at the same time we must not let them turn Wikipedia into a spam sewer that other people then have to clean up. Rich F: paid editing of the form "Professor So-and-So gets a grant to develop a series of FA's about astronomy or biology, announces it on wiki, and engages in discussion about what these articles should contain" is one thing; spammers should be banned. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming is bad, however creating articles is not necessarily spamming. The subject may be notable but have insufficient wiki-clue to be able to create an article that lasts 5 minutes. If they pay for the article to be created, and we decide that it is notable then we have gained an article we otherwise wouldn't have. It needs, of course, to comply with VERIFIABLE, NPOV, COPYVIO etc. But this is true of any article. And indeed the discussion above shows a paid editor (or one who wanted to be) setting that out as a pre-condition of work - which is of course the ethical thing to do, as the community may (should) insist that that is the case. All Wikipedia articles are stuff "that other people have to clean up". Rich Farmbrough, 21:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

If he was doing this simply for the money, assuming good faith would lead me to expect SqueakBox to have written a far better article. He knows better than this. The article which triggered this latest thread was something any run-of-the-mill PR flack could have created -- which would have either been greatly rewritten or deleted, & the author banned from Wikipedia. And as The Wordsmith & others have pointed out, when this problem was brought to his attention his first response was to say "Stop talking rubbish" & demand the person retract "your rash lie"; it wasn't to come clean & discuss the matter constructively. One only acts like this if one doesn't give a fuck about Wikipedia -- which that is why I have suggested an indef block for SqueakBox. Because if he is that alienated from or disillusioned with Wikipedia, there is no imaginable editting restriction that will keep him from harming the project or wasting other editor's time. -- llywrch (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry if this has been addressed already, but how do we know Squeakbox wrote the fake sources post? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  See here: squeakbox confirms that zie did bid on the fake-sources job, but says zie withdrew the bid. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been alleged at Talk:Ebionites that my recent requests for additional comments on the restoration of a quality template to that article was a violation of WP:CANVASS. I would request input on that page from anyone here regarding that allegation. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't neutral, so yes, such posts do stray somewhat from Wikipedia:Canvas#Campaigning. If there's a need to say so much about why the input is wanted, one should put forth, in a neutral way, all the outlooks in the disagreement. Rewriting those posts should fix any worries, though. Also, it's not taken as neutral in such a post, to bring up an earlier sanction: That has nothing to do with the content, so it doesn't fit in a neutral post about content. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An honest account (from your POV) of what has occurred but I agree not neutral. I agree Rewriting it would be advisable and fix the problem. I think a Trout might be in order but no immediate Admin action. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – All his own work. Rich Farmbrough, 21:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I have noticed over the past few months copy and pasting of text from Conservapedia. What seems to be happing is an editor is was editing Conservapedia articles in its American conservative Fundamentalist Christian point of view. Then simply pasting those edits here (copyvio?). Let me give you an example History of Newfoundland and Labrador (secure) and its counter part text from conservapedia (User:Rjensen) and User:RJJensen. Before i go on i am wondering if others see a problem here. Not sure what others think of Conservapedia, but its bias simply by its mandate. Moxy (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, I don't care where it comes from, as long as it adheres to our guidelines and policies, especially NPOV and V. Of course, coming from Conservapedia, that's unlikely, but possible. Another question, which I'm not qualified to answer, is that of attribution: if it's wholesale copy/pasted from somewhere else, that may not be in accordance with our licensing policies. --Crusio (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless the source article was written entirely by the same person moving it over here, it is a copyvio and has to be removed. Prodego ^talk 23:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Prodego. I checked and there are a few names in the Conservapedia article edit history, and it is unlikely that such copy'n'pastes would therefore be the work of one individual. Per AGF, it may be that the copier, whether a substantive contributor to the Conservapedia article or not, is not familiar with the issues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: how do you violate this copyright? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this has more to do with our licensing, which says that all writers must receive attribution. AniMate 00:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the Conservapedia article is cited as the source, it is plagiarism: "...public domain content is plagiarized if used without acknowledging the source, even though there is no copyright issue". AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thx BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)It says right there "This license is revocable". We can't use text under such a license on Wikipedia, so the only way we could use text from Conservapedia in Wikipedia is via a separate permission from the creator(s) of the material. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So should someone revert this edits? The editors has been informed of this conversation, but continues editing.

Gava, that is somewhat cherry picked :) because it invokes a slightly more exclusive scenario (and entirely shoots itself in the foot with the wording). More importantly #3 invokes normal copyright which means we need to attribute source. However, given the idiotically bad wording of the license (it is stupid, and has been written by a grad law student without a doubt) we can't really make a solid judgement so I guess... kill it. --Errant ^(chat!) 00:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is cherry-picking, and it's definitely a badly-written license, however noble the intent is - but the badly-written "this license is revocable" clause really does express a right to revoke the license. Even apart from the worries we would have about revocation of our own permission to use the material, we cannot redistribute material that might be subject to unilateral revocation of the permission to use it, because our own license conflicts with that clause. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's entirely unsurprising that CPs copyright policy is as contradictory and nonsensical as it's actual content, which we certainly do not want here. From their main page right now: "Barack Hussein Obama, the arrogant liberal elitist, may get off his high horse and mingle more with other US politicians in the near future" and the even more ignorant "Atlanta will see its "first white Christmas since the Chester Arthur administration" in 1882. [20] Global warming???" Licensed properly or not, CP was not, is not, and in all likelihood never will be an appropriate source. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to confirm, on advice of counsel, we can't import content from Conservapedia. (I queried just to be sure in November, as I had frankly forgotten that we had prior conversations on the subject.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a shame, we won't be able to have this gem [18] of unbiased recording of just the hard facts. By the way, unicorns are real and you are all banned for five years for questioning anything CP does or says. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AIR, Associate Counsel's reply also included a whiff of "And why would you want to?" about it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The big concern now is how many articles have been infected with this fantasy additions by this cross over editors from Conservapedia.Moxy (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and Conservapedia have very different standards, and editors who contribute to both sites need to be very careful when editing Wikipedia, particularly regarding NPOV.   Will Beback  talk  01:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unacceptable. I reverted it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conservapedia has standards? There was something a few days ago about an SPA called "Scoobertjoo" who had copied-and-pasted a section from CP about the BC/BCE subject, complete with that site's spelling errors. I wonder if it's a group of users, or a single user? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With 39,895 edits hope theres not to many more. Glad i am not a part of WP:USA looks like they have lots of clean up for there articles.Moxy (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I really hope that RJensen's Wikipedia additions don't include gems like this Conservapedia "reversion of vandalism". I would be surprised if someone with views that wacky was able to edit Wikipedia neutrally (kudos to them if they have been, though). Black Kite (t) (c) 04:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the "vandal" was blocked afterward by RJJensen for five years!!!!! If blocking people for five years for little stuff like that is "Christian", then no peanut butter cookies for me tonight! :-( I guess they can be downright nasty sometimes. >:-( They really need a some whale-whacks for their behavior. >:-P [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 04:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I actually looked through some of their other contribs but it started to scare me that someone educated could be so ignorant, so I stopped. I suppose I'm somewhat naive; over here in Europe we tend to only have a fraction of the number of right-wing fruitcakes that the US does. Black Kite (t) (c) 04:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That looks familiar Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should see if this problems are systemic. As i am the one that mentioned this user -I think its best a second part looks at the edits. Top 100 edits in the Mainspace namespace by Rjensen.Moxy (talk) 05:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look reveals that Rjensen is an established historian with conservative views, and a prolific Wikipedia contributer. As an example, he made many contribiutions to History of Scotland. History of Scotland at Conservapedia is entirely written by RJJensen but is very short. - BorisG (talk) 05:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have come across Rjensen in many articles on U. S. politics and found his editing to be relatively neutral and he has always shown a willingness to discuss differences of opinion. I wish more editors were like that. The "History of Newfoundland" article in Conservapedia was substantially written by him and is informative and written in a neutral tone. The only issue for concern is copyright, which probably did not occur to him. TFD (talk) 06:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said above, kudos to him if he has managed to resolve his obvious IRL biases with Wikipedia NPOV. If that's the case, we don't have a major issue here. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that just isn't relevant. Regardless of the merits of the person who makes the copy and paste, there are still possibly issues of copyright, and definitely issues of plagiarism if the article has more than one author. There is also the more general issue of 'sourcing' from another Wiki. An editor writing an article on Wikipedia can be at least assumed (per WP:AGF) to have looked at the sources, but if something is copied wholesale, there is little reason to assume this will occur. For this reason alone, Conservapedia cannot be seen as WP:RS, and therefore cannot itself be used as a source. I'd also point out that Consevapedia may be using Wikipedia as a source, with the obvious hazards this implies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone has used Conservapedia as a source. If material is properly attributed to reliable sources, there is no way to check whether the author had actually read the source. - BorisG (talk) 06:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry I was unclear there, there is obviously still a possible copyvio/plagiarism issue, I was referring more to the bias issue. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is about my Wiki edits dealing with Newfoundland. I wrote those passages originally for Citizendium in March 2008. In summer 2009 I copied them over to Conservapedia (citing Citizendium on the Talk page http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Newfoundland) and added some new text. In 2010 I copied my own writing to Wikipedia. For the Citizendium history see http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Newfoundland_and_Labrador&limit=250&action=history For the Conservapedia history see In any case, I wrote the entire text myself under my name (RJensen, RJJensen, Richard Jensen). I also provided numerous specific footnotes and bibliographies to published books and articles for RS. There is no political POV in my Newfoundland material--it's straight political and economic history. Meanwhile, this month, I expanded the History of Newfoundland text with new material that was never on Conservapedia or Citizendium. Rjensen (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the Conservapedia history--I wrote every single word of the history section that got ported here (it was originally written by me at Citizendium). (that is, I did NOT carry over any text written by anyone else). see http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Newfoundland&action=history Rjensen (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case - No objection from me. Good work, btw. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work?? Moxy (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As has been noted, if the text is referenced and Neutral - yeah, good work. It seemed like the objection was to the source (Conservapedia), not the content - and that objection has been addressed, at least according to the diffs I'm reading here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lets be carefull here as to what we are saying. So you think its ok to add all the reverted text back? Is it ok for editors to do this - that is copy and past from many wikis to make articles if they are the original creator of the text. Moxy (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. Due to the explanation above, I will restore it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Seb - We have identified the original author, who would retain copyright to the text in any case under any of the site licenses. They're the one who did the copying in here. If they do so, they have a complete right under their copyright on their work to submit it to WP under our CC licensing. Unless they sold or gave away the rights somewhere that has a more restrictive license, the situation as explained here is fine. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the spelling, format errors in citations and bibliographical notations, it should be clear that the editor has not copied from anyone else, since there are wholly made-up styles of referencing that are present, and probably do not exist in any other publication extant. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC) (excuse the snark).[reply]

Has this donation been verified? We need to confirm that RJensen there is RJensen here. An acknowledgment at the Conservapedia userpage by the logged-in Conservapedia account that the accounts belong to the same person ought to do it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then just needs a over all clean up and find sources for the huge amount of text added with no references (not a big deal as per Wikipedia:IMPERFECT nothing outrageous added dieing for references).Moxy (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@MRG: I have little doubt that it's the same person. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt it either. But if it's the same person, it should be little to no problem for him to verify that; we typically require verification. As WP:C says, "If the material, text or media, has been previously published and you wish to donate it to Wikipedia under appropriate license, you will need to verify copyright permission through one of our established procedures." In this case, the site can't be licensed, but he can easily enough verify that he is the copyright holder without even the need of going through OTRS. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is he the copyright holder though? Even if he wrote it, by submitting it to Conservapedia, he may have handed over copyright to them? I can't say for sure (I'm no lawyer), but this may well be the case (it seems to be so with Wikipedia for example). AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No; you maintain copyright to any content you add to Wikipedia. Quoting from the edit box license info - "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL". That's a licensing agreement on your contribution, not in any way a copyright assignment. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Let me affirm that RJensen at Wikipedia = Richard Jensen at Citizendium = RJJensen at Conservapedia. it's me :) (as is clear from the user page at each encyclopedia). I wrote all of the text under discussion here and have the copyright; I made that acknowledgement at the time (17 June 2009) on the talk page of the Conservapedia article on Newfoundland. see Jensen statement of authorship June 17, 2009 Rjensen (talk) 03:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you just login to your Conservapedia account and add a note to your talk page indicating its you with perhaps a link to this page. See also Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials Moxy (talk) 06:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At Citizendum, writers who contribute articles do not transfer or share their original copyright with them.[19] TFD (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pelasgon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an obvious sock [27] [28]of the banned Dodona (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is wreaking havoc on various articles, falsifying sources [29], trolling [30], etc...He is even taunting users about getting a CU [31], once he became aware of it [32]. This account is also almost certainly him [33]. The only reason he has gotten away with this much is because Future Perfect at Sunrise, the admin most familiar with him is away at the moment. I should add that this is a particularly prolific sockpuppeteer, with hundreds of blocked socks for something like 3 years now. The disruption is ongoing, any help would be greatly appreciated. Athenean (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked Pelasgon and Albani82 (talk · contribs). SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I placed an indef block on Someone65 (talk · contribs) last week because of his disruptive editing. However, I never intended it to be an infinite block, and was hoping for more input after an unblock request. However, the unblock request has been sitting untouched since the 23rd. I know it's a holiday weekend, but I thought there'd be someone around to look at them.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dougweller (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've been getting problems with an IP-hopping 'fluoride' conspiracy theorist here: Talk:WikiLeaks#WikiLeaks_Fluoride_Document. Can someone take a look, and also if possible confirm that it is ok to delete these comments, as of no relevence to the article without evidence that external WP:RS have shown an interest? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We had someone just a day or two going on and on about water fluoridation. They were eventually blocked. I think it's safe to revert and block here. NW (Talk) 18:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an administrator, so I can't block, though given the IP-hopping going on, I don't think this would do much anyway. It will be ok to revert/delete these edits though, will it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I presume it's the same person accusing Admins and experienced editors of being sock puppets, I've reverted at the SPI talk page and that IP was blocked. Go ahead and revert. Dougweller (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll cut the lot out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.... permanently!

• Fluoride
• Water fluoridation
• Water purification
• Water fluoridation controversy
• WikiLeaks
• Fluoride Action Network
• Information published by WikiLeaks
• Water fluoridation in the United States
• Dean Burk

Brangifer (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you're one of the sock puppets editing there. Honest, an IP told me you were! :-) Dougweller (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! And they even added you. The list of socks is getting quite long and they're hitting many articles, but these are always the main targets. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly this is all a Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have come across Rkononenko talk who appears to be on a crusade to right wrongs in reference to Ukrainian connections on Wikipedia. These changes are dramatic, arbitary and never explained, sourced or verified. See: list of previous contacts with other editors. The editor appears particularly concerned about spellings and useage:

1. warning about deliberate errors introduced,
2. major changes to article regarding loan words from Ukrainian
3. change to name of person Bzuk (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Can you help me see which changes are incorrect? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually all of the changes involve Russian to Ukrainian spellings, but in the case of Igor Sikorsky, he somehow becomes a Ukrainian, and the helicopter is changed to a Ukrainian invention. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 06:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Could somebody revdel these diffs please?

[34] [35]

Thanks. a_man_alone (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Nev1 (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Trebor (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisMcQuillan (talk · contribs) is requesting the deletion of the article about himself, which he created. What's the policy on such things? Corvus cornix_talk 23:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm attempting to remove my digital footprint, and this is part of it. The page is redundant, and is merely used by friends to vandalise. ChrisMcQuillan_talk 23:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you were notable yesterday, but today you're not??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any problem with deleting this article. It was a subject-created article of dubious notability, the two sources are purely local in scope, and the subject really doesn't look to be notable to me. Of course, if we want to run it through WP:AFD, that's fine by me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His 'notability' seems very marginal to me; he's written three scripts for plays and is writing another sums it up. One ref is to a local newspaper and the other is a primary source, the website of the theater that he is associated with. Could be speedy deleted using CSD A7. Perhaps you could get your admin tools out, Bunny. 217.42.50.236 (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted G7. Trebor (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this thread is recalled in the future if this person changes his mind and decides he should have an article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody know who this admitted sock is and whether they're evading a block? Tendstruth (talk · contribs) Their first edit was rather tendentious. Corvus cornix_talk 00:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it's apparently blocked Sêmîazâz (talk · contribs) Corvus cornix_talk 00:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is a banned user. --Bsadowski1 00:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Guys - based on the dates that a lot of these accounts were created, as well as the edit pattern and the nasty racism, these are the latest incarnation of User:JarlaxleArtemis aka Grawp. Please block on sight with email and talk pages blocked as well. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that this latest batch are not, as they have been tagged, puppets of NoCal, but rather of Grawp? In that case, is Grawp picking up on the edit patterns of unrelated sockmasters? There is some evidence (I would have to dig to find it) of Grawp mimicking Runtshit edits some time back. . RolandR (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to get a permanent soft block on 207.151.38.178? Tons of vandalism and spam comes from this address all the time. - Doctorx0079 (talk) 04:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

207.151.38.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The IP address is registered to an educational institution, so a soft block probably would be appropriate. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 04:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

General lack of CLUE and misuse of the XfD process. His talk pages are riddled with declined PRODs and notes on how inappropriate his XfDs are by numerous editors; his XfD requests have become disruptive and a waste of community time. In addition, he has taken to removing other uses talk page comments on third-party pages here and here and then edit-warred with a sock accusation here and here; even though he has been warned in the past about such edits. Not to mention he's HOUNDed me on two different Wikipedias. I could go on Purplebackpack89 06:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you looking for here? Nakon 06:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think he perhaps needs editing restrictions regarding the deletion process (to prevent additional unnecessary XfDs), and/or a block of some kind Purplebackpack89 06:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to look at this previous ANI thread involving him. It was suggested then that he be blocked if problems continued, IMO the problem of bad AFDs, CLUEless edits, and removal of other peoples' talkpage comments has continued Purplebackpack89 06:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is looking for a siteban, given that this is the "community forum", after all. –MuZemike 07:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the removals of those SPI notifications from other people's Talk pages. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mu, my proposal is below. Purplebackpack89 17:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is somewhat based on what was discussed in the earlier thread here

• TeleComNasSprVen is forbidden from starting new XfDs, CSDs, or PRODs, but can still comment on
• Any failure to abide by that would result in a
• Any additional removal of TP comments, or edit-warring involving TP comments, would result in a block

I'm not a one for making proposals, but you wanted one, so here it is Purplebackpack89 17:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite still being under a one-month block during which time LouisPhilippeCharles has, at least twice, been brought to the attention of this board for editing articles by sockpuppet -- without any additional sanctions for disruptive behavior being applied yet (see here) -- he has yet again used one of his recently-unblocked sockpuppets to violate the block here. FactStraight (talk) 07:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP sockpuppet has been reblocked for 2 weeks. I would support a reset of the 1 month block on User:LouisPhilippeCharles for repeated block evasion, but don't want to act unilaterally on this. Trebor (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that's the very least we can do in response to LPC's persistent demonstration of his disregard for the blocks and the community discussions. Favonian (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soon after his block on the 8th, the user asked how he could do test edits, since he couldn't get to his sandbox page. I and another editor told him, in explicit detail, how he could create edits on his PC, "review" them for syntax within his talk page, and then back out of edit mode. His first step was to go ahead and save the edits in his talk page, which he had already been told not to do (by an admin). Then he took it upon himself to start using IP's to edit in defiance of the block. At this point, it's reasonable to conclude that the editor doesn't care one iota about sticking with the rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reset the block for one month, and have notified LPC of same. This is a standard penalty for block evasion. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it happens again, what's the standard penalty? Dougweller (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At that point I'd indeff him. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Menikure pulls out the image that i add on gallery section of Ankara article everytime and also reverts my edits on the talk page of same article and also writes on my talk page that i will be blocked if i put the gecekondu image once again. Have i done something wrong? 212.156.67.30 (talk) 09:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think that this IP user may have a point about Menikure. Check out this diff. The IP had posted on the talk page of the article for discussion on the image (as he was supposed to, see WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle), then Menikure reverts his comment without any edit summary, but did mark his edit as minor (as shown in the diff)! And Menikure did not even link to any possible relevant Wikipedia policies in his warning to the IP user. It may be that Menikure is trying to push his point-of-view on the image in question. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 09:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But, the image in question, File:Viewfromoldankara.jpg shows Annkara in somewhat of an impoverished light, so one can understand Menikure's POV, right or wrong. In any case, the gallery is too large and one wonders if it is really needed at all given the link to commons at the bottom. I had a similar discussion with User:I dream of horses a while back, and she said she removed galleries whenever she found them. I think there are reasons to use galleries, but this isn't one of them. Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a requirement to inform editors when they are reported here, so I have now informed User:Menikure. I've also warned them not to remove other people's Talk page comments. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also Menikure's latest contributions: 1, 2, 3, and 4. 1 and 2 are where Menikure has warned IP users not to add the image, 3 is where Menikure posts on an editor's (User:Omulazimoglu) talk page claiming they were "engaging in disruptive activity" under the IP that started this thread here, and 4 is where he posts about this issue on User:Hersfold's talk page. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 09:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:212.156.67.30 whom I suspect is the same user User:Omulazimoglu when he/she is not logged is engaging in edit warring in the picture gallery in the bottom of the Ankara page, by insisting of putting a particular photo of a slum in the city that is normally reserved for landmarks of that city. Picture galleries of city articles in Wikipedia ara usually reserved for landmarks rather than slums. Pictures of non-landmarks such as slums for example can be put separatly in other areas of the article. This user started the edit war when he/she was logged in as User:Omulazimoglu and continues it while being unlogged under the same I.P. number User:212.156.67.30. I have observed this edit warring and other anonymous users have joined the edit warring as well on this picture of a slum, but yesterday (27 December 2010) in exasperation I reverted his/her latest edit and personally warned him today about this, even though I am not an administrator nor have the authority and do not visit Wikipedia very frequqently.The administrators should issue a warning to this double user on his/her senseless and futile edit war. Menikure 15:25, 28 December 2010

Can you show us a policy, or a consensus, anywhere, that picture galleries are reserved for "landmarks" and must not include slums? If not, then you shouldn't be using it as a reason to remove photos and issue warnings to people. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No pictures of slums are present in such other city articles such as Rio de Janeiro or Cape Town for example, even though they do have slums with their respective articles like the "Favelas" of Rio and the "Township (South Africa)" of Cape Town. There is already an article in English Wikipedia on Turkish slums which is called "Gecekondu" with that contientious photo already appropriately put there by the user User: 212.156.67.30 who seems to be the same User:Omulazimoglu who as uploaded his/her photos in Commons:User:Ozgurmulazimoglu. The user seems to advertise the photos he has taken and/or uploaded from My pictures on Flickr to Wikimedia Commons. There is nothing wrong with that, but his insistence and probable use of two identities and previous edit warrings is the problem. Menikure 16:47, 28 December 2010

Your personal observation of other articles does not constitute either a policy or a consensus, and you should not hand out warnings to people for violating a non-existent rule that you just made up yourself. If you disagree with the inclusion of the image, you should discuss it on the article Talk page in a civil manner and try to achieve a consensus. And, even though your other concerns should be addressed, that IS the topic of this report. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Menikure again pulled that image out. I am adding the image once again. Because there is no policy, or a consensus, anywhere, that picture galleries are reserved for "landmarks" and must not include slums. Pls help me against user:menikure. Thanks. MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved (up until this point) but I disagree with the removal of the picture. For many of the reasons pointed out above - the slum is part of the article in question, and there's no policy stating that galleries should be all happy-happy and joyful - although it's nice to present soemthing in the best possible light, that's no reason to exclude the less salubrious parts of a city. The only defence to me is that the gallery is rather large, but if anything, I'd remove some of the other pictures, and keep the slum. There's plenty of landmark pictures, but only the one detrimental picture. a_man_alone (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Side note : Do we realy need 50+ pictures in this article?? This types of gallery section are somewhat discouraged as per --> Wikipedia:Image gallery?Moxy (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Blocked

AndresHerutJaim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has previously been discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive640#User:AndresHerutJaim and images and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive650#AndresHerutJaim and repeated copyright violations, and it has been explained on his talk page at User talk:AndresHerutJaim#Using fair use images as icons and User talk:AndresHerutJaim#Images. This has been ignored again and we have this edit and this edit, both of which add a non-free image violation to an article. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 09:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that's enough - the user has never indicated that they understand the warnings they're being given (indeed they hardly ever use talkpages [36]) yet their standard of English, judging by edits and edit summaries, is fine. This is therefore a WP:COMPETENCE issue and I have blocked them indef until they indicate they understand the problem and won't repeat it. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart fanatic has been tagging random people as sockpuppets. I'm an editor in good standing with no history of so much as a warning. Needless to say, getting pulled into this drama irks me a bit. I recently underwent a sockpuppet check, which cleared. I resent the accusation. But socking seems to be an endemic problem in the transformers area, so I understand where it comes from.

Mozart fanatic is being checked as a sockpuppet himself. But regardless... between the accusation and his sarcastic AFD comment, I doubt that account is going to be used for anything more than harassment. So I'd ask that he just be banned and be done with it.

Also, I'd kindly ask that a kind admin deletes the disruptive edit from my userpage history. I don't want people opening up my userpage history only to find that I've been tagged as a sock in the past. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, we cannot do anything to stop the sockpuppetry, they will continue to harass and attack the Transformers WikiProject and continue to disrupt Transformers-related AFDs indefinitely. As Wiki brah said here, he is probably right. If editors are that determined to edit Wikipedia, then they will, regardless of any technical restrictions we put in place. –MuZemike 18:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Misplaced priorities much? Sheesh... - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's very frustrating. Most of us just want to edit with no drama. I don't suppose it's possible to find a range of IPs and block them? Or even to find a range of IPs and put an editing restriction on new accounts? Shooterwalker (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under the name The ISEKI Food Network this article was speedily deleted on the 21 December 201 by User:NawlinWiki "because the page appeared to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service..." etc. It has apparently been re-created by Isekifood (talk · contribs). - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 18:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it G4. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):Editor Isekifood advised of this post. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 18:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

N23.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've already posted this at AIV, but maybe some other eyes are needed, especially for future reference. At the language ref desk, a German user sneakily spammed by posting a link and asking, "What language is this?", knowing full well it's his own website, and he's trying to increase the click-count. He had posted this same spam link out of the blue at the Help Desk on the 15th, which was quickly reverted, hence he tried this different tack. Worse, though, is that an editor said when he clicked on it, his PC started to act up. That suggests worse than spam, it suggests possible malware. And just now, when someone un-linked it at the ref desk, the user attempted to re-link it.[37] I think the user needs to be given Das Boot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While posting a warning on his page, I noted that the user has been spamming almost from the beginning and was told not to, but has continued to do so.[38] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]