Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive154

This person uses an anonymous IP to change all the articles' "Sister Cities" sections in order to add the state for all the U.S. cities even though the other countries don't include the state, the reason why they all follow the "City, Country" format of so it is be fair for all countries, but if this person keeps editing the articles to break that format in favour of the U.S. then it'd be disrespectful to all the other countries because he's putting it as if the United States was more important that all the others, this IP should be stopped, that's the only thing this IP does and he's done it in nearly 50 cities already and it seems like he'll continue if kept unblocked. Supaman89 (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree this is problematic, but I find it even more troubling that this hasn't been discussed with the user in question before blocks are called for. I've commented on their talk page, and on a Manual of Style thread linked from there. Let's see where discussion gets us, before we jump to conclusions. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

While this may be a discussion for another forum, but owing to the influence of the European settlers there are place names that are repeated throughout the US - giving the relevant State can help. The other thing I find is that many (US based I presume) editors give only the placename and State, assuming that the rest of the world will know the nation... Which is often correct, but it isn't encyclopedic to treat one country different to the others - as mentioned above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

All countries should be treated equally, and if they all follow the "City, Country" format the U.S. has to do it too, implying that it is more important than all the others is disrespectful. Yesterday I was going send a warning to this IP but it was too late and I went to sleep, however I think it obvious that this IP is only being used for editing the Sister Cities sections in favour of the United States, even after this IP is blocked I'm gonna have to revert all this edits which are around 50. Supaman89 (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You need to specify the state when naming a US city, because otherwise, you can't tell if Portland refers to Portland, Maine, Portland, Oregon, or one of the twelve other "Portland"s in the US. --Carnildo (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Or Portland, Dorset if it isn't clear you are referring to the US. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand that maybe some cities in the U.S. need disambiguation but not all of them, for example Corpus Christi, Little Rock, Albuquerque, Mentor-on-the-Lake, etc. there is just one of them in the U.S. therefore it could simply be stated as "Albuquerque, United States" in any case disambiguation wouldn't be unique to the United States, other places within other countries also have repetitive names for example Torreón, Coahuila with Torreón, Chihuahua and Torreón, Sonora all within Mexico but respecting the "City, Country" format I would simply put "Torreón, Mexico" when listed as a Sister City, after all when people click on the link it would send them to the specific one; anyhow if we are going to add the state for the U.S. cities why don't we also do it with all the other countries, that would make things equal for everyone, cheers. Supaman89 (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That disambiguation only makes sense when you have two cities with the same name on the same list of sister cities and, even then, if they are from the same country, since otherwise they would be displaying different flags and different country names anyways. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed all the US state flags per the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(flags)#flagcruft_on_sister_cities_lists. Notice that I didn't remove the links to the US states. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

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

  Resolved

 – No major issues left to resolve that cannot be done at the user's talk page. Spot Image has been notified to change the username to something more approperiate; the images will (eventually) have the watermarks removed or new versions uploaded. Leaving this up to Guillom to discuss with Spot Image. seicer | talk | contribs 17:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I've been emailed by User:Spot Image regarding the indefinite block of his account. A little background: this account belongs to a unique employee of SPOT Image who is sharing images from their database as an official initiative from this company (see his userpage on Commons). I have met the project manager a few months ago, as a representative of the French chapter Wikimedia France. They have released tons of images under a free license and they're adding some of them to articles on Wikipedia where they are relevant.

This user has been indefinitely blocked by pschemp some weeks ago because "Usernames that promote a commercial company are not allowed on WIkipedia." When the blocked user contacted me, I was quite puzzled that pschemp didn't even start a discussion with him; is it standard policy to block a user indefinitely without even discussing the issue that may exist? I have asked pschemp to review his block, given that "Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited" (WP:U). I have explained that this user had chosen to create an account using the name of this company to ensure transparency; this user is obviously subject to the WP:COI policy, and this explicit username is the best way to have other Wikipedians aware of who this account belongs to and to help them check for WP:NPOV following his edits.

Pschemp has refused to reconsider the block, saying that "[this] choice of name is free advertising for his company" and "the result is massive spamming of one company's name". I fail to see how the behaviour of this user has anything to do with advertising or spamming:

• this is not a role account, only one person uses this account (and I know his name, FWIW) ;
• this user has neither created nor edited the article about his company (SPOT Image) ;
• this user hasn't added any external link to his company's website ;
• this user hasn't added any POV content ;
• this user hasn't even created a userpage to try to benefit from Wikipedia's googlerank ;
• all this user has tried to do is add these images to some articles, hence improving their quality.

I don't see what the problem with this username is; is it that the name of the company will show in the history? So what?

I'd like to ask for another review of this block. Accounts like this one don't need to get blocked indefinitely without discussion ot accused of spamming by trigger-happy people. We're working very hard to convince companies and institutions to release some of their content under a free license, and few of them accept. This kind of welcome is surely not the best way to encourage companies to free their content and to edit openly without trying to hide their COI. Accounts like this one should get help to ensure NPOV, they should not be blocked on sight.

Thanks for your comments. guillom 07:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"ensure" not "insure". I don't see any behaviour that could be considered advertising. I would unblock the user, apologise to them, and hope they continue to donate free images to Wikipedia. Neıl 龱 08:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

fixed spelling, thanks. guillom 09:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem here is trying to get obviously watermarked images onto the main page - a deleted POTD attempt and two (unsuccessful) FPCs, both of which were closed for not reading the instructions and WP:FP?. MER-C 13:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be minor issues that could easily be solved by explaining to this inexperienced user what is acceptable and what is not. I would be glad to help with that. guillom 13:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a problem a friendly warning would solve. MER-C 03:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ugh - bad block. I don't see any obviously spammy behavior, either. Kelly ^hi! 18:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, nobody's objected, so I have unblocked User:Spot Image. Neıl 龱 09:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I would have objected had I been actually told about the discussion. Way to ignore my objections by not notifying me. Did any of you read what I wrote in his talk page? Seriously guys, we've never let anyone else post under a company name on wikipedia and this amounts to free advertising for this company. Now you've gone and set a rather crappy precedent - might as well just go tell everyone tehy can come here and spam their company name all over. It doesn't matter that he didn't try to do it maliciously, because the effect is that now thousands of google hits for that particular company will point to Wikipedia. It isn't fair to other companies, nor the people who want to deal with Wikipedia and not be constantly advertised to. Not involving me was disingenuous and unblocking without addressing my concerns was premature. How is it fair that this company gets to use WP as an advertising medium for their name and no one else can? pschemp | talk 11:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Calm down. Guillom said on your talk page that he had left a message on Spot Image's talk page. On there he mentions he'd opened a thread on WP:AN. It wasn't particularly disingenuous. Guillom, above, gives a convincing explanation and reasoning for this being a special case. Everyone else who participated in the discussion seemed to concur. If more people chip in and the consensus sways back towards blocking a good faith contributor, then fine. Neıl 龱 11:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I will not clam down, no notice was given to me about this discussion, which is the polite thing to do when you bring up a disagreement here. He asked me to comment there, and I did. He did not then tell me he was taking it to AN. This user was unblocked without addressing my concerns or getting my input. That is wrong and you know it. It's a crappy thing to do to a fellow admin. pschemp | talk 11:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Calm down, not clam down" AGF and give Guillom some leeway - he's a Wikimedia steward, and not a habitual editor of en.Wikipedia. It's not "really poor behaviour", it's at most an oversight - he did leave a message on an active discussion you were participating in, probably unaware this was a breach of en.Wikipedia etiquette. I also (wrongly) assumed that you would have seen the link he put on Shot Info's talk page, as you were one half of the discussion taking place there. I don't like not being informed either, so for that, I apologise. It was still a bad block, though, and rather than complain about the notification, I would love to see you explain in more detail your rationale for this block. Neıl 龱 11:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You are the one who unblocked, without giving me a chance to give input here. And if you read my note up there, I did explain. Let me repeat it for you. "It doesn't matter that he didn't try to do it maliciously, because the effect is that now thousands of google hits for that particular company will point to Wikipedia. It isn't fair to other companies, nor the people who want to deal with Wikipedia and not be constantly advertised to. How is it fair that this company gets to use WP as an advertising medium for their name and no one else can?" The result is spamming of ONE company's name - regardless of the intentions. We don't allow any other company to do this, and never have for a good reason. You can't allow one company to use their name all over WP just because you like the guy. This is why company names are blocked as a matter of routine and have been for years. - It has nothing to do with good intentions, but the unintentional result of what amounts to free advertising. To quote from the username policy "Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended, and depending on the circumstances may be seen as a problem." I see it as a problem. Note also it isn't recommended. It isn't difficult to get a different name and thus avoid the issue altogether. I noticed Guillom never once mentioned this part of the username policy.pschemp | talk 11:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for returning to the important matter - whether or not a good faith user should be indef blocked. I didn't agree with your rationale, and neither did Guillom, MER-C, or Kelly. Nobody else bothered to respond, so that was all there was to make a judgement on. What do others think? Anyone? Neıl 龱 11:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The matter is not whether a good faith user should be blocked, but whether his username is appropriate. It clearly is not, and runs afoul of our username policy. I asked him politely to make a new name. Why is it that everyone is ignoring the policy here? pschemp | talk 11:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Because if you read the username policy - WP:U - you will see that (quote, my emphasises) "use of Wikipedia for promotion of a company or group is not permitted, and accounts that do this will be blocked. Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited". Using the company's name as a usernam in itself is not automatically promotional. Neıl 龱 11:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand the rationale behind "the effect is that now thousands of google hits for that particular company will point to Wikipedia". As far as I know, histories of articles don't show in google results. AFAICT, the only Wikipedia entry in google is the article [1]. guillom 11:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Besides, I don't consider an indefinite block as a polite way to ask to make a new name. guillom 11:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I asked him politely to change it. What is wrong with that? [2] here is an example. As soon as google gets done indexing, WP will be the first or second hit for any username. The fact is that allowing someone to use a company name gives them free advertising, onwiki and off. (I'm much more concerned about onwiki - why should I have to see one company's name everywhere as I edit?) Username policy says - NOT RECOMMENDED. It used to say banned outright, and this change to allow it all is ridiculous. Again, why should we allow what is free onwiki advertising to any one company and not all of them? WP is add free, and should remain that way. THis username is not appropriate, goes against policy and is a terrible precedent. Since we also have an article called [Spot Image] this also gives the appearance of conflict of interest. pschemp | talk 11:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I have hurt anyone's feelings. I left a message on pschemp's talk page to inform him that I had started a new discussion on User talk:Spot Image; he answered there, I answered back, and I thought we were having a centralized discussion. As he refused to reconsider the block, I asked for more input on WP:AN and I left a notice on the discussion page. There was absolutely no mischief there. guillom 11:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support the unblock on the basis that this user has actually contributed excellent content to Wikipedia in a manner that is not inconsistent with policies and guidelines, outside of a username that is the same as that of the company the user is contributing from. A username block should not be based solely on the username itself; the rationale must be taken on a case-by-case basis. It is fair to say that if the account had been spamming numerous pages with links promoting their company, or was doing sneaky POV edits to slant the opinion of their organization, then a block would be in order. Or if there was the slightest bit of trouble. But this is not the case here. Some images were watermarked, but that is a relatively minor issue that can be easily solved with discussion. I hope the user continues to contribute. seicer | talk | contribs 11:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh Seicer - the admin who ignores our protection policy and abuses his admin privileges to unprotect a page that he edit warred on, then turns up to complain about my interpretation of policy? Good to get your input. The usernameblock was based SOLEY ON THE USERNAME. It's the name of a company. The policy clearly says this is not recommended. Why is it that WP will suddenly allow ONE company to promote itself through a username and not others? pschemp | talk 11:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

From WP:U - Use of Wikipedia for promotion of a company or group is not permitted, and accounts that do this will be blocked. Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited. Using a company name as your username is not automatically promotional, and is not grounds for a block. It only becomes grounds for a block and en enforced username change if it is being used in a promotional way. Pschemp, you seem to misunderstand the policy. Neıl 龱 11:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think pschemp may be recalling an earlier version of that page. It has undergone extensive modification in the last year or so. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Even so, the policy flat outs says it is NOT RECOMMENDED. That's not a blanket "allowed if we like the guy" it's a statement that says it isn't a good idea and for very good reasons. I don't seen any good reasons to make an exception here. And I think it's an issue here due to the fact that 1. we have an article of the same name about this company and 2. the number of contibutions. It just isn't a good idea to allow advertising for one company and not others. WHy everyone suddenly wants WP to be allowed to become a billboard for only those companys we *like* is beyond me.pschemp | talk 11:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

pschemp, there is no need to rail against every comment that is in any such way opposing that of yours -- and personal slanders against other editors or administrators is not needed. Note that I did not divulge down that path, and I would have expected that as a fellow administrator, you would have had the courtesy to do the same. Back on topic, per policy, the username is only blockable as a username block if the account was being used in a way to solely promote a certain service, product or company. That was not the case here at all. Time to move on and let the editor contribute -- if he returns at all. seicer | talk | contribs 12:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Since guillom is handling this, it's probably an OTRS thingo, which (hopefully) means someone reliable is in touch with him and will be able to intice him back when (hopefully soon) someone unblocks (again). —Giggy 12:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am handling this because I've met the people involved in this project as a representative of Wikimedia France ; we work in the same city. It is not OTRS-related, but we are in touch by email. guillom 13:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support unblock, because 1) I think blocking over username is stupid regardless, and 2) blocking a constructive contributor over username is madness (not in that way). It's recommended precisely for this sort of case - if other companies want google juice, they can contribute constructively. —Giggy 11:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You just recommended that WP be allowed to be a vehicle for advertising. That's absolutely against everything WP is about. pschemp | talk 11:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Nooo, I recommended we unblock this guy (without wheel warring). And to respond to your claim that he can use this username for google advertising, I suggested that rather than block his valuable contributions out, we consider the bit of the username policy that recommends (not requires) blocking, ignore a few rules, and get a better encyclopedia as an end result. You blocked a good faith newbie because of a misreading of the username policy. That's against a heck of a lot of what WP is about. —Giggy 11:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I asked him politely to change his name. That is not a sin, nor is he a "newbie". I blocked because he was doing immediate damage. Did no one notice he didn't ever reply on his talk page? Didn't even contest the block or ask why? Had he done so I happily would have opened a dialog. But hey, if you want WP to be a vehicle for advertising, as everyone here seems to think then have fun with that. pschemp | talk 11:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What "immediate damage"? Neıl 龱 12:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

While I don't see this user as being problematic, and the policy is clearly and currently open to interpretation, I'd suggest he change his username to avoid further issues. — _Maggot^Syn 12:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Allowing company names is effectively turning WP into a vehicle for advertising for only those companies we "like". The net effect is free publicity and free advertising for a select group, and this is absolutely against the spirit of Wikipedia. I should be able to edit without being confronted with the spamming of company names in usernames. It doesn't encourage openness, only the use of Wikipedia for advertising. I'm shocked that the policy was changed to allow this at all. Allowing Wikipedia to be whored out to companies in the name of friendliness is wrong.pschemp | talk 12:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you honestly recognise "Spot Image" as a company name when you first saw it? Especially considering he wasn't actually spamming links to his company? I can't say I did. —Giggy 12:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I did. pschemp | talk 12:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Pschemp, if you dislike the policy, get the policy changed. At present, the policy, and consensus here, does not support your block. Neıl 龱 12:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually the policy supports me specifically where is says company names are NOT RECOMMENDED. You must enjoy ignoring that part. pschemp | talk 12:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Not recommended does not mean not allowed. Neıl 龱 12:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It does however mean you shouldn't do it without exceptional reasons. I see no exceptional reasons here. Just to be friendly is not a good reason to do something that isn't recommended. pschemp | talk 12:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Holy hell thats a bad block. While it may be the name of a company - it isn't really recognisably so, and doncha think we can bend the rules a little for someone who is doing so much good? Viridae^Talk 12:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No, like I said, allowing WP to be whored out for advertising to just the companies we "like" is wrong and against the principle that WP should remain advertising free. It's a slippery slope that will end up with everyone clamoring to use us for free advertising. And where does it stop? Companies will take advantage of this, and the end result is that we're giving away the reputation of WP to some companies for their corporate gain and not others. It's a despicable thing that this project has decided to allow this. pschemp | talk 12:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hes not advertising anymore than the article is. The mere existence of the username is not explicitly advertising. — _Maggot^Syn 12:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is, because when WP is indexed, usernames on WP pages become the first or second hit in searches. Example here [3] - the net effect is free advertising, regardless of the way the account is used. pschemp | talk 12:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Evidence to the contrary. His username isn't appearing in the first three pages after a cursory examination. My advice: Let this go. — _Maggot^Syn 12:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Not at the moment no. But it will be. And the fact is his image uploads are watermarked, link to his campany and every time he signs his name it promotes his company. Every time. That's onwiki advertising, pure and simple.pschemp | talk 13:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Terrible block, terrible reblock. The user isn't violating policy, the name is not obviously a company name, he's not having COI issues, he's made great constructive edits that have benefited the project. Did I say terrible? Horrible block. pschemp, if you don't like the policy, then work to change it, but biting constructive editors and then wheel warring over it, poor form. LaraLove|Talk 12:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

A year ago this block would have been perfectly within policy so lay off the horrible block crap. It is obviously a company name, and it isn't biting to block and ask politely to change the username. It appeared on FPC with links to company and watermarked images - making if painfully obvious that this was a company and it was promoting itself. If you'd been involved, you would have known that. pschemp | talk 13:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Horrible block. It isn't biting to politely ask them to change their username. It's biting to indefinitely block them and inform them politely that they can change their name or move along. LaraLove|Talk 13:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Allowing advertising is immediate damage to WP - that calls for a block and a polite note. pschemp | talk 13:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Lara, nearly every time this user edits Wikipedia it's to add an image with a "Spot Image" watermark and a "(Location X) seen from Spot Satellite" caption into articles. I think that combined with the name is a pretty blatant COI. Sarah 15:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sarah: I don't see that a warning was given (although I may be wrong, it could be elsewhere, just not on his talk page). How can an editor take corrective action if he is blocked on sight? — _Maggot^Syn 15:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think he should have been blocked on sight; I just think he should be asked to change his username. As I said below, I don't want him to be blocked and I think Pschemp acted a bit hastily when she blocked on sight. I think she should have asked him to change his username and tried to open discussion before hitting the block button. But I'm also not surprised that this has happened because the username plus the nature of the edits - adding the company's name to image captions - and the image watermarking, it looks like blatant spamming. I'm really not sure that everyone who has commented here to chastise Pschemp has actually looked at the images and the edits this guy was making and if they have, I'm quite surprised people aren't a little more understanding. I appreciate the contributions are being done in good faith and I don't want to block him or stop him from contributing but I can also see how this happened and why Pschemp felt this was an inappropriate username. Sarah 15:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Wheel war

edit

Spot Image has been reblocked by Pschemp ([4]), despite every other participant in this discussion, and WP:U, all saying the block should not have been made. Could someone else unblock, please? Neıl 龱 12:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Not every other participant, Syn maggot thinks the name should be changed too. Plus, you reversed my block before the disscussion was over (it is still going on) and before I had any input. It was wrong to reverse the block prematurely on your part Neil. pschemp | talk 12:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? Neıl 龱 12:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Unblocked. pschemp, please do not block while the original block is in mid-discussion. Consensus is quite clearly leaning towards unblocking. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Currently leaning but not done. THe reversal was wrong. pschemp | talk

pschemp: Thats not even a half of the sentence: Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended, and depending on the circumstances may be seen as a problem. So you have to prove that under the circumstances this user's contributions are problematic with respect to his username. Whats best for the situation is indeed a rename to avoid further issues, the issues I mentioned were further blocks like the one you just made, which are counter productive. — _Maggot^Syn 12:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, you do not have a consensus either, and wheel warring will not help your case. — _Maggot^Syn 12:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Well, company names are normally blocked on sight. Making an exception for a company that helps us by providing free media seems at first like a reasonable thing to do, but if we do that, we are opening the floodgates - provide us an image and you can advertise here. Still, though, pschemp reblocking the user was obviously incorrect. --B (talk) 12:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course my action was wrong, however, the reversal of the my block without my input was wrong, period. I've never wheel warred before, but then I never dealt with something that has the potential to do so much damage to wikipedia before. pschemp | talk 12:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe so many people support allowing WP to be whored out to advertising, but since that is community consensus so be it. Enjoy. pschemp | talk 12:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a username violation. The user is free to use pretty much any other username on the face of this planet, but the current username:

1. Matches the name of a company ("Spot Image"), and
2. It is being used to promote it (see Image:Namib Desert SPOT 1347.jpg, which clearly links to a "give us money" shopping cart page. Moreover, it's watermarked).

Therefore, I feel that this username is promotional in nature and is therefore a violation of the username policy and I endorse pschemp's original block. --slakr^\ talk / 12:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Not watermarked any more - made a derivative image without the watermark, put the watermark in the EXIF data, and uploaded it under the same name.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support unblock, and I wonder what pschemp will insult me about :) --NE2 12:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing but the fact that by supporting the unblock, you are supporting allowing WP to be used for advertising. Cheers. pschemp | talk 13:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So it's allowing now, not whoring out? Drop the dramatics. Consensus is against you. LaraLove|Talk 13:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And your snide comments are wonderful too. pschemp | talk 13:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

! - "cast ye not the first stone ..." Neıl 龱 13:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I was asked by guillom to not feed the wikidrama, when you are doing exactly that. What do you guys want? You may have to decide - no double standards, please! Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm at a loss here - we have the part of policy for a reason, to stop spam. As Slakr has pointed out already, it's a clear violation because it matches a company name and has been self promoting. We shouldn't make exceptions for one user - if we don't like one part of policy, then remove it, or we're using double standards with the block button, and that's not good. Oppose unblock. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ryan: But why would it be from OTRS then? The image is what i'm referring to.— _Maggot^Syn 13:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

OTRS getting involved has nothing to do with whether this is a violation of WP:U or not. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't last year. pschemp correctly noted that a year ago, this was completely acceptable, but it's not cool anymore to block editors without discussing it with them first. How difficult is it to remove the block from this situation? Just as likely, if not more, to get a name change, and a significantly lower risk of running the user off permanently. LaraLove|Talk 13:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:U hasn't changed that much. If a username matches that of a company, and is being used to promote itself, then it is blocked on sight. No need to discuss anything with them before the block. If they then realise their mistakes, agree to change their username and not selfpromote, then they can be unblocked to get a name change. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Which I gladly would have done had messaged me, or asked on his userpage or given any indication that he wanted to communicate. He didn't though, not to me. I just got a message from Guillom requesting an unblock. (And not an ublock for a name change, an unblock to allow him to edit with the same one.)pschemp | talk 13:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support unblock - it hasn't been shown how this username allows "WP to be whored out to advertising".

  On a very related note, I believe that if any commercial entity wished to support WP with a large grant of money, equipment, bandwidth, etc., there would be no reason it couldn't be accepted and acknowledged. Anyone who thinks this project can't happen without tangible resources in addition to the required volunteer effort is not rooted in reality. I have no special knowledge of the internal workings of WP, but I am certain beyond any doubt that the infrastructure demands are enormous, and I'm nearly certain they are growing at ever-increasing rates. Corporations and people make donations to many worthy non-profit organizations around the globe, and they are routinely acknowledged by the recipients. So - even if this username amounts to some sort of promotion which some would view as advertising - a claim which is dubious at best - how does that compromise the encyclopedia? All contributions are still subject to the same restrictions.  Frank  |  talk  13:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support unblock if this wasn't already apparent. — _Maggot^Syn 13:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Ask user to change username and if they refuse, then reblock. Ask the user not to place any promotional items (links, logos, watermarks) on the media. The user can put a brief statement of who they are with a link to their site on their userpage. That is typically allowed. Jehochman ^Talk 13:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support unblock - I'm with Jehochman. This could have been worked out without a block. LaraLove|Talk 13:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• I support unblocking the user but I think they should be asked to voluntarily change their username and if they don't then they should be reblocked. All the images I looked at have "Spot Images" watermarks which arguably puts promotion and advertising on the table and turning a blind eye would be a really bad precedent, in my opinion. I appreciate this person's work and I don't want them to be blocked but I don't think it's appropriate to use a company name as their username. Sarah 13:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  Guillom is aware that the watermarks are a no go, and a name change is recommended. He's been communicating with the user, and I'm sure he'll be able to pass this along. Neıl 龱 13:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  I'd like to see more evidence of that. pschemp | talk 13:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  • See Commons:User talk:Spot Image. As an additional note, and an aside, note that while many of the user's images presently have watermarks, they are being uploaded under a CC-by-SA license, which permits derivations (so the watermarks could be legitimately removed or clipped). Neıl 龱 13:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

    • There is NOTHING about asking this user to change his name there, nor has Guillom indicated that he would do that. All i see is the user refusing to remove the watermarks and talking as "we" as if he is the company. Pure and simple, this user is promoting his company, and that merits a name change on WP. (Commons can do what they like of course.) You can see from above I am not the only person who thinks the name is inappropriate. pschemp | talk 13:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

      Guillom has left a note on my talk page saying he is in communication with the user about the two chief issues (the user name change, and the presence of watermarks on the images). Neıl 龱 14:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Let it be noted that all Guillom asked me to do was unblock the user and let him continue editing with his current username, not unblock to allow him to change it. (Which I did politely ask him to do). My argument is that the name itself inappropriate - how it gets changed and in what order of block or reblock, I do not care, just that it gets changed. pschemp | talk 13:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse unblock. Firstly, to stop the drama whose continuity is offputting, bitey and impolite to the user in question; secondly, it's not even apparent from the username as such that it is a company name, it's just two random common words juxtaposed, so the concern that the mere presence of it on Wikipedia would constitute improper advertisement seems far-fetched. And on procedural grounds, yes, I believe Neil acted correctly in assuming that a sufficient degree of consensus had previously been established. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse unblock to allow for a username change, reblock if that does not happen. Usernames that match company names may be blocked as promotional, in my understanding of WP:U. It's not always necessary to do so immediately if the account is not actually advertising its company. Blocking it in this instance was a bad idea, and re-blocking it against clear consensus here exhibited poor judgment on the part of pschemp.  Sandstein  14:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Admonish User:pschemp for her re-block to begin with, which just escalated the drama. Wizardman 15:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • cough cough "her" :) Neıl 龱 15:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
    • There, fixed. Now, after re-reading everything I do believe User:Spot Image should change their username, though that doesn't mean you can wheel war. Wizardman 15:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

      Yes, I'm working on it. The account should be renamed in the next few days. guillom 16:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  • How about admonishing the admin who failed to communicate about his intention to unblock, or starting this discussion? My understanding is that such communication is generally required, and certainly recommended as a courtesy. Not notifying people creates an incentive for stalking, which I believe is discouraged. On the other hand, I'm not sure what exactly gives you the power to adminish where others seem to express their views as "support unblock" or "endorse block" and the like. Is this because you are a member of the Orwellian Mediation Committee? It seems this discussion started on the premise that it's a bad idea to drive away users, but your behaviour does exactly that. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

    I left a note on the talk page where we were discussing the case, and I thought pschemp had noticed it. I have already said I was sorry about that. Neil also thought pschemp had seen the notice. guillom 16:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support unblock. Images can be modified to remove watermarks. Image description pages can be edited to remove linkspam. (Though I don't see any harm in allowing a little link-love on image description page - not in image captions, though.) I don't see any point in forcing the user to change their name, it's not like user contributions show up in Google. Kelly ^hi! 16:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • • Usernames show up in google though, linked to WP. Google my username for instance. pschemp | talk 17:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you volunteering to keep doing this every time this user uploads something? Otherwise, please see this discussion, in which it emerged that nobody actually wants to take on this role. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

    Relax, PLW - someone will get to it eventually - there is no deadline. Is it better to have a watermarked image that needs to be fixed, or no image at all? Kelly ^hi! 16:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Considering how small and not that great the images are, I see no loss of not having them. pschemp | talk 17:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I think that's a terrible attitude. Kelly ^hi! 17:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
        • You should take a look at the discussion on that user's commons talk page. People are rather upset about the watermarked images, and nobody wants to keep fixing them for him. Someone suggested making a bot for it, an idea which was quickly buried when it transpired that nobody actually wanted to write a bot (but a bot capable of using Photoshop tools to remove watermarks would be cool</sarcasm>). Any way you look at this, basically encouraging a user to keep uploading watermarked images is a bad move. Remember that there is no deadline - we can just wait for somebody else to come along and upload unmarked images. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ban the SpotImage guy indefinitely, we dont' need him, his watermarked garbage images, or any form of "advertising." I'll donate 7 bucks right now, that's a whole pack of smokes btw, if we do the right thing and indef ban FOREVER that name and promotion based users all the time forever and ever. :) Beam 16:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but the problem is almost solved. Slow down, relax and read the last few posts. — _Maggot^Syn 17:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I do believe the smile meant Beam was joking. pschemp | talk 17:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

But how is it appropriate? If SPOT Image remains a user (after a rename) it is because he has support based on his contributions. Retaining users who provide us with images is a little more important than just coming by for jokes. Joking about this now is not very constructive, and I've told this to Beam on his talk page. — _Maggot^Syn 17:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No, didn't say it was appropriate. I'm not terribly offended at attempts to lighten the situation with humor though. meh. pschemp | talk 17:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

For those of you still calling for my head, as Ryan P. pointed out, the standard action when an account is spamming or promoting under a company name is to block and ask that they change. That's all I did. This user writes as "we" - indicative of a role account, uploads watermarked and commercially linked images, and is clearly promoting one company. As I said before, I've never wheel warred before, not once - but the decision to unblock and allow him to continue with the name that clearly runs afoul of username policy, combined with his actions is so mistaken, premature and so detrimental to the long term goal of this project, that I felt that reversing it was the only thing I could do to protect this project.

I know it was wrong, and I knew it was wrong when I did it, but I felt I had to. Later consensus has developed that the name in not appropriate and that was my point all along. As for all the "endorse unblock" talk, continuing to argue it seems pointless. The important thing is that this user changes his name. Guillom has said he is working on this so I am satisfied. Sacrifice me on the altar of policy wonkism if you wish, the important thing is that in the end, we don't start a chain of events that leads to a "select few" advertisers being allowed to plaster their company name all of the project. pschemp | talk 17:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So can we conclude that this is resolved, with the user unblocked and any future action taking place off AN? seicer | talk | contribs 17:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The user in unblocked with the requirement of a name change - and we've left the rest to Guillom as he is dealing with him also at commons. No need for more drama that I see. pschemp | talk 17:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Written while someone was busy closing the discussion above, which means no-one will now read what I wrote... :-( Could someone at least contact pschemp, guillom and others who might be interested. I have to go now. Carcharoth (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth, SPOT Image is just one of many commercial companies that use data from satellites to create high-quality satellite images. Most use NASA satellites, but in this case, the company is using data from SPOT satellites instead. There are many examples of these sort of companies. See here and here for Planetary Visions (which doesn't seem to have an article). Digital Globe is another. See also satellite imagery, which says:

"Several other countries have satellite imaging programs, and a collaborative European effort launched the ERS and Envisat satellites carrying various sensors. There are also private companies that provide commercial satellite imagery. In the early 21st century satellite imagery became widely available when affordable, easy to use software with access to satellite imagery databases became offered by several companies and organizations."

The broader field is known as geographic information systems (GIS - an article well worth reading), and we have Category:GIS companies. Other satellite company examples in there are: GeoEye and GlobeXplorer. Then, of course, there is Google Earth and Google Maps, which also use such data, though that is more for maps. From what I know of SPOT Image, they produce a variety of products. Personally, I think that some sort of tie-up with a GIS company would be good for Wikimedia to pursue, but that should really be done at a higher level. I'm also surprised to see SPOT Image releasing some of their images under a free license - it will be interesting to see where GIS companies as a whole go with respect to the images they've produced using free (NASA satellites) and non-free (other satellites) data. Anyway, that should be enough background for now. Carcharoth (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this would be more appropriate at a different venue, but it is a relevant and good topic to discuss. I can see a future need for a future tie-in to a specific vendor or service, as I find the current free services to be a bit... outdated and clunky, to say the least. Perhaps pose this at the Village Pump or wherever appropriate. seicer | talk | contribs 20:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I would be interested in discussing this topic. Please keep me posted if/when this thread is moved to somewhere else. guillom 20:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Safety of the Large Hadron Collider was moved to its own article against the wishes of the coalition seeking proof of safety and validation of such proof by scientists not directly selected by the organization that wishes to conduct the experiments. The coalition seeking additional proof of safety opposed removing the safety content from the main Large Hadron Collider article because we believed it was an attempt to hide the safety concerns WP:NPOV. The argument for moving the safety content to a new article was so that the safety issues could be covered in more detail. But the safety argument is now covered in less detail and is less balanced, as most opposing view points that have been part of the main article for months have now been removed and attempts to restore these references are being blocked. Some physicists support the restoration of these credible references that represent the opposition, but others including Phenylalanine have repeatedly removed these references without prior discussion and without identifying the actions in edit summaries in the last few days, as reported at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR. This issue has been reported to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard for violation of almost every listed means of information suppression and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard as editors include admitted employees of CERN who wish to conduct these experiments that some credible scientists believe have not been reasonably proven safe. --Jtankers (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk page shows a week of discussion, not no prior... see this for a centralized location. Editor is Forum shopping here. ThuranX (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure of this is the right place to put this, so sorry if I mis-categorized this. Anyways, there's a block of text on the Ayumi Hamasaki article that scrolls with the page. However, it is apparently not produced by an edit, so I can't undo it. Would an administrator or someone with the appropriate powers look into this? Thanks. The Habitual Nose-Picker Sometimes Known as Thanatous (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That article looks OK to me. What does the text say? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Me too... I think this is something in your browser Thanatous, try quitting and re-starting it perhaps? Maury (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The text says "Avril Lavigne rokz my sockz! Brought to you by the Avril Troll - on return from Wikibreak". Here is a screenshot. I believe there was a similar problem here. The Habitual Nose-Picker Sometimes Known as Thanatous (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's related to this ANI report. If you're still seeing the vandalism in the article, clear your cache first and then purge the page if that doesn't help. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. The Habitual Nose-Picker Sometimes Known as Thanatous (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There has been a suer who has been hijacking country singer, Lynn Anderson's article. He goes by two different user names, which I doubt is even allowed. Here are the user names; user:Anderspro and his current one user:Mikesmonkey. He has written a terrible article about her, having no references to back-up his statements. For example, he said, "the first to headline and sell out Madison Square Garden in 1974.", and also said she had "17 gold albums." I added my information, with references to back-up factual information I knew back in March, but he keeps reverting back to what he said. He also has a opinionated way of saying things. For example he said this, "During the 1970s, when Hollywood needed a country act for variety shows, benefits, talk shows and even television dramas, Anderson was usually the choice.", as well as "Lynn Anderson's success did not end with the song that made her a househould name and brought her international acclaim. " and when he described one of her hit singles he said, "proved to be a successful follow-up to her monster hit, "Rose Garden". "

He hates when people add references, he hates it, but about a week ago, I redid the page again with references, which is how it currently looks now. I explained to him to please not add anymore unreferenced data, but he said he wasn't going to and he was going to redo the page like it was before because he says, "he knows more about Lynn Anderson than I do." He says this because he actually is Lynn Anderson's official fan club president, and writes her article like he's writing for an official website. In fact, it turns out the article was meant as a rought draft for the way the biography as going to be on her official website, because they were making her a new website at the time he was writing her Wikipedia article. Look at the biography here, Lynn Anderson Show and compare it with the way the he had wrote it here, Link. Don't you find it odd they are nearly written exactly the same???? This guy is a complete idiot, and thinks just because he is Lynn Anderon's fan club president he knows everything he knows about her, but writes it like a fansite. It's disgraceful. I told him I would file a report here if he keeps it up, and he said if I do, he will be filing some of his own. What does that mean, it's getting bad. This guy overall is an idiot, who thinks he basically owns the Lynn Anderson page. Please do something about this before he writes a terrible article again. Maybe blocking him officially from Wikipedia might do some good, especially because he has two usernames, and that is definitley a case of sockpuppetry. Here is the link to his talk page on user:Mikesmonkey; Link and for Anderspro; Link If th links don't work go to the histroy part of Lynn Anderson's page, and you'll find their user names back there. Please do something!!! Let me know at my talk page what is going to happen. Thank you. Dottiewest1fan (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears the last edits from the above editors were a couple of weeks ago, and one of our best country music editors, TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs), has been working on the article as well. I'll watchlist as well, and if anything stirs up again, I'll try and deal with the editor before it gets too edit-warry. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I see the editor's been leaving notes here and there. I'll try to explain a few things before he gets too overboard with things. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I also got an e-mail from the user, apparently they're part of a Lynn Anderson fan site, and are threatening to "see that Lynn Anderson is properly treated" on Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I recently added a page for EyeBuyDirect.com that was deleted. I was informed that if I placed a 'draft' in the sandbox an admin would be able to review and give thoughts. I have added the 'draft' and would like to have some feedback. I appreciate all help and thank you in advance.

User:Blainhowardjs2comm/Sandbox —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blainhowardjs2comm (talk • contribs) 22:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinked your sandbox (to wikilink a page, use double-square-brackets - [[]]). Not looking because websites and businesses aren't my bag and I wouldn't know what to look for, being unfamiliar with the situation. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 22:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but I can say without question that your article is written too much like an advertisement. Think of what an encyclopedia would say about your website and try to write your article from a more neutral, disinterested perspective. To this end, try removing words like "affordable" and "consumers". Also, write more about the company and less about its products/services. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you might also be hovering somewhere below the threshold set in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Rather than say she made a mistake and I'm right User talk:Kelly has accused me of things and is triying to ban me.

check her vandalization of Medea Benjamin kelly know she doesn't belong in that catigory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.143.4.221 (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Laurenraz was tagged some time ago as a suspected sock puppet. The checkuser came back as "possible". The user requested that the suspected sock tag be removed from her userpage, and I did so. User:Matilda argues that, as she still suspects Laurenraz of sockpuppetry and since the checkuser indicated that it was possible, the tag should remain. I argue that Laurenraz is a user in good standing, and it's not reasonable to require users in good standing to be tagged against their will as suspected sock puppets in perpetuity. Others' thoughts would be appreciated. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Just to add my view.
  • Laurenraz is a single purpose account as were those found definitely so by checkuser - Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Zeumic.
  • The issue has come up in a similar form previously on this noticeboard by one of the sockpuppets : Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive390#Serious and Continuous Wikipedia Policy Breach of BLP and Other Policy Amounting to Vandalism - that user Wikifactsright (talk · contribs) was found by checkuser to be a definite sockpuppet.
  • Zeumic is an Australian firm http://www.zeumic.com.au/ and is linked to the article Geoffrey Edelsten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as it hosts his website http://www.geoffedelsten.com.au/ (see bottom right hand corner).
    • Of some significance - A document published by Edelsten at http://www.geoffreyedelsten.com/The-Life-and-Times-of-Prof-Dr-Geoffrey-Edelsten.pdf attacks Wikipedia and several wikipedians - myself included (see pages 19 and 20)
  • LaurenRaz claims to be Just a gal from oz who like[s] law and politics.. Let's "discussion" something nice. but seems to focus only on talking about the Edelsten article - Special:Contributions/Laurenraz. She was immediately experienced in annotating her edits and signing her posts and adding sub heads to discussion threads in talk pages. Within minutes of creating her user page and talk page she immediately sought to have the Edelsten article either deleted or corrected [5]. The language she used was reminiscent of the rhetoric used by Wikifactsright
    • Laurenraz in her first post to the Edelsten talk page called for Remove, Rewrite, Make the Wrong Right?
    • Wikifactsright on his user page called for Get the Facts Right. - Get the Policy Right. - No Bias
  • Wikifactsright's first four edits were to set up his talk page (2 edits), set up his user page, and next to join the discussion at Talk:Geoffrey Edelsten‎
  • I believe Laurenraz is a possible sockpuppet per WP:DUCK --Matilda ^talk 23:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree with Matilda. The style of editing is strikingly similar to previous single purpose sock puppets. All trying to discredit the current article and recommend removing any negative info on Edelsten and refer to Edelstens's personal website as the only reliable source. (which it is far from). Michellecrisp (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I think Laurenraz is probably a sock or meatpuppet. But I don't think WP:DUCK is met, and her edits aren't really disruptive at this point (they're confined to the article talk page), so I'd favour leaving her unblocked, and if we're leaving her unblocked we should let her remove the tag. The article in question is a pretty negative portrayal of a living person (though it appears to me to adhere to WP:NPOV), and I think having somebody editing the article talk page on behalf of the subject - if that is indeed what Laurenraz is doing - is unlikely to prove problematic, and could even be helpful. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not proposing to block her at present. I think the tag is merited as "possible" sockpuppet as both Sarcasticidealist and Michellecrisp agree she is possibly a sockpuppet. Her comments on the talk page are no longer helpful as they do not move the discussion on. The way to to deal with that though is to no longer to respond unless she raises a new point. WP:Duck merely states looks like, ... and therefore is - doesn't give rise to blocking necessarily. --Matilda ^talk 02:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we feel comfortable stating the "...and therefore is" part, then I think we should block. But if we don't think the threshold of certainty has been met - and I don't think it has - then I don't think it's reasonable to leave her tagged. We're essentially saying "Here, we think you're a sockpuppet, but we don't see any way of proving it, so we're just going to tar you as such without giving you the means to clear yourself". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah - I hadn't gone as far as possible => blocking - not because I am squeamish just hadn't thought it through. I am satisfied that she is on the basis of the logic above. Although the checkuser was merely "possible", her editing behaviour supports that she is indeed a sockpuppet - single purpose account with the same editing behaviour as confirmed socks. I will block --Matilda ^talk 05:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Matilda here and she looks like a quite obvious sock to me. I also must say that I don't agree with telling her "as far as Wikipedia is concerned you're not a sockpuppet, since the checkuser on the question came back as "possible" but not definite (although it came back as definite on a whole bunch of other accounts)." First of all Wikipedia itself never takes such a position and saying that gives the impression that the Foundation makes official determinations of people's "sockiness" and even if the checkuser had come back as unrelated, it still doesn't mean the account is "not a sockpuppet". We have blocked many, many users with negative checkuser results based on behaviour and editing patterns. Telling her that Wikipedia considers her not a sock is just wrong, frankly, and it reinforces the idea that people just need to segregate their edits or user open proxies to get away with it. Given the CU came back as possible, I'm assuming the accounts are coming from the same geographical location but a different IP, which could simply be someone editing with one account from home and another from work. Sarah 09:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct. And the similarities in editing with Wikifactsright and the clear promotion of the website as against factual, reliable sources convinces me that it may not be the same person but they're definitely working in concert. We don't need "beyond reasonable doubt" standard to block IMO. Orderinchaos 13:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Could someone take another look at this editor's contributions please? As I said before, I think they've just descended into silliness but I'm too close to the articles to figure out whether they are a clever and subtle vandal or genuinely confused. DrKiernan (talk) 12:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

They changed "Most Hon.", to "Most Honorable", a stylistic choice at most, and you have kept rolling it back using the rollback tool, which is intended for vandalism only. What's silly, confused, or clever and subtle vandalism about that? It seems to be the two of you edit-warring over something minor over a number of days, with a dash of you misusing rollback, and neither of you discussing it on the talk page of the article, or on each others' talk pages. Neıl 龱 12:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with neil's assessment, here. An alternative would be to step away from the article or articles for a while, then discuss matters. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the extensive prior attempts at talking. See User talk:DrKiernan#Dear "Dr.", User talk:DrKiernan#User talk:AndreaMimi#Comma, User_talk:AndreaMimi#Comma, User_talk:AndreaMimi#Spaces and User_talk:AndreaMimi#Can I suggest.... DrKiernan (talk) 12:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You also missed my prior attempts at compromise: such as [6]. DrKiernan (talk) 12:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I did see the other prior attempts at talking, but they were about disputes other than the last one (your message wasn't particularly clear about what you wanted looking at). Does it really matter if it says "Most Hono(u)rable" rather than "Most Hon."? Neıl 龱 12:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Nor does the odd particular comma matter. I'm not interested in the content issue per se, but in the editor behaviour. All the edits are marked as minor, even when they are quite major, such as the deletion or insertion of sections. I and other editors have tried to explain how to use a comma or tried to engage in discussion and we just get a "Yes, thank you and good day." without any change in behaviour. DrKiernan (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, DrKiernan shouldn't have used the rollback tool, because it is not clearly a vandalism. But on the other side, we have a user admitting his knowledge of English not being so good, but still making weird edits on stylistic and prose issues. And when asked to explain his position, he/she wishes a "good day"! Something is going wrong here. And, hon. instead of honorable is indeed a minor issue, but having also worked an article to the slightest detail, I can understand DrKiernan's reaction, when he sees changes without rationale and explanation. On the other side, I do not know if there is ground for any adm action against AndreaMimi.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be a communication issue, which I think may be the root cause of the problem - what is Andrea's first language? It may be worth asking an editor fluent in it to engage with him/her and try to explain things gently. Neıl 龱 13:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. She's Austrian, so presumably German. I can read German but if I try to write it, I'll probably make things worse! DrKiernan (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

We have lots of native German admins on en.Wiki (eg User:DerHexer or User:Future Perfect at Sunrise), as well as non-native with excellent German. Try hunting for one in Category:User_de-N or Category:User de-5, or a note at Wikipedia_talk:German-speaking_Wikipedians'_notice_board. Neıl 龱 13:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Left a note on her talkpage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's worked. DrKiernan (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I just want to notify that the problem with AndreaMimi (Andrea1984 in German Wikipedia) isn't mainly a language problem but a problem of obstinacy and complete intrancigence. She's been blocked on the German Wikipedia therefore. Judith M-S (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I placed a request to move a page Talk:Gliese 581 c (edit talk links history). This was a simple request, pros and cons came into focus. But one comment by 198.163.53.11 (talk) was non supportive, but this user did not give a reason for his opposision, he gave a hate speech to the user giving the request (i.e. me). Though he did write some facts that I have currently fixed, he did state some pretty hateful things. [7] I request that you please do something about this, because I have no idea what to do for WP:HARASS and WP:HATE. Please talk to this IP user (or block them if it has to come to that). — NuclearVacuum 00:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Not removing the comment, I crossed it out (Talk:Gliese 581 c#Requested move). It was hateful and I do feel upset. — NuclearVacuum 00:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It's rude, but it isn't harassment or hate speech. Looking at the talk page, it seems that you are upset not just because the IP was rude, but because he (and everyone else) disagreed with you. Neıl 龱 11:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

  Resolved

Now being handled by the police, who are going out to the location. Thanks to all who assisted in bringing this to our attention. Orderinchaos 14:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm, I want to notify the admins about these edits by an IP address that were automatically reverted by a bot. [8][9]. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 05:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As awful as it may seem, there doesn't appear to be that much we can do about it. Not really. We've had situations like this before reported to the Noticeboards, and people have told us to ring the police or things like that, which, understandably, given the whole situation, many are relucant to do. If you understand me? The most we could do really, is talk to him on his talkpage, if he is geniunely being serious about it, which again is hard to sepher over the internet. Anything you propose? (It may well just be a vandal at the end of the day) Lradrama 09:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The local police/emergency services in Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia should be contacted and given the user's IP address. Even if it is a hoax/vandal, they will still want the call. I don't have access to a telephone where I am right now, and none of the police stations in the area seem to have an e-mail address. Their telephone numbers are listed here. Wollongong may not be exactly right, but they'll at least be able to pass it on to the relevant area's force, should that be required. Edit: a comment has been left here with details, though it isn't an emergency line. I know there's only a 0.1% chance of anything coming of it, but 0.1% is still too much of a risk to ignore, when five minutes of someone's time is all it will take. Steve ^{T • C} 10:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Steve, why do you think that is a NSW IP address? When I just whoised it, it came back as being from Westnet Internet Services in Western Australia, which is on the other side of the country and a heck of a long way from NSW. If it is WA, there are plenty of WA admins and editors here. Sarah 10:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean, better be safe than sorry I suppose. Lradrama 10:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

@Sarah, I used two separate IP tracing tools, both of which said the IP is indeed Westnet Internet Services, but that the location is Wollongong. Westnet's website indicates the company provides internet services "Australia-wide". All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 10:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Westnet is a WA ISP but they provide services in other states. Whois gives the registered address in WA, not that that means a great deal since my IP used to be registered to a town at the opposite end of the country. I think one of the WA admins should just call the police in Perth. That NSW website form says it can take up to 7 days for them to respond to so I don't think it's the most effective way of dealing with it. I am going to let the Perth people know and see if someone wants to follow it up directly. Sarah 11:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Per Threats of Violence I highly suggest this be reported to the local police or other emergency services, without delay. Bstone (talk) 11:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've contacted the ISP by phone/email and let them know, and a supervisor there is now looking into it. I did an nslookup and all it says is New South Wales, so it may be simply that their services in NSW are Wollongong-based, rather than that the user is in Wollongong. (Wollongong is about 80km south of Sydney and it may be cheaper to set up there, given they only went national a few years ago) Orderinchaos 12:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Good work people :) Lradrama 12:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Update, the police are now involved. Orderinchaos 12:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

For future reference: Wollongong was way out. Shows you cannot rely on these tools with ISPs which do not geolocate IPs below state level. Orderinchaos 14:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello.
I'm not sure whether this is worth any concern or not, so I'll just say what I've observed, and you can either have a discussion with another editor if it's important, or just ignore this if it isn't.
(I'd originally tried to take it up with the other editor in question, but as I think about it more and more, it actually has me somewhat concerned)
(background information, for those interested)
So, there was some time-filler on the news about Obama, and I got curious as to whether or not there was an article on 'Hussein'. I checked it out, and saw that there, indeed, was (well, it's closer to a disambiguation page, but that's beside the point). However, I noticed that it was laid out in a way that almost made Barack Obama look like an item or a place, and found that odd, so went to the talk page to see if anyone had commented on it.
Though it hadn't been mentioned there, there was a discussion about Obama (which I suppose isn't surprising).
And, like a typical talk page, some people behaved better than others, yadda yadda yadda.
(actual content starts here)
But, one editor really caught my attention. Some remarks were unfortunate, but not terribly unusual.
However, one line really stuck out: All anonymous IPs are nothing better than vandals, and need to be banned immediately. There's no point to hiding behind your pathetic IP address..
That struck me as being grossly inappropriate. I followed a little farther down, and noticed a further inappropriate edit summary from the same user: please sign your posts; failure to sign posts is an indication that you're too much of a pussy to own up to your own comments..
Now, here, I was in a bit of a difficult position. On the one hand, I found it abhorrent behaviour. On the other hand, it was halfway through March. To decide whether or not to say anything, I tried going through his talk page archives to see if anyone else had already mentioned it (heck, for all I knew, it was brought up already and he might've agreed that it was a little much). When I saw that it hadn't been addressed, I decided to say something.
It was only after doing this that I noticed that he'd left a comment on the anonymous IP's talk page. And that is actually the primary source of my concern. Here's what he said: I don't respond to anonymous vandals. If you want to contribute to wikipedia, then get an account and logging in like a normal user. If you think you can hide by being "anonymous", think again. I know where you live.(emphasis mine)
I don't know how to interpret "If you think you can hide by being "anonymous", think again. I know where you live." as anything but a threat. Still, I preferred to assume good faith, and had already left him a note, so it didn't seem appropriate to leave another message yet based on something else equally old.
But then, his reply gave me even greater cause for concern. It wasn't the 'get a life' crack, or the accusation that I was somehow looking for 'dirt' on him. It wasn't even his, once again, trying to push me into registering an account (so much for the 'free encyclopedia that anyone can edit'). It was this line: Nothing pisses me off more than an editor that doesn't have the balls to stand up for what they write so they have to hide behind their IP address, Mr. Primus Telecommunications Canada User.
Once again, he presses on how much he hates anonymous editors, and then reveals that he's tried looking for personal 'real-life' information about me.

The previous occurrence ("If you think you can hide... I know where you live") might've just been an isolated incident. However, the moment he was confronted by another anonymous editor (me), his first instinct was to try to look up personal information about me to use against me. This is very disturbing.
Frankly, the personal attacks, the refusal to assume good faith, the compulsion to berate people just for editing anonymously... they're all bad, certainly. But the idea that his idea of 'dispute resolution' is to look up information on people to bully or intimidate them... well... Even though anyone editing anonymously can have personal details searched for online, that doesn't excuse an editor doing it to 'win' in a dispute.
In any event, it won't be long before I have another IP address, and my own ties to him will be gone. But his conduct really gave me pause. So, I mention it here in case anyone else finds it disconcerting. And, if not, just ignore this. 209.90.135.5 (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"I know where you live" and "you're too much of a pussy to own up to your own comments"? What the hell is wrong with this guy? "Anonymous" are actually less anonymous than people with usernames. I'll drop a note at his talk page. John Reaves 05:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Though he does have a point about the age of the diffs in question, let's see what he says here. John Reaves 05:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The initial diffs: Yes, somewhat old. And repeating the action by trying to look up my personal information? It may not be as bad as "I know where you live", but it certainly looks like 'same old, same old'. At least he's gone from calling people pussies, to now simply implying that they lack 'balls'. In any event, I've been known to make mountains out of molehills, hence my letting you people deal with it from here (or decide that I'm nuts and not doing a thing). 209.90.135.5 (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a rather disturbing incident. This user appears to have been making personal attacks and looking up information on anonymous users to do so. This is not a "mountain out of a molehill", despite your modesty, this was a mountain already. I may not be an administrator, but you've done the right thing, and you can trust my support.

By the way, if you really want to be anonymous, you can not leave your signature :). I'm User:Gnorthup if you really need to know. I'd like to see how much this would peeve this person.

Allowing anonymity is one of the pillars that makes Wikipedia so great. I recently posted a comment to User:Jimbo Wales by snapshotting an image of the WP:User access levels permission table (the edit permission part) and stated that "If the green block was one square to the right, Wikipedia wold be no better than any other forum" ^{not an exact quote}. Unfortunately, the use of the snapshot violated fair use, so I removed the section before anyone put attention to it. That aside, my point stands, and I'll shortly find evidence.

Found it! The third of the five pillars offers the following quote: "Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit." And of course, "anyone" can mean any anonymous person. No one is allowed to treat any (helpful or not) anonymous user with such prejudice.

Like many editors, I regularly review anonymous edits, and see a huge percentage of constructive, valuable edits. Not just maintenance, tweaks, and copy-editing either; many specialized articles would still be stubs if it weren't for them. Some of the most helpful contributors at the reference desk don't have a registered account. Not only are they allowed to edit unregistered, they should feel welcome too. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I am watching current contributions to make sure there is no repeat of such utterly unacceptable behavior. (I see the ed. has been notified of this discussion,and I take that as a sufficient warning that another comment like that will lead to a block.) DGG (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I remember commenting about this a month ago and I believe I need to bring this up again because I can see the slackness at which admins try to deal with this problem, in other word, they are doing nothing, MascotGuy is doing exactly what we class as trolling, I'm saddened at the replies I got to my question last time by 2 of the admins who blatantly said that since he is an autistic, he is allowed to do whatever he likes and one of the admins who actually thinks that MascotGuy updating his own sock list is a good thing...Its just sad to know that Wikipedia which was once filled with smart intelligent admins has now been left with monkeys running around with scissors in their hand, who instead of trying to control the problem, allow it to continue, I didn't comment that time because I had a Bigger problem to deal with, but its this attitude of admins is the reason why wikipedia is the only wikimedia wiki where vandals are ranked above the admins since they are easily able to outsmart them....--Cometstyles 08:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The accounts are all blocked. Unless you know of others, in which case, please feel free to actually post their names and/or diffs. Also, do you think the best way of asking for assistance is to be a jerk about it? Neıl 龱 10:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they said he was autistic so he could do what he wanted or that him updating his sock list was a good thing; they were simply explaining that he has a developmental disorder and isn't the run of the mill vandal. I also don't agree that nothing has been done. We block his socks and I think Lucky was going to contact his mother again. If you have some ideas for dealing with him or you're aware of some unblocked accounts then please tell us but telling us we're all idiots because you disagree with the responses of three people isn't really the best way to go about it. Sarah 10:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

heh misquoted again, I never said any of you were idiots, its just last time I came with the idea of denying MG and instead of following through on that idea, they laughed it off, which is a shame since admins are appointed to deal with "trolls" and not allow them to continue giving non-reasonable reasons as to why, I'm happy to say that we are slowly getting rid of grawp, who is probably the biggest threat we had to wikimedia and I have been following and reverting and blocking Grawp on over 40 projects for over a year now and one thing I realised while doing that was that he only did it because most admins on all wikimedia projects didn't try hard enough to stop him from trolling and what I meant regarding admins being outsmarted was because I don't think MascotGuy is an autist because an autistic person will not be able to use proxies that wisely and create multiple accounts and get banned doing so, and if a person looks hard enough or an editor who has been around enwiki for a long time, this is the same pattern Grawp followed over an year ago and slowly by slowly he going in the same direction as Grawp, so if he isn't stopped now so all I'm saying is why not do what we did here and deny him and I know its not easy but atleast this way we can atleast stop him from socking and updating his socklist because thats why he wants, to show people that he has over 500+ accounts and the admins can't do anything to stop him, if he isn't outsmarting the admins than I really don't know what else to call it...--Cometstyles 11:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If you think that might be an appropriate way to deal with him then why not MFD the pages? I disagree strongly with your suggestion that you don't think he is autistic because of his use of open proxies and multiple accounts etc. There are some highly intelligent and highly skilled people who are on the autism spectrum and in fact the nature of MascotGuy's editing - the compulsive and repetitive editing and creation of so many accounts could easily be a manifestation of autism. Sarah 12:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've bumped to MascotGuy often enough and yes, from what I've seen this user could easily be both autistic and intelligent. As I recall, I've seen him create wholly formed, cleanly written, referenced, infoboxed and categorized hoax pages in a single edit. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I just did - --Cometstyles 22:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Koavf is insisting on listing The Beatles' members in alphabetical order: George Harrison, John Lennon, Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr instead of the traditional order they are listed which is John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr. How should we handle this issue? This is with Template:The Beatles and is also listed with George Harrison mentioned first in Portal:The Beatles/Intro. What is the proper order to list The Beatles? Since Ringo joined the group, they have always been John, Paul, George and Ringo. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Cite sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There appear to be some at [10]. --NE2 12:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

John, Paul, George, Ringo is the traditional order, yes. If it can be cited, then go for it. If not, I can't see any harm in putting them alphabetically. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Or list them chronologically as they joined up, which would be John, Paul, George and Ringo. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

<dumb joke>I believe that would be John, Paul, George, Stu, Pete, Ringo.</dumb joke> :) Gwen Gale (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Poor Pete Shotton (and the rest of Liverpool who played guitar in 1957)... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

When I worked in Liverpool in the 1970s there was a story going round that every morning Pete's wife used to bring him his morning cuppa and say "Here's your tea, Pete... you TOSSER!"; but I don't believe that. --Rodhullandemu 21:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"By George," said Paul, sitting on the John. "Where'd my Ringo?" --MZMcBride (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah 'n 'e canny stu'd over it too, then took his best shotton the dark 'n wound up on Parlophone. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Pun Krock rules... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, Stu somehow made me think of Sid, maybe cuz neither could play but both looked fit enough on stage (hm, both died young too) Gwen Gale (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually this is pretty lame. The order of their names isn't that important. James086^{Talk | Email} 15:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Now listed there. Been a while since I've seen one that qualified so well for there. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

  Resolved

Whether it's the same for everyone as well as me I'm not sure, but every Rugby player article that I've looked at (i.e. Matt Dawson, George Gregan) has a series of "Unexpected Operator" errors in the infobox where their metric measurements are being converted to imperial. I presume it's something to do with Template:Infobox Rugby biography or Template:convert but as far as I can see neither has been changed for ages (and convert is limited to admins). Anyone? Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Matt Dawson had non-functioning conversion parameters - instead of "ftin" and "stlb", "ft" and "in" seem to work. However, I don't know if "ftin" and "stlb" used to work as parameters and whether a change to a sub-template of {{convert}} has caused a knock-on problem. Bencherlite^Talk 18:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well its not {{convert}} as you might already know. I'm lending my eyes for a brief minute, taking a deeper look, as I'm not familiar with the code. Trying nonetheless. :) — _Maggot^Syn 18:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Check the article and see if that is what you needed. If not, revert me. — _Maggot^Syn 18:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that works - just need to find all the others that used that syntax (presumably it used to work, which suggests that they've been like that for a while....) Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say its either {{Convert/kg stlb}} or {{Convert/stlb}} but I know next to nothing about how these work (also consider: Category:Subtemplates of Template Convert, I'm not browsing that!). For now, I'm marking this thread as resolved. If you have anymore trouble I'd recommend bringing all this up on one of the related templates talk pages, as you'll find more knowledge out of them. :) Regards and happy editing from — _Maggot^Syn 18:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There is quite a backlog here. Please help out if you can. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates (candidates for July 9) has 2 new candidates already endorsed. Indo US nuke deal and Grenada elections. Can someone please update the Main page? ITN was not updated today. I know this might the wrong place to ask but I was suggested considering no activity from admins. --gppande «talk» 20:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

  Resolved

 – unprotected - should have been removed months ago Viridae^Talk 22:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Leon Trotsky has been semi-protected since March. Is there any plan to unprotect it any time soon? Corvus cornix_talk 21:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't this belong on WP:RPP?  Sandstein  22:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, You're probably right.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 22:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Either way, it worked. Article has had protection removed. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User page for GHcool has just been deleted without any warning or discussion. Please advise. The admin who made this deletion is a good-faith admin who has made many positive and notable contributions to Wikipedia. however, i disagree with this deletion. Especially since GHCool has made no edits since July 1.

Below is a prior thread posted at this page regarding GHcool. It was posted as of july 1, at this location (This is the most recent version of that discussion which i could find. i will try to post a link if subsequent comments had been posted there as well. )

It is quoted again below:

Heading: Need help with interpetation of WP:UP

I have some questions about interpreting and applying Wikipedia:User page#What may I not have on my user page?, specifically point #9. This is in regards to the User page of GHcool (talk · contribs), which has been the subject of controversy in the past, including a no-consensus MfD (though I think the page has been substantially expanded since then) as well as an ANI thread from about a year ago that I cannot seem to locate (and in fact, the user who raised it appears to have had their identity erased entirely from Wikipedia... user page deleted on user's request, no contribs, nada). I was hoping to look to the past discussions for precedent, but unfortunately the past discussions are either missing or else have an ambiguous conclusion.

There is currently on ongoing Wikiquette Alert from Imad marie (talk · contribs), where he/she contends that using a quote from him/her on the user page, along with the text "even after this claim had been exposed as a falsehood", constitutes the naming of a "perceived flaw," as prohibited by point #9 in the User Page guidelines I linked to above.

I do not feel great about the user page in question, but I also do not feel comfortable proclaiming that it is in violation of policy. It is treading a very fine line, IMO. Myself and Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs) attempted to mediate -- our compromise suggestion was to remove specific user names from the page to avoid the appearance of personal attacks, but to retain the diffs so that there was still proof these were actual user comments, and interested parties could still verify all of the info -- but GHcool was not amenable to this compromise, and as I said, I do not feel comfortable trying to force the compromise because I am unsure if the page really runs afoul of WP:UP or not.

Imad marie has asked about his/her next step in the dispute resolution process. I suppose I could say "Take it to ANI" or "Try an RfC" or whatever, but I do not think GHcool is likely to change his mind, and I am uncertain about which way enforcement would come down. So I'd like to hear some input from admins and other experienced users on what they think. Is the page User:GHcool a violation of WP:UP? Does it just skirt the edge? Is it reasonable to ask GHcool to make some accommodations to those who might be offended? Should we tell those who feel offended to just piss off? What do people think? --Jaysweet (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Some relevant discussion here. Also, the original AN thread is archived here. At that original thread, three admins (plus myself) all expressed misgivings about the page, with nobody other than GHcool defending it. The thread was then archived.

Note that Gwen Gale has deleted the page for now without prejudice to possible reinstatement should consensus develop that the page is acceptable. All four of us feel it violates WP:SOAP and probably WP:UP, and have not yet heard a serious dissenting opinion, so action was taken. I, for one, would love to hear reasoned commentary from more people for what I realize will be a controversial action. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, now there's no way to view the page, is there? Since deletion appears to erase all prior versions of the page, and all mention of it in any logs. is it possible to view the most recent version of the page? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)